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
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, disaster area, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   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 ...................................................................................................................................... 3 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4 

Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 5 

Overview of the assessment ...................................................................................................... 7 

Good Practices......................................................................................................................... 10 

Areas for further development ................................................................................................ 11 

Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 14 

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment .......................... 15 

1.1.  Reporting of the FRMPs .............................................................................................. 15 

1.2.  Assessment of the FRMPs ........................................................................................... 15 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ................................................................. 17 

2.1.  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment.................................. 17 

2.2.  Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs ...................... 18 

2.3.  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas ..................................................... 20 

2.4.  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 

maps ................................................................................................................................... 21 

2.5.  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information .................................................................................... 23 

3. 

 Setting of Objectives ......................................................................................................... 24 

3.1.  Focus of objectives ....................................................................................................... 24 

3.2.  Specific and measurable objectives .............................................................................. 25 

3.3.  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ............................................. 25 

3.4.  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding ............................... 25 

3.5.  Process for setting the objectives ................................................................................. 25 

3.6.  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ......... 26 

4. 

 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ........................................................ 27 

4.1.  Cost of measures .......................................................................................................... 28 

4.2.  Funding of measures .................................................................................................... 28 

4.3.  Measurable and specific (including location) measures .............................................. 29 

4.4.  Measures and objectives............................................................................................... 30 

4.5.  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ...................................................................... 30 

4.6.  Prioritisation of measures ............................................................................................. 30 

4.7.  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ............................................. 31 

4.8.  Progress of implementation of measures ..................................................................... 32 

4.9.  Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................. 32 

4.10.  Specific groups of measures ......................................................................................... 33 

1 

 
4.11.  Recovery from and resilience to flooding .................................................................... 34 

4.12.  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ........................................................ 34 

4.13.  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive ..................................................... 35 

4.14.  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures ............... 36 

5. 

 Consideration of climate change ....................................................................................... 38 

5.1.  Specific types of measures planned to address climate change ................................... 39 

5.2.  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ........... 39 

6. 

7. 

 Cost-benefit analysis ......................................................................................................... 41 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation42 

7.1.  Competent authorities .................................................................................................. 42 

7.2.  Public information and consultation: consultation with stakeholders before the 

establishment of proposed measures for the FRMP........................................................... 42 

7.3 Active involvement of Stakeholders .................................................................................. 43 

7.4.  Effects of consultation .................................................................................................. 45 

7.5.  Strategic Environmental Assessment ........................................................................... 46 

7.6.  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance .................. 46 

8. 

 Use of Art. 13.3 ................................................................................................................. 47 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ........................................................... 48 

Background & method ............................................................................................................ 48 

Types of measures used in reporting ....................................................................................... 49 

List of Annex A tables & figures ............................................................................................ 50 

Measures overview .................................................................................................................. 51 

Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................... 54 

Measure details: name & location ........................................................................................... 54 

Measure details: objectives ..................................................................................................... 55 

Measure details: authorities ..................................................................................................... 57 

Measure details: progress ........................................................................................................ 58 

Measure details: other ............................................................................................................. 61 

Annex A1: Overview of Germany’s FRMPs .............................................................................. 62 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types ...................................................................................... 67 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) ................................................... 68 

2 

 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

APSFR 
CBA 
EEA 
FD 
FHRM 
FRMP 
NGO 
NWRM 
PFRA 
PoM 
RBD 
RBMP 
SEA 
UoM 
WFD 
WISE 

  Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
  Cost-Benefit Analysis 
  European Environment Agency 
  Floods Directive 
  Flood Hazard and Risk Map 
  Flood Risk Management Plan 
  Non-Governmental Organisation 
  Natural Water Retention Measures 
  Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 
  Programme of Measures 
  River Basin District 
  River Basin Management Plan 
  Strategic Environmental Assessment 
  Unit of Management 
  Water Framework Directive 
  Water Information System for Europe 

3 

 
 
 
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)1.  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 FRMPs2 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: 

o  FRMPs  at  the  UoM  level:  Elbe  (DE5000),  Weser  (DE4000),  and  Schlei  Trave 

(DE9610); 

o  FRMPs  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).  

1   The present Member State reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the Commission in 
2016 or  2017  and  with  reference  to  FRMPs  prepared  earlier.  The  situation  in  the  Member  States  may  have 
altered since then. 

2  Referred to as “Reporting Sheets” throughout this report. Data must be reported in a clear and consistent way 
by  all  Member  States.  The  format  for  reporting  was  jointly  elaborated  by  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission as part of a collaborative process called the “Common Implementation Strategy”: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm 
Whereas a key role of the Commission is to check compliance with EU legislation, the Commission also seeks 
information to allow it to determine whether existing policies are adequate. It also requires certain information 
to create a European-wide picture to inform the public. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

  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 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 documents3. (See Annex A1 for an overview of Germany’s FRMPs.)  

LAWA4,  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 found5.  

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  WISE6  –  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).  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Germany 

UoM 

DE1000 
DE2000 
DE3000 
DE4000 

Name 

Danube 
Rhine 
Ems 
Weser 

Number of APSFRs 

77 
345 
5 
74 

XML 
Reported 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

PDF 
Reported 
Yes 
Yes* 
Yes* 
Yes* 

3  See http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/148748/ 
4  See: http://www.lawa.de/About-LAWA.html  
5  Germany subsequently remarked that FRMPs are binding for the competent authorities. 
6  http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
UoM 

DE5000 
DE6000 
DE7000 
DE9500 
DE9610 
DE9650 
TOTAL 

Name 

Number of APSFRs 

Elbe 
Oder 
Maas 
Eider 
Schlei/Trave 
Warnow/Peene 

282 
27 
2 
10 
13 
6 
841 

XML 
Reported 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

PDF 
Reported 
Yes* 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

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. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Strong evidence 

FRM objectives 
have been 
established  

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  Strong evidence  

This aspect is specified in the definition of objectives 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

potential adverse 
consequences  

...to the reduction 
of the likelihood 
of flooding  

...to non-structural 
initiatives  

Strong evidence  

Some evidence   

in the FRMPs. 

The objectives of the FRMPs aim to reduce the 
vulnerability and to mitigate new risks and reduce 
existing risks; however, without further specification. 

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  

...prioritised  

Some 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. 

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. 

8 

 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

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  

...flood extent  

Strong 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 FRMPs7. 

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 

Strong evidence 

...environmental 
objectives of the 
WFD  

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) are found 
in all plans assessed. 

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. 

7  Germany subsequently clarified that CBA was not considered appropriate at the level of the FRMP, especially 
for  aggregated  measures,  since  the  FRMPs  are  at  a  very  strategic  and  aggregated  level.  The  measures  in  the 
FRMPs are also defined on a strategic level. In Germany CBA is mandatory in the detailed planning process for 
the measures on federal state or regional level for any technical measure whether ecosystem based or structural. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Nature conservation is mentioned in some plans, but 
no details are provided. 

The issue is not specifically addressed in any of the 
plans assessed8. 

All plans have a detailed chapter/information how 
climate change was considered in the development of 
the FRMPs. 

All plans describe their coordination activities within 
Germany in the same RBMP and on the international 
level. 

...nature 
conservation  

...navigation/ port 
infrastructure  

...likely impact of 
climate change  

Some evidence  

No evidence  

Strong evidence  

Strong evidence 

Coordination 
with other 
countries 
ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Coordination 
ensured with 
WFD  

Strong evidence 

See above under ‘environmental objectives of the 
WFD’. 

Strong evidence 

Active 
involvement of 
interested parties  

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. 

Table 3 

Good practices in the German FRMPs 

Topic area 

Objectives 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

Planning/implementation of 
measures and their 
prioritisation for the 

Good practices identified 

Detailed qualitative and comprehensive description of the objectives 
in the FRMP in DE9610 (Schlei/Trave). 

Inclusion in the FRMP for the Schlei/Trave UoM (DE9610) of 
explicit information about changes in the APSFRs/FHRMs. 

All five FRMPs assessed include the promotion of sustainable land-
use practices and NWRMs among their measures. 

8  Germany  subsequently  remarked  that  for  DE1000,  DE  5000  and  DE6000  the  Directorate-General  for 
Waterways and Shipping (Generaldirektion Wasserstraßen und Schifffahrt), responsible for navigation and port 
infrastructure, has been involved in the coordination process according to §7 Abs. 4 Satz 1 WHG (Federal Water 
Act). It was further remarked that no specific measures for ports/navigation exist in Germany, but the aspect is 
covered in several other national level measures.  

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
Topic area 
achievement of objectives. 

Good practices identified 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Public participation.  

Flood risk governance.  

International issues in flood 
risk management.  

Areas for further development 

The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the German FRMPs 
assessed. 

11 

 
 
 
 
Table 4 

Areas for further development in the German FRMPs 

Topic area 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

Areas identified for further development 
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.  

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

Planning/implementation of 
measures and their 
prioritisation for the 
achievement of objectives.  

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 it9.  
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. 

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. 
Detailed information on the implementation of measures10, i.e. 
responsible authority11, 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 defined12.  

9  Germany subsequently informed that for the second cycle of the  FD a new national map application will be 

available for all RBDs. 

10  Germany subsequently clarified that every measure has a priority code. This information was lost during the 

reporting process.  

11  Only in DE1000 (Bavaria) the information on the responsible authorities is provided. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Measures under other Community Acts are not clearly identified. 

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. 

12  Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  the  monitoring  process  is  being  defined  in  more  detail  for  the  second 

cycle under the FD. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
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. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
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: 

Table 5 

UoM-level FRMPs assessed 

UoM code 

DE5000 

DE9610 

DE4000 

UoM Name 

Elbe 

Schlei Trave 

Weser 

15 

 
 
 
 
The assessment also covers the following two FRMPs prepared at the Federal State level:  

Table 6 

Federal State-level FRMPs assessed 

UoM code 

DE2000 

DE1000 

UoM Name and FRMP assessed 

Rhine UoM: North Rhine Westphalia, NRW, FRMP 

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/.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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  APSFRs13;  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 
depicted14. 

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)15  and  DE2000  (Rhine/NRW)16,  but  the  link  in  the 
DE2000  FRMP  does  not  work  anymore.  In  DE4000  (Weser),  DE5000  (Elbe)  and  DE9610 
(Schlei/Trave), no links are provided17, 18.  

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 

13  Germany subsequently clarified that for DE 2000 a sample of small APSFRs had been checked and found that 

all APSFRs are depicted. However, small APSFRs are “sometimes not labelled”. 

14  FRMPs  of  the  assessed  UoMs:  DE1000  (chapter  2),  DE2000  (chapter  3),  DE4000  (chapter  3),  DE9610 

(chapter 3 and Annex), DE5000 (chapter 2). 

15  https://www.lfu.bayern.de/wasser/hw_risikomanagement_umsetzung/gewaesserkulisse_2011/index.htm 
16  https://www.flussgebiete.nrw.de/img_auth.php/6/6b/Schlussbericht_vorl%C3%A4ufige_Bewertung_August2011.pdf 
17  FRMPs  of  the  assessed  UoMs:  DE1000  (chapter  2),  DE2000  (chapter  3),  DE4000  (chapter  3),  DE9610 

(chapter 3 and Annex), DE5000 (chapter 2). 

18  Germany subsequently provided the following information: For DE 4000 chapter 10 of the FRMP links to the 
Länder-websites;  for DE 5000 there is  no  APSFR-map available on the  website (therefore no internet link), 
but maps of all APSFRs are included in Annex 3 of the published plan at sub-unit level. This will be improved 
with  a  web  map  tool  in  the  second  cycle  of  the  FD;  for  DE  9610  the  flood  map  portal  Schleswig-Holstein 
contains  a  direct  search  function  for  the  APSFRs  (information  available  includes  insurance  data,  planning 
units and RBD) www.hochwasserkarten.schleswig-holstein.de 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
relevant section in the FRMPs in DE9610 (Schlei/Trave) and DE4000 (Weser). Nevertheless, 
as the FHRMs and planned measures take conveyance routes into account19. 

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 areas20. 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 internationally21. DE4000 (Weser) is not an international UoM22. 

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 maps23.  

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 

19  FRMPs of the assessed UoMs: DE1000 (chapter 3), DE2000 (chapter 2), DE4000 (chapter 3 and 5), DE9610 

(chapter 3 and Annex), DE5000 (chapter 2). 

20  Germany subsequently clarified that in the Elbe (DE5000) and in Bavaria (DE1000), significant efforts were 

invested into international coordination for all stages of FRM planning.  

21  Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  after  coordination  between  Denmark  and  Germany  there  were  no 

international APSFRs identified for DE 9610. 

22  FRMPs of the assessed UoMs: DE1000, DE2000 (chapter 8), DE4000, DE9610, DE5000 (chapter 1). 
23  FRMPs  of  the  assessed  UoMs:  DE1000  (chapter  4),  DE2000  (chapter  3),  DE4000  (chapter  4),  DE9610 

(chapter 4.1), DE5000 (chapter 2.2 and 2.3). 

18 

 
 
 
                                                 
presented. In DE9610 (Schlei/Trave), also the FHRMs for coastal flooding are depicted24, 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 assessed25. 

In  DE2000  (Rhine/NRW),  the  FHRMs  are  not  depicted  in  the  plan  itself,  but  referred  to  via 
hyperlink26 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 PDF27). 

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=1AD9AA5D0

5DDFFF17EC3CFCFB8B22B34.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 

24  Germany  subsequently  informed  in  relation  to  DE9610  that  a  new  interface  for  all  internet  sites  was 
introduced  in  the  Schleswig-Holstein  Ministry  for  Energy  Transition,  Agriculture,  Environment,  Nature  and 
Digitalization (MELUND)  www.hochwasserkarten.schleswig-holstein.de and  via  the link  for all information 
on the implementation of the FD: www.hwrl.schleswig-holstein.de  

25  FRMPs  of  the  assessed  UoMs:  DE1000  (chapter  4),  DE2000  (chapters  3.2,  3.3,  3.4),  DE4000  (chapter  4), 

DE9610 (chapter 4), DE5000 (chapter 2.3). 

26  https://www.flussgebiete.nrw.de/  
27  Germany subsequently clarified that there are two platforms (one for Germany and one for the international 
Elbe basin) which cover the area of the Elbe UoM and provide links to the websites of the federal states. Both 
have  a  printing  tool  integrated  (also  for  pdf).  An  improved  web-based  map  is  being  prepared  for  release  in 
2019  (Bundesanstalt  für  Gewässerkunde,  BfG,  the  Federal  Institute  of  Hydrology).  On  both  the  interactive 
map applications of the IKSE/ICPER and of the BfG (via Wasserblick) the user is directed to the federal state 
map applications by clicking on the flooded areas and can download pdf maps. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                 
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 States28. 

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 awareness29. 

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.  

28  FRMPs of the assessed UoMs: DE1000 (chapter 4), DE2000 (chapters 3, 4 and 8), DE4000, DE9610, DE5000 

(chapter 2.3). 

29  FRMPs of the assessed UoMs: DE1000 (chapters 4.4 and 6.2), DE2000 (chapter 3.5), DE4000 (chapter 4.3), 

DE5000 (chapter 2.3), DE9610 (chapters 4.1 to 4.4). 

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
In DE5000 (Elbe), there is a statement that some federal states slightly changed the identified 
APSFRs/the PFRA30. 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 produced31. 

2.4.  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood 

hazard and risk maps 

The FHRM assessment32 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.  

30  Germany subsequently reminded that changes in APSFR’s were reported in 2013 for the Elbe (DE5000). Such 
changes, concerning updates to phases prior to the FRMP phase, will be assessed in detail during the relevant 
assessment of each phase during the next cycle of the FD. 

31  FRMPs  of  the  assessed  UoMs:  DE1000  (chapter  3.2),  DE2000,  DE4000,  DE5000  (chapter  2.3),  DE9610 

(chapter 4.4). 

32  These  areas  for  further  development  were  identified  based  on  the  2014  assessment  of  FHRMs:  European 
Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  Member  State  Report:  DE  –  Germany, 
December 2014. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/DE%20FHRM%20Report.pdf  

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
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 sheets33, 34:  

  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)35.  
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). 

33  Aside from the relevant FHRM developments identified under the present assessment and listed in the main 
text, Germany subsequently made the following points with reference to the areas for further development in 
relation to the earlier assessment of the FHRMs: 
•  For Bavaria (DE1000), North Rhine-Westphalia (DE2000) and Weser (DE4000) no pluvial flood APSFRs 

were identified. 

•  DE1000, DE2000 and DE9610 (Schlei/Trave) depict water level/depth in their flood hazard and risk maps 

• 

(in DE9610, since 2013). 
In  DE9500,  flood  hazard  maps  show  the  number  of  affected  inhabitants  (since  2013).  In  DE5000,  the 
FHRMs  show  the  number of  inhabitants,  not on the interactive  map application of the IKSE, but on the 
federal state maps. 
In DE5000, information on probabilities was part of the electronic reporting to the Commission. 

• 
•  For DE4000 Article 6.6 was applied. 
• 

In North Rhine-Westphalia (DE2000) and Bavaria (DE1000), Articles 13(1) and 13(2) were not applied, 
and hence not mentioned in the plans. In DE5000, the information on the application of Art. 13 was part of 
the  APSFR  electronic  reporting  to  the  European  Commission.  In  the  Elbe  (DE5000)  Articles  13(1)  and 
13(2) were applied in some federal states; in DE4000, Articles 4 and 13(1) were applied. 

•  Regarding  adverse  consequences  to  the  environment,  North  Rhine-Westphalia  (DE2000)  reports 
installations (as in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC) and potentially affected protected areas (as in 
Annex  IV(1)(i),  (iii)  and  (v)  to  Directive  2000/60/EC).  For  DE4000  the  sources  of  pollution  and  the 
endangered areas were mapped. In Bavaria (DE1000) the adverse consequences on the environment have 
been listed in a supplement ("Beiblatt") as to not overly complicate the maps themselves, which, according 
to Bavaria, proved to be a good practice for improving the risk dialogue. 

34  FRMPs of the assessed UoMs: DE1000, DE2000, DE4000, DE5000, DE9610 (chapter 4.1), and the reporting 

sheets for DE2000, DE4000, DE5000: Summary of the Objectives. 

35  Bavaria subsequently clarified that this practice was regarded as beneficial in terms of involving the regional 

stakeholders, as the data was more visible. 

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
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 it36.  
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. 

36  Germany  subsequently  stated  that  for  the  second  cycle  of  the  FD  a  new  national  map  application  will  be 

available for all RBDs. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 
formulated37:  

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 assessed38: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods.  

  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding39.  

  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented.  
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures40.  

37  See chapter 5 in the FRMP of the Danube (BY), chapter 3 in the FRMP Elbe, chapter 4 in the FRMP of Rhine 

(NRW) and in chapter 5 in the FRMP Schlei/Trave. 

38  These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 
39  The assessment adopts the generally accepted definition of risk as a product of consequence times likelihood, 

thereby also in alignment with Art. 7(2) of the FD. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
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 stakeholders41. 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 

40  Non-structural measures include measures such as flood forecasting and raising awareness of flooding as well 

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

41  Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  in  the  Weser  (DE4000),  an  additional  safety  margin  for  dykes 
("Klimazuschlag")  was  introduced  to  address  potential  climate  change  impacts  in  coastal  areas.  For  non-
coastal areas there was no evidence that such a special supplement is needed. Further, in the Elbe (DE5000), 
there are implicit references to climate change (e.g. mention of influence on water balance and influence on 
water level and flow) and to a process which will be defined in more detail in the second FD implementation 
cycle. 

25 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
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. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Germany reported in total 17 568 aggregated42 measures to WISE43 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 type44. To compare the number of measures by type, a total count is used that includes 
each time a measure is allocated to a measure type45: 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 reported46.  

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, 

42 The Reporting Guidance mentions “Measures can be reported as individual measures (recommended for major 
projects)  or  aggregated  measures,…”  and  also  notes  that  measures  may  be  comprised  of  “many  individual 
projects”. European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC), 2013, pp. 54-58. 

43 The information reported to WISE was the starting point for the assessment in this section. The majority of the 
statistics  presented  are  based  on  processing  of  information  reported  to  WISE.  Assuming  that  the  Member 
States accurately transferred the information contained in their FRMPs to the reporting sheets (these sheets are 
the same for all Member States and are not customisable) and barring any undetected errors in the transfer of 
this information to WISE arising from the use of interfacing electronic tools, these statistics should reflect the 
content  of  the  FRMPs.  In  the  case  of  Germany,  since  all  measures  are  aggregated  (as  opposed  to  a  mix  of 
aggregated and individual measures), the statistics are not only illustrative but also representative. To note that 
individual measures are likewise usually made up of a number of activities or tasks. 

44 See Annex B for the list of measure aspects and measure types. 
45 This approach implies double-counting. 
46  Reporting sheets. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
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: 

Table 7 

Funding of measures 

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 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

Table 8 

Location of measures  

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 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  document47:  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 %). 

47  LAWA, 2013 Empfehlungen zur Aufstellung von Hochwasserrisikomanagementplänen. 

30 

 
 
 
                                                 
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)48. 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 measures49. 

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 levels50. 

48  Reporting sheets. 
49  Germany subsequently remarked that a timetable for measures is defined in the concrete planning process for 

the implementation of measures but cannot be defined on the strategic level of the FRMP. 

50  Reporting sheets. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
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)51. 

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. 

51  Reporting sheets. 

32 

 
 
 
                                                 
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:  M2152  and  M2253  prevention  measures  and  M3154 
protection measures55. 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 measures56. 

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 

52  Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas, 

such as land use planning policies or regulation. 

53  Prevention,  Removal  or  relocation,  Measure  to  remove  receptors  from  flood  prone  areas,  or  to  relocate 

receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard. 

54  Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow into 
natural  or  artificial  drainage  systems,  such  as  overland  flow  interceptors  and  /  or  storage,  enhancement  of 
infiltration, etc. and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural 
systems to help slow flow and store water. 

55  See Annex B for details about all measure aspects and measure types. 
56  For details about the NWRMs and codes see Annex B. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                 
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 
assessed57.  

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 M5358). 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. 

57 Germany subsequently informed that this measure is included in DE5000, Elbe. 
58  Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance policies. 

34 

 
 
 
                                                 
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. 

Table 9 

Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the 
second River Basin Management Plans 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  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔59 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

59  This information was provided in the River Basin Management Plan of the Elbe. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
DE1000 
(Bavaria 
FRMP) 

DE2000 
(NRW 
FRMP) 

DE4000 
(Weser) 

DE5000 

(Elbe) 

DE9610 
(Schlei 
Trave) 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

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:  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Detailed  information  on  the  implementation  of  measures60,  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. 

60  Germany subsequently clarified that every measure has a priority code. This information was  lost during the 

reporting process via WISE. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 change61. 
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)62. 

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 timeframe63. 

61  Germany  subsequently  informed  that  in  DE  1000  the  so  called  ‘Freibord’  was  implemented  which  is 
basically a safety margin for wind and waves. Above this ‘Freibord’ Bavaria has added an additional 15% 
margin to the statistical value of HQ100 (introduced in 2004) to meet the effects of climate change. So the 
expected effects of climate change are considered as being taken into account in the planning of new flood 
protection measures. 
https://www.bmub.bund.de/en/topics/climate-energy/climate/adaptation-to-climate-change/  

62 
63  Germany subsequently informed that for DE9610 (Schlei-Trave) the time frame is 2081-2100 (to conform 

with IPCC projections). 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
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 significantly64. 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 listed65.  

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: 

64  Germany  subsequently  added  for  DE  2000  [but  the  information  could  be  of  a  more  general  nature]  that  the 

scientific data on the exact effects of global climate change on local climate is not yet conclusive. 

65  For DE9610 (Schlei/Trave) Germany subsequently noted that the IPCC projects sea level rise between 0.3 and 
1.0m.  Acknowledging  this  large  range,  no  concrete  trends  are  listed.  To  cope  with  sea  level  rise  and  the 
uncertainties in the IPCC projections, a 0.5 m safety margin is, inter alia, included in the design of measures. 

39 

 
 
 
                                                 
  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. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
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. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
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: 

Table 10 

Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMPs 

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

DE1000 
(Bavaria 
FRMP) 

DE2000 
(NRW 
FRMP) 

DE4000 
(Weser) 

DE5000 

(Elbe) 

DE9610 
(Schlei 
Trave) 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 
Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

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: 

Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

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 

DE1000 
(Bavaria 
FRMP) 

DE2000 
(NRW 
FRMP) 

DE4000 
(Weser) 

DE5000 

(Elbe) 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

DE9610 
(Schlei 
Trave) 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

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 assessed66: 

66  Germany subsequently commented that optimising the reporting of stakeholder involvement would be useful. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders  

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 67 
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: 

67  The Wasser- und Schifffahrtsverwaltung (Water and Navigation Authority) was involved in  the development 

of the FRMP. This information was subsequently provided by Germany and is not found in the FRMP.  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 14 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders  

DE1000 
(Bavaria 
FRMP) 

DE2000 
(NRW 
FRMP) 

DE4000 
(Weser) 

DE5000 

DE9610 

(Elbe) 

 (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: 

Table 15 

Effects of the consultation 

DE1000 
(Bavaria 
FRMP) 

DE2000 
(NRW 
FRMP) 

DE4000 
(Weser) 

DE5000 

DE9610 

(Elbe) 

 (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 found68 69. 

68  Germany subsequently provided the information that for DE1000 (Bavaria) all stakeholders were involved in a 
very early stage of the development of the FRMPs as well as the in the selection of measures. Because of this 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
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)70.   

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.  

intensive involvement many stakeholders did not feel the need to comment when the Plan was put on public 
display. The contents were already agreed upon before the final consultation process. 

69  Subsequently  Germany  clarified  that  the  draft  of  the  Schlei  Trave  (DE9610)  FRMP  was  confirmed  by  the 

public consultation and only editorial clarifications were necessary. 

70  CDR, www.wasserblick.net  

46 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
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). 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
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)71, 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 

71  http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200760ec/resources 

48 

 
 
 
                                                 
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  table72  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 

PREVENTION 
M21: Avoidance 
M22: Removal or relocation 
M23: Reduction 
M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 
M31: Natural flood management 
M32: Flow regulation 
M33: Coastal and floodplain works 
M34: Surface Water Management 
M35: other protection 

PREPAREDNESS 
M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 
M42: Emergency response planning 
M43: Public Awareness 
M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 
M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 
M52: Environmental recovery 
M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 
M61: Other measures 

72  Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ........... 53 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............. 54 
Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect .................... 56 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM .................................... 57 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ........ 59 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM ........................ 60 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ..................................................................................... 51 
Table A2 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and 

UoM, including duplicates .............................................................................................. 51 
Table A3 - Category of priority by measure aspect ................................................................. 55 
Table A4 - Category of priority by UoM ................................................................................. 56 
Table A5 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................... 58 
Table A6 – Progress of implementation by UoM .................................................................... 59 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 - Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Number of aggregated measures  

Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Total number of measures  

Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

0 

0 

17 568 

25 023 

17 568 

25 023 

Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

54 - 13 108 

(Min-Max) 

Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 
Note: Germany reported only aggregated measures and has indicated that each measure reported refers to a series of actions and projects. Figures 

2 502 

in this section consequently refer to aggregated measures – groups of measures as opposed to individual measures.  

Table A2 - Total number of measures per measure type and UoM, including duplicates 

Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Total 

Preparedness 

Total 

50 

401 

978 

M41  M42  M43  M44 

M21  M22  M23  M24 
92 

261 
DE1000  435 
DE2000  1 580  18  1 332  533  3 463  1 798  772 
7 
DE3000  16 
37 
DE4000  176 
127 
DE5000  830 
31 
DE6000  87 
DE7000  10 
4 
DE9500  16 
DE9610  27 
DE9650  34 

22 
36 
8 
65 
204 
367 
230  1 669  451 
35 
114 
7 
23 
7 
25 
9 
60 
9 
60 

M31  M32  M33  M34  M35 
108  1 017  191 
39 
260 
578 
106  4 137  1 384  902  1 062  379  3 727  595 
768 
3 
7 
41 
6 
61 
77 
33 
445 
705  2 171  201 
231 
139 
40 
27 
28 
10 
3 
26 
12 
30 
12 
32 
9 

10 
51 
9 
62 
129 
444 
126  1 253  524 
55 
139 
4 
19 
10 
26 
14 
31 
12 
37 

244 
693 
6 
64 
318 
30 
4 
7 
9 
7 

16 
155 
512 
28 
4 
2 
2 
6 

11 
124 
570 
22 
9 
1 
24 
20 

9 
100 
430 
28 
2 
7 
4 
6 

1 
2 
39 
1 

1 382  385 

4 
4 
8 
9 
4 

7 
10 
8 

262 

262 

3 
1 

1 
6 

1 
6 

6 

2 

Recovery and 
review 
M51  M52  M53 
477 
194 
92 
724  1703 
384 

Total 

Other 

M61 
56 
78 
2 
27 
179 
5 

43 
57 
12 

Total 

Grand 
total 

56  3 910 
78  13 108 
2 
134 
27  1 347 
179  5 589 
428 
54 
120 
180 
153 

43 
57 
12 

5 

1 
31 
116 
4 
2 

1 
6 

4 
64 
317 
31 
2 

2 
12 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Total 

Preparedness 

M21  M22  M23  M24 

M31  M32  M33  M34  M35 

M41  M42  M43  M44 

Total 

Recovery and 
review 
M51  M52  M53 

Total 

Other 

M61 

Total 

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 

Grand 
Total 
Average 
all 
UoMs 
Notes:  Germany  reported  only  aggregated  measures  and  has  indicated  that  each  measure  reported  refers  to  a  series  of  actions  and  projects. 

459  25 023 

46  2 502 

680 

752 

764 

251 

108 

312 

106 

142 

253 

131 

138 

175 

205 

125 

261 

321 

46 

48 

11 

96 

35 

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. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information in Table A2 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect 

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. 

53 

 
 
 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect 

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 

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 

54 

 
 
 
number  of  different  responses  were  given.  It  was  thus  not  practical  to  aggregate  the 
information. 

Geographic coverage 

Germany did not provide information about the geographic coverage of any of the measures 
in the reporting sheets. 

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. 

Table A3 - Category of priority by measure aspect 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Other 

Very high 

4 529 

4 347 

5 140 

2 085 

188 

Grand Total 

16 289 

Moderate 

Grand Total 

212 

982 

29 

90 

6 

1 319 

6 795 

7 519 

7 638 

2 612 

459 

25 023 

High 

2 054 

2 190 

2 469 

437 

265 

7 415 

55 

 
 
 
 
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. 

Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect 

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. 

Table A4 - Category of priority by UoM 

DE1000 

DE2000 

DE3000 

DE4000 

DE5000 

DE6000 

DE7000 

DE9500 

DE9610 

DE9650 

Very high 

2 764 

10 860 

102 

892 

1 373 

18 

39 

80 

109 

52 

High 

937 

1 547 

28 

324 

4 004 

396 

10 

40 

68 

61 

Grand Total 

16 289 

7 415 

Moderate 

Grand Total 

209 

701 

4 

131 

212 

14 

5 

3 

40 

1 319 

3 910 

13 108 

134 

1 347 

5 589 

428 

54 

120 

180 

153 

25 023 

Average all UoMs 

742 
Notes:  Germany  reported  only  aggregated  measures  and  has  indicated  that  each  measure 

1 629 

2 502 

132 

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. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM 

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. 

57 

 
 
 
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 as73:  

  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.  

Table A5 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 
Recovery & 
review 
Other 

Grand Total 

Completed 

253 

209 

272 

35 

10 

779 

Ongoing 
construction 
5 

309 

34 

1 

349 

Progress ongoing  Not started 

Grand Total 

5 405 

5 665 

6 454 

2 408 

366 

20 298 

1 132 

1 336 

878 

169 

82 

3597 

6 795 

7 519 

7 638 

2 612 

459 

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. 

73  Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

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. 

Table A6 – Progress of implementation by UoM 

DE1000 

DE2000 

DE3000 

DE4000 

DE5000 

DE6000 

DE7000 

DE9500 

DE9610 

DE9650 

Grand Total 
Average all 
UoMs 

Completed 

1 

130 

17 

102 

502 

16 

3 

3 

4 

1 

779 

78 

Ongoing 
construction 
213 

43 

6 

19 

61 

5 

2 

349 

35 

Progress ongoing  Not started 

Grand Total 

3 318 

11 551 

97 

813 

3 738 

349 

48 

117 

168 

99 

20 298 

2 030 

378 

1 384 

14 

413 

1 288 

58 

3 

8 

51 

3 597 

360 

3 910 

13 108 

134 

1 347 

5 589 

428 

54 

120 

180 

153 

25 023 

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. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM 

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 

60 

 
 
 
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. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

Table A1.1 Overview of Germany’s FRMPs 

UoM 

DE1000 

Donau / 
Danube 

A-Level 
(International level) 

  Management Plan of the 

International Management Unit 

Danube 

B-Level 
(National level) 

C-Level 
(Land level) 

  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 

  Management Plan of the 

  Flood Risk Management Plan for the 

  Flood Risk Management plan on the share of the Free 

Rhine 

international Management unit 
Rhine 

Mosel-Saar processing area in the 
international Rhine river basin 

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 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
UoM 

A-Level 
(International level) 

B-Level 
(National level) 

63 

C-Level 
(Land level) 
  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 

 
 
 
UoM 

A-Level 
(International level) 

B-Level 
(National level) 

C-Level 
(Land level) 
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 

64 

 
 
 
UoM 

A-Level 
(International level) 

B-Level 
(National level) 

C-Level 
(Land level) 

DE4000 

Weser 

  Flood Risk Management Plan of the 

  Flood Risk Management Plan for the share of the state of 

  Flood Risk Management Plan for the share of Lower 

Saxony in the river basin district of Ems 

Weser River Basin District 

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 

  Statements by the State of Schleswig-Holstein on the 

Flood Risk Management Plan on the national share of the 

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 

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 

  Floods Risk Management Plan on the 

international river basin district Oder 

national share of the river basin district 
Oder 

DE7000 

  Management plan of the Maas 

Maas 

international unit of management 

DE9500 

  Flood Risk Management Plan of the 

Eider 

International River Basin District 

Eider prepared by Schleswig 

65 

  Flood Risk Management Plan for the share of North 

Rhine-Westphalia in the river basin district of Maas 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UoM 

A-Level 
(International level) 
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 

B-Level 
(National level) 

C-Level 
(Land level) 

  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/ 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures74 

No Action 

M11 

No Action, No measure is proposed to reduce the flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area, 

Prevention 

M21  Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone 

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

M22 

Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to 
relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard 

M23  Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of 

a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... 

M24 

Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood 

risk modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies 
etc...) 

Protection 

M31 

Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the 
flow into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, 

enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of 
banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. 

M32 

Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such 

as the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line 
storage areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact 

on the hydrological regime. 

M33 

Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in 
freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such 

as the construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment 
dynamics management, dykes, etc. 

M34  Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface 
water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing artificial 
drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). 

M35 

Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may 

include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

Preparedness 

M41  Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or 

warning system 

M42 

Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or 

enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 

M43 

Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public 
awareness or preparedness for flood events 

M44 

Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood 

74 Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a 

67 

 
 
 
                                                 
events to reduce adverse consequences 

Recovery & Review 

M51 

Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and review phase is in principle part of 

preparedness), Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, 

infrastructure, etc), Health and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster 
financial assistance (grants, tax), incl. disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, 

Temporary or permanent relocation, Other 

M52  Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-

topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers) 

M53  Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance 

M61 

policies 

Other 

Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as 
NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 

enhancing the natural functioning of the catchment. The catalogue developed in the NWRM 
project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non  prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures,  and  other 

measures, or similar measures called by a different name, could also be classified as NWRM.  

To  ease  access  to  measures,  the  catalogue  of  measures  hereunder  is  sorted  by  the  primary 

land use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most 
of the measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

A02 Buffer strips and 

hedges 

A03 Crop rotation 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

F02 Maintenance of 
forest cover in headwater 

areas 

F03 Afforestation of 

reservoir catchments 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

N02 Wetland restoration 

U02 Rainwater 

and management 

Harvesting 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 

management 

U03 Permeable surfaces 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

N05 Stream bed re-

naturalization 

U05 Channels and rills 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 

N06 Restoration and 

forestry 

reconnection of seasonal 

U06 Filter Strips 

68 

 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F07 'Water sensitive' 

driving 

F08 Appropriate design 
of roads and stream 

crossings 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

streams 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 

features 

U07 Soakaways 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 

and other longitudinal 

U09 Rain Gardens 

barriers 

N10 Natural bank 

stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A07 Low till agriculture 

A08 Green cover 

A09 Early sowing 

A10 Traditional 

terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 

natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 

in peatland forests 

polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

69