EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 63 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk 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 (200/60/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) 41 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) 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 Introduction Overview Overview of the assessment Good Practices Areas for further development Recommendations 1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1.Reporting of the FRMPs 1.2.Assessment of the FRMPs 2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1.Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 2.2.Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs 2.3.Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 2.4.Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps 2.5.Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information 3. Setting of Objectives 3.1.Focus of objectives

3.2.Specific and measurable objectives 3.3.Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 3.4.Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 3.5.Process for setting the objectives 3.6.Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives 4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 4.1.Cost of measures 4.2.Funding of measures 4.3.Measurable and specific (including location) measures 4.4.Measures and objectives 4.5.Geographic coverage/scale of measures 4.6.Prioritisation of measures 4.7.Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 4.8.Progress of implementation of measures 4.9.Measures taken under other Community Acts 4.10.Specific groups of measures 4.11.Recovery from and resilience to flooding 4.12.Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 4.13.Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 4.14.Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures

5. Consideration of climate change 5.1.Specific types of measures planned to address climate change 5.2.Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change 6. Cost-benefit analysis 7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 7.1.Competent authorities 7.2.Public information and consultation: consultation with stakeholders before the establishment of proposed measures for the FRMP 7.3Active involvement of Stakeholders 7.4.Effects of consultation 7.5.Strategic Environmental Assessment 7.6.Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance 8. Use of Art. 13.3 Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures Background & method Types of measures used in reporting List of Annex A tables & figures Measures overview Measure details: cost Measure details: name & location Measure details: objectives

Measure details: authorities Measure details: progress Measure details: other Annex A1: Overview of Germany’s FRMPs Annex B: Definitions of measure types Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) Acronyms APSFR Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis EEA European Environment Agency FD Floods Directive FHRM Flood Hazard and Risk Map FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NWRM Natural Water Retention Measures PFRA Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments PoM Programme of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment UoM Unit of Management WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Introduction The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State to assess its territory for significant risk from flooding, to map the flood extent, identify the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. By the end of 2011, Member States were to prepare Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard & Risk Maps (FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015. This report assesses the FRMPs for Germany (DE). Its structure follows a common assessment template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources: ·Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs as per Articles 7 and 15 of the FD: this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their measures. ·Selected FRMPs: due to the high number of FRMPs, 51, prepared in Germany, the assessment has focused on five plans, chosen to cover a broad range of methodological approaches, different Units of Management (UoMs), a good range of flood risk conditions, and plans prepared at both UoM and Federal State level. The following FRMPs were reviewed: oFRMPs at the UoM level: Elbe (DE5000), Weser (DE4000), and Schlei Trave (DE9610); oFRMPs at the Federal State, i.e. at the “Land” level, as opposed to the “Bund” (Federal) level: Rhine (North Rhine-Westphalia, NRW), DE2000) and Danube (Bavaria, DE1000). Overview

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 Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports Germany has 10 UoMs, which correspond to the River Basin Districts (RBDs) under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Within these UoMs, in total 841 APSFRs have been assigned as shown in the next table. The delineation of the APSFRs, originally submitted in 2012, has been updated in 2015 (for details see section 2). In Germany, there is a mix of situations and FRMPs have been developed at UoM/RBD level or at sublevel. Plans are developed on the UoM/RBD level (called the B-Level in Germany’s system) and the Länder or Federal State level (for sub-catchments within UoMs – this is called the C-level). Germany also contributes to the international plans of River Commissions (A-level), and all of these plans on the international level have been reported to WISE by Germany as background documents. (See Annex A1 for an overview of Germany’s FRMPs.) LAWA, the National working group on water issues, has prepared several non-binding guidelines for the FRMPs, which should guide the development of plans with the aim to have a minimum common approach in all the various plans. An overview of the legal status of each FRMP was not found. Given the considerable number of FRMPs prepared by Germany, the following five FRMPs have been assessed: Elbe (DE5000), Weser (DE4000), Rhine (NRW) (DE2000), Schlei Trave (DE9610) and Danube (Bavaria) (DE1000). This choice captures a good spread of flood risk conditions and approaches. Three of these FRMPs are at UoM level – Elbe, Weser and Schlei Trave – and the other two are at Federal State level. The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Germany, including the UoM code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UoM reported documents to EEA WISE – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML. The assessment, however, identified a total of 51 FRMPs covering the territory of Germany across the different levels, and it appears that only 31 were reported (see section 1 for details). UoM Name Number of APSFRs XML Reported PDF Reported DE1000 Danube 77 Yes Yes DE2000 Rhine 345 Yes Yes* DE3000 Ems 5 Yes Yes* DE4000 Weser 74 Yes Yes* DE5000 Elbe 282 Yes Yes* DE6000 Oder 27 Yes Yes DE7000 Maas 2 Yes Yes DE9500 Eider 10 Yes Yes DE9610 Schlei/Trave 13 Yes Yes DE9650 Warnow/Peene 6 Yes Yes TOTAL 841 Note: * Not all multi-level FRMPs were reported for these UoMs. Links to Germany’s FRMPs can be found via the following web page: · http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/148748/ . Overview of the assessment The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs. The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: ·Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found stating that the criterion was not met; ·No evidence: No information found to indicate that the criterion was met; ·Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication of the approach used for the criterion. Depending on the comment in the adjacent column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”; ·Strong evidence: Clear information provided, describing an approach followed in the FRMP to address the criterion.

Criterion Evidence Comments FRM objectives have been established Strong evidence The objectives in all German FRMPs are the same, and on a very strategic level. They are based on the risk management cycle and call for further concretization at the local or federal state level, based on the subsidiarity principle within Germany. Several FRMPs, including, for example, the Bavarian FRMP for the Danube UoM (DE1000) have set further objectives. FRM objectives relate to... ...the reduction of potential adverse consequences Strong evidence This aspect is specified in the definition of objectives in the FRMPs. ...to the reduction of the likelihood of flooding Strong evidence The objectives of the FRMPs aim to reduce the vulnerability and to mitigate new risks and reduce existing risks; however, without further specification. ...to non-structural initiatives Some evidence The objectives of some FRMPs refer to non-structural initiatives: for example, the Bavarian FRMP for the Danube UoM (DE1000) includes objectives relating to non-structural initiatives (e.g. use of planning instruments, information, and event-specific regeneration/recovery after flood events). FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... ...human health Strong evidence Objectives are formulated in a very generic and strategic way: In terms of adverse consequences, it is only mentioned that with the objectives, a "reduction of the adverse consequences for all protected assets is aimed for". ...economic activity Strong evidence See above under ‘human health’. ...environment Strong evidence See above under ‘human health’. ...cultural heritage Strong evidence See above under ‘human health’. Measures have been... ...identified Strong evidence The FRMPs include a set of types of measures to be implemented. Some plans also list measures which are currently under implementation. Germany reported in total 17 568 aggregated measures to WISE for all of its UoMs, and no individual measures. Germany has indicated that each aggregate measure reported represents a series of actions and projects. ...prioritised Some evidence Germany provided information about the priority of all measures. As set out by LAWA (the National working group on water issues), priorities should be set according to the following overall criteria: effect of the measure for reaching the overall and specific aims; relevance of the measure for other measures; implementability; and effect related to achieving the objectives of the WFD. Information on specific criteria for prioritisation – including for actions and projects elaborated under the measures – varies among the FRMPs. The actual implementation of measures is subject to the subsidiarity principle (as applied within Germany), involving also several stakeholders. The final prioritisation will only take place in the detailed planning process, which follows the planning hierarchy of prioritisation in combination with feasibility. It might change during concrete planning processes and might in reality lead to adjustments and changed priorities. Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as... ...costs & benefits No evidence It is stated that economic considerations have a role in the planning processes (as the implementation of measures is done on several levels and responsibility is with different stakeholders) but no cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was carried out in the preparation of the FRMPs . ...flood extent Strong evidence The flood extent is described for each APSFR and was considered in defining measures. ...flood conveyance Strong evidence The flood conveyance was considered in defining measures. ...water retention Strong evidence Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) are found in all plans assessed. ...environmental objectives of the WFD Strong evidence The FRMPs refer to the necessity of coordination between the FRMPs and River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs), and the obligation to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives. Measure types are categorised according to whether they support, hamper or have no effect on the implementation of the WFD. ...spatial planning/land use Strong evidence Measures to address spatial planning/land use are found in all plans assessed. ...nature conservation Some evidence Nature conservation is mentioned in some plans, but no details are provided. ...navigation/ port infrastructure No evidence The issue is not specifically addressed in any of the plans assessed . ...likely impact of climate change Strong evidence All plans have a detailed chapter/information how climate change was considered in the development of the FRMPs. Coordination with other countries ensured in the RBD/UoM Strong evidence All plans describe their coordination activities within Germany in the same RBMP and on the international level. Coordination ensured with WFD Strong evidence See above under ‘environmental objectives of the WFD’. Active involvement of interested parties Strong evidence Active involvement was part of the plan development in all FRMPs assessed. There are detailed descriptions of the methods used, the parties involved and how input by them has been taken up. Good Practices The assessment identified the following good practices in the German FRMPs assessed. Topic area Good practices identified Objectives Detailed qualitative and comprehensive description of the objectives in the FRMP in DE9610 (Schlei/Trave). Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. Inclusion in the FRMP for the Schlei/Trave UoM (DE9610) of explicit information about changes in the APSFRs/FHRMs. Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritisation for the achievement of objectives. All five FRMPs assessed include the promotion of sustainable land-use practices and NWRMs among their measures. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. An example of climate change consideration is found e.g. in the Bavaria and Schlei/Trave FRMPs where safety margins are added to the dyke height in order to cope with climate change. Germany is undertaking serious efforts in linking climate modelling to flood risk management, and several studies have been commissioned. A climate proofing tool for measures was developed by the Federal Environmental Agency that allows a systematic check of measures: this was used in at least two of the FRMPs. Public participation. In all UoMs assessed the competent authorities have made significant efforts for public consultation, also reaching for active involvement. Many actions (e.g. meetings with various stakeholders at different levels, conferences, information brochures, media outreach etc.) were set and public involvement has been organised in an early stage of the plan development. A wide range of stakeholders actively contributed during the various stages of the plans’ development. Flood risk governance. Germany has carried out an intensive coordination of the FRMPs with the RBMPs under the WFD. Aspects that have been coordinated are: joint consultation, coordination between competent authorities, coordination of objectives and measures. The FRMPs also contain assessments of the interactions between measures under the Floods Directive and the objectives of the WFD. Three categories (supportive, conflicting, no interaction) have been established and measures are categorised along these. Coordination with local authorities and authorities from other departments (than those responsible for floods) has been taken place with relevant stakeholders when developing the plan. International issues in flood risk management. Germany has established, for the international UoMs, good cooperation with the neighbouring countries either within international commissions and also on the bilateral level. There have been strong attempts to develop common approaches and methodologies on the international level. Areas for further development The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the German FRMPs assessed. Topic area Areas identified for further development Integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs. While the FRMPs indicate that the PFRA and the FHRMs were used to prepare the objectives, priorities and planning of measures in the FRMPs, detail on the methods that were followed is not provided. The internet links to the APSFRs did not work anymore in DE2000 (Rhine/NRW). The links provided regarding FHRMs link to a general page in the FRMPs for Rhine/NRW (DE2000) and Schlei/Trave (DE9610), which is not user-friendly. In the Weser FRMP (DE4000) and the Elbe FRMP (DE5000), the maps are presented on a Geo-Portal, as a GIS-App, which seems challenging to operate and without instructions for navigating it at the time of accessing it. In the North Rhine-Westphalia FRMP (part of the Rhine UoM, DE2000), the summary map only depicts the largest APSFRs; while all APSFRs are listed in a table in Annex 5, a link to the detailed maps that is provided does not work anymore. Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk. The objectives in Germany are not measurable (no timeframe, no indicators), as they are formulated in a very generic way. There is a lack of clear criteria of what significant adverse impacts of flooding are. Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritisation for the achievement of objectives. Detailed information on the implementation of measures, i.e. responsible authority, timetable and funding source, are not provided. There is a lack of a method to demonstrate how much the measures will contribute to the objectives, including: 1) a baseline established against which progress will be monitored and assessed; and 2) assessment of the geographic coverage of the effect of the measure and on flood likelihood and adverse consequences. The criteria, their application and what these mean to implementation in practice of the prioritisation are not described in detail. Overall budgets per UoM are lacking, broken down in: 1) costs for each of the aspects, 2) costs for each APSFR and 3) costs for individual measures or groups of measures. Responsible authorities for monitoring overall progress in implementation have not been defined. Measures under other Community Acts are not clearly identified. Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed. While Germany undertook the climate proofing of some measures, this was not performed in all UoMs. There is no apparent coordination between the national climate change adaptation strategy and the FRMPs. Use of cost-benefit analysis in the FRMPs assessed. No information on CBA was found in any of the German FRMPs assessed. Flood risk governance. For the international Rhine UoM, no single plan for the German share has been developed. In several basins there are no common values for low and high probabilities across FRMPs within the same UoM, which makes the risks difficult to compare and to understand for the general public.

Recommendations Based on the reported information and the FRMP assessed, the following recommendations are made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): ·To be able to assess progress, the objectives in Germany should be as measurable as possible (timeframe, indicators). ·Germany should define the measures in more detail in the plans, including how much the measures will contribute to the objectives and how they are funded. Costs per APSFR should be estimated. Measures under other Community Acts should be clearly listed. ·Clear criteria of what significant adverse impacts of flooding are should be defined. The measure prioritisation process should be presented in the FRMPs along with its results. ·Cost-benefit analysis should be used wherever possible for the prioritisation of measures. · It is important to ensure that FRMPs (but also PFRAs/APSFRs and FHRMs) refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format, including digitally. ·Ensure or elaborate on coordination between the FRMPs and the national climate change adaptation strategy.



1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment 1.1. Reporting of the FRMPs Germany has designated 10 UoMs; all but one are part of larger international river basins. Within Germany, there is a mix of situations, and some plans have been developed at UOM level and some plans at a lower level. Germany designates plans developed on the UoM level as B-Level plans and those for lower levels, which are developed by the Federal States (Länder), as C-Level plans. Germany also contributed to the preparation of plans for international UoMs: these are A-level plans. Most of Germany’s UoMs contain plans at two levels and often at all three levels. Annex A1 gives an overview of all German FRMPs. Germany has reported most but not all of its FRMPs to WISE: based on a review in early 2018, Germany reported 31 FRMPs (plus two international ones) out of 52 in total. 1.2. Assessment of the FRMPs Five plans were chosen for the assessment. The LAWA (national federal level and Länder level working group on water and floods) prepared non-binding guidelines for the FRMPs, so that, it was expected, there will be generally similar methodologies applied across all of Germany’s FRMPs (and this was found in the assessment). The choice of the plans for the assessment was made on the basis of several criteria. First, the plans assessed should include UoMs covered in previous assessments: the FRMPs provide overlap with the separate assessment of international FRMPs, and one of the plans was addressed in the assessment of draft FRMPs. Moreover, the choice sought to capture a spread of flood risk conditions and approaches. In addition, three of the FRMPs assessed are at UoM level and the other two are at Federal State level, to capture these two different planning levels. Consequently, this assessment covers the following three FRMPs prepared at the UoM level: UoM code UoM Name DE5000 Elbe DE9610 Schlei Trave DE4000 Weser The assessment also covers the following two FRMPs prepared at the Federal State level: UoM code UoM Name and FRMP assessed DE2000 Rhine UoM: North Rhine Westphalia, NRW, FRMP DE1000 Danube UoM: Bavaria FRMP The plans assessed are indicated in bold in the table in Annex A1. Links to Germany’s FRMPs can be found via the following web page: · http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/148748/ .

·

2. Integration of previously reported information 2.1. Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment The conclusions of the preliminary flood risk assessment are described in detail in the introductory chapters of all assessed FRMPs, both as text and tables and as summary maps, but with a scale not detailed enough to discern individual APSFR or water bodies. In DE9610 (Schlei/Trave), however, the summary map is included in an Annex to the FRMP (and not in the plan itself). In the North Rhine-Westphalia FRMP (part of the Rhine UoM, DE2000), the summary map only depicts the largest APSFRs; all APSFRs are listed in a long table in Annex 5, where also a link to the detailed maps is provided (which does not work anymore). DE5000 (Elbe) and DE4000 (Weser) are the only UoMs where the summary map also depicts other flood risk areas not identified by a PFRA as required by Article 4, as Hesse, Saxony and Brandenburg are federal states which applied Art. 13.1. Only in DE2000 (Rhine/NRW), APSFRs or other flood risk areas shared with other Member States in international UoMs are depicted. Links to maps of the APSFRs – although not mandatory - have been provided as URLs only in some of the FRMPs assessed. Links to maps showing APSFRs or other flood risk areas are provided in DE1000 (Danube/Bavaria) and DE2000 (Rhine/NRW), but the link in the DE2000 FRMP does not work anymore. In DE4000 (Weser), DE5000 (Elbe) and DE9610 (Schlei/Trave), no links are provided, . In the reporting sheets, it is stated that conveyance routes have been taken into account for all FRMPs assessed. The statements, however, all use the same wording, i.e. a standard text; furthermore, conveyance routes are only discussed in further detail with regard to the PFRA relevant section in the FRMPs in DE9610 (Schlei/Trave) and DE4000 (Weser). Nevertheless, as the FHRMs and planned measures take conveyance routes into account. 2.1.1 Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs The identification of flood risk areas has been coordinated with neighbouring Member States only for some of the UoMs covered. In DE2000 (Rhine/NRW), the whole PFRA, including the identification of flood risk areas, has been coordinated with the Netherlands, both in the frame of the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) as well as in bilateral working groups. In Bavaria (DE1000/Danube) and for DE5000 (Elbe), the question cannot be answered fully, as concrete information is missing: both FRMPs make reference, respectively, to coordination via the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube (ICPDR), especially the Expert Group "Flood Protection", and the International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe (IKSE), but without providing details on the identification of flood risk areas . Though DE9610 (Schlei/Trave) is an international UoM, it is treated as a national UoM for all purposes, as the share of Denmark is very small (the FRMP states that Denmark’s role in this FRMP is minor). Hence, there is no information on coordinating the identification of flood risk areas internationally. DE4000 (Weser) is not an international UoM. 2.1.2 Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps In all assessed UoMs, the PFRA and the identified APSFRs were used as the basis for developing the flood hazard and flood risk (FHR) maps. No further information is provided in the assessed plans with regard to how the PFRA was used in developing the FHR maps. 2.2. Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs In all FRMPs assessed, except the NRW/Rhine (DE2000), the FHRMs are presented (one single map is presented as an example in each plan). In all assessed FRMPs maps for fluvial floods are included. In DE1000 (Danube/Bavaria) and DE5000 (Elbe), only fluvial maps are presented. In DE9610 (Schlei/Trave), also the FHRMs for coastal flooding are depicted, and in the DE4000 (Weser), there is one example of a map showing the combined effects of more than one source of flooding (fluvial and coastal). Maps for pluvial and groundwater floods, floods from artificial water bearing structures or no specific sources are not provided in any of the FRMPs assessed. In DE2000 (Rhine/NRW), the FHRMs are not depicted in the plan itself, but referred to via hyperlink to a general page, not to the maps directly. In DE1000 (Danube/Bavaria), a direct link is provided. In DE9610 (Schlei/Trave), the link leads to a general page, not to the maps directly. In DE4000 (Weser) and DE5000 (Elbe), the maps are presented on a Geo-Portal, as a GIS-App (printable as PDF ). The links to the FHRMs that have been provided in the FRMPs assessed are: ·Bavaria FRMP in the Danube UoM (DE1000): https://www.lfu.bayern.de/wasser/hw_risikomanagement_umsetzung/index.htm ·NRW FRMP in the Rhine UoM (DE2000): https://www.flussgebiete.nrw.de/ ·Weser (DE4000): http://geoportal.bafg.de/mapapps/resources/apps/HWRMRL-DE/index.html?lang=de ·Elbe (DE5000): http://geoportal.bafg.de/mapapps/resources/apps/IKSE_DE/index.html?lang=de ·Schlei/Trave (DE9610): http://zebis.landsh.de/webauswertung/pages/access/login.xhtml;jsessionid=1AD9AA5D05DDFFF17EC3CFCFB8B22B34.nodeTC02 2.2.1 Maps for shared flood risk areas

There is no information regarding the preparation of maps for flood risk areas shared with other Member States in the FRMPs in DE1000 (Danube/Bavaria) and DE5000 (Elbe), except for references to the respective international plans. In DE2000 (Rhine/NRW), the "Rhineatlas" is mentioned, which should contain FHRMs for the whole basin, but there is no concrete information on the preparation of maps for flood risk areas shared with other Member States. Furthermore, in the FRMP for the Rhine, it is mentioned that information on methods and data used has been shared with the Netherlands. DE4000 (Weser) is not a transboundary UoM, while DE9610 (Schlei/Trave) is treated as a national UoM as agreed with Denmark. Hence, there is no information on flood risk areas shared with other Member States. 2.2.2 Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps Generally, the information provided regarding the conclusions drawn from the FHRMs in all five assessed FRMPs is not clear or detailed enough to understand the methodology or the approach how the maps were used to prepare the plans. All FRMPs contain a statement that is similar and states that the conclusions of the FHRMs are the "starting point" for the planning of measures, by allowing to identify areas with a need for action. Furthermore, all assessed FRMPs describe the FHRMs "statistically" in terms of "area impacted" (e.g. "the maps show that 20 km² are potentially impacted"), "people impacted" (e.g. "the maps show that 20 000 people are potentially impacted"), "number of industry locations impacted" (e.g. "the maps show that 200 industry locations are potentially impacted") etc. This information is presented in different formats, either in text (e.g. in DE2000), table (e.g. DE1000, DE5000) or map format (e.g. in DE4000, DE9610). In DE2000, a factsheet was developed for each municipality based on the conclusions from the FHRMs, identifying the need for action. In DE4000 (Weser), it is stated that objectives of flood risk management can be locally adapted according to the maps; again, it is not specified whether this happened or how it should happen. In DE9610, DE5000 and DE4000, it is stated that all involved actors can deduce necessary measures from the maps (without specifying how). It is furthermore mentioned that the publication of the maps is important for creating and strengthening public awareness. 2.3. Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas Any changes in the identification of APSFRs since December 2011 or in the FHRMs since December 2013 should be reflected in the FRMP. There is no information provided on any changes on the identification of APSFRs or FHRMs in the FRMPs of DE2000 (Rhine/NRW) and DE4000 (Weser). From the text provided in the FRMPs, it can be concluded that no changes have been implemented in DE1000 (Danube/Bavaria) either. In DE5000 (Elbe), there is a statement that some federal states slightly changed the identified APSFRs/the PFRA . As reason for these changes, it is stated that no significant flood risk was identified when creating the FHRMs. However, there is no information at the FRMP phase on which federal states in the Elbe UoM actually implemented such changes. There is no hint that changes were implemented to the APSFRs and the PFRA after the preparation of the FHRMs in DE5000. In DE9610 (Schlei/Trave), no changes in the identification of APSFRs since December 2011 have been implemented in Schleswig-Holstein, but it is mentioned that in the other Federal State situated in DE9610, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, some APSFRs were changed/deleted in Stepenitz/Maurine. For these (former) APSFRs, no FHRMs have been produced. 2.4. Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps The FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for Germany: ·In 2012 APSFRs for pluvial floods were reported; it appears these were not included in the FHRMs. ·Some UoMs (e.g. DE1000, DE2000 and DE9610) did not show water depth/level in their flood risk and hazard maps. ·Some UoMs (e.g. DE5000, DE6000 and DE9500) did not show the number of inhabitants potentially affected in their FRHMs. ·It was not clear whether coastal flooding was mapped for medium and/or high probability events. It was not clear for what coastal flooding probabilities the existing flood defences were considered adequate. ·It was not clear in which areas within coastal UoMs Article 6.6 was applied (preparation of flood hazard maps only for extreme event floods). It was also not clear how these areas connect to the maps. ·It was not clear in which areas within UoMs Article 13.1 and 13.2 were applied. It was also not clear how these areas connect to the maps. ·No potential adverse consequences on the environment were shown in the maps. None of these areas for further development are explicitly addressed within the FRMPs assessed or in the reporting in the time period between publication of the FHRMs and the assessment of the FRMPs. Nevertheless, references in connection to themes associated to these areas for further development identified in the FHRMs have been found in the FRMPs assessed, or in the reporting sheets, : ·With regard to pluvial flooding, it is either stated that these are implicitly included in the flood risk via surface waters, i.e. fluvial flooding (e.g. in DE5000, Elbe), or that they are not significant (e.g. in the North Rhine-Westphalia FRMP in the Rhine UoM, DE2000). ·In the flood hazard maps presented in the FRMP of DE9610 (Schlei/Trave), water depth/levels are included. In DE1000 (Danube/Bavaria), there is a separate type of flood hazard map presented that shows water depth/levels (the other type shows the recurrence period) . ·In DE5000 (Elbe), the presented flood risk map (from Hamburg) shows the number of inhabitants affected.

·In the reporting sheet for DE2000 (Rhine), it is stated that in a sub-basin of the Rhine (the Main in Bavaria), Art. 13(1) has been applied. In DE5000, it is stated that Saxony and Brandenburg applied Art. 13(1) In DE4000 (Weser), it is stated that one sub-basin in Hesse (Fulda) applied Art. 13(1). 2.5. Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information The following good practice was identified: ·Inclusion in the FRMP for the Schlei/Trave UoM (DE9610) of explicit information about changes in the APSFRs/FHRMs. The following areas for further development were identified: ·While the FRMPs do indicate that the PFRA and the FHRMs were used to arrive at the objectives, prioritisation and planning of measures in the FRMPs, detail on the methods that were followed is not provided. ·The internet links to the APSFRs do not work anymore in DE2000 (Rhine/NRW). The links provided regarding FHRMs link to a general page in the FRMPs for Rhine/NRW (DE2000) and Schlei/Trave (DE9610), which is not user-friendly. In the Weser FRMP (DE4000) and the Elbe FRMP (DE5000), the maps are presented on a Geo-Portal, as a GIS-App, which seems challenging to operate and without instructions for navigating it at the time of accessing it. ·In the North Rhine-Westphalia FRMP (part of the Rhine UoM, DE2000), the summary map only depicts the largest APSFRs; while all APSFRs are listed in a table in Annex 5, a link to the detailed maps that is provided did not function at the time of accessing it.

3. Setting of Objectives 3.1. Focus of objectives The objectives in all German FRMPs are the same, and on a very strategic level. They are based on the risk management cycle and refer to further concretization to the local or federal state level, based on the subsidiary principle. From this, four general objectives are formulated: 1.Mitigation of new risks prior to a flood event. 2.Reduction of existing risks prior to a flood event. 3.Reduction of adverse consequences during a flood event. 4.Reduction of adverse consequences after a flood event. These four objectives include several aspects but only in a very general way (i.e. these aspects are just mentioned and described): the objectives for the reduction of the adverse consequences of floods and those addressing flood risks refer to measures that will be implemented, including non-structural measures. In DE1000 (Danube/Bavaria), the four strategic objectives are slightly more specified on the lower level. Six "action objectives" are formulated here: a) use of planning instruments; b) effective information and counselling of the affected; c) expert and specific preparation for flood events; d) event-specific regeneration/recovery after a flood event; e) use of water retention; and f) use of technical measures. In DE5000 (Elbe) and DE9610 (Schlei/Trave), three further objectives are described, which should be used to concretize the strategic objectives. These are: a) compliance with legal requirements; b) implementation of sectoral-strategic objectives; and c) taking into consideration the interests of regionally responsible actors. The FRMP text discussing these objectives moreover refers, among the areas of action, to non-structural initiatives such as flood forecasting. As an overview, in the FRMPs assessed:

·The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods. ·The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding . ·The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented. ·The objectives refer to non-structural measures. 3.2. Specific and measurable objectives The objectives in the German FRMPs assessed are formulated in a very general, strategic way and are neither specific nor measurable. 3.3. Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods In the FRMPs assessed, objectives do not provide further specification of the type of adverse consequences that will be reduced. As mentioned previously, the objectives are formulated in a very general and strategic way. In terms of adverse consequences, it is only mentioned that with the objectives, a "reduction of the adverse consequences for all protected assets is aimed for". 3.4. Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding Objectives No 1 (Mitigation of new risks prior to a flood event) and No 2 (Reduction of existing risks prior to a flood event) of the general objectives of the German FRMPs address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding. These objectives do not specifically mention measures, but in the description of the objectives, general measure types that could serve to reach these objectives are mentioned. They are: non-structural measures (which should be the focus), and technical measures. Only in DE9610 (Schlei/Trave) the four objectives are described in more detail, specifying these by adding general priorities for fluvial and coastal flooding, and for some also with regard to concrete measures. This is the case for coastal flooding, where the creation of a hydrological service is mentioned (without providing details). 3.5. Process for setting the objectives The strategic objectives to reduce flood risks established in Germany were coordinated at the national level, at the "Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government represented by the Federal Environment Ministry" (LAWA). There is no indication in four of the five assessed FRMPs that climate change has been taken into account when defining the objectives (exception: DE9610, Schlei/Trave), or that the objectives have been discussed with stakeholders . In DE9610, for coastal flooding, it is mentioned that dykes should be planned 1.5m higher, due to possible higher levels of storm floods due to climate change. In the FRMP for North Rhine-Westphalia in the Rhine UoM (DE2000), a very general explanation regarding climate change is included in the description of the objectives, stating that the objectives will be valid in case of different flood scenarios, and that climate change is hence considered. 3.6. Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives The following good practice was identified: ·Detailed qualitative and comprehensive description of the objectives in the FRMP in DE9610 (Schlei/Trave). The following area for further development was identified: ·The objectives in Germany are not measurable (no timeframe, no indicators), as they are formulated in a very generic way. This may impede measuring progress towards achieving the objectives.

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives Germany reported in total 17 568 aggregated measures to WISE for all of its UoMs – and no individual measures. Germany’s FRMPs did not provide a definition of aggregated measures. However, Germany has indicated that each aggregate measure reported represents a series of actions and projects. The total count of these individual measures was not provided in the reporting.

In Germany’s reporting to WISE, some of the national measures are assigned to more than one measure type . To compare the number of measures by type, a total count is used that includes each time a measure is allocated to a measure type : this total is 25 023 measures. The average number of measures reported per UoM is 2 502, with a range between 54 (in DE7000, Maas) and 13 108 measures (in DE2000, Rhine) per UoM. Among the five UoMs covered in this assessment, the highest number of measures are reported for DE2000 (13 108 measures) followed by DE5000, Elbe (5 589 measures) and DE1000 (3 910 measures). Across all of Germany’s UoMs, the majority of measures fall under prevention (6 795 measures or around 27 % of the total), protection (7 519 measures or around 30 %) and preparedness (7 638 measures or around 31 %), with a significantly lower number under recovery and review (only 2 612 measures or about 10 %). Measures are selected from these four broad categories in all UoMs, except DE9500 where no recovery measures are reported. Please see Tables A1 and A2 in Annex A for details, as well as the subsequent tables and charts on measures in Annex A also for the following topics in this section. The LAWA group developed a catalogue of measures at the federal level. It corresponds to the four general categories or aspects of measures used at EU level (prevention, protection, preparedness, recovery and review), as well as including hundreds of measures in the “other measure” category. 4.1. Cost of measures Germany has not provided any cost information on the measures. 4.2. Funding of measures In general, financing is discussed in the FRMPs assessed for groups of measures to be implemented. On the national level there is a specific fund (Hochwasserschutzprogramm) that has been agreed between the Länder and the federal level. In addition, the Länder have specific funding programmes. In all plans, the importance of insurance and reserves as part of self-provision on the part of private actors is mentioned. In the FRMP for North Rhine-Westphalia in the Rhine UoM (DE2000), a specific document on how technical flood protection is funded is mentioned, but the link to this document is not working. Based on the information available in the five FRMPs assessed, the following funding sources are used: DE1000 (Bavaria FRMP) DE2000 (NRW FRMP) DE4000 (Weser) DE5000 (Elbe) DE9610 (Schlei Trave) Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Use of public budget (national level) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Use of public budget (regional level) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Use of public budget (local level) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Private investment ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ EU funds (generic) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ EU Structural funds EU Solidarity Fund EU Cohesion funds EU CAP funds International funds Source: FRMPs 4.3. Measurable and specific (including location) measures Only some of the FRMPs assessed include a description of the measures with regard to: ·What they are trying to achieve, ·Where they are to be achieved, ·How they are to be achieved, and ·By when they are expected to be achieved.

The measures are only reported in terms of measure types and therefore it is unclear what the measure will include (lack of detailed technical descriptions) and how the measure will be implemented on site. In the FRMPs for the Schlei Trave (DE9610), Bavaria/Danube (DE1000), Weser (DE4000) and Elbe (DE5000), connections are made between measure types and the APSFRs, showing which type of measure will be applied in each APSFR. Priorities of implementation are also given in DE9610 and DE4000. For the NRW/Rhine FRMP, DE2000, measures are linked to the Länder level. DE2000 indicates when measures will be implemented by making a reference to the three implementation cycles of the FD. Across four of the five FRMPs assessed, it remains unclear to which extent measures will reduce the flood risk levels, except in DE1000 (Danube/Bavaria) where graphs with percentages of effectiveness of measures in relation to the four categories of adverse consequences listed in the Directive are given. It is unclear how this assessment of risk reduction was made. The measures indicate one of three levels of location: RBD/UoM, APSFR, or more detailed than a single water body. DE1000 (Bavaria FRMP) DE2000 (NRW FRMP) DE4000 (Weser) DE5000 (Elbe) DE9610 (Schlei Trave) International National RBD/UoM Sub-basin APSFR or other specific risk area ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Water body level ✔ Länder level share of the RBD ✔ Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs In the Schlei Trave (DE9610), Danube/Bavaria (DE1000), Weser (DE4000) and Elbe (DE5000) there is a link between aggregated measures and the APSFR, showing which type of measure will be applied in each APSFR, while in NRW (DE2000) the measures are linked to the Länder level share of the RBD. 4.4. Measures and objectives Germany has set general not quantified measures for flood protection. The measures in the plans are generic and will be further defined in subsequent years in detailed planning processes and in accordance with agreed budget lines. The link between objectives and measures is clearly established, but due to the non-quantification of objectives and the generic nature of the measures as presented in the FRMPs assessed, it remains unclear how, and by how much, the measures will contribute to the objectives or if the objectives will be achieved with the set of measures included in the FRMPs. 4.5. Geographic coverage/scale of measures Germany provided information about the location of all its 25 023 measures; however, this was an open question in the reporting sheets, and as such, the level of detail varies, and a large number of different responses were given. It was thus not possible to aggregate the information. It appears, however, that the great majority of measures are located at the APSFR level. Germany did not provide information about the geographic coverage of the expected effects of any of the measures in the reporting sheets. 4.6. Prioritisation of measures Germany provided information about the priority of all measures reported to WISE. The prioritisation was mostly carried out based on a LAWA guidance document: measures are classified in three categories: ‘very high’, ‘high’ and ‘moderate’. According to the information reported by Germany, the majority of the measures across all UoMs, 16 289 (or around 65 % of the total), are classified as very high priority, followed by high priority (7 415 measures or around 30 %) and moderate priority (1 319 measures or about 5 %). The number of very high priority measures represents around 67 % of the prevention measures, around 58 % of the protection measures, around 67 % of preparedness measures and 80 % of recovery and review measures (see Table 3 and Figure 3 of Annex A for further information). The largest share of very high priority measures is found in DE2000 (83 % of all measures in the UoM) while the largest number of high priority measures are in DE5000, Elbe (4004 measures, 72 % of the total of 5 589 measures in the UoM); the largest share of high priority measures is found in DE6000 (396 out of 428 measures, 93 %). Among the five UoMs covered by this assessment, all UoMs except DE5000 have the majority of their measures categorised as high priority (see Table A4 and Figure A4 of Annex A for further information). As noted above, Germany reported aggregated measures, each of which can include a set of individual projects and actions; the statistics presented here and in the following sub-sections refer to the aggregated measures and should be seen as illustrative. As set out by LAWA, the priorities are set according to the following criteria: 1.effect of the measure for reaching the overall and specific aims;

2.relevance of the measure for implementing other measures; 3.implementability including time, resources needed, planning process, financing link with other measures and acceptance by the general public; and 4.effect related to achieving the objectives of the WFD. These criteria are given equivalent weights, but it remains unclear how criteria are applied in the prioritisation process. Germany did not report any information about the timetable of the measures. 4.7. Authorities responsible for implementation of measures Information about the names of the responsible authorities was not provided, however, the level of responsibility of these authorities is indicated for all measures and includes the following: associations (e.g. water, dyke); municipalities and communities; German federal states; regional authorities (e.g. regional boards, district council); and other authorities. Sometimes more than one level of responsible authority is reported per measure. Nevertheless, the majority of the measures will be implemented by authorities at the federal state, municipal and regional levels. 4.8. Progress of implementation of measures Germany reported information to WISE about the progress of implementation of all measures. The majority of the measures, 20 298 (or around 81 % of all measures) are reported as ‘progress ongoing’ followed by 3 597 measures (around 14 % of all measures) that are not started. ‘Progress ongoing’ measures represent the majority of measures under each aspect i.e. prevention, protection, preparedness, recovery and review. A relatively small number of measures are reported as ‘completed’ (779, 3 % of total measures) or ‘ongoing construction’ (349, 1 % of the total). Most ‘complete’ measures are preparedness measures (272), while most ‘ongoing construction’ concerns protection measures (309) (see Table A5 and Figure A5 in Annex A for more details). In all UoMs, the majority of the measures are classified as ‘progress ongoing’ with most such measures reported in DE2000 (11 551 measures, 57 % of all measures in this category of progress). The most ‘completed’ measures are reported in DE5000, Elbe (502, 64 % of all measures in this category), while the most measures ‘not started’ are in DE2000 (1 384 measures, 38 % of those in this category) (see Table A6 and Figure A6 in Annex A for more information). 4.9. Measures taken under other Community Acts Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has been implemented and such information is provided in all five FRMPs assessed. There is some information in the plans assessed providing links to the RBMPs. Germany has defined M1 measures as those which help to implement both the WFD and the Floods Directive (see the section ‘Coordination with the WFD’ below). Furthermore, the FRMPs assessed indicate that under the Seveso II Directive, Germany has implemented technical guidelines (TRAS 310) that address rainfall and flooding in relation to Seveso installations. 4.10. Specific groups of measures With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, the following types of measures are included in the five FRMPs assessed: M21 and M22 prevention measures and M31 protection measures. M21 has been applied in all UoMs and is by far the measures with the largest numbers of implementation. M22 is also applied in all FRMPs assessed. M31 has been applied in all UoMs and represents the second largest group of measures after M21. All of Germany’s FRMPs include measures (national codes 301-definition of priority and reserve areas in land use plans, 302- definition and updating of flood plain areas as well of use restriction, 303- changes to the building codes, 304-measures to adjust land use, 305- relocation into less flood prone areas) to control buildings and development in floodplains. However, no conclusion can be drawn how the land use framework has evolved since 2000. Land use planning is within the competences of the Länder and communities and such an assessment would require a detailed study on its own. Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in all of the FRMPs assessed. The following NRWMs (M31) have been identified: ·flood reducing management of land;

·renaturalisation in all basins; ·reduced soil sealing; ·rainwater management; ·reclamation of retention areas in all basins. The description of these measures is very general but at least EU NRWM codes N01 to N14, U02, U03, U11 can be assumed to be covered by the German measures. Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. In the FRMPs assessed the link to nature conservation is given, mostly as nature conservation was an integrated part of the active involvement of the stakeholders. In the Weser (DE4000) and the Elbe (DE5000) it is stated that flood risk management can support the aims of nature conservation, but no further details are provided. National measure 307 (protection of buildings and infrastructure) should cover navigation and port infrastructure, but this kind of infrastructure is not explicitly mentioned in the FRMPs assessed. All FRMPs except DE4000 assessed include dredging measures, though the measure information does not refer to dredging explicitly but the increase of river channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation (national measure 320): this measure is found in all UoMs, and it can be assumed that this is in fact dredging. 4.11. Recovery from and resilience to flooding Insurance schemes for the private and business sectors is listed as a measure in the FRMPs assessed. Such insurance schemes are seen in the plans as part of self-provision on the part of households and businesses. The role of the authorities is to strengthen the development of such schemes as part of the risk precaution (national measure 326/EU measure M53). No further details are provided, except for DE4000 where further information is provided in relation to actions needed and responsibilities. The FRMPs assessed do not provide any information about types of insurance available for flooding areas, if flood risk insurance for properties is available in high flood risk areas, if environmental liability insurance covers the restoration costs or whether ecosystem services are considered in estimating these costs in cases where potentially polluting sites and installations may be flooded. 4.12. Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP The implementation of the measures will be monitored during the development of the second plan. No information is provided how this process will be done in detail. Nonetheless, the measures listed in the FRMPs serve as a baseline of what should be implemented in the first cycle and against which the actual implementation of the measures will be monitored. However, as the planned measures are of generic nature, it remains unclear how detailed progress can/will be measured. 4.13. Coordination with the Water Framework Directive All of the FRMPs assessed provide a chapter with information on how coordination with the WFD has been performed. The table below shows how the development of the FRMPs has been coordinated with the development of the second RBMPs of the WFD. DE1000 (Bavaria FRMP) DE2000 (NRW FRMP) DE4000 (Weser) DE5000 (Elbe) DE9610 (Schlei Trave) Integration of FRMP and RBMP into a single plan Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP ✔ ✔ ✔ Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD ✔ ✔ The objectives of the Floods Directive were considered in the preparation of the RBMPsa ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ The RBMP PoM includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRMsa ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs ✔ Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 4(7) and designation of heavily modified water bodies with measures taken under the FD e.g. flood defence infrastructure The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account WFD Environmental Objectivesa ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD The FRMPs assessed provide information on the link to the RBMPs under the Water Framework Directive, including in the reporting sheets. Germany has defined three categories of flood risk management measures (M1, M2, M3) depending on their link to the WFD: M1 measures which are helping to implement the WFD; M2 measures which might lead to a conflict with the implementation of the WFD; and M3 measures which have no relevance to the WFD. Information on the link between the measures codes in the LAWA Catalogue and M1 measures are provided. Furthermore, in the LAWA guidance national measures, which are relevant for both Directives, have been identified.

In its reporting under the WFD, Germany indicated that the objectives of the Floods Directive were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs and PoMs across all of its UoMs; moreover, PoMs in all UoMs contained win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and the use of NWRM. 4.14. Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures The following good practices were identified: ·Coordination of measures with the WFD and prioritisation of measures that contribute to the implementation of both Directives. ·All five FRMPs assessed include the promotion of sustainable land-use practices and NWRMs among their measures. The following areas for further development were identified: ·Detailed information on the implementation of measures, i.e. timetable and funding source are not provided. ·There appears to be lack of a method to demonstrate by how much the measures will contribute to the objectives, including a baseline against which progress will be monitored and assessed. ·The criteria and their application for the prioritisation of measures are not described in detail. ·Overall costs measures per UoM are lacking; these could be broken down per aspect, per APSFR and individual measure or groups of measures. ·With regard to monitoring, the FRMPs assessed do not all clearly identify the responsible authorities for monitoring the implementation of measures and the overall progress in the implementation. ·Measures under other Community Acts are not clearly identified.



5. Consideration of climate change The FRMPs for the Danube/Bavaria (DE1000) and the Weser (DE4000) refer to the work of LAWA, which has performed a climate proofing check of all measure categories defined in Germany. The aim of this check was to proof how adaptable measures are under a changing climate. Therefore, the climate impacts (direct and indirect) on the measures have been assessed with the aim to ascertain if these measures would also perform under changed climatic conditions. In the FRMPs for the Danube/Bavaria (DE1000) and Schlei Trave (DE9610), a safety margin (0.5m) is added when planning dykes to deal with the possible impacts from climate change. For the Schlei Trave, it is further stated that measures are planned in a way that they are flexible and adjustable to cope better with climate change when the effects would be better known. In the Elbe (DE5000) FRMP, it is stated that according to the Elbe Ministerial Conference of 2013, climate change needs to be considered in measure design and climate change safety margins for measures need to be added. Several measures in the German part of the Elbe are considered by the authorities to have accounted sufficiently for impacts from climate change. No information about measures taken to mitigate the expected effects of climate change is provided for the North Rhine-Westphalia FRMP in the Rhine UoM (DE2000). None of the FRMPs assessed provide a reference to Germany’s national Climate Adaptation Strategy (2008) or its Action Plan on Adaptation (2011). Climate change scenarios have been considered in all five FRMPs assessed. The timeframes of these scenarios are: ·DE1000 (Danube/ Bavaria): 2021-2050; ·DE2000 (Rhine/ NRW): up to 2050;

·DE4000 (Weser): 2021-2050 and 2070-2099; ·DE9610 (Schlei/Trave) and DE5000 (Elbe): no information provided on the timeframe. Some of the FRMPs assessed provide information about shifts in the occurrence of extreme events and changes in numerical recurrence periods. In DE1000 (Danube/Bavaria), the trend modelled indicates that flooding will happen more often; however, no numbers are provided. In DE2000 (Rhine/NRW) the trend modelled indicates that flooding (low probability scenario) will not increase significantly. For the other scenarios no information is given, but it is stated that further investigations will be made and shown in the second plan. In DE4000 (Weser), some results from modelling for certain gauging stations are provided. These results suggest that floods with low probability are expected more often (+13 %) for the timeframe 2050, floods with medium probability are expected to be increasing by 3 % for the time frame 2050. For the coast, increased flooding is expected due to sea level rise (+0.1m). In DE9610 (Schlei/Trave) and DE5000 (Elbe) it is stated that flood occurrence will change in the future, but no concrete trends are listed. No information was found in the reporting sheets or the FRMPs with regard to whether the main sources of flooding are expected to change under the long-term climate change scenarios. However, the impacts of flash floods due to storms (which might occur more often due to climate change) will be investigated further in the second cycle. 5.1. Specific types of measures planned to address climate change Overall, the FRMPs assessed do not provide information about specific types of measures planned to mitigate the expected effects of climate change. Some measures are mentioned, but they are not related to climate change. All plans state that measures to reduce the impacts from flooding are also considered to address the issue of climate change. Non-structural measures are found in all plans, e.g. changes to spatial planning, while provisions to make structural measures more climate proofed are made in DE1000 (Danube/Bavaria), DE5000 (Elbe) and DE9610 (Schlei Trave), as explained above. 5.2. Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change The following good practices were identified: ·Good examples of climate change consideration are found in DE1000 (Danube/Bavaria) and DE9610 (Schlei Trave, also for coastal areas) where safety margins are added to the dyke height in order to cope with climate change. ·Germany is undertaking efforts in linking climate modelling to flood risk management. Several studies have been commissioned. ·A climate proofing tool for measures was developed by the federal environmental agency that allows a systematic check of measures; this was used in two of the FRMPs assessed. The following areas for further development were identified: ·Coordination between the FRMPs and the national climate change adaptation strategy.

6. Cost-benefit analysis In all of the FRMPs assessed, it is stated that economic considerations have a role in the planning processes. It is noted that the implementation of measures is carried out on several administrative levels and responsibility is with different bodies. The FRMPs assessed, however, have no information on the use of CBA or any applied methodologies. The following area for further development was identified: ·No information on the use of CBA or any applied methodologies was found in any of the FRMPs assessed.

7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation

7.1. Competent authorities Based on the information reported, there were recent further updates to the Competent Authorities and/or the Units of Management identified for the Floods Directive; compared to Germany’s most recent reporting on Competent Authorities, which was uploaded to WISE in 2014. 7.2. Public information and consultation: consultation with stakeholders before the establishment of proposed measures for the FRMP The DE1000, DE4000, DE9610 and DE5000 FRMPs describe who was involved and how the involvement was carried out and which formats have been used. The DE2000 (Rhine/ NRW) FRMP describes who was involved on a detailed level. Details are provided on how the involvement was carried out and which formats have been used. The information is summarised in the following tables. The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the five UoMs assessed concerning the draft FRMPs. Information how the consultation was actually carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: DE1000 (Bavaria FRMP) DE2000 (NRW FRMP) DE4000 (Weser) DE5000 (Elbe) DE9610 (Schlei Trave) Media (papers, TV, radio) ✔ ✔ ✔ Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Digital social networking Printed material ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Direct mailing Invitations to stakeholders ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Local Authorities ✔ ✔ ✔ Meetings ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: DE1000 (Bavaria FRMP) DE2000 (NRW FRMP) DE4000 (Weser) DE5000 (Elbe) DE9610 (Schlei Trave) Via Internet ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Digital social networking Direct invitation ✔ ✔ ✔ Exhibitions Workshops, seminars or conferences ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Telephone surveys Direct involvement in drafting FRMP Written comments ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided: DE1000 (Bavaria FRMP) DE2000 (NRW FRMP) DE4000 (Weser) DE5000 (Elbe) DE9610 (Schlei Trave) Downloadable ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Direct mailing (e-mail) Direct mailing (post) ✔ Paper copies distributed at exhibitions Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.) Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs 7.3 Active involvement of Stakeholders The table below shows the groups of stakeholders that have been actively involved in the development of the five FRMPs assessed:

DE1000 (Bavaria FRMP) DE2000 (NRW FRMP) DE4000 (Weser) DE5000 (Elbe) DE9610 (Schlei Trave) Civil Protection Authorities such as Government Departments responsible for emergency planning and coordination of response actions ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Flood Warning / Defence Authorities ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Drainage Authorities ✔ ✔ Emergency services ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Water supply and sanitation ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Agriculture / farmers ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Energy / hydropower ✔ ✔ ✔ Navigation / ports ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Fisheries / aquaculture ✔ ✔ Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NGO's including nature protection, social issues (e.g. children, housing) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Consumer Groups ✔ Local / Regional authorities ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Academia / Research Institutions Cultural institutions ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Insurance providers ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Infrastructure providers (telecom, transport) ✔ ✔ ✔ Planning departments ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Coastal managers ✔ Source: FRMPs The DE1000 and DE2000 FRMPs describe who was involved and provide lists of stakeholders. The FRMPs for the other UoMs covered describe who was involved and, in addition, describe how active involvement was carried out and which methods have been used. In addition to the groups listed in the table above, the FRMP for DE9610 (Schlei Trave) indicates the participation of community level and of government departments for education, labour and social issues; the FRMP for DE5000 (Elbe) identifies building departments and infrastructure. The table below shows the mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders: DE1000 (Bavaria FRMP) DE2000 (NRW FRMP) DE4000 (Weser) DE5000 (Elbe) DE9610 (Schlei Trave) Regular exhibitions Establishment of advisory groups ✔ ✔ ✔ Involvement in drafting ✔ ✔ Formation of alliances Meetings or working groups with relevant stakeholders ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Meetings for different sub-catchments of the river ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Questionnaires ✔ ✔ Information events ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs While the plans mention the mechanisms listed above, they do not provide further details – e.g. the names of the advisory groups, their roles or the number and focus of the meetings with stakeholders. 7.4. Effects of consultation The table below shows the effects of consultation: DE1000 (Bavaria FRMP) DE2000 (NRW FRMP) DE4000 (Weser) DE5000 (Elbe) DE9610 (Schlei Trave) Changes to selection of measures ✔ Adjustment to specific measures Addition of new information ✔ ✔ ✔ Changes to the methodology used Commitment to further research Commitment to action in the next FRMP cycle ✔ ✔ ✔ Editorial changes ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: FRMPs All FRMPs assessed refer to editorial changes following the public consultation, including to improve readability or correct names of streams. For the Danube/Bavaria FRMP, this is the only effect of consultation found . In the Weser FRMP (DE4000), new information on flood protection measures and changes in the description of the text related to protected areas following the consultation are reported. In the Elbe FRMP (DE5000), it is reported that most statements submitted consisted of proposals for measures but also approaches for optimising and prioritising of measures. The FRMP indicates that the comments submitted include many good ideas and approaches which will be further elaborated in the second cycle. New information was added mainly to improve the legal context (e.g. cross references to existing legislation) in several parts of the plan. 7.5. Strategic Environmental Assessment Some of the plans assessed have been subject to an SEA. In addition, Germany reported several SEAs via WISE for each UoM; however, SEAs were not uploaded to WISE for the Danube/Bavaria (DE1000), Rhine/NRW (DE2000), the Elbe (DE5000) and the Weser (DE4000). For all RBDs assessed, the results of the SEA are found on the websites of the competent authorities. In the Danube FRMP the results are also part of the plan itself. No SEA was found for the Weser B level plan (UoM), but SEAs have been carried out for the Weser C level plans (sub-catchments). 7.6. Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance

The following good practices were identified: ·In all UoMs assessed the competent authorities have made significant efforts for public consultation, also reaching for active involvement. ·Many actions (e.g. meetings with various stakeholders at different levels, conferences, information brochures, media outreach etc.) were set up and public involvement has been organised in an early stage of the Plans’ development. ·A wide range of stakeholders contributed actively during the various stages of the plan development.

8. Use of Art. 13.3 Under Art. 13.3, Member States may decide to make use of earlier flood risk management plans (i.e. finalised before December 2010), provided that their content is equivalent to the requirements of Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. While none of the five FRMPs assessed used Art. 13.3, a small share of Germany’s FRMPs did. The reporting sheets include references to the use of Art. 13.3 in DE2000 (specifically for the Bavarian part of the sub-basin of the Main, a tributary to the Rhine); DE4000 (concerning the Fulda, a sub-basin of the Weser for which a D-level plan exists in Hesse); and in DE5000 (Elbe), where it is very generally stated that in Saxony, flood management plans compliant with Art. 6 and 7 of the Floods Directive already existed before 2010, and that these were used according to Art. 13 1-3 (there are no C- or D-level plans, so unlikely that Art. 13.3 has been used in this UoM). Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures This annex gives an overview of the data on measures reported by Germany in the reporting sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section 4 on measures. Background & method This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the Member States, and were used by the Member State assessors to complete the questions on the Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: ·Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM; ·Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; ·Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage; ·Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility; ·Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable; ·Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description; ·Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive), not all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields. Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, progress is measured via the categories set out in the Reporting Guidance. This means that producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort. For many fields, however, a free data format was used. For some Member States, this resulted in thousands of different answers, or answers given in the national language. In such situations, tables and charts were developed using the following steps: ·A first filter is applied to identify how many different answers were given. If a high number of different answers are given, Member States assessors were asked to refer to the raw data when conducting the assessment, and this Annex does not reflect these observations. ·If a manageable number of answers are given, obvious categories are identified, and raw data sorted. ·Measures missing information may be assigned categories based on other fields (for example, if the level of Responsibility Authority is missing, the information may be obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”). ·Measures where obvious categories cannot be defined based on other available information (as in the example above on the name of the responsible authorities), are categorised as “no information”. Types of measures used in reporting The following table is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. NO ACTION M11: No Action PREPAREDNESS M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning M42: Emergency response planning M43: Public Awareness M44: Other preparedness PREVENTION M21: Avoidance M22: Removal or relocation M23: Reduction M24: Other prevention RECOVERY & REVIEW M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery M52: Environmental recovery M53: Other recovery PROTECTION M31: Natural flood management M32: Flow regulation M33: Coastal and floodplain works M34: Surface Water Management M35: other protection OTHER MEASURES M61: Other measures



List of Annex A tables & figures Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM Table A1 - Total number of measures

Table A2 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates Table A3 - Category of priority by measure aspect Table A4 - Category of priority by UoM Table A5 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect Table A6 – Progress of implementation by UoM Measures overview Number of individual measures 0 Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 0 Number of aggregated measures 17 568 Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 25 023 Total number of measures 17 568 Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 25 023 Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max) 54 - 13 108 Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 2 502 Note: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Figures in this section consequently refer to aggregated measures – groups of measures as opposed to individual measures. Prevention Total Protection Total Preparedness Total Recovery and review Total Other Total Grand total M21 M22 M23 M24 M31 M32 M33 M34 M35 M41 M42 M43 M44 M51 M52 M53 M61 DE1000 435 50 401 92 978 578 261 260 244 39 1 382 385 262 262 108 1 017 191 92 194 477 56 56 3 910 DE2000 1 580 18 1 332 533 3 463 1 798 772 768 693 106 4 137 1 384 902 1 062 379 3 727 595 384 724 1703 78 78 13 108 DE3000 16 1 11 8 36 22 7 7 6 9 51 10 9 16 6 41 3 1 4 2 2 134 DE4000 176 2 124 65 367 204 37 77 64 62 444 129 100 155 61 445 33 31 64 27 27 1 347 DE5000 830 39 570 230 1 669 451 127 231 318 126 1 253 524 430 512 705 2 171 201 116 317 179 179 5 589 DE6000 87 1 22 4 114 35 31 40 30 3 139 55 28 28 28 139 27 4 31 5 5 428 DE7000 10 9 4 23 7 4 3 4 1 19 4 2 4 10 2 2 54 DE9500 16 1 8 25 7 12 7 26 10 7 2 7 26 43 43 120 DE9610 27 24 9 60 9 12 9 1 31 14 4 2 10 30 1 1 2 57 57 180 DE9650 34 2 20 4 60 9 6 9 7 6 37 12 6 6 8 32 6 6 12 12 12 153 Grand Total 3 211 113 2 514 957 6 795 3 120 1 245 1 419 1 382 353 7 519 2 527 1 750 2 049 1 312 7 638 1 057 476 1 079 2 612 459 459 25 023 Average all UoMs 321 11 251 96 680 312 125 142 138 35 752 253 175 205 131 764 106 48 108 261 46 46 2 502 Notes: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Consequently, the total count of measures is not reflected in the numbers reported. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. All measures are aggregated as Germany did not report any individual measures. The information in Table A2 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: Notes: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Consequently, the total count of measures is not reflected in the numbers reported. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. All measures are aggregated as Germany did not report any individual measures. Note also that several UoMs reported considerably more measures than others, making some measures less visible. Notes: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Consequently, the total count of measures is not reflected in the numbers reported. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. All measures are aggregated as Germany did not report any individual measures. Note also that several UoMs reported considerably more measures than others, making some measures less visible.

Measure details: cost Member States were requested to report information on: ·Cost (optional field); ·Cost explanation (optional field). Information about costs was not provided in the reporting sheets. Measure details: name & location Member States were requested to report information on the following: ·Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); ·Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field). Location of measures Geographic coverage Measure details: objectives Member States were requested to report information on: ·Objectives linked to measures (optional field, complementary to the summary provided in the textual part of the XML); ·Category of priority (conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required); ·Timetable (conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required). Objectives Germany did not report information about the objectives of the measures.

Category of priority Germany provided information for the priority of all measures. The following categories are used in the reporting sheet: ·Critical; ·Very high; ·High; ·Moderate; ·Low. Very high High Moderate Grand Total Prevention 4 529 2 054 212 6 795 Protection 4 347 2 190 982 7 519 Preparedness 5 140 2 469 29 7 638 Recovery & review 2 085 437 90 2 612 Other 188 265 6 459 Grand Total 16 289 7 415 1 319 25 023 Notes: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Consequently, the total count of measures is not reflected in the numbers reported. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. No measures of priority ‘critical’ or ‘low’ were reported. Notes: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Consequently, the total count of measures is not reflected in the numbers reported. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. No measures of priority ‘critical’ or ‘low’ were reported. Very high High Moderate Grand Total DE1000 2 764 937 209 3 910 DE2000 10 860 1 547 701 13 108 DE3000 102 28 4 134 DE4000 892 324 131 1 347 DE5000 1 373 4 004 212 5 589 DE6000 18 396 14 428 DE7000 39 10 5 54 DE9500 80 40 120 DE9610 109 68 3 180 DE9650 52 61 40 153 Grand Total 16 289 7 415 1 319 25 023 Average all UoMs 1 629 742 132 2 502 Notes: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Consequently, the total count of measures is not reflected in the numbers reported. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. No measures of priority ‘critical’ or ‘low’ were reported. Notes: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Consequently, the total count of measures is not reflected in the numbers reported. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. No measures of priority ‘critical’ or ‘low’ were reported. Timetable Germany did not report any information about the timetable of the measures in the reporting sheets. Measure details: authorities

Member States were requested to report on: ·Name of the responsible authority (optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported); ·Level of responsibility (optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported). Information about the names of the responsible authorities was not provided in the reporting sheets but the level of responsibility of the authorities was indicated for all measures. However, the measures reported more than one level of responsible authority, creating some double counting and making the aggregation of the data difficult. The majority of the measures will be implemented by authorities at the federal state, municipal and regional level. Measure details: progress Member States were requested to report information on: ·Progress of implementation of measures (mandatory field) – this is a closed question whose responses are analysed below; ·Progress description of the implementation of measures (optional field) – this is an open text question for which not all Member States reported and whose answers are not analysed here. Germany reported information about the progress of implementation of all measures. The Progress of implementation was reported as : ·COM (completed); ·OGC (ongoing construction); ·POG (progress ongoing); ·NS (not started). A full definition of these terms can be found at the end of this section. Completed Ongoing construction Progress ongoing Not started Grand Total Prevention 253 5 5 405 1 132 6 795 Protection 209 309 5 665 1 336 7 519 Preparedness 272 34 6 454 878 7 638 Recovery & review 35 2 408 169 2 612 Other 10 1 366 82 459 Grand Total 779 349 20 298 3597 25 023 Notes: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Consequently, the total count of measures is not reflected in the numbers reported. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. Notes: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Consequently, the total count of measures is not reflected in the numbers reported. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type.

Completed Ongoing construction Progress ongoing Not started Grand Total DE1000 1 213 3 318 378 3 910 DE2000 130 43 11 551 1 384 13 108 DE3000 17 6 97 14 134 DE4000 102 19 813 413 1 347 DE5000 502 61 3 738 1 288 5 589 DE6000 16 5 349 58 428 DE7000 3 48 3 54 DE9500 3 117 120 DE9610 4 168 8 180 DE9650 1 2 99 51 153 Grand Total 779 349 20 298 3 597 25 023 Average all UoMs 78 35 2 030 360 2 502 Notes: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Consequently, the total count of measures is not reflected in the numbers reported. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. Notes: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Consequently, the total count of measures is not reflected in the numbers reported. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance Document on the Floods Directive: For measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the technical and/or administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have not started. ·Progress on-going (POG) means that administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have started but are not finalised. The simple inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. ·On-going construction (OGC) means the construction or building works have started but are not finalized. ·Completed (COM) means the works have been finalised and the facilities are operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): ·Not started (NS) means the advisory services are not yet operational and have not provided any advisory session yet. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the advisory services are operational and are being used. This is expected to be the situation for all multi- annual long/mid-term advisory services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP cycle. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited in relation to the whole RBMP cycle. For measures involving research, investigation or studies: ·Not started (NS) means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract has not been signed or there has not been any progress. ·Progress on-going (POG) means the research, investigation or study has been contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). For measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, instructions, etc.): ·Not started (NS) means the administrative file has not been opened and there has not been any administrative action as regards the measure. ·Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least a first administrative action has been taken (e.g. requirement to an operator to provide information to renew the licensing, request of a permit by an operator, internal consultation of draft regulations, etc.). If the measure involves more than one file, the opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. ·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable ·Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or permit has been issued; the regulation has been adopted, etc.). If the measure involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of them have been concluded. Measure details: other Member States were requested to provide information on: ·Other Community Acts associated to the measures reported (optional field); ·Any other information reported (optional field). Germany reported no information about other Community Acts in the reporting sheets. Nevertheless, 2 801 measures had information for ‘any other information’, however as this was an open question, there was a large number of different responses and aggregation of the data was not possible. Annex A1: Overview of Germany’s FRMPs Note: FRMPs not reported to WISE are indicated in italics. FRMPs assessed in this report are indicated in bold. UoM A-Level (International level) B-Level (National level) C-Level (Land level) DE1000 Donau / Danube ·Management Plan of the International Management Unit Danube ·Floods Risk Management Plan on the Share of the State of Baden-Württemberg in the Danube River Basin District ·Flood Risk Management Plan for the State of Bavaria in the Danube River Basin District DE2000 Rhine ·Management Plan of the international Management unit Rhine ·Flood Risk Management Plan for the Mosel-Saar processing area in the international Rhine river basin ·Flood Risk Management plan on the share of the Free State of Bavaria in the Rhine river basin –Bodensee part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the Free State of Bavaria - Main part (Art. 13) ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the free state of Thuringia in the Rhine River Basin District ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Baden-Württemberg in the Rhine River Basin District - Alpenrhein part ·Coordination reports for each plan mentioned above addressing the link to the international level ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Baden-Württemberg in the Rhine River Basin District - Hochrhein part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Baden-Württemberg in the Rhine River Basin District - Oberrhein part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Baden-Württemberg in the Rhine River Basin District - Neckar part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Baden-Württemberg in the Rhine River Basin District - Main part ·Coordination reports for each plan in BW mentioned above addressing the link to the international level ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Hesse in the Rhine River Basin District –Gersprenz part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Hesse in the Rhine River Basin District –Kinzing part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Hesse in the Rhine River Basin District –Main part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Hesse in the Rhine River Basin District –Muemling part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Hesse in the Rhine River Basin District –Neckar part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Hesse in the Rhine River Basin District –Nidda part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Hesse in the Rhine River Basin District –Rhein- Hessisches Ried part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Hesse in the Rhine River Basin District –Rhein-Rheingau part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Hesse in the Rhine River Basin District –Schwarzbach part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Hesse in the Rhine River Basin District –Sulzbach-Liederbach part · Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Hesse in the Rhine River Basin District – Lahn part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Lower Saxony in the Rhine River Basin District ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia in the Rhine River Basin District ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate in the Rhine River Basin District - Mittelrhein part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate in the Rhine River Basin District - Niederrhein part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate in the Rhine River Basin District - Oberrhein part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate in the Rhine River Basin District - Mosel-Saar part ·Flood Risk Management Plan on the share of the state of Saarland in the Rhine River Basin District DE3000 Ems ·International Reconciliation Report Ems ·German part of the management plan of the international management unit Ems ·Flood Risk Management Plan for the share of North Rhine-Westphalia in the Ems river basin district ·Flood Risk Management Plan for the share of Lower Saxony in the river basin district of Ems DE4000 Weser ·Flood Risk Management Plan of the Weser River Basin District ·Flood Risk Management Plan for the share of the state of Hessen in the Weser river basin district, Diemel-Weser part ·Flood Risk Management Plan for the share of the state of Hessen in the Weser river basin district, Fulda part ·Flood Risk Management Plan for the share of the state of Hessen in the Weser river basin district, Werra part ·Flood Risk Management Plan for the share of the state of Lower Saxony in the Weser river basin district ·Flood Risk Management Plan for the share of North Rhine-Westphalia in the Weser river basin district DE5000 Elbe ·Flood Risk Management Plan for the international river basin Elbe ·Flood Risk Management Plan of the national share of the Elbe river basin district ·Statements by the State of Schleswig-Holstein on the Flood Risk Management Plan on the national share of the Elbe river basin district ·Statements by the State of Bavaria on the Flood Risk Management Plan on the national share of the Elbe river basin district DE6000 Oder ·Flood Risk Management Plan of international river basin district Oder ·Floods Risk Management Plan on the national share of the river basin district Oder DE7000 Maas ·Management plan of the Maas international unit of management ·Flood Risk Management Plan for the share of North Rhine-Westphalia in the river basin district of Maas DE9500 Eider ·Flood Risk Management Plan of the International River Basin District Eider prepared by Schleswig Holstein as the international share with DK is very little DE9610 Schlei-Trave ·Flood Risk Management Plan of the Schlei/Trave (international UoM/RBD: FRMP prepared by Schleswig Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern as the international share with DK is quite small) DE9650 Warnow-Peene ·Flood Risk Management plan for the share of the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in the river basin district Warnow Peene Links to Germany’s FRMPs can be found via the following web page: http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/148748/ Annex B: Definitions of measure types