COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Germany Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, water pollution, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 41 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Germany Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans  {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - 
 
 
Table of contents 
Acronyms and definitions ............................................................................................................. 4 

Foreword...................................................................................................................................... 5 

General Information .................................................................................................................... 6 

Status of second river basin management plan reporting ........................................................... 9 

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s)
.................................................................................................................................................... 10 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 17 

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 20 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle ............................................................................................................................ 20 

1.2  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 23 

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 25 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle ............................................................................................................................ 25 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 40 

2.3  Progress with the Commission recommendations ........................................................ 40 

Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies
.................................................................................................................................................... 42 

3.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in second 
RBMPs.................................................................................................................................... 42 

3.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs ................... 63 

3.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 66 

Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies68 

4.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 68 

4.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 81 

4.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 82 

Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies
.................................................................................................................................................... 84 

5.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle ............................................................................................................................ 84 

5.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 92 

5.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 93 

Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 94 

1 

 
 
 
 
6.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 94 

6.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 101 

6.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 102 

Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................. 103 

7.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................. 103 

7.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 107 

7.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 108 

Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions .................................................................. 110 

8.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 110 

8.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 118 

8.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 118 

Topic 9 Programme of measures ............................................................................................. 120 

9.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 120 

9.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 132 

9.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 133 

Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity ............................................... 136 

10.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 136 

10.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 137 

10.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 137 

Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture ....................................................... 138 

11.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 138 

11.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 139 

11.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 139 

Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture.......................... 144 

12.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 144 

12.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 145 

12.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 146 

Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology ..................................................................... 148 

2 

 
 
13.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 148 

13.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 150 

13.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 150 

Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies ......................................................... 152 

14.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance .................................... 152 

14.2. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 152 

Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and 
measures) ................................................................................................................................. 156 

15.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 156 

15.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 160 

15.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 160 

Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change ............................................................... 161 

16.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 161 

16.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 162 

16.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 162 

3 

 
 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

QA/QC Directive 

Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive  

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

Member States reported the structured information on the 
second  RBMPs  to  WISE  (Water  Information  System  for 
Europe).  Due  to  the  late  availability  of  the  reporting 

guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an 
Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying 

what  information  they  were  unable  to  report  and  the 
reasons  why.  This  Annex  was  produced  using  a template 

included  in  the  reporting  guidance.  If  Member  States 
reported all the required information, this explanatory note 

was not necessary. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

The  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  (2000/60/EC)  requires  in  its  Article  18  that  each 

Member  State  reports  its  River  Basin  Management  Plan(s)  (RBMPs)  to  the  European 
Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 

2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. 

This  Member  State  Assessment  report  was  drafted  on  the  basis  of  information  that  was 

reported  by  Member  States  through  the  Water  Information  System  for  Europe  (WISE) 
electronic reporting.  

The  Member  State  Reports  reflect  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the 
European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to River Basin Management Plans 

(RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

Map A  Map of River Basin Districts 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

International River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 

  National River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

The information on areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in the 
following table: 

6 

BESchelde_VLBEEscaut_Schelde_BRBEEscaut_RWDE2000DE5000PL6000AT1000DE1000DE4000FRHCZ_5000FRCFRDNLRNDE9650CZ_1000NLMSDK1DE3000FRB1DE6000DK2DE9610DE9500DK1DE7000NLEMAT2000DK4LU RB_000AT5000CZ_6000BERhin_RWBEMaas_VLBEMeuse_RWPL67000100200kmNorth SeaBaltic SeaDE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 

 Overview of Germany‘s River Basin Districts  

RBD 

Name 

Size1 (km2) 

% share of 
total basin in 

DE1000 

Danube 

56262 

DE2000 

Rhine 

DE3000 

Ems 

DE4000 

Weser 

DE5000 

DE6000 

Elbe 

Odra 

DE7000 

Meuse 

DE9500 

Eider 

DE9610 

Schlei/Trave 

DE9650 

Warnow/Peene 

105455 

17391 

49060 

99544 (96 269) 

9692 

3976 
93442 
92143 

21094 

DE 

7 

54 

84 

100 

65.5 

7.7 

11.6 

- 

99.95 

100 

Countries 
sharing RBD 

AT, BA, BG, CH, 

CZ, HR, HU, IT, 
MD, ME, MK, 

PL, RO, RS, SI, 
SK, UA, AL 

AT, BE, CH, FR, 
IT, LI, LU, NL 

NL 

- 

AT, CZ, PL 

CZ, PL 

BE, FR, LU, NL 

DK 

DK 

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE 

Germany subsequently corrected some of the reported information (in brackets) 

The share of  Germany in the respective international  RBDs is  7  % (Danube), 54 % (Rhine), 
84%  (Ems),  65.5  %  (Elbe),  7.7  %  (Odra),  11.6  %  (Meuse),  19  %  (Vidaa/Wiedau),  99  % 

(Jardelund Groeft/Jardelunder Graben/Bongsieler Kanal) and 26 % (Krusaa/Krusau).  

Table B  

Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Germany 

Name of the 
international 

river basin 

National 
RBD 

Countries sharing RBD 

Co-ordination category 

1 

km² 

3 

% 

km² 

% 

Danube 

DE1000 

AT, BA, BG, CH, CZ, HR, HU, IT, 

MD, ME, MK, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, 
UA, AL 

56262 

7.0 

Rhine 

DE2000  AT, BE, CH, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL 

105455 

54.0 

1 Area includes coastal waters (up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline) 
2 Total size not possible to determine as the Danish section is part of a larger river basin. 
3 Total size not possible to determine as the Danish section is part of a larger river basin. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
National 
RBD 

Countries sharing RBD 

DE3000  NL 

DE5000  AT, CZ, PL 

DE6000 

CZ, PL 

DE7000 

BE, FR, LU, NL 

Co-ordination category 

3 

km² 

% 

1 

km² 

17391  

99730 

9602 

3977 

% 

84.0 

65.5 

7.7 

11.6 

DE9500  DK 

261 

19.0 

Name of the 
international 

river basin 

Ems 

Elbe 

Odra 

Meuse 

Vidaa/Wiedau 
(Rudboel 

Soe/Ruttebüller See) 

Jardelund 
Groeft/Jardelunder 

Graben/Bongsieler 
Kanal 

DE9500  DK 

Krusaa/Krusau 

DE9610  DK 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

732 

99.0 

6 

26 

Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international 
RBMP in place.  
Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. 
Category 3: International agreement in place. 
Category 4: No co-operation formalised. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

A  total  of  nine  RBMPs  in  Germany  (Danube,  Rhine,  Ems,  Elbe,  Odra,  Meuse,  Eider, 

Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene) were published on 22 December 2015, with the RBMP for the 
Weser RBD being published on 22 March 2016. Documents are available from the European 

Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/. 

9 

 
 
 
Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River 
Basin Management Plan(s) 

The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMPs of Germany are as follows: 

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

A  broad  range  of  stakeholders  were  actively  involved  in  the  preparation  of  all 

RBMPs, via a range of mechanisms, including advisory groups. 

 

Germany’s RBMPs were coordinated with its FRMPs, and consultations for these two 

types of plans were conducted in parallel.  

 

Germany  has  strong  cooperation  with  other  European  countries  across  six 

international  RBDs  where  international  cooperation  is  taking  place  in  the  frame  of 

international  agreements,  permanent  co‐operation  bodies  and  international  RBMPs 

and PoMs. 

 

One  of  Germany’s  RBMPs,  for  the  Weser  RBD  (DE4000)  was  not  published  in 

accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

 

There are still some gaps in the establishment of reference conditions.  

Germany  reported  inventories  for  all  of  its  RBDs.  The  number  of  substances  in  the 

inventories  ranged  from  nine  to  all  41  substances.  According  to  the  information 
subsequently  provided  by  Germany  a  national  methodological  approach  was 

published on the inventory and assessment of all priority substances and was used by 
all RBDs in the preparation of the RBMPs. It seems however that the RBMP for the 

Elbe  clearly  acknowledges  that  the  inventory  is  incomplete.  For  substances  deemed 
not  relevant  at  RBD  level,  Tier  2  of  the  methodology  (riverine  loads)  was 

implemented. For substances  relevant at  RBD level,  either Tier 3  (pathway  oriented 
approach)  or  a  combination  of  Tiers  1  and  2  (point  source  +  riverine  loads)  were 

implemented. This is in line with the Guidance Document.  

10 

 
 
 
  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

Overall, since the first RBMPs there was an increase in the number of sites used for 

surveillance monitoring in all four water categories. However, some quality elements 
which  were  monitored  for  the  first  RBMPs,  such  as  hydromorphological  quality 

elements  in  coastal  waters,  and  benthic  invertebrates  and  fish  in  lakes,  were  not 
monitored now. 

 

There was a significant increase in the number of monitoring sites and proportion of 
water bodies in all four water categories monitored for operational purposes. 

 

Expert  judgement  was  frequently  used  to  classify  lakes  and  rivers  in  terms  of  the 

hydromorphological  quality  elements,  which  might  indicate  some  weakness  in  the 
monitoring  and  assessment  methods.  The  supporting  physicochemical  quality 

elements  are  monitored  but  not  classified  in  the  vast  majority  of  water  bodies,  as 
Germany  reported  that  it  understands  the  WFD  as  requiring  classification  of 

ecological  status/potential  only  for  biological  quality  elements.  This  applies  in 
particular to nutrients in all water categories. 

 

 

Benthic invertebrates are still not used for classification in lakes. 

The  number  of  surface  water  bodies  in  good  or  better  ecological  status/potential 

shows a slight decrease since the first RBMPs. However, it should be noted that the 
number  of  surface  water  bodies  in  bad  status  has  also  decreased  and  that  the 

classification of status is now based on more extensive monitoring than was the case 
previously. 

  Many  heavily  modified  and  artificial  water  bodies  are  still  reported  as  having 

unknown ecological potential. 

 

The one-out-all-out principle has not been applied to the supporting quality elements. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 

 

All water bodies have been classified as failing to achieve good chemical status. This 
is  due  in  particular  to  the  consideration  of  mercury  in  biota,  in  accordance  with  the 

Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive:  the  widespread  exceedances  found  in 
monitored  water  bodies  have  been  extrapolated  to  non-monitored  water  bodies. 

Germany  has  also  used  the  revised,  more  stringent  standards  from  Directive 

11 

 
2013/39/EU  to  assess  status,  so  a  direct  comparison  with  the  first  RBMP  is  not 
possible.  

 

Overall 80 % of surface water bodies in Germany were classified for chemical status 

with  high  confidence,  18  %  with  medium  confidence  and  only  2  %  with  low 
confidence. 

 

According  to  WISE,  territorial  waters  have  not  been  monitored  or  assessed  for 
chemical  status  in  any  RBD.  However  the  Ems  RBD  clarified  that  they  monitored 

territorial waters and assessed their chemical status. 

 

Germany  mentioned  that  monitoring  sites  were  only  reported  to  WISE  if  a  priority 

substance was exceeding its standard at that site. The information reported to WISE is 

summarized below, however it may not fully reflect the monitoring performed. 

 

Between  the  two  RBMPs,  there  was  a  net  increase  in  monitoring  sites  and  surface 

water bodies monitored for chemicals for operational and surveillance purposes.  

 

Between 31 and 41 Priority Substances are reported to be monitored in water across 

the  ten  RBDs  in  Germany  for  status  assessment.  Germany  clarified  that  all  relevant 
and 
are  monitored.  Mercury, 
discharged 

hexachlorobenzene 

substances 

hexachlorobutadiene were reported to be monitored in biota for status assessment in 6 
RBDs.  Monitoring  frequencies  in  water  and  biota  met  the  recommended  minimum 

frequencies  at  most  sites.  At  the  remainder  of  the  sites,  these  frequencies  were  not 
achieved.  Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  expert  judgement  has  been  used  to 

decide on the appropriate frequency.   

 

Between  1  and  14  Priority  Substances  are  monitored  in  sediment  /  biota  for  trend 

assessment depending on the RBD. The spatial extent in terms of monitoring sites is 
variable and the monitoring frequencies met the recommended minimum frequency at 

some sites.  Germany subsequently clarified that expert judgement had been used to 
decide the appropriate frequency in accordance with the provisions of the WFD.   

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

The  number  of  monitored  groundwater  bodies  increased  as  well  as  the  number  of 

monitoring  sites.  However,  there  are  still  some  groundwater  bodies  that  are  not 

monitored for quantitative status. 

12 

 
  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 

  Monitoring 

is 

required 

ordinance 
(Grundwasserverordnung  20104).  According  to  the  data  reported  in  WISE,  not  all 
groundwater bodies are subject to surveillance and not all groundwater bodies at risk 

the  German 

groundwater 

by 

are  subject  to  operational  monitoring.  The  information  on  grouping  of  groundwater 
bodies is not fully clear for some of the river basin districts in Germany. 

 

Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential 

 

The  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies  designation  is  explained  for  all 

RBMPs and includes all key aspects of the heavily modified water bodies designation 
method. Specific information on the outcome of the assessment of significant adverse 

effects  and  better  environmental  options  is  not  documented  in  the  RBMPs  on  the 
water  body  level.  However,  according  to  information  provided  subsequently  by 

Germany,  some  Federal  States  provided  such  additional  information  through 
background documents. 

 

For  the  second  RBMPs,  a  new  harmonised  method  for  defining  good  ecological 

potential  has  been  developed  at  national  level,  which  refers  to  improvements  in  the 
assessment methodologies related to fish and benthic fauna. Good ecological potential 
is  defined  in  terms  of  biology  using  assessment  methods  for  ecological  status. 

Mitigation  measures  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  have  also  been  reported 
for  all  10  RBDs,  but  no  explicit  information  could  be  found  on  how  the  ecological 

benefits of the mitigation measures are assessed. 

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

Environmental objectives for ecological  and  chemical  status  of surface  water bodies 
have  been  reported  in  all  RBDs  as  well  as  for  chemical  and  quantitative  status  of 

groundwater. Information is also provided on when the objectives will be achieved. 

 

 The application of exemptions under Article 4(4) and Article 4(5) is described in the 

RBMPs  and  their  background  documents  (including  reference  to  agreed  LAWA 
documents),  in  particular  for  the  justifications  for  the  application  of  each  type  of 

4 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/grwv_2010/GrwV.pdf 

13 

 
                                                      
 
exemption. However, the information reported into WISE mainly refers to the text in 

the Common Implementation Strategy reporting guidance. 

 

Programme of Measures 

 

Very  limited  progress  has  been  made  with  addressing  the  European  Commission’s 

recommendations from the first RBMPs. No comprehensive summary of progress was 
provided for some RBDs. 

 

Although a number of  measures  addressing significant  pressures have been reported 
as operational there are a number of significant pressures causing failure of objectives 

for which operational measures have not been identified. 

  Measures  are  in  place  in  most  RBDs  for  the  control  of  some  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants.  However,  not  all  substances  reported  as  responsible  for  the  failure  of 
surface water bodies to be in good status are specifically addressed by these measures. 
For  Priority  Substances,  KTM  are  in  place  but  they  do  not  appear  to  address  all 

substances causing failure of the objectives. 

 

The  RBMPs  and  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  were  coordinated  and  joint 

consultation  has  been  carried  out  and  win-win  measures  identified.  Measures  in  the 
Floods Directive have been adapted to take account of WFD objectives. Article 9(4) 

of the WFD has not been applied. 

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

 

Some  river  basin  districts  have  more  than  10  %  of  groundwater  bodies  in  bad 

quantitative  status  (Odra  and  Warnow/Peene)  or  more  than  20  %  of  surface  water 
bodies face significant abstraction and flow diversion pressures (Danube). Information 

on the Water Exploitation Index + has not been provided. 

 

The  river  basin  management  plans  do  not  include  a  water  resource  allocation  and 

management plan. 

 

There is a concession, authorisation, and/or permitting regime to control surface and 

groundwater abstractions and water impoundment. 

14 

 
 
  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. 

  Management objectives for nutrient pollution and a gap assessment for nutrients have 

been established for all RBDs. 

 

Implementation  of  basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)(h)  for  the  control  of  diffuse 

pollution from agriculture at source is ensured in all RBDs where the same rules apply 
across the whole RBD. 

 

 

 

 

Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture are reported as well 
as measures to reduce sedimentation from soil erosion and surface runoff.  

The cost of the measures is not reported. 

The Programmes of Measures heavily rely on voluntary measures. 

Drinking Water Protected Areas have been established to protect water resources from 

agricultural pollution. 

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

Germany  has  made  progress  on  tackling  nutrients  from  non-agricultural  sources  by 

implementing supplementary measures in the context of urban waste water treatment, 
such as improving the treatment technology. 

 

Further to the observation above in relation to Programmes of Measures, it seems that 

the  Programmes  do  not  always  explicitly  link  measures  to  individual  substances 
causing failure. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  and  operational  KTMs  to  address  these 
pressures  are  reported  for  all  RBDs.  However,  there  is  still  a  significant  number  of 

water bodies where the sector/driver behind significant hydromorphological pressures 
is unknown/obsolete or indicated as "other" (not specified as one of the key sectors in 

the WISE reporting). 

15 

 
 

In terms of ecological flows, work is in progress and there are still some gaps in the 

implementation.  In  the  majority  of  RBDs,  ecological  flows  are  partly  derived  and 
implemented, but the overall work is still ongoing. Only in a few RBDs, where it was 

considered  not  to  be  a  significant  issue  due  to  the  small  size  of  water  courses 
ecological flows have not been derived for the relevant water bodies and there are no 

plans to do so during the second cycle.  

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

  Whether environment and resource costs  are calculated or internalised is  not  clearly 

described. 

 

 

No detailed information was reported on the application of the polluter pays principle. 

A narrow definition of water services has been used. There is no link between water 

status-pressure/impact analysis and the water service definition. 

 

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 

and measures) 

 

Very few Protected Areas have a specific objective defined in the RBMPs. For those 
designated under the Habitats and Birds Directives, this is because the needs of water 

dependent interest features are not known.  

 

The  reported  monitoring  of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is  very 

limited and missing for some types of Protected Area and in some RBDs. 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

Climate change was  considered in  various ways  in  all river basin  districts.  The plan 
for the Danube, which had not addressed climate change in the first cycle, does so in 

the second cycle. The plans for all basins have indicated climate change signals. 

16 

 
 
 
Recommendations  

  Work  with  the  other  countries  in  the  international  RBDs  to  improve  international 
cooperation  should  continue,  including  efforts  to  coordinate  the  assessments  of  the 

technical  aspects  of  the  WFD.  This  would  include  ensuring  a  harmonized  approach 
for status assessment and a coordinated PoM, to ensure the timely achievement of the 

WFD objectives. 

 

Germany needs to complete its work on the establishment of reference conditions, in 

particular  on  biological,  hydromorphological  and  physico-chemical  quality  elements 
in lakes.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Germany also needs to complete the inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of 
chemical substances. 

In  groundwater  bodies  shared  by  different  Länder,  coordinated  methodologies  and 

measures  should  be  better  described.  The  way  national  guidance  is  used  should  be 
explained in the different RBMPs. 

Germany  should  further  improve  the  monitoring  of  surface  waters  by  covering  all 
relevant quality elements in all water categories. 

Germany  should  complete  the  ecological  status  assessment  for  all  water  categories 
and  quality  elements.  In  particular,  benthic  invertebrates  should  be  used  for 

classification  of  lakes,  and  supporting  quality  elements  should  be  used  for 
classification  of  all  water  bodies,  applying  the  one  out  all  out  principle.  The 

classification of heavily modified and artificial water bodies should be completed. 

Germany  should  ensure  that  nutrient  thresholds  are  sufficiently  protective  for  good 

ecological status. 

Germany  should  further  improve  the  confidence  in  the  assessment  for  all  water 

categories  (including  territorial  waters,  whose  chemical  status  should  be  assessed). 

Germany should make sure all priority substances are monitored in the relevant matrix 
and  that  this  information  is  fully  reported.  If  reduced  monitoring  frequencies  or  a 

different  matrix  are  used,  it  should  make  sure  to  provide  the  corresponding 
explanations, as required by the Directive. 

 

Germany  should  further  improve  trend  monitoring  for  all  relevant  substances,  in  a 
way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage, in all RBDs. 

17 

 
 

Germany should make sure it reports about groundwater bodies at risk (and the related 

parameters) as this is an important element in the status assessment and in the PoM. 

 

Germany  should  continue  to  progress  on  the  designation  of  HMWBs  by  specifying 

information  on  the  outcome  of  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse  effects  of 
restoration  measures  and  better  environmental  options  at  water  body  level  in  all 

RBDs. 

 

The application of exemptions under Article 4(4) and Article 4(5) should be justified 

in more detail in the RBMPs and in the WISE reported information. In particular the 

reported justification on disproportionate costs is lacking details as it mainly refers to 
the text in the Common Implementation Strategy reporting guidance. 

 

 

Germany  should  provide  better  information  on  how  measures  are  selected  and 
targeted towards a water body; in particular, it should ensure that the RBMPs clearly 

identify the gap to good status and that the PoM is designed and implemented to close 
that gap. 

Germany  should  report  operational  KTMs  against  all  the  significant  identified 
pressures, for all RBDs. 

 

Comprehensive  information  regarding  the  scope,  the  timing  and  the  funding  of  the 

measures to be implemented should be included  in  the PoM so that the approach to 
achieve the objectives is clear. 

 

In the third RBMPs, a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from 

agriculture  (nutrients,  agri-chemicals,  sediment,  organic  matter)  across  all  waters  in 

all RBDs should be completed and linked directly to mitigation measures in the third 
RBMPs  (as  per  WFD  Article  11(3)(h)),  to  facilitate  the  achievement  of  WFD 

objectives.  

 

The strategy for the delivery of WFD objectives should continue to be reviewed and 

developed  further,  in  cooperation  with  the  farming  community  and  German  CAP 
delivery authorities, to ensure the third RBMP is technically feasible and all relevant 

policies and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, ND etc.) contribute significantly to 
RBMPs. Additional actions are needed to prevent pollution induced by nitrates from 

agricultural pressures. 

18 

 
  Measures  to  address  agricultural  hydromorphological  pressures  that  have  been 
successful in some länder should be extended across all the lander. Additional actions 
are needed to prevent pollution induced by nitrates from agricultural pressures. 

 

Germany  should  continue  to  work  towards  the  achievement  of  a  correct  balance 
between  basic  and  supplementary  measures  and  between  mandatory  and  voluntary 

measures.  Sources  of  funding  (e.g.  CAP  Pillar  1,  RDP)  should  be  identified  to 
facilitate  the  successful  implementation  of  these  measures.  Germany  should  ensure 

that the actual and modelling impacts of specific measures are reported in WISE and 
includes  controls  on  phosphorus 
that 

the  new  Nitrates  Action  Programme 

applications.  

 

In  the  next  plans,  individual  substances  should  be  explicitly  linked  to  KTMs  and 

specific  measures  to  combat  pollution,  keeping  in  mind  the  principle  of  reducing 

pollution  at  source  and  distinguishing  between  the  substances  affecting  surface  and 
groundwater;  furthermore,  a  gap  analysis  should  be  systematically  performed  to 

assess whether the planned measures are sufficient. 

 

Germany  should  continue  the  efforts  to  ensure  an  appropriate  implementation  of 

ecological flows in all RBDs.  

 

Germany  should  continue  enhancing,  where  appropriate  according  to  local/regional 

circumstances  and  conditions,  the  use  of  green  infrastructure  and/or  natural  water 
retention  measures  that  provide  a  range  of  environmental  (improvements  in  water 

quality,  flood  protection,  habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic  benefits 
which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. 

 

Germany should recover costs for water use activities having a significant impact on 
water bodies. Any exemption should be justified using Article 9(4). Germany should 

also present in a transparent manner how financial, environmental and resource costs 
have  been  calculated  and  how  the  adequate  contribution  of  the  different  users  is 

ensured.  The  water-pricing  policy  should  be  set  out  in  a  transparent  fashion  and  a 
clear overview of estimated investments and investment needs should be provided. 

 

Germany should consider developing drought management plans for areas more at risk 

of drought, particularly in light of the fact that abstraction is identified as a significant 
pressure for groundwater bodies in the country. 

19 

 
Topic 1

 Governance and public participation 

1.1 

Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 
requirements in the second cycle 

1.1.1

  Administrative arrangements – river basin districts 

Germany  has  designated  10  river  basin  districts  (RBDs).  In  Germany,  the  Federal  States 
(Länder) play a key role in implementing the Water Framework Directive.  

All  but  two  of  Germany's  10  RBDs  are  reported  as  being  part  of  an  international  RBD  (the 
exceptions being Weser and Warnow/Peene). 

1.1.2

  Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

Germany  has  listed  16  competent  authorities  for  its  10  RBDs:  one  Competent  Authority  for 

each of the Federal States (Länder). 

1.1.3

  River Basin Management plans – structure (sub-plans, Strategic Environmental 

Assessment)   

Germany  reported  sub-plans  for  one  RBMP,  the  Weser,  where  sub-plans  address  increased 

salinity of the Rivers Werra and Weser due to potash mining.  

Germany’s RBMPs are divided into the following A- B- and C-level plans: 

 

International RBMPs (referred to as A-level plans in Germany) 

  RBMPs at the level of national RBDs or related basins (referred to as B-level plans) 

  RBMPs prepared at the level of the Federal States (Länder) for their portions of RBDs 

(C-level plans) 

As an example, for Germany’s portion of the Elbe international RBD, there is the international 
RBMP  (the  A-level  plan),  a  national  RBMP5  (at  B-level)  and  further  plans  at  Federal  State 
level (C-level plans for Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein). A similar structure is seen for 

the Danube, Rhine, Ems and Weser, except that the latter is not part of an international RBD.  

5 Der Bewirtschaftungsplan zum nationalen Anteil an der Flussgebietseinheit Elbe 

20 

 
                                                      
The  Working  Group  on  water  issues  of  the  Federal  States  and  the  Federal  Government 
represented  by  the  Federal  Environment  Ministry  (LAWA6),  a  long-standing  body,  has 
prepared  guidelines  and  recommendations  to  promote  a  common  approach.  Moreover,  the 

Länder have used standard text coordinated within LAWA for parts of their RBMPs.  

Germany  reported  that  a  strategic  environmental  assessment  was  carried  out  for  each  of  its 
RBMPs’ PoM at national level7.  

1.1.4

Public consultation 

For  all  the  RBMPs,  documents  were  available  for  public  consultation  for  the  required  six 
months.  The  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  by:  internet,  printed  material, 

invitations to stakeholders and meetings in all RBDs; by local authorities in all but one RBD; 
by media (papers, TV, radio) in six RBDs; and by direct mailing in four RBDs.  

The consultation was carried out by: internet, in all the RBDs; direct invitation, in eight RBDs; 
direct involvement in drafting the RBMPs, in seven RBDs (see also active involvement); and 

exhibitions,  in  two  RBDs.  For  all  RBDs,  the  consultation  documents  were  available  for 
download and paper copies were available in municipal buildings.  

Stakeholder  groups  were  actively  involved  in  all  10  RBDs.  The  mechanisms  used  for  active 

involvement were: involvement in drafting in eight RBDs; establishment of advisory groups in 
seven  RBDs;  formation  of  alliances  in  five  RBDs  and  regular  exhibitions  in  four  RBDs.  In 

addition, the RBDs used a range of informational events at regional and local levels, including 
round  tables,  conferences  and,  in  one  RBD,  an  information  portal  on  measures.  Two  RBDs 

(Eider and Schlei/Trave) cited advisory councils at the river basin level. The stakeholders that 
in  all  RBDs  were:  agriculture/farmers,  fisheries/aquaculture, 
were  actively 

involved 

local/regional  authorities,  NGOs/nature  protection  and  water  supply  and  sanitation. 
Stakeholders for  energy/hydropower, industry and navigation/ports  were  actively involved in 

seven RBDs; and consumer groups in four RBDs. 

Public consultation was reported to have had an impact in all 10 RBMPs. The impacts of the 

public consultation were: addition of new information, for all RBMPs; commitment to further 
research  in  eight  RBMPs;  adjustment  to  specific  measures  and  commitment  to  action  in  the 

next cycle, in seven RBMPs; and changes to the selection of measures in six RBMPs. 

6 www.lawa.de/index.php?a=2  
7 Germany informed that, according to German legislation, strategic environmental assessments have to be carried 
out for the Programme of Measures, not for the RBMPs as such. 

21 

 
 
                                                      
1.1.5

Integration  with  the  Floods  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 

Directive 

In  each  of  Germany's  RBDs,  the  RBMP  was  coordinated  with  the  Flood  Risk  Management 

Plan (FRMP) and the consultation of the RBMP and FRMP was conducted in parallel. 

Germany informed that the results of the WFD’s implementation steps have been integrated in 

the implementation of the MSFD. 

1.1.6

International coordination and co-operation  

Six  of  Germany’s  10  RBDs  are  part  of  an  international  RBD  with  international  agreement, 
permanent  co-operation  body  and  international  RBMPs  in  place  (designated  as  category  1 

cooperation):  an  international  RBMP  and  a  PoM  were  prepared,  and  explicit  links  to  the 
national  RBMPs  are  made  within  the  international  RBMP.  These  six  RBDs  are:  Danube, 
Rhine, Ems, Elbe, Oder and Maas/Meuse8. For these six RBMPs, there was international co-
ordination  on  public  participation  (for  further  information  see  the  reports  on  international 

coordination on the Water Framework Directive). 

In two RBDs, Eider and Schlei/Trave, there are international agreements on water management 
in  place  but  without  coordination  body  nor  an  international  RBMP  in  the  first  cycle 
(designated  as  Category  3  cooperation):  both  these  RBDs  are  shared  with  Denmark9.  No 
international co-ordination on public participation was reported for these two RBMPs. 

For all the international RBDs of which Germany is a part, the agreements listed in the 2012 
Pressures  and  Measures  study10  are  still  valid.  Further  developments  in  international 
coordination were seen in three of the international RBDs of which Germany is a part. In the 
Rhine, the 1996 Convention on the collection, deposit and reception of waste produced during 

navigation  on  the  Rhine  and  Inland  Waterways  entered  into  force  in  2009.  For  the  Ems,  a 
German-Dutch working group on silt was set up in 2015. For the Elbe, ad-hoc expert groups 

on  sediment  management,  surface  waters  for  shipping  and  water  quantity  management  were 
established: their results were used in the second international RBMP. 

Further  information  on  international  cooperation  with  respect  to  measures  is  provided  in 
Chapter 9 of this report. 

8  Germany  informed  that  a  joint  RBMP  was  prepared  with  the  Netherlands  for  the  Ems  international  RBD  and 
separate national Programme of Measures. 
9   Germany informed that coordination took place between relevant authorities. 
10   Comparative  Study  of  Pressures  and  Measures 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/pdf/Governance-Pressures 
%20measures.pdf  

the  Major  River  Basin  Management  Plans 
%20and 

in 

22 

 
 
 
                                                      
1.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

 

Recommendation:  Germany  should  ensure  the  coordinated  implementation  of 
the Directive both at international level, as well as for the national parts of each 

of the RBDs. The implementation of the Directive should be coordinated across 
the RBDs, to ensure the achievement of the environmental objectives established 

under Article 4. In particular all PoMs are to be coordinated for the whole of 
the river basin district, including within a Member State.  

 

Further  harmonisation  of  several  aspects  such  as  methodologies,  design  of 
measures  considerations,  terminology,  reporting  formats  and  measurement 

frequencies would contribute to a more streamlined approach across RBDs and 
Länder.  

Assessment: Germany has continued to follow a complex system with RBMPs at the level of 
both  RBDs  and  Federal  States  (Länder).  The  Working  Group  on  water  issues  of  the  Federal 

States  and  the  Federal  Government  (LAWA)  has  prepared  or  updated  guidance  in  several 
areas,  including  surface  water  monitoring  and  heavily  modified  and  artificial  water  bodies. 

LAWA  also  developed  a  common  catalogue  that  identifies  categories  of  measures  for  the 
WFD11, the Floods Directive12 and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive13. Moreover, the 
Länder have used standard text coordinated within LAWA for parts of their RBMPs. 

It  can  be  noted  that  in  the  second  cycle,  a  common  inter-Länder  plan  (a  B-level  plan)  was 
prepared for the German portions of the Danube and Rhine14: in contrast, a common RBD plan 
was  not  prepared  in  the  first  RBMP  for  the  German  parts  of  these  two  major  international 

RBDs.  The  preparation  of  these  B-level  plans  should  contribute  to  a  higher  level  of 
harmonisation. On the other hand, a common, B-level plan was not prepared for Ems or Weser 

in 

the 

field 

action 

11  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  framework  for  the 
Community 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060  
12  Directive  2007/60/EC  on  the  assessment  and  management  of  flood  risks  entered  into  force  on  26  November 
2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060  
13 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework 
for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive) 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056  
14 For the Rhine, 2 B-level plans were prepared, one for the Rhine and the other for the Mosel-Saar.  

policy 

water 

of 

23 

 
                                                      
RBDs in  the second  cycle;  however, a  common  plan was  prepared  for the Weser in  the first 
RBMP (but not  for the Ems)15.  

The further guidance prepared by LAWA is expected to have improved the harmonisation of 

methods and to have strengthened coordination among the Länder. The development of B-level 
plans for the Rhine and Danube RBDs also suggested greater coordination among the Länder.  

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

15 Germany informed that the different approaches are in line with Article 13 of the WFD and are justified by the 
coordination approaches agreed in the different RBDs. 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 2

 Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1 

Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 
requirements in the second cycle  

2.1.1

  Delineation  of  water  bodies  and  designation  of  heavily  modified  and  artificial 

water bodies 

There was a small increase since the first RBMPs in the numbers of coastal (74 to 75) and lake 

(712 to  730)  water bodies and  a small decrease  (9069 to 8998) in  the number of  river  water 
bodies  delineated  (Table  2.1).  The  reasons  for  these  changes  provided  in  the  RBMPs  were 

better  data  and  understanding  of  local  morphological  conditions,  a  revision  of  the 
understanding of the typology and the restoration of lakes. In RBD Warnow/Peene, the extra 

coastal  water  body  was  delineated  by  splitting  in  two  the  original  water  body  due  to  its 
inhomogeneity.  The  RBMPs  explain  that  the  change  in  delineation  makes  the  classification 

results difficult to compare in many cases. There was no change in the number of transitional 
water bodies overall. 

In  Germany  as  a  whole,  there  was  a  reduction  in  the  number  and  proportion  of  river  water 
bodies designated as heavily modified between the two cycles (Figure 2.1). In the first RBMPs 

there were 3531 heavily modified river water bodies and in the second RBMPs, 3178. This is a 
reduction from 39 % to 35 % of the total of river water bodies. At the same time there was an 

increase  in  number  of  natural  and  artificial  river  water  bodies  in  the  second  RBMPs,  and  a 
reduction of total river water bodies in the second RBMPs compared to the first RBMPs. It is 

apparent that some heavily modified river water bodies in the first RBMPs may have been re-
designated as natural or artificial, accompanied by an overall decrease in number of river water 

bodies. In contrast, more lakes were designated as heavily modified in the second RBMPs (105 
or 14 % of all lakes) than in the first RBMPs (92 or 13 %) (Figure 2.1). This was accompanied 

by a decrease of four in the number of artificial lakes and an increase of nine in the number of 
natural lakes: overall the total number of lakes increased from 712 in the first RBMPs to 730 in 
the second RBMPs. All transitional water bodies (five) were designated as heavily modified in 

both the first and second RBMPs. The one new coastal water body was designated as a natural 
water body, as shown in Figure 2.1. 

25 

 
Table 2.1 

Number  and  area/length  of  delineated  surface  water  bodies  in  Germany  for 

the second and first cycles 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Total 

Number 
of water 

length 
of water 

Number 
of water 

bodies 

Total 

area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number 
of water 

bodies 

Total 

area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Year  RBD 

Number 
of water 

bodies 

Total 

area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

2016  DE1000 

2016  DE2000 

2016  DE3000 

2016  DE4000 

43 

90 

6 

26 

2016  DE5000 

361 

2016  DE6000 

2016  DE7000 

2016  DE9500 

2016  DE9610 

2016  DE9650 

48 

7 

16 

51 

82 

285 

628 

13 

74 

931 

101 

14 

27 

148 

195 

bodies 

body 
(km) 

678 

21,438 

2,079 

42,710 

481 

5,912 

1,405 

18,060 

2,779 

35,522 

2 

1 

1 

208 

209 

400 

452 

222 

135 

272 

495 

3,534 

1,567 

1,715 

1 

18 

2,106 

4,597 

2016  Total 

730 

2,415 

8,998 

137,160 

5 

835 

2010  DE1000 

2010  DE2000 

2010  DE3000 

2010  DE4000 

50 

71 

6 

27 

2010  DE5000 

359 

2010  DE6000 

2010  DE7000 

2010  DE9500 

2010  DE9610 

2010  DE9650 

49 

1 

16 

51 

82 

301 

577 

14 

76 

957 

101 

1 

29 

149 

195 

621 

19,528 

2,205 

38,881 

502 

5,606 

1,380 

16,583 

2,773 

32,549 

2 

1 

1 

195 

208 

395 

453 

227 

135 

274 

499 

3,351 

1,508 

1,684 

1 

16 

1,978 

4,478 

2010  Total 

712 

2,399 

9,069 

126,147 

5 

814 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

26 

6 

6 

5 

1 

11 

25 

21 

75 

6 

6 

5 

1 

11 

25 

20 

74 

3,128 

1,588 

2,558 

288 

4,610 

3,118 

7,639 

22,929 

3,105 

1,581 

2,555 

288 

4,593 

3,106 

7,615 

22,843 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.1 

Proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Germany  designated  as  artificial, 

heavily  modified  and  natural  for  the  second  and  first  cycles.  Note  that  the 
numbers  in  parenthesis  are  the  numbers  of  water  bodies  in  each  water 

category 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Table  2.2  shows  the  differences  in  size  distribution  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Germany 
between the second and first cycles. There was a slight increase overall in the minimum length 

of rivers, which changed from an average minimum length of 0.67 km in the first  RBMPs to 
0.81 km in the second RBMPs, which likely relates to the aggregation of small water bodies 
shown in Table 2.4. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers 
and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes.  

Four of the 10 RBDs in Germany reported an increased number of groundwater bodies in the 
second RBMPs, as compared to the first. Overall for Germany, there was a 19 % increase  in 

the number of groundwater bodies between the two cycles (Table 2.3). The reasons for these 
changes were described in the RBMPs to be due to better data availability related to pressures 
and hydrogeology. The largest increase was in the Danube RBD where 46 groundwater bodies 
had been delineated in the first RBMP and 170 (176)16 in the second RBMP.  

16 Germany subsequently clarified that, contrary to the reporting in WISE, there are 176 groundwater bodies in the 
Danube RBD. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                      
Table 2.2 

Size distribution of surface water bodies in Germany in the second and first cycles 

Year 

RBD 

Lake area (km2) 

River length (km) 

Transitional (km2) 

Coastal (km2) 

Minimum  Maximum  Average 

Minimum  Maximum  Average 

Minimum  Maximum  Average 

Minimum  Maximum  Average 

2016 

DE1000 

0.54 

2016 

DE2000 

0.15 

2016 

DE3000 

0.85 

2016 

DE4000 

0.42 

2016 

DE5000 

0.5 

2016 

DE6000 

0.35 

2016 

DE7000 

0.6 

2016 

DE9500 

0.57 

2016 

DE9610 

0.48 

2016 

DE9650 

0.5 

2010 

DE1000 

0.36 

77.04 

400.55 

5.41 

27.7 

102.04 

10.29 

5.69 

6.01 

29.58 

32.37 

76.26 

2010 

DE2000 

0.15 

394.76 

2010 

DE3000 

0.94 

2010 

DE4000 

0.37 

2010 

DE5000 

0.32 

2010 

DE6000 

0.33 

2010 

DE7000 

0.6 

2010 

DE9500 

0.54 

2010 

DE9610 

0.48 

2010 

DE9650 

0.46 

5.37 

28.45 

102.43 

10.36 

0.6 

7.86 

29.24 

32.42 

6.64 

6.97 

2.2 

2.83 

2.58 

2.1 

1.93 

1.68 

2.89 

2.38 

6.02 

8.13 

2.32 

2.82 

2.67 

2.06 

0.6 

1.8 

2.92 

2.37 

2.11 

0 

0.95 

0.32 

0.03 

0.27 

1 

2.28 

0.08 

1.02 

1.61 

0.54 

0.21 

0.28 

0.15 

0.11 

0.91 

2.27 

0.08 

0.55 

204.29 

239.96 

92.37 

147.56 

232.1 

87.08 

28.4 

111.02 

37.03 

40.31 

223.08 

222.53 

111.85 

131.4 

233.17 

86.93 

26.74 

31.62 

20.54 

12.29 

12.85 

12.78 

7.82 

7.06 

12.7 

7.74 

9.29 

31.45 

17.63 

11.17 

12.02 

11.74 

7.4 

6.64 

11.5 

196.77 

104.14 

209.25 

209.25 

209.25 

399.93 

399.93 

399.93 

141.2 

70.56 

34.64 

1,825.74 

521.26 

419.5 

264.71 

1,998.66 

511.58 

288.15 

288.15 

288.15 

17.93 

17.93 

17.93 

48.26 

2,136.54 

419.11 

1.01 

1.26 

2,071.92 

124.72 

4,769.82 

363.76 

10.28 

184.78 

97.53 

125.76 

1,824.73 

517.57 

207.84 

207.84 

207.84 

68.6 

417.69 

263.48 

395.09 

395.09 

395.09 

34.52 

1,998.71 

511 

287.57 

287.57 

287.57 

52.2 

0.85 

1.54 

2,151.71 

417.52 

2,071.59 

124.26 

4,772.49 

380.77 

109.65 

12.47 

16.36 

16.36 

16.36 

34.26 

39.16 

7.22 

8.97 

Source:WISE electronic reports 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.3 

Number  and  area  of  delineated  groundwater  bodies  in  Germany  for  the 

second and first cycles  

Year 

RBD 

Number 

Area (km2) 

Minimum  Maximum  Average 

DE1000 

170 (176) 

30.75 

4 306.79 

356.46 

2016  

DE5000 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

DE2000 

457 

DE3000 

40 

DE4000 

DE6000 

DE7000 

DE9500 

DE9610 

DE9650 

144 

228 

25 

32 

23 

19 

39 

0.01 

6.32 

0.91 

5.71 

5 910.01 

231.14 

1 420.90 

348.78 

1 398.37 

328.07 

3 669.54 

437.88 

19.19 

2 752.83 

385.45 

0.55 

5.79 

17.98 

0.64 

356.69 

921.35 

124.53 

232.55 

1 261.36 

428.48 

959.78 

359.29 

Total 

1 177 

DE1000 

46 

174.81 

4 701.03 

1 318.16 

DE2000 

399 

DE3000 

40 

DE4000 

DE5000 

DE6000 

DE7000 

DE9500 

DE9610 

DE9650 

144 

224 

23 

32 

23 

19 

39 

Total 

989 

0.01 

6.32 

0.91 

5.7 

5 577.09 

264.19 

1 435.31 

350.58 

1 422.16 

328.18 

3 431.29 

444.77 

27.61 

2 551.88 

412.18 

0.63 

5.46 

17.51 

0.64 

356.5 

923.7 

124.55 

226.97 

1 261.44 

425.7 

959.81 

359.3 

Source: WISE electronic reports  Note that the number in brackets were subsequently reported 
by Germany but do not match the numbers reported to WISE. 

Table  2.4  summarises  the  information  provided  by  Germany  on  how  water  bodies  have 

evolved between the two cycles. The largest changes were for the codes of lake and river water 
bodies  but  there  were  also  aggregation,  creation  and  deletion  of  water  bodies  especially  for 
river water bodies and groundwater bodies. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.4 

Type  of  change  in  delineation  of  groundwater  and  surface  water  bodies  in 

Germany between the second and first cycles 

Lake 

River 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Type of water body change for 

Ground-

second cycle 

Aggregation 

Aggregation and splitting 

Change to code 

Change 

Creation 

Deletion 

Extended Area 

No change 

Splitting 

water 

4 

5 

261 

74 

1 

904 

2 

204 

140 

1 283 

8 006 

37 

22 

287 

302 

4 

424 

Total water bodies before deletion 

1 251 

1 346 

9 363 

Delineated for second cycle (after 
deletion from first  cycle) 

1 177 

1 324 

9 061 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

20 

2 

53 

75 

75 

21 

5 

26 

5 

99 river water bodies from four RBDs and two lake water bodies from one RBD were reported 
by  Germany  as  transboundary  water  bodies.  Only  one  transboundary  groundwater  body  was 

reported by Germany, in the Danube RBD. 

2.1.2

  Typology of surface water bodies 

At  the  national  level,  Germany  reported  the  same  number  of  types  for  coastal,  lakes  and 
transitional waters in both the first and second RBMPs, and there was one fewer river type in 

the second RBMPs than in the first RBMPs. Generally, there were small increases or decreases 
in the river and lake types reported by the RBDs in the second  RBMPs compared to the first 
RBMPs: there were also RBDs with no changes (Table 2.5). For example, the RBD with the 
most river types (26) in  the second RBMP was the Elbe: this was  two more than in  the first 

RBMP.  The  Rhine  RBD  reported  13  lake  types  in  the  second  RBMP,  four  more  than  in  the 
first  RBMP.  There  were  no  changes  in  the  number  of  transitional  and  coastal  water  types 

reported by the RBDs between the two cycles.  

Sixteen different type codes were reported for lakes in Germany. Fifty-one percent of the 775 

lake  water  bodies  in  Germany  had  types  that  have  been  intercalibrated.  There  are  examples 
where  for  the  same  type  code  an  equivalent  intercalibration  type  is  reported  and  also  "not 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
applicable" is reported17. In RBD Schlei/Trave, lakes of type 88 were reported to have a "not 
applicable" intercalibration type and for other RBDs LW-L-CB1 or LW-L-CB2 were reported. 
These two were classified as special types by Germany. For these two types, the typology has 

not been made biologically relevant. For the other 14 lake types information is provided for all 
four biological quality elements. 

Table 2.5 

Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Germany for the first and 
second RBMPs  

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

first  

second 

first  

second 

first  

second 

first  

second 

DE1000 

DE2000 

DE3000 

DE4000 

DE500018 

DE6000 

DE7000 

DE9500 

DE9610 

DE9650 

Total 

21 

25 

15 

24 

24 

13 

11 

6 

9 

8 

8 

9 

3 

10 

11 

6 

1 

3 

6 

5 

22 

25 

14 

25 

26 

15 

12 

6 

7 

8 

39 

7 

13 

2 

9 

12 

6 

3 

3 

6 

4 

16 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

5 

5 

4 

1 

0 

5 

4 

4 

0 

0 

5 

5 

4 

1 

0 

5 

4 

4 

10 

Source: WISE electronic reports Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are 
shared by RBDs. The “null” types reported are included in the totals shown. 

Thirty-six different type codes were reported for rivers in Germany plus one "null" type. The 

typology is reported to have been made biologically relevant for all river types in Germany. As 
for  lakes,  there  are  examples  where  the  same  national  type  code  is  reported  to  be 

intercalibrated against more than one  common intercalibration type  and  "not applicable" was 
also reported for the same type. For example, for national river type 12, three intercalibration 
types  were  reported  (RW-R-C1,  RW-R-C4,  RW-R-C5)  and  also  "not  applicable"19.  All  four 
options  were  reported  in  four  RBDs.  Also  it  should  be  noted  that  lake  intercalibration  types 

17  Germany  subsequently  highlighted  that  although  lake  typology  is  primarily  based  on  geographic,  geological, 
physical  and  chemical  criteria  the  biological  assessment  methodologies  applied  for  lakes  refer  to  reference 
conditions.  Information  can  be  found  in  the  LAWA  Lake  Type  Descriptions  (LAWA-Steckbriefe  Seentypen 
(https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/wasser/seen#textpart-5) 
18 Germany subsequently stated that for Elbe RBD the data are different from those in the table, which are those 
reported in WISE 
19  Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  rivers  do  have  more  than  one  intercalibration  type  and  that  further 
improvement of the methodology is planned. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
were  reported  against  some  river  types  both  for  natural  and  heavily  modified  water  bodies. 

Around  30  %  of  river  water  bodies  in  Germany  were  reported  not  to  have  an  equivalent 
intercalibration type. 

Germany  reported  10  coastal  water  types  plus  a  "null"  type  covering  the  75  coastal  water 
bodies.  43  %  of  the  coastal  water  bodies  had  an  equivalent  intercalibration  type.  Two 

transitional  types  were  reported  for  Germany  and  both  were  intercalibrated  against  TW-
NEA11. For transitional and coastal water bodies it was explained in the RBMPs that the types 

have been developed based on system A, but no further information on the biological relevance 
was found. 

2.1.3

  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table  2.6  shows  the  percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  Germany  with  reference 

conditions established for the first and second RBMPs. Reference conditions were developed 
for some but not all hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements in all types20. 
The "null" type was reported as none for each group of quality elements. 

Table 2.6 

Percentage of surface water body types in Germany with reference conditions 
established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and 

physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of 
types in each category  

Water 
Category 

Lakes (16) 

Rivers (39) 

Coastal 
(10) 

Transitional 
(2) 

Water types 

Biological quality 
elements  

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical 
quality elements 

All  
Some  
None 
All  
Some  
None 
All  
Some  
None 
All  
Some  
None 

100% 

90% 
8% 
2% 
40% 
50% 
10% 
100% 

100% 

97% 
3% 

90% 
10% 

100% 

100% 

97% 
3% 

90% 
10% 

100% 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Germany  reported on the establishment of reference  conditions  for 39 river types. Reference 

conditions  have been established for all relevant  biological  quality elements  for 35 of the 39 

20 Germany subsequently highlighted that close to all biological assessment methods are formally intercalibrated 
and  contain  reference  conditions.  They  stated  that  for  supporting  physicochemical  quality  elements  reference 
values  are  defined  in  the  Surface  Water  Ordinance  2016  (but  not  all  reported)  and  for  hydromorphology, 
assessment methods do exist but are not yet regulated in the Surface Water Ordinance. 

32 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
                                                      
river types. They have been established for some biological  quality elements  for three of the 

remaining types and for none of them for one type. Reference conditions have been established 
for some hydromorphological and for some physicochemical quality elements for 38 types. For 

the remaining types reference conditions have not been established for any quality element. 
The  state  of  development  of  reference  conditions  for  all  16  lake  types  was  reported  to  be 

"some" for the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. 
The two transitional water body types have reference conditions established for all biological 

quality elements, and for some hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements.  
For  coastal  water  bodies,  for  four  types  reference  conditions  have  been  developed  for  all 

biological  quality  elements,  for one there  were  no reference conditions  for biological  quality 
elements and for the remaining types reference conditions were developed for some biological 

quality elements. 

2.1.4

  Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

The  main  geological  formation  of  the  aquifer  type  was  reported  for  71  %  of  groundwater 

bodies,  but  there  was  no  information  for  29  %,  as  explained  in  the  Annex  0  from  Germany. 
There was also no information for 82 % of groundwater bodies in terms of whether they are 

layered or not. All groundwater bodies were reported not to be linked to surface water bodies 
and 81 % were linked to  terrestrial ecosystems.  The Annex 0 for Germany explains that this 

will be reported correctly in 2021. 

2.1.5

Significant pressures on water bodies 

Figure 2.2 shows the 10 most significant pressures on surface water bodies. For Germany as a 
whole, 11 significant pressure types were reported for coastal waters: the two most significant 

types were diffuse atmospheric (100 % of coastal water bodies affected) and diffuse agriculture 
(92  %  of  coastal  water  bodies).  35  different  significant  pressure  types  were  reported  to  be 

affecting lakes in Germany. 63 % were affected by diffuse atmospheric pressures, 53 % diffuse 
agriculture  pressures  and  17  %  by  point  source  storm  overflows.  Rivers  were  reported  to  be 

affected by the highest number of significant pressure categories (53) with the most significant 
being diffuse agriculture (65 % of river water bodies affected), diffuse atmospheric deposition 

(61  %),  pressures  arising  from  the  physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore 
because of agriculture (39 %) and because of flood protection (31 %). Point source pressures 

from  urban  waste  water  affected  23  %  of  river  water  bodies  and  pressures  from  storm 
overflows  affected  25  %.  Transitional  water  bodies  were  affected  by  11  different  pressure 

types with diffuse agricultural pressures, diffuse atmospheric deposition and physical alteration 
of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  because  of  flood  protection  affecting  all  five  transitional 

water bodies.  

33 

 
 
 
Figure 2.2 

The  10  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater 

bodies in Germany for the second cycle  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

It  is  difficult  to  compare  the  significance  of  pressures  between  the  two  cycles  because  of 

changes in the definition of pressures types, in the data used and in the delineation of surface 
water bodies. In the first RBMPs, Germany reported pressures only at an aggregated level (e.g. 

diffuse source). The data for the second RBMPs have been aggregated to this level for some 
tentative  comparisons  and  are  shown  in  Figure  2.3.  In  the  first  RBMPs,  92  %  and  0  %  of 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
coastal  water  bodies  were  reported  to  be  affected  by  diffuse  and  point  source  pressures, 

respectively. In the second RBMPs, this had increased to 100 % and 5 %, respectively. There 
were  similar  increases  between  the  two  cycles  for  diffuse  source  pressures  on  river  water 

bodies (76 % in the first RBMPs, 98 % in the second RBMPs), and on lake water bodies (56 % 
in  the  first  RBMPs,  100  %  in  the  second  RBMPs).  In  terms  of  point  source  pressures,  there 

was an increase in the proportion affected in lakes from 19 % in the first RBMPs to 21 % in 
the second RBMPs, and in rivers from 29% in the first RBMPs to 43 % in the second RBMPs. 

Figure2.3 

Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Germany in the first and 
second  cycles.  Pressures  are  presented  at  the  aggregated  level.  NB  -  there 

were 9,808 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 9,860 for 
the first cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Overwhelmingly, the most significant pressures on groundwater bodies in the second RBMPs 

in  Germany  were  diffuse  pressures  from  agriculture,  which  were  reported  to  affect  41  % 
(Figure  2.3).  The  most  significant  point  source  pressure  was  from  contaminated  sites  which 
only affected 2 % of groundwater bodies. There has been a significant increase in the number 
of groundwater bodies between the two cycles (989 to 1177) and also a change in the definition 

of pressure types. Bearing these changes in mind, there was an apparent decrease in percentage 
of groundwater bodies affected by point source pressures between the two cycles (6 % in the 

first  RBMPs, 3 % in the second RBMPs) and an increase in the percentage affected by diffuse 
source pressures (36 % in the first  RBMPs, 51 % in the second RBMPs). 

A combination of numerical tools and expert judgement were reported to be used to assess the 
significance of all types  of pressures  assessed on surface  and  groundwater. The definition of 

35 

 
 
 
significance  has  been  defined  in  terms  of  thresholds  and  is  linked  to  the  potential  failure  to 

meet objectives in all RBDs in Germany. 

The  RBMPs  state  that  the  harmonisation  process  within  Germany  for  the  criteria  for 

identification  of  pressures  has  been  further  developed.  This  led  to  a  more  detailed  list  of 
criteria for defining pressures, which also makes a direct comparison between the first and the 

second cycle not possible. The LAWA  document "Produktdatenblatt 2.1.2 - Überprüfung und 
Aktualisierung der  Bestandsaufnahme nach Wasserrahmenrichtlinie bis  Ende 2013  -Kriterien 

zur Ermittlung signifikanter anthropogener Belastungen in Oberflächengewässern, Beurteilung 
ihrer Auswirkungen und Abschätzung der Zielerreichung bis 2021" explains that these changes 

are required due to  new  legal  requirements  and to  implement  the comments  of the European 
Commission on the first  RBMPs. The overall aim was to have one guidance document for all 

authorities in Germany. The document also explains the detailed changes in the methodology 
and  lists  the  new  criteria  which  should  be  applied  across  Germany.  In  most  cases  it  appears 
that a significant increase in pressures was due to the new methodology being applied.   

2.1.6

Significant impacts on water bodies 

The most widespread and significant impact on surface water bodies reported in Germany in 

the second RBMPs is chemical pollution. Germany applied an approach in all RBDs based on 
the assumption that all surface waters are affected by ubiquitous substances and that all surface 

waters  are  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  due  to  not  meeting  the  EQS  for  those 
substances, in particular for mercury. 

Altered habitats due to morphological changes impacted all transitional, 93 % of river and 35 
% of lake water bodies. All transitional water bodies were also impacted by nutrient pollution 

as were 92 % of coastal waters, 78 % of rivers and 75 % of lake water bodies.  

It  is  difficult  to  compare  the  reported  impacts  for  the  two  cycles  because  of  changes  in  the 

definition of impacts and re-delineation of water bodies. However, in terms of altered habitats, 
71 % of river water bodies were impacted in the first RBMPs and 93 % in the second RBMPs. 

Nutrient enrichment impacted all transitional, 92 % of coastal, 55 % of river and 53 % of lake 
water  bodies  in  the  first    RBMPs.  In  the  second  RBMPs,  nutrient  pollution  impacted  all 

transitional, 92 % of coastal, 78 % of rivers and 75 % of lake water bodies. The most striking 
difference was in terms of chemical pollution. In the second RBMPs almost all surface water 

bodies (99 %) were impacted by chemical pollution while in the first RBMPs only 12 % were 
reported  to  be  contaminated  by  Priority  Substances21.  In  the  second  RBMPs  it  was  reported 

21 Germany subsequently highlighted that the quality standards of Directive 2013/39/EU were already used for the 
assessment. Considering the standards of Directive 2008/105/EC for the assessment of chemical pollution would 
have resulted in lower impacts. 

36 

 
 
                                                      
that  diffuse  atmospheric  deposition  was  a  significant  pressure  and  a  possible  source  of 

chemical pollutants.  

In  terms  of  impacts  on  groundwater  bodies  in  Germany,  chemical  pollution  impacted  the 

largest number of water bodies, at 40 % (across nine RBDs), followed by nutrient pollution (12 
%  of  groundwater  bodies  across  eight  RBDs)  and  abstractions  exceeding  groundwater 

resources  (4  %  of  groundwater  bodies  across  five  RBDs)  (Figure  2.4).  The  reported  impact 
types are not comparable between the two cycles. 

Figure 2.4 

Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Germany for 
the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies.22 

22 Germany subsequently clarified that the percentages extracted from WISE are not correct, as all surface water 
bodies are considered to be failing to achieve good chemical status 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Source: WISE electronic reports 

2.1.7

  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

In Germany as a whole, 46 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing good 
chemical  status.  46  different  groundwater  pollutants  were  reported  to  be  causing  a  risk. 

Overwhelmingly,  nitrate  was  the  pollutant  responsible  for  the  greatest  risk,  with  25  %  of 
groundwater bodies in Germany being at risk, followed by ammonium and sulphate, with 5 % 

of groundwater bodies being at risk.  

8 % of groundwater bodies in Germany are at risk of failing good quantitative status with water 

balance  being  the  cause  of  the  risk  in  the  largest  proportion  of  groundwater  bodies  (7  %), 
followed by impacts on groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (4 %), saline intrusions 

(1 %) and impacts on surface water (0.3 %). 

2.1.8

  Quantification and apportionment of pressures  

Germany  reported  comprehensive  information  on  the  apportionment  of  pressure  types  (e.g. 
diffuse source pressures) among responsible sectors and activities, with the gaps that need to 

be filled to  achieve objectives in  groundwater and surface waters.  For example, point source 
pressures have been apportioned with gaps for urban waste water (10 RBDs), storm overflows 

(nine  RBDs),  non-industrial  emissions  directive  plants  (seven  RBDs),  industrial  emissions 
directive  plants  (six  RBDs),  aquaculture  (five  RBDs),  contaminated  sites  or  abandoned 

industrial sites (four RBDs), mine waters (four RBDs) and waste disposal sites (three RBDs). 
Diffuse  source  pressures  have  been  apportioned  among  agriculture  (10  RBDs),  atmospheric 

deposition (seven RBDs), contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites (five RBDs), mining 
(five  RBDs),  discharges  not  connected  to  sewerage  network  (four  RBDs),  transport  (four 

38 

 
 
 
RBDs),  aquaculture  (three  RBDs),  urban  run-off  (three  RBDs)  and  forestry  (two  RBDs). 

Abstraction  or  flow  diversion  pressures  have  been  apportioned  among  six  sectors,  pressures 
four 
arising 

from  physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  among 

sectors/activities  and  pressures  arising  from  dams,  barriers  and  locks  among  seven 
sectors/activities.  

Gaps to be filled to achieve environmental objectives in groundwater were reported for seven 
chemical substances. The substance most commonly reported with a gap was cadmium in four 

RBDs.  For  surface  waters,  16  chemical  substances  causing  failure  of  objectives  in  surface 
waters  were  reported  with  gaps  that  had  to  be  filled  to  achieve  the  objectives.  Mercury  was 

reported by all RBDs. 

2.1.9

Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (EQS  Directive)23  requires 
Member  States  to  establish  an  inventory  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  all  Priority 
Substances  and  other  pollutants  listed  in  Part  A  of  Annex  I  of  the  EQS  Directive  for  each 

RBD, or part thereof lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to 
further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the 

review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (or 
suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances. 

Germany reported inventories for all of its RBDs. Two of the 10 RBDs reported an inventory 
for all 41 Priority and other Substances. Four RBDs had one missing substance, one had two 

missing  substances  and  one  had  four  missing  substances.  The  Danube  RBD  had  11  missing 
substances  and  the  Warnow/Peene  RBD  had  an  inventory  for  only  nine  substances.  The 

substance  that  appeared  in  the  fewest  inventories  (two  RBDs)  was  chloroalkanes  C10-13. 
Germany  explained  that  in  all  RBDs  Substances  were  not  included  in  the  inventories  if  no 

discharge was expected.  

The two-step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 

has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. For substances deemed not 
relevant  at  RBD  level,  Tier  2  of  the  methodology  (riverine  loads)  was  implemented.  For 

substances relevant at RBD level, either Tier 3 (pathway oriented approach) or a combination 
of  Tiers  1  and  2  (point  source  +  riverine  loads)  were  implemented.  This  is  in  line  with  the 

23   Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental 
quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directives 
82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council    
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008L0105-20130913  

39 

 
 
                                                      
Guidance  Document  n°28,  which  recommends  using  higher  tiers  of  the  methodology  for 

substances relevant at RBD level. The data quality was not reported. 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  main  changes  between  the  first  and  the  second  cycle  were  that  four  of  the  10  RBDs  in 
Germany reported an increased number of groundwater bodies for the second cycle compared 

to  the  first.  The  largest  increase  was  in  the  Danube  RBD  where  46  groundwater  bodies  had 
been delineated in the first RBMP and 170 (17624) in the second RBMP. Overall for Germany 
there  was  a  19  %  increase  in  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies.  Proportionally  there  was  a 

small  increase  in  the  numbers  of  delineated  coastal  (74  to  75)  and  lake  (712  to  730)  water 
bodies  and  a  small  decrease  (9069  to  8998)  in  the  number  of  river  water  bodies  delineated. 

There was no change in the number of transitional waters (5).  

In  Germany  as  a  whole,  there  was  a  reduction  in  the  number  and  proportion  of  river  water 

bodies designated as heavily modified between the two cycles. In the first RBMPs, there were 
3531 heavily modified river water bodies (39 % of total river water bodies) and in the second 

RBMPs, 3178 (35 % of total river water bodies).  

There were similar increases between the two cycles for diffuse source pressures on river water 

bodies (76 % in the first RBMPs, 98 % in the second RBMPs), and on lake water bodies (56 % 
in the first RBMPs, 100 % in the second RBMPs). In terms of point source pressures there was 

an  increase  in  the  proportion  of  affected  lakes  from  19%  in  the  first  RBMPs  to  21  %  in  the 
second RBMPs, and in rivers from 29 % in the first RBMPs to 43 % in the second RBMPs. 

There  has  been  a  significant  increase  in  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  between  the  two 
cycles (989 to 1177) and also a change in the definition of pressure types. These changes make 

any direct comparison impossible, but it appears that there was a decrease in the percentage of 
groundwater bodies affected by point source pressures between the two cycles (6 % in the first 

RBMPs,  3  %  in  the  second  RBMPs)  and  an  increase  in  the  percentage  affected  by  diffuse 
source pressures (36 % in the first RBMPs, 51 % in the second RBMPs).  

2.3 

Progress with the Commission recommendations 

 

 

Recommendation: Fill existing gaps regarding lacking reference conditions.  

Assessment:  There  are  still  gaps  in  the  establishment  of  reference  conditions  for  all 
types in all water categories for the different groups of the required quality elements25. 

24 Germany subsequently clarified that, contrary to the reporting in WISE, there are 176 groundwater bodies in the 
Danube RBD. 

25  Germany  subsequently  highlighted  that  almost  all  biological  assessment  methods  are  formally  intercalibrated 
and  contain  reference  conditions.  They  stated  that  for  supporting  physicochemical  quality  elements  reference 

40 

 
                                                      
 
In  particular  reference  conditions  have  only  been  established  for  some  (not  all) 

hydromorphological  and  physicochemical  quality  elements  for  all  types  in  rivers, 
lakes, transitional and coastal waters. 13 of the 14 river types in the Ems RBD, 22 of 

the 25 river types in the Weser RBD, 14 of the 15 river types in the Oder, and all 12 
river  types  in  the  Maas  RBD  now  have  reference  conditions  established  for  all 

relevant biological quality elements. In terms of coastal waters, two of the three types 
in  the  Elbe  RBD  now  have  reference  conditions  for  all  relevant  biological  quality 

elements but for one coastal water type in the Oder RBD, reference conditions have 
only been established for some biological quality elements.  All six lake types in the 

Oder  RBD  only  had  reference  conditions  for  some  biological  quality  elements.  In 
summary, there has been some progress with this recommendation, particularly for the 

biological quality elements in rivers, but there are still gaps in all water categories and 
all  three  different  groups  of  quality  elements.  As  such,  progress  has  been  made  in 
addressing this recommendation, which is partially fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation: Provide more transparent information regarding how waters were 

classified  in  order  to  avoid  gaps  (e.g.  why  no  transitional  water  bodies  have  been 
identified).  

 

Assessment: The three RBDs to which this recommendation applies have not reported 
any  transitional  water  bodies  in  the  second  RBMPs.  Transitional  water  bodies  have 

not been defined in the Schlei/Trave RBD because there are no waters which contain 
the  adequate  levels  of  salinity.  The  reason  why  no  transitional  water  bodies  were 

defined by Germany in the Baltic Sea is that the inner coastal waters of the Baltic Sea 
have been categorised as coastal waters, as they are not under tidal influence but have 

wind-driven  current  dynamics,  usual  for  coastal  waters.  Given  the  information 
provided, this recommendation has been considered as fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation: Refine the significance of the pressures by quantifying those which 
are likely to prevent the achievement of environmental objectives. 

Assessment: Germany reported a wide range of different pressures. Only one pressure 
(diffuse-other)  was  reported  as  not  being  assessed  for  surface  waters,  while  all 

pressures  were  assessed  for  groundwater.  The  significance  of  pressures  has  been 
defined in  terms of thresholds and is  linked to  the potential failure of objectives for 

both surface waters and groundwater in all 10 German RBDs. It was reported that the 
assessment methods  for  the biological  quality  elements are  generally sensitive to  all 

impacts  in  all  water  categories:  the  information  is  generally  consistent  across 
Germany. Progress has therefore been made on this recommendation. 

values  are  defined  in  the  Surface  Water  Ordinance  2016  (but  not  all  reported)  and  for  hydromorphology, 
assessment methods do exist but are not yet regulated in the Surface Water Ordinance. 

41 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
42 

 
 
 
Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological 
status in surface water bodies 

3.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in second RBMPs 

3.1.1.  Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

Monitoring programmes 

Article 8(1) of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the 
assessment of the status and potential of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a 

coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD.  

Germany reported separate monitoring programmes for groundwater and surface waters. The 

surface water programmes covered the categories of water identified in each of the RBDs.  

Monitoring sites 

Table  3.1  compares  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  used  for  surveillance  and  operational 
purposes in each cycle, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for 
the  second  RBMPs.  Figure  3.1  shows  the  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  included  in 

surveillance and operational monitoring in Germany for the first and second RBMPs. 

43 

 
Table 3.1 

Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Germany for the second and first RBMPs. Note that 
for reasons of comparability with data reported for the first RBMPs, the second RBMPs’ data do not take into account 

whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Surv. 

Op. 

Surv. 

Op. 

Surv. 

Op. 

Surv. 

Op. 

second RBMP  

DE1000 

DE2000 

DE3000 

DE4000 

DE5000 

DE6000 

DE7000 

DE9500 

DE9610 

DE9650 

Total by type of site 

Total number of monitoring sites  
for surveillance and/or operational purposes 

first RBMP 

DE1000 

DE2000 

DE3000 

DE4000 

DE5000 

DE6000 

DE7000 

38 

110 

9 

48 

60 

4 

3 

6 

21 

7 

306 

54 

102 

9 

43 

48 

8 

4 

1155 

4 887 

(577) 

2 004 

2 853 

211 

284 

207 

396 

552 

11 

42 

0 

2 

81 

6 

5 

0 

6 

9 

13 106 

162 

30 

64 

9 

21 

430 

40 

6 

4 

35 

77 

716 

0 

0 

19 

18 

3 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

7 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

43 

15 

0 

0 

24 

20 

9 

1 

0 

7 

10 

4 

75 

13 317 

824 

56 

151 

948 

3388 

137 

880 

2321 

328 

89 

12 

5 

0 

2 

28 

6 

0 

44 

37 

35 

8 

(25) 

246 

34 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10 

6 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

2 

5 

1 

0 

0 

0 

17 

14 

8 

1 

0 

8 

16 

34 

98 

0 

0 

17 

19 

5 

1 

0 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

DE9500 

DE9610 

DE9650 

Surv. 

3 

9 

7 

Op. 

62 

105 

90 

Total by type of site 

287 

8 348 

Surv. 

0 

6 

8 

67 

Op. 

4 

33 

26 

482 

Surv. 

Op. 

Surv. 

1 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

20 

7 

10 

4 

32 

Op. 

8 

16 

34 

100 

Total number of monitoring sites  
for surveillance and/or operational purposes 

8 561 

516 

24 

117 

Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE in first and second RBMPs. The numbers in parenthesis were subsequently communicated by Germany. 

45 

 
  
 
 
Table 3.2 

Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Germany  

Monitoring Purpose 

BWD - Recreational or bathing water - WFD Annex IV.1.iii 

CHE - Chemical status 

DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 

ECO - Ecological status 

HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - 
WFD Annex IV.1.v 

INT - International network of other international convention 

INV - Investigative monitoring 

NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD 
Annex IV.1.iv 

OPE - Operational monitoring 

REF - Reference network monitoring site 

RIV - International network of a river convention (including 
bilateral agreements) 

SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

TRE - Chemical trend assessment 

UWW - Nutrient sensitive area under the Urban Wastewater 
Treatment Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

Lakes 

8 

(618) 

4 

 (793) 

0 

16 

26 

22 

716 

6 

0 

25 

162 

15 

22 

947 

Rivers 

1 

(666) 

76 

(14177) 

19 

9 

1 250 

530 

13 371 

40 

78 

166 

308 

478 

456 

15 717 

Coastal 

Transitional 

101 

111 

98 

75 

12 

158 

158 

11 

44 

15 

43 

56 

56 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.1 

Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational 

monitoring in Germany for the first and second RBMPs. NB - no 
differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or 

chemical monitoring.  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Overall  in  Germany  there  was  an  increase  in  the  number  of  sites  used  for  surveillance 
monitoring  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs.  Proportionally,  the  largest  increase  was  in 

transitional waters (5 for the first  to  43  for the second RBMPs) followed by lake  (67 to  162 
sites) and coastal (32 to 75 sites) water bodies. There was a relatively small increase in river 

sites  from  287  for  the  first  RBMPs  to  306  for  the  second.  At  the  RBD  level,  there  were 
decreases  in  three RBDs in  terms  of river sites  and in  terms  of lake sites in  one RBD.  In all 

other RBDs and water categories there were either increases or no changes in the number of 
surveillance sites. 

According  to  the  reporting  in  WISE,  in  Germany  overall  there  were  considerably  more 
operational (~13000) than surveillance (~300) monitoring sites in rivers. There were also more 
operational  than  surveillance  sites  in  lakes  and  coastal  waters.  The  reverse  was  the  case  in 
transitional waters where 15 sites were used for operational purposes and 43 for surveillance. 

There  was  a  small  decrease  in  the  number  of  operational  monitoring  sites  in  coastal  waters 
from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  (100  to  98)  with  a  proportionally  larger  decrease  in 

transitional  waters  (20  to  15).  In  contrast  there  was  a  1.6  fold  increase  in  operational 
monitoring  sites  in  rivers  and  lakes.  There  were  increases  in  nine  of  the  10  RBDs  in  the 

number  of  river  monitoring  sites  with  a  decrease  in  the  other  RBD.  For  lakes  there  was  an 

47 

 
 
increase in numbers of operational sites in seven RBDs, no changes in one and a decrease in 

the other two. 

Information  provided  in  the  documents  supporting  the  electronic  reports  indicated  that  the 

LAWA had developed a national guidance document "RaKon Monitoring und Bewertung von 
Oberflächengewässern"  which  addressed  the  surface  water  monitoring  programme  for  the 

second RBMPs. Changes with respect to the programme of the first RBMPs were due to the 
experience gained and also to reflect the European Commission’s recommendations. However, 

that document does not show explicitly the changes made since the first RBMPs. Generally the 
reasons for changes in the number of monitoring sites were not provided.  

Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance monitoring within each 
ecological status class.  

Figure 3.2 

Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is 
included in surveillance monitoring in Germany.  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

There was only a small change in the number of delineated coastal water bodies from the first 

to  the  second  RBMPs,  with  one  more  being  identified  for  the  second  compared  to  the  first. 
There was an increase in the numbers and proportion of coastal water bodies monitored for all 

three required biological quality elements in is the second RBMPs (irrespective of monitoring 
purpose).  The  most  commonly  used  biological  quality  element  for  the  second  RBMPs  was 

benthic invertebrates, which was monitored in 73 % of coastal water bodies. 

In terms of lakes, there was also a small increase in the number of delineated water bodies for 

the second RBMPs (730) compared to the first (712). However, whilst there was a significant 
increase  in  the  numbers  and  proportion  of  lake  water  bodies  monitored  for  phytoplankton 

(from 61 % for the first RBMPs to 90 % for the second) there were significant decreases in the 

48 

 
 
number and proportion monitored for benthic invertebrates (25 % for the first to 3 % for the 

second) and for fish (25 % for the first to 3 % for the second). 

In the case of rivers, there was a small reduction (<1 %) in the number of water bodies from 

the first to the second RBMPs. There was a significant increase in the number and proportion 
of water bodies monitored for each of the required biological quality elements.  

The same number (five) of transitional water bodies was identified for both cycles. There were 
only  small  or  no  differences  in  the  number  of  transitional  water  bodies  monitored  for  other 

aquatic flora, benthic invertebrates and fish but two transitional water bodies were reported to 
be monitored for phytoplankton in the second RBMPs compared to only one for the first. 

In Germany as a whole, there was a considerable increase from the first to the second RBMPs 
in the number (4026 for the first RBMPs to 7122 for the second) and proportion (44 % to 79 

%) of river water bodies monitored for operational purpose. There were also increases in the 
number and proportion of lakes, coastal and transitional water bodies included in operational 

monitoring. 

Three  biological  quality  elements  were  reported  to  be  used  in  the  operational  monitoring  of 
coastal waters for the second RBMPs. Benthic invertebrates were used in 88 % of coastal water 

bodies included in operational monitoring, phytoplankton in 83 % and other aquatic flora in 55 
%.  In  terms  of  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the  operational  monitoring  of  lakes, 

phytoplankton  was  the  most  commonly  used  (93  %  of  lakes  included  in  operational 
monitoring), followed by other aquatic flora (50 %), fish (5 %) and benthic invertebrates (3 %). 

The predominant biological quality elements used in the operational monitoring of rivers was 
benthic invertebrates (90 % of river water bodies included in operational monitoring), followed 

by  other  aquatic  flora  (71  %)  and  fish  (65  %).  All  four  relevant  biological  quality  elements 
were  monitored  in  transitional  waters  for  operational  purposes.  Benthic  invertebrates  were 

monitored in four of the five transitional water bodies included in operational monitoring and 
the other three biological quality elements in one water body each. 

Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

Germany reported 99 transboundary river water bodies from four RBDs and two transboundary 

lake  water  bodies  from  one  RBD.  In  total  Germany  reported  78  river  monitoring  sites  from 
four RBDs that are part of the international network of a river convention and 16 lake and nine 

river  monitoring  sites  from  four  RBDs  that  are  part  of  international  networks  of  other 
international conventions. 

49 

 
Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for monitoring of surface waters for the second 
plan: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. 

Table 3.3 

Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Germany (excluding 
River Basin Specific Pollutants). NB - Quality element may be used for 

surveillance and/or operational monitoring 

Biological quality elements 

Hydromorphological quality elements 

n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

s
o
h
t
n
e
b
o
t
y
h
P

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

h
s
i
F

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O

a
r
o
l
f

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

Lakes 

Rivers 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

  Yes 

  Yes 

Transitional  Yes 

Coastal 

Yes 

Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes 

Yes 

No  No  Yes 

e
m
i
g
e
r

r
o
l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
r
d
y
H
Yes 

l
a
d
i
t

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
M

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

General physicochemical quality elements 

y
c
n
e
r
a
p
s
n
a
r
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
d
i
c
A

s
u
t
a
t
s

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

r
e
h
t
O

Lakes 

Rivers 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Coastal 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Transitional  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No 

r
o
f
d
n
a
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Source: WISE electronic reports - Germany subsequently stated that macroalgae was monitored in coastal and 

transitional waters in some RBDs, this might be a reporting error.  

In terms of the quality elements monitored, the Ems RBD did not report any quality element 

for  the  monitoring  of  coastal  waters  in  the  first  RBMP  but  reported  three  biological  quality 
elements,  hydromorphological  and  physicochemical  quality  elements  for  the  second  RBMP, 

which indicates clear progress. All the expected quality elements were monitored in five of the 
seven  RBDs  with  identified  coastal  waters  for  the  second  RBMPs.  However,  in  two  RBDs 
(Oder  and  Warnow/Peene)  hydromorphological  quality  elements  were  not  reported  to  be 

50 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
monitored  for  the  second  RBMPs  but  had  been  monitored  in  the  first,  indicating  some 
deterioration in the scope of monitoring26. 

For  lakes,  all  10  RBDs  reported  the  monitoring  of  phytoplankton  and  other  aquatic  flora  for 

both  cycles,  while  only  two  RBDs  reported  benthic  invertebrates  and  five  RBDs  fish  for  the 
second  RBMPs,  compared  to  nine  and  10  RBDs,  respectively,  for  the  first  RBMPs,  again 

indicating  some  deterioration  in  the  scope  of  monitoring.  There  was  also  a  decrease  in  the 
number of RBDs who reported monitoring hydromorphological quality elements, from eight in 

the first RBMPs to five in the second. Physicochemical quality elements were reported not be 
monitored in the Warnow/Peene RBD for both cycles27. 

All  required  biological  quality  elements  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  rivers  for  both 
cycles.  Hydromorphological  quality  elements  were  monitored  in  all  10  RBDs  for  the  first 

RBMPs but this was reduced to eight RBDs for the second.  

There  were  gaps  in  the  monitoring  of  the  required  biological  quality  elements  in  transitional 

waters for both cycles. Phytoplankton was not reported to be monitored in three RBDs for the 
first RBMPs and two for the second. Benthic invertebrates were reported for four RBDs for the 
first  RBMPs  and  three  RBDs  for  the  second.  Hydromorphological  quality  elements  were 

reported  for  the  four  RBDs  with  transitional  waters  for  the  first  RBMPs  but  only  for  three 
RBDs for the second.  

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  provides  guidance  on  the  frequency  of  monitoring  of  the  different 
quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a 

period of one year during the period covered by a RBMP i.e. six years. For phytoplankton, this 
should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements 

once during the year. Operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once 
every six months for phytoplankton  and once every three  years during the six-year  cycle  for 

the  other  biological  quality  elements.  Greater  intervals  may  be  justified  on  the  basis  of 
technical knowledge and expert judgement. 

Germany sampled 11 of the 19 biological quality elements used for the surveillance monitoring 
of surface water bodies at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites in which they were 

monitored.  The  lowest  rate  of  alignment  with  the  recommended  frequencies  was  for 
phytoplankton  in  transitional  waters  (50  %  of  sites).  In  comparison,  only  two  of  the  11 

26  Germany  subsequently  explained  that  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements  for  coastal  waters  of  the 
Warnow/Peene  RBD  were  assessed  for  the  first  RBMP.  No  significant  changes  have  taken  place  during  the 
second cycle and thus no new assessment was carried out. 
27 Germany subsequently noted that physicochemical quality elements were monitored for all lake water bodies in 
Warnow/Peene RBD, even if this was not reported to WISE. 

51 

 
                                                      
biological  quality  elements  used  for  operational  monitoring  of  surface  water  bodies  were 

sampled  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  of  the  sites  where  they  were 
monitored.  The  lowest  rate  of  alignment  with  the  recommended  frequencies  was  for 

phytoplankton in transitional waters (no sites). 

River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

In  Germany  as  a  whole,  309  different  chemical  substances  were  reported  as  River  Basin 
Specific  Pollutants  for  the  second  RBMPs,  300  being  monitored  in  water,  84  in  suspended 

sediment,  82  in  settled  sediment,  60  in  sediment,  11  in  other  biota  and  seven  in  fish.  In 
addition,  702  "other"  chemical  substances  were  also  reported  to  be  monitored  in  water, 

sediment  and  biota.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  value  of  702  is  an  over-estimation 
because  there  was  no  standardised  way  of  reporting  these  substances,  leading  to  substances 

with the same numerical identifier being reported a number of times slightly differently by the 
different RBDs.  

Germany reported 5802 monitoring sites as monitoring River Basin Specific Pollutants (Table 
3.4):  this  represents  35  %  of  the  total  reported  surface  water  monitoring  sites  in  Germany. 
Most sites were in  the Elbe RBD (43 %) and the fewest  in  the Danube RBD (1.7 %): all 10 

RBDs reported some sites monitoring River Basin Specific Pollutants. Of the 5802 sites, 98 % 
were used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in water, 39 % in sediment and 0.4 % in 

biota. Sediment and biota were monitored in coastal waters, rivers and transitional waters. In 
lakes, River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored in water and sediment. 

Table 3.4  Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the 

second RBMPs and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national 

pollutants reported in the first RBMPs in Germany. NB - The data from both 
cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also 

not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that there 
were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs 

RBMP 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

second   Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific 

Pollutants 

first 

Sites used to monitor non-priority specific 
pollutants and/or other national pollutants 

321 

108 

5380 

2473 

11 

6 

90 

30 

Sources: WISE electronic reports  
Annex  V  of  the  WFD  provides  guidance  on  the  frequency  of  monitoring  of  the  different 

quality  elements:  once  every  three  months  is  recommended  for  “other  pollutants”  which  are 
taken  here  to  equate  to  river  basin  specific  pollutants.  Surveillance  monitoring  should  be 

carried  out  for  each  monitoring  site  for  a  period  of  one  year  during  the  period  covered  by  a 

52 

 
 
river  basin  management  plan  i.e.  six  years.  For  river  basin  specific  pollutants  this  should  be 

done four times for the surveillance year; and for operational monitoring four times a year for 
each year of the cycle. 

Of the 298 substances included in surveillance monitoring, 11 % were monitored at least at the 
minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  of  the  sites  where  they  were  monitored,  and  for  20 

substances at none of the sites. Of the 263 substances included in operational monitoring, 0.8 
% were monitored  at  least  at  the minimum  recommended frequency  at  all of the sites where 

they were monitored, and for 48 % at none of the sites. 

Germany subsequently commented that only 162 pollutants are identified in the 2011 Surface 

Water  Ordinance  as  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (monitored  for  the  first  RBMPs).  The 
2016 Surface Water Ordinance lists 67 River Basin Specific Pollutants for the next RBMPs. 

Use of monitoring results for classification 

Member States are required to report the basis of the status classification for each of the quality 

elements  used.  For  coastal  waters,  monitoring  results  are  predominantly  used  for  classifying 
phytoplankton,  benthic  invertebrates,  hydromorphological  conditions  and  physicochemical 
quality elements. However, expert judgement is predominantly used for angiosperms, although 

monitoring  results  and  grouping  are  also  used.  Grouping  is  also  used  for  the  other  quality 
elements used for classification, as is expert judgement except for benthic invertebrates. This 

implies that the assessment method for angiosperms is not as robust as those used for the other 
biological quality elements. 

Grouping  has  not  been  used  for  any  biological,  hydromorphological  or  physicochemical 
quality  element  used  to  classify  lakes:  it  is  used  to  a  small  extent  for  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants. Expert judgement is overwhelmingly used (97 % of classified lake water bodies) to 
classify  lakes  in  terms  of  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements  (perhaps  indicating  some 

weaknesses  in  the  monitoring  and  assessment  methods).  Expert  judgement  was  also  used  to 
classify 72 % of lake water bodies classified for River Basin Specific Pollutants, 25 % using 

monitoring data and 3 % by grouping. The results from monitoring biological quality elements 
and physicochemical quality elements were mainly used to classify lakes. 

The classification of the biological and physicochemical quality elements for rivers was mainly 
based  on  monitoring  results,  but  grouping  and  expert  judgement  were  also  used.  Where  the 

hydromorphological conditions were used to classify river water bodies, this was mainly based 
on  expert  judgment  (52  %  of  classified  river  water  bodies),  with  41  %  based  on  monitoring 

results  and  7  %  on  grouping.  For  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants,  expert  judgement  and 
monitoring results were equally used, with grouping used to a lesser extent. The classification 

of the quality elements for transitional waters was only based on monitoring results. 

53 

 
3.1.2.  Ecological Status/potential of surface water  

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Germany  in  the  second  plans  is 
illustrated on Map 3.1.  

Map 3.1 

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Germany  
Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).  

High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor  

Bad 

Unknown 

RBDs 
Countries  outside  the  European 
Union 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. 

54 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Figure 3.3 

Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface 

water bodies in Germany based on the most recently assessed status/potential 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Figure  3.4  compares  the  ecological  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Germany  for  the  first 

RBMPs with that for the second RBMPs and that expected by 2015. 

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological 

status/potential. The information for Germany is shown in Figure 3.5. 

Figure 3.4 

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Germany for the 

second RBMPs, for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in 
parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for both cycles. NB - The 

period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2012 to 2013. 
The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

55 

 
 
 
  
Figure 3.5 

Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface 

water bodies in Germany. The number in the parenthesis is the number of 
water bodies in each category 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Overall around 90 % of surface water bodies were in less than good ecological status/potential 

for the second RBMPs. However, in several RBDs (Danube, Elbe, Oder, Warnow/Peene) there 
are  a  few  lakes  (less  than  10  %  of  all  classified  natural  lakes  in  Germany),  as  well  as  a  few 
natural  rivers  in  the  Danube  and  Rhine  RBDs  (0.5  %  of  all  classified  natural  rivers  in 

Germany)  that  are  also  reported  as  good  or  higher.  There  are  also  still  several  water  bodies 
with unknown ecological status/potential, in particular artificial and heavily modified lakes and 

rivers in the Rhine, Weser and Elbe RBDs.  

Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element 

The  supporting  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  are  monitored  but  not  classified  in 
the vast majority of water bodies. This applies in particular to nutrients in all water categories. 

Furthermore, there are still very few lake water bodies classified for benthic invertebrates.  

Figure 3.6 shows the percentage of water bodies in terms of the biological quality element used 

for classification. Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms 
of  ecological  status/potential  for  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  This  comparison  should  be 

treated  with  caution  as  there  are  differences  between  the  numbers  of  surface  water  bodies 
classified for individual elements and differences in methodologies from the first to the second 

RBMPs. 

56 

 
 
 
Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential 

of rivers and lakes in Germany for the second RBMPs. 

The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10.  

Figure 3.6 

Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the 
classification of lakes and rivers in Germany. NN - water bodies with 

unknown status/potential have been excluded from the presentation 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

57 

 
 
 
Figure 3.7 

Comparison of ecological status/potential in Germany according to classified 

biological quality elements in rivers and lakes between the two cycles 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 3.8 

The classification of the ecological status or potential of rivers and lakes in 
Germany using one, two, three or four types of quality element. NB - The four 

types are biological; hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River 
Basin Specific Pollutants. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

58 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.9 

The percentage of river and lake water bodies in Germany where no 

biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general 
physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no RBSP (River Basin Specific Pollutant) 

has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

59 

 
 
Figure 3.10  Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Germany. The 

percentages are in terms of the number of waterbodies in each category. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

60 

 
 
No  improvements  have  been  seen  overall  in  ecological  status  since  the  first  RBMPs.    The 

number of rivers in good or high status shows an apparent slight deterioration in many RBDs 
due,  as  explained  below,  mainly  to  better  data  and  methodological  changes.  Many  heavily 

modified and artificial water bodies are reported as having unknown ecological status in most 
RBDs.  For  natural  water  bodies,  there  are  very  few  water  bodies  with  unknown  ecological 

status. 

Member  States  were  asked  to  summarise  the  main  changes  in  ecological  status/potential 

between  the  two  cycles  in  their  second  RBMPs.  In  the  case  of  the  Elbe,  Warnow/Peene, 
Schlei/Trave and Oder RBDs the RBMPs give a list of reasons why there are changes in the 

ecological status/potential status of surface water bodies between the first and second RBMPs. 
These are:  

  better and more monitoring data has become available;  

  methodological changes in the assessment methods;  

  natural variations in the biological quality elements;  

 

the effects of the PoM in place.  

In  the  RBMP  for  the  Land  North-Rhine  Westphalia  within  the  Rhine  RBD,  the  Eider  and 

Schlei/Trave RBDs, the reasons given are:  

 

the water bodies are only comparable to a limited extent, the delineation and location of 

the water body may differ significantly;  

 

the types of water bodies have been changed; 

  assessment procedures have changed;  

 

the monitoring results from the second monitoring cycle (2009-2011); 

 

in  the  second  monitoring  cycle,  phytobenthos  are  monitored  at  significantly  more 

measuring sites: this has in some cases resulted in degraded classifications;  

  so  far,  the  biocenosis  has  not  had  enough  time  to  adapt  to  the  changes  based  on  the 
measures  implemented.  In  addition  there  is  a  natural  variation  of  biological  quality 

elements.  

61 

 
It  is  stated  that  no  big  changes  could  be  found  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  in  a 

detailed assessment.  

Member  States  were  requested  to  report  whether  any  change  between  the  first  and  second 

RBMPs in status/potential for each quality element was considered to be a real change or due 
to  changes  to  monitoring  and  assessment  methods.  For  Germany,  the  change  in  ecological 

status/potential  at  the  quality  level  is  reported  as  unknown  for  the  large  majority  of  water 
bodies, but is given for some water bodies in all RBDs for all the quality elements that have 

been  used  for  classification.  The  changes  go  in  both  directions,  and  no  obvious  pattern  is 
visible. The reason for the changes is also given in these cases. Some changes are reported to 

be real  and some are due to  changes  in  methodologies.  For natural  water bodies most of the 
inconsistent  changes  are  due  to  monitoring  changes,  while  for  the  heavily  modified  and 

artificial water bodies these are also due to changes in assessment methods.  

Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements 

Germany  reported  biological  assessment  methods  for  all  the  relevant  biological  quality 
elements in all water categories. The assessment methods are sensitive for all relevant impacts 
(nutrients, organic, acidification, hydromorphological). 

LAWA  developed  a  national  guidance  document  "RaKon  Monitoring  und  Bewertung  von 
Oberflächengewässern"  which  addressed  surface  water  assessment  methods  for  the  second 

RBMPs. Changes in relation to the first RBMPs are due to the experience gained, reflect the 
European Commission’s recommendations on the first RBMPs, but are also intended to close 

gaps in the assessment methods. However, the document does not show explicitly the changes 
made since the first RBMPs. 

Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems 

Most national water body types are linked to common intercalibration types in all RBDs. Some 

national types (e.g. type 12) are used for both lakes and rivers with related typology factors in 
terms  of  altitude  and  geology.  A  few  national  types  (e.g.  type  12)  overlap  several 

intercalibration types, but the class boundaries used could still be based on the actual typology 
factors for each water body within the national type, choosing the intercalibration type that best 

matches each water body. Some national types do not match any common intercalibration type, 
so information on class boundaries is not available in the WISE reporting.  

For non intercalibrated national water body types, for example for stream waters, the RBMPs 
indicate  that  all  multimetric  indices  for  benthic  invertebrate  assessment  and  their  reference 

62 

 
values  were  derived  for  all  water  types  according  to  the  same  principles  on  the  basis  of 

comparable  stress  gradients.  As  only  a  few  minor  adjustments  were  required  to  the  German 
watercourse  procedures,  it  is  assumed  that  there  is  no  need  for  adjustment  even  for  non-

intercalibrated river types. 

Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements 

All  relevant  hydromorphological  quality  elements in  all water categories  were reported to  be 
assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and their classification boundaries are related to 

the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. 

Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements 

All relevant general physicochemical quality elements in all water categories were reported to 
be assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and their classification boundaries are related 

to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. 

Standard  values  for  the  physicochemical  quality  elements  equivalent  to  the  good-moderate 
status/potential boundaries were not reported for lakes28 or transitional waters29. Standards for 
rivers  and  coastal  waters  were  only  reported  for  three  (oxygenation,  salinity  and  nutrient 
conditions) of the six general types of general physicochemical quality elements. Standards for 

nitrite and non-ionised ammonia in rivers and for nutrients in coastal waters were reported. No 
standards were reported for phosphorus conditions in rivers. Germany subsequently stated that 

nutrient  standards  have  been  developed  and  used  for  all  water  categories  for  the  second 
RBMPs. The standards were published by the Government in the latest revision of the surface 
water ordinance in 201630.The standards for rivers are reported to be consistent with the good-
moderate  status/potential  boundary  for  the  relevant  sensitive  biological  quality  elements,  but 
not those for coastal waters. The standard for total nitrogen in coastal waters was reported with 
much  lower  values  than  had  previously  been  provided  by  the  German  Authorities  to  the 

European Commission.  

The  RBMPs 

indicate 

that 

the  LAWA  guidance  documents  state 

that 

the  general 

physicochemical  conditions  are  used  to  help  in  the  assessment  of  the  "high"  and  "good" 

28 Germany  subsequently stated that there are standard values for the general physicochemical  quality elements 
for  14  German  lake  types.  The  high/good  status  and  the  good/moderate  status/potential  boundaries  have  been 
defined by total phosphorus and secchi depth. 
29 Germany subsequently stated that standards are available for lakes, rivers, transitional and coastal waters. They 
were published by LAWA and used in the assessment of the monitoring data in the second plans. 
30 Verordnung zum Schutz der Oberflächengewässer, 20th June 2016; BGBL. I S.1373 

63 

 
                                                      
ecological  status. The derivation of  ecologically  relevant  values was  checked and updated in 

the corresponding working papers associated with the guidance. 

Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards 

Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  reported  in  WISE  for  162  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants, 158 in water (many persistent organic pollutants and metals), and 14 in suspended 

sediment  (metals  and  polychlorinated  biphenyls).  Standards  were  reported  for  all  four  water 
categories.  The  Environmental  Quality  Standards  have  been  derived  in  accordance  with  the 
Common  Implementation  Strategy  Technical  Guidance  Document  No  2731.  No  information 
was  reported  by  Germany  as  to  whether  the  analytical  methods  used  for  the  River  Basin 

Specific Pollutants meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) or Article 
4(2) of Directive 2009/90/EC32 for the strictest standard applied. 

Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) 

The one-out all-out principle has been used in all RBDs for the biological quality elements but 

was not applied to the physico-chemical quality elements in deriving the overall classification 
of the ecological status of a water body. 

The  background  document  "Teil  A:  Eckpunkte  zum  Monitoring  und  zur  Bewertung  von 

Oberflächengewässern und Grundwasser” explains the approach used for applying the one-out-
all-out  principle  in  more  detail.  It  states  that  the  biological  quality  element  with  the  lowest 

class  defines  the  overall  status.  There  is  a  diagram  showing  that  supporting  quality  elements 
are  also  relevant  in  the  assessment,  but  it  is  unclear  how  these  are  considered.  It  is  further 

stated  that  if  the  environmental  quality  standards  for  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  are  not 
met the water body can only be classified as having moderate status. 

3.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 

There was an increase in the number of sites used for surveillance monitoring between the two 
cycles in Germany  as  a  whole. Proportionally, the largest  increase was in transitional waters 
(five in the first RBMPs to 43 in the second) followed by lake (67 to 162 sites) and coastal (32 
to 75 sites33) water bodies. There was a relatively small increase in river monitoring sites, from 

31https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS  %20CIS-WFD  %2027 
%20EC %202011.pdf 
32  Commission  Directive  2009/90/EC  of  31  July  2009  laying  down,  pursuant  to  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council, technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water 
status http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX %3A32009L0090 
33 Germany subsequently stated that the increase in coastal waters is a consequence of the new data model where 
depth profiles are now split into different sites. 

64 

 
                                                      
287 in the first RBMPs to 306 in the second. There were decreases in three RBDs in terms of 

river sites and in  one RBD for lake sites.  In all  other RBDs  and water categories there were 
either increases or no changes in the number of surveillance sites from the first to the second 

RBMPs. 

There was a small decrease from the first to the second RBMPs in the number of operational 

monitoring  sites  in  coastal  waters  (100  to  98)  and  a  proportionally  larger  decrease  in 
transitional  waters  (20  to  15).  In  contrast  there  was  a  1.6  fold  increase  in  operational 

monitoring sites in rivers and lakes.  

The Ems RBD did not report any quality element for the monitoring of coastal waters in the 

first  RBMP  but  reported  three  biological  quality  elements,  hydromorphological  and 
physicochemical  quality  elements  for  the  second  RBMP,  which  indicates  clear  progress.  All 

the expected quality elements were monitored in five of the seven RBDs with identified coastal 
waters  for  the  second  RBMPs.  However,  in  two  RBDs  (Oder  and  Warnow/Peene) 

hydromorphological  quality  elements  were  not  reported  to  be  monitored  for  the  second 
RBMPs  but  had  been  monitored  in  the  first,  indicating  some  deterioration  in  the  scope  of 
monitoring34. 

For  lakes,  all  10  RBDs  reported  the  monitoring  of  phytoplankton  and  other  aquatic  flora  for 
both cycles, while only two RBDs reported benthic invertebrates and five RBDs reported fish 

for  the  second  RBMPs,  compared  to  nine  and  10  RBDs,  respectively,  for  the  first  RBMPs, 
again  indicating some deterioration in  the scope of monitoring. There was also  a decrease in 

the  number  of  RBDs  who  reported  monitoring  hydromorphological  quality  elements,  from 
eight in the first RBMPs to five in the second. Physicochemical quality elements were reported 
not be monitored in the Warnow/Peene RBD for both cycles35. 

Hydromorphological  quality  elements  were  monitored  in  rivers  in  all  10  RBDs  for  the  first 

RBMPs but this was reduced to eight RBDs for the second.  

There  were  gaps  in  the  monitoring  of  the  required  biological  quality  elements  in  transitional 

waters for both cycles. Phytoplankton was not reported to be monitored in three RBDs for the 
first RBMPs and two for the second. Benthic invertebrates were reported for four RBDs for the 

first  RBMPs  and  three  RBDs  for  the  second.  Hydromorphological  quality  elements  were 

34  Germany  subsequently  explained  that  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements  for  coastal  waters  of  the 
Warnow/Peene  RBD  were  assessed  for  the  first  RBMP.  No  significant  changes  have  taken  place  during  the 
second cycle and thus no new assessment was carried out. 
35  Germany  subsequently  noted  that  physicochemical  quality  elements  were  monitored  all  lake  water  bodies  in 
Warnow/Peene RBD, even if this was not reported to WISE. 

65 

 
                                                      
reported for the four RBDs with transitional waters for the first RBMPs but only three RBDs 

for the second. 

There was only a small change in the number of delineated coastal water bodies from the first 

to  the  second  RBMPs,  with  one  more  being  identified  for  the  second  compared  to  the  first. 
There was an increase in the number and proportion of coastal water bodies monitored for all 

three  required  biological  quality  elements  in  the  second  RBMPs  (irrespective  of  monitoring 
purpose).  The  most  commonly  used  biological  quality  element  for  the  second  RBMPs  was 

benthic invertebrates, which was monitored in 73 % of coastal water bodies. 

In terms of lakes, there was also a small increase in the number of delineated water bodies for 

the second RBMPs (730) compared to the first (712). However, whilst there was a significant 
increase  in  the  numbers  and  proportion  of  lake  water  bodies  monitored  for  phytoplankton 

(from 61 % for the first RBMPs to 90 % for the second) there were significant decreases in the 
number and proportion of lake water bodies monitored for benthic invertebrates (25 % for the 

first to 3 % for the second) and for fish (25 % for the first to 3 % for the second). 

In  the  case  of  rivers,  there  was  a  small  reduction  (<1  %)  in  the  numbers  of  water  bodies 
between the two cycles.  

The same number (five) of transitional water bodies was identified for both cycles. There were 
only  small  or  no  differences  in  the  number  of  transitional  water  bodies  monitored  for  other 

aquatic flora, benthic invertebrates and fish but two transitional water bodies were reported to 
be monitored for phytoplankton in the second RBMPs compared to only one for the first. 

In Germany as a whole, there was a considerable increase from the first to the second RBMPs 
in the number (4026 for the first RBMPs to 7122 for the second) and proportion (44 % to 79 

%) of river water bodies monitored for operational purpose. There were also increases in the 
number and proportion of lakes, coastal and transitional water bodies included in operational 

monitoring. 

There  is  an  apparent  slight  deterioration  of  ecological  status  of  rivers  from  the  first  to  the 
second  RBMPs  in  several  RBDs  and  also  for  lakes  in  at  least  two  RBDs  (Elbe36  and  Oder). 
The  change  in  ecological  status/potential  at  the  quality  level  is  reported  as  unknown  for  the 

large  majority  of  water  bodies,  but  is  given  for  some  water  bodies  in  all  RBDs  for  all  the 

36 Germany subsequently indicated that in the Elbe RBD this is because of modified methodologies; for lakes 
between the two RBMPs. For the first plan the lakes were assessed by expert judgment and for the second by 
monitoring of phytoplankton.  

66 

 
                                                      
 
quality elements that have been used for classification. The changes go in both directions, and 

no  obvious  pattern  is  visible.  The  reason  for  the  changes  is  also  given  in  these  cases.  Some 
changes  are  reported  to  be  real  and  some  are  due  to  changes  in  methodologies.  For  natural 

water  bodies  most  of  the  inconsistent  changes  are  due  to  monitoring  changes,  while  for  the 
heavily  modified  and  artificial  water  bodies  these  are  also  due  to  changes  in  assessment 

methods.  

3.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

  Recommendation:  “The  ecological  status  assessment  should  be  completed  in  a 
coherent  way  for  all  water  categories  and  quality  elements,  providing  a  fully 

transparent  picture  on  the  selection  of  most  sensitive  biological  quality  elements  for 
pressure/impact assessment and aligning the assessment results to the intercalibration 

class  boundaries  of  the  European  Commission  Intercalibration  Commission  Decision 
in a transparent way”.  

Assessment:  Despite  the  progress  on  methodologies,  there  were  still  some  gaps  in 
implementation for some water categories (e.g. lakes) and biological quality elements 

(e.g. macroinvertebrates). There are examples where there has been an increase in the 
number of quality elements used for monitoring of ecological status/potential in surface 

waters  in  Germany  (filling  gaps  identified  in  the  first  RBMPs)  but  equally  there  are 
examples  where  there  has  been  a  decrease  indicating  a  deterioration  of  the  extent  of 
monitoring  in  some  RBDs  for  some  quality  elements.  In  summary,  whilst  there  has 

been some progress in some RBDs in Germany there has been deterioration in others: 
overall  no  progress  made.  There  are  still  very  few  water  bodies,  often  none,  that  are 

classified  for  macroinvertebrates  in  lakes,  although  a  classification  method  has  been 
developed and intercalibrated37. 

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  “Check that their  nutrient  standards  are consistent  with biological 
requirements for the achievement of good status and set out a more coherent strategy 

in the second RBMPs. Due to the lack of understanding on how standards for nitrogen 
are set in relation to biological quality elements under the  WFD, Germany agreed in 

37  Germany  subsequently  stated  that  they  consider  that  phytoplankton  is  the  most  sensitive  biological  quality 
element for the assessment of lakes, and that there is no need to use macroinvertebrate for status assessment.  

67 

 
                                                      
the  bilateral  meeting  with  the  European  Commission  that  by  the  end  of  2013  they 

would  provide  information  on  what  standards  are  needed  for  nitrogen  to  fulfil  WFD 
requirements.  There  should  be  clear  standards  for  all  relevant  waterbody  types  for 

nitrogen and phosphorus defined in the RBMP or supporting documents”. 

Assessment:  Total  nitrogen  and  total  phosphorus  standards  were  reported  for  coastal 

waters, but were not consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant 
sensitive  biological  quality  elements.  In  rivers,  nitrite  and  non-ionised  ammonia 

standards were reported that were consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of 
the  relevant  sensitive  biological  quality  elements  for  all  42  reported  river  types. 

Standards  were  not  reported  in  all  water  categories  though  Germany  subsequently 
stated that there are standards in the latest (2016) Ordinance and these were used for the 

second  RBMPs.  It  is  not  known  whether  the  standards  used  are  related  to  the  class 
boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements.  

Standards  for  total  phosphorus  have  been  developed  for  rivers  and  lakes.  However, 
those  for  rivers  are  not  very  stringent  (for  example,  for  the  95-percentile  of  nutrient 
concentrations  in  good  status/potential  water  bodies),  and  will  not  support  good 

ecological  status/potential for the sensitive biological  quality elements  in  more than 5 
% of water bodies.  

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

68 

 
 
Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical 
status in surface water bodies 

4.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle  

4.1.1. Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status  

Member  States  have  to  implement  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  programmes  in 
accordance with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment of 

ecological status/potential and chemical status.  

Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate 

the  impact  assessment  procedure,  to  efficiently  and  effectively  review  the  design  of  their 
monitoring programmes, and to  assess the long-term  changes in  natural  conditions  and those 

resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activity.  For  operational  purposes,  monitoring  is 
required to establish the status of water bodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their 
environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such water bodies resulting 

from the PoM. 

Section 3.1.1 of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational 

monitoring programmes in Germany for the second RBMP. 

Figure  4.1  summarises  the  proportion  of  sites  used  for  the  monitoring  of  chemical  status  in 

surface freshwaters for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites 
used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. More detailed information can be found on 
the website of the European Environment Agency38.  

Territorial  waters  have  not  been  monitored  or  assessed  for  chemical  status.  Please  note  that 

Germany subsequently clarified that they reported monitoring sites and substances only where 
an exceedance of environmental quality standard occurred. The number below therefore cannot 

be understood as describing the complete monitoring programme. 

38 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 

69 

 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 4.1 

Proportion  of  sites  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  and,  for 

comparison, ecological status, in Germany. The number in parenthesis next to 
the  category  is  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites  irrespective  of  their 

purpose.  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in surface 
waters  for  the  second  RBMP.  In  this  figure,  no  distinction  is  made  between  sites  used  for 

surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  Also  given  is  the  proportion  of  water  bodies 
monitored for any purpose and, for comparative purposes, those for ecological status. 

70 

 
 
 
Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  which  are  monitored, 

monitored  for  chemical  status  and  monitored  for  ecological  status,  in 
Germany. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number 

of water bodies in that category.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

46% of water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status were reported to be monitored for 
operational purposes.  

Long-term trend monitoring, and monitoring of Priority Substances in water, sediment and 
biota for status assessment 

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

Article 8(1) of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order 
to provide inter alia a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. 

The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and number of 
sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to the 

and 
EQS  Directive 
hexachlorobutadiene  have  to  be  monitored  in  biota  for  status  assessment,  unless  Member 

in  2009),  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene 

(version 

force 

in 

States  derived  a  standard  for  another  matrix,  which  is  at  least  as  protective  as  the  biota 
standard.  

71 

 
 
 
 
Spatial coverage  

Between 31 and 41 Priority Substances are reported to be monitored depending on the RBD. 
All of these substances are monitored in water for status assessment.  

Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were reported to be monitored in biota 
for status assessment in six RBDs, only mercury was monitored in a further three RBDs and 

one  RBD  reported  no  monitoring  of  these  substances.  No  such  monitoring  was  reported  for 
transitional waters, only mercury was monitored in coastal and lake water bodies and all three 

substances  were  monitored  in  rivers.  Overall  in  Germany  monitoring  for  hexachlorobenzene 
and hexachlorobutadiene was reported at 65 sites and for mercury at 751 sites.  

Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  only  monitoring  relating  to  Priority  Substances 
contributing  to  the  failure  of  good  status  has  been  reported39  and  therefore  the  full  spatial 
extent of monitoring may not be reflected in data reported to WISE. 

Frequencies 

The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances 
in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP 
cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment 

should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater 
intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and 

expert judgement. 

The recommended minimum frequencies for surveillance and / or operational monitoring are 

met at some but not all sites. Germany subsequently clarified that expert judgement has been 
used to decide what the appropriate frequency is. In some cases the planned frequency of 12 

per year has not been achieved due to operational reasons. 

According  to  WISE,  the  recommended  minimum  frequency  for  monitoring  in  biota  was  met 

for  all  three  substances  in  five  RBDs,  for  mercury  alone  in  three  RBDs  and  for  none  of  the 
substances in  the one remaining RBD where monitoring was undertaken. However Germany 

subsequently clarified that the frequency of the sediment and biota monitoring is once a year, 
in accordance with the requirements of German legislation40. 

39  Germany  clarified  that  according  to  Annex  8  of  the  German  Surface  Water  Ordinance,  compliance  with  the 
Environmental Quality Standard is to be monitored if there are discharges or inputs of substances in the catchment 
of a monitoring site representative for the surface water body. 
40  Verordnung zum Schutz der  Oberflächengewässer, 20th June 2016; BGBL. I S.1373, Annex 10, paragraph 4 
and Table “Überwachungsfrequencen und Überwachungsintervalle” 

72 

 
 
                                                      
Monitoring for long-term trend assessment 

Requirements 

Article 3(3) of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 
14  priority  substances41  that  tend  to  accumulate  in  sediment  and/or  biota,  for  the  purpose  of 
long-term  trend  assessment.  Monitoring  should  take  place  at  least  once  every  three  years, 

unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval.  

Spatial coverage  

In Germany as a whole, each of the 14 relevant Priority Substances are monitored in sediment 
and/or  biota,  and  the  number  of  substances  monitored  in  each  RBD  vary  from  1  to  14.  The 

spatial extent of monitoring is variable (between 1 and 844 sites depending on the RBD).  

Frequencies 

According  to  WISE,  trend  monitoring  is  performed  at  or  above  the  recommended  minimum 
frequency at some but not all sites. Germany subsequently clarified that expert judgement had 

been used to decide the appropriate frequency in accordance with the provisions of the WFD.  

Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in a RBD  

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  states,  in  Section  1.3.1  (Design  of  surveillance  monitoring),  that 

“Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year 
during  the  period  covered  by  a  river  basin  management  plan  for  [inter  alia]:  priority  list 

pollutants  which  are  discharged  into  the  river  basin  or  sub-basin.”  Section  1.3.2  (Design  of 
operational  monitoring)  of  the  directive  states  that  “In  order  to  assess  the  magnitude  of  the 

pressure to  which bodies of surface water  are subject  Member States shall monitor for those 
quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. 

In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter 
alia]:  all  priority  substances  discharged,  and  other  pollutants  discharged  in  significant 

quantities.” 

Member States are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged 
into the river basin or sub-basin.42  

brominated 

diphenylether, 

41Anthracene, 
hexachlorobenzene,  hexabutadiene,  hexachlorocyclohexane, 
Tributyltin. 
42 Germany subsequently clarified that the inventory used data from the federal states for the calculation of loads; 
however,  when  measurements are below the environmental quality standard they  were not reported because the 
target is not failed. 

fluoranthene, 
lead,  mercury,  pentachlorobenzene,  PAH, 

chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

cadmium,  C10-13 

73 

 
                                                      
According to WISE, all substances discharged were monitored in 5 out of 10 RDBs (Danube, 

Rhine, Weser, Elbe and Warnow/Peene). In the other RBDs, most but not all substances were 
reported as monitored in WISE.  

Germany  clarified  however  that  according  to  Annex  8  of  the  German  Surface  Water 
Ordinance, compliance with the environmental quality standard is to be monitored if there are 

discharges or inputs of substances in the catchment of a monitoring site representative for the 
surface water body. 

Performance of analytical methods used  

Germany reported that the relevant information on the performance of the analytical methods 

used could not be provided uniformly across German RBDs, due to differences in laboratories, 
methodologies, reference periods, etc.  

Germany  stated  that  the  method  of  dealing  with  measurements  of  Priority  Substances  lower 
than  the  limit  of  quantification  is  as  specified  in  Article  5  of  the  QA/QC  Directive 

(2009/90/EC) for all RBDs. 

4.1.2.  Chemical Status of surface water bodies 

Member States  are  required to  report the  year on which the  assessment of chemical  status  is 

based. This  may be the  year that the surface water body was monitored. In case of  grouping 
this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group 

that  are  used  to  extrapolate  results  to  non-monitored  surface  water  bodies  within  the  same 
group.  

For most surface water bodies across the RBDs in Germany, the assessment of chemical status 
was undertaken between 2012 and 2013. The most recent assessment year was 2015 but with 

far fewer samples taken than in previous years. 

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Germany for the second RBMP is illustrated on 

Map  4.1.  This  is  based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of  status.  All  water  bodies  have  been 
classified as failing to achieve  good chemical  status.  Germany subsequently clarified that  all 

surface  waterbodies  are  considered  as  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  due  to  the 
widespread  exceedance  of  the  environmental  quality  standard  for  mercury  (widespread 

exceedances  found  in  monitored  water  bodies  are  extrapolated  to  non  monitored  water 
bodies).43   

43See as background information: 
http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/142651/WRRL_2.1.5_Textbaustein_Quecksilber_final.pdf?command=dow
nloadContent&filename=WRRL_2.1.5_Textbaustein_Quecksilber_final.pdf.   

74 

 
                                                      
Map 4.1 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Germany  based  on  the  most 

recently  assessed  status  of  the  surface  water  bodies  Note:  Standard  colours 
based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

The chemical status of surface waters in Germany for the first and second RBMPs is given in 
Table 4.1.  

75 

GoodFailing to achieve to goodUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
Table 4.1 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in Germany for the second and first 

RBMPs.  Note:  the  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  water  category  is  the 
number  of  water  bodies.  Note:  Chemical  status  assessment  is  based  on  the 

revised  standards  laid  down  in  the  EQS  Directive  amended  by  Directive 
2013/39/EU. Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first 

RBMPs as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of 
the first RBMPs 

Category 

second RBMP 

Rivers (8998) 

Lakes (730) 

Transitional (5) 

Coastal (75) 

Total (9808) 

first RBMP 

Rivers (9069) 

Lakes (712) 

Transitional (5) 

Coastal (74) 

Total (9860) 

Good 

Failing to achieve good 

Unknown 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

8998 

730 

5 

75 

9808 

784 

23 

3 

1 

811 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

9% 

3% 

60% 

1% 

8% 

317 

37 

3% 

5% 

354 

4% 

7968 

652 

2 

73 

8695 

88% 

92% 

40% 

99% 

88% 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMPs. 
Overall 80 % of surface water bodies in Germany were classified for chemical status with high 

confidence,  18  %  with  medium  confidence  and  2  %  with  low  confidence.  Confidence  in  the 
classification of chemical status for the first RBMPs was not reported. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.3  Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in 

Germany based on the most recently assessed status/potential 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure  4.4  compares  the  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Germany  for  the  first 
RBMP with that for the second RBMP (based on the most recent assessment of status) and that 

expected  by  2015.  Between  the  two  RBMPs  there  was  a  large  decrease  in  the  proportion  of 
surface water bodies in Germany as a whole with good chemical status from 88 to 0 % and a 

significant  increase  in  the  proportion  failing  to  achieve  good  status  from  8  to  100  %.  This 
pattern  occurred  across  all  RBDs  and  Natural/Heavily  Modified/Artificial  water  body 

categories. Overall the  chemical  assessments  were carried out  in  the period 2012-2013 in  all 
RBDs. 

The  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  expected  to  be  based  on  the 
standards  laid  down  in  EQS  Directive  (version  in  force  on  13  January  200944).  However 
Germany  clarified  they  have  used  the  revised,  more  stringent  standards  from  Directive 
2013/39/EU. Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMPs as the 

transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs. 

Figure 4.4  Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Germany  for  the  second  RBMP, 

for  the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  the  parenthesis  is 

44  Please  note  that  following  the  directive  2013/39/EU,  which  amended  the  EQS  Directive,  introduced  a  less 
stringent annual average environmental quality standard for naphthalene in transitional waters. This less stringent 
environmental  quality  standard  should  be  taken  into  account  for  the  determination  of  surface  water  chemical 
status by the 2015 deadline laid down in Article 4 of the WFD.  

77 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
the  number  of  surface  water  bodies  for  both  cycles.  Note  the  period  of  the 

assessment  of  status  for  the  second  plan  was  2012  to  2013.  The  year  of  the 
assessment of status for first plan is not known  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  sets  more  stringent 
environmental  quality  standards  for  seven  substances45.  Member  States  were  asked  to  report 
whether the new standards caused the status of the surface water body to appear to deteriorate. 

This was the case for 11 % of surface water bodies for benzo(a)pyrene, and for 5 and 4 % of 
surface  water  bodies  respectively  for  fluoranthene  and  Total  benzo(g,h,i)-perylene  + 
indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene.  

Good  chemical  status  should  be  reached  by  2021  in  relation  to  the  revised  environmental 
quality  standards,  unless  Member  States  apply  exemptions  under  WFD  Article  4(4)  or  less 

stringent objectives under WFD Article 4(5). 

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good chemical 

status.  However,  no  information  was  reported  by  Germany.  Germany  clarified  that  their 
difficulties in assessing the date of achievement of good status was linked to the presence of 

the ubiquitous substance mercury in all water bodies.  

45  Anthracene,  Brominated  diphenylether,  Fluoranthene,  Lead  and  its  compounds,  Naphthalene,  Nickel  and  its 
compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

78 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Priority Substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

Member States were expected to report exceedances for individual substances on the basis of 
the revised, more stringent standards from directive 2013/39/EU.  

The  substance  causing  the  greatest  proportion  of  water  bodies  in  Germany  to  fail  good 
chemical status was mercury (95.7 %)46. The “top-ten” Priority Substances are shown in Figure 
4.5. 

Figure 4.5 

The  top-ten  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 

status in surface water bodies in Germany 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Germany  however  subsequently  clarified  that  according  to  their  calculations,  the  top  ten 
substances include : mercury, benzo(a)pyrene, Total Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene (CAS_191-24-2) + 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene  (CAS_193-39-5),  fluoranthene,  cadmium,  tributyltin-cation,  Total 

46 Germany subsequently clarified that  mercury causes 100% of  water body  failures due to the extrapolation of 
results from water bodies where mercury was monitored in biota.  

79 

 
 
 
                                                      
Benzo(b)fluor-anthene  (CAS_205-99-2)  +  Benzo(k)fluor-anthene  (CAS_207-08-9),  nickel, 
inated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154) and isoproturon47. 

Overall for surface water bodies in  Germany, the largest  proportion of exceedances were  for 

the  annual-average  environmental  quality  standards  for  mercury  (40%)  and  benzo(a)pyrene 
(7%). Exceedances of the maximum allowable concentration environmental quality standards 

were largest for mercury (21 %). In terms of exceedance of both types of standard, the largest 
proportion was also mercury (11 %). 

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According  to  article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive48,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 
priority  substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 
substances49.  These  substances  are  generally  expected  to  cause  widespread  exceedances,  and 
their emissions can be challenging to tackle (e.g. due to long-range atmospheric transport and 
deposition). In order to show the progress made in tackling other priority substances, Member 

States have the possibility to present the information related to chemical status separately for 
these substances.  

All  water bodies are failing to  achieve  good chemical status  when all priority substances are 

considered in the assessment of status, but only slightly less than 10 % are still failing to when 
the  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  priority  substances  are  omitted.  This 

shows  the  very  large  influence  of  these  substances.  This  is  illustrated  in  the  2018  State  of 
Water report of the European Environment Agency50. 

Priority Substances used in the assessment of chemical status compared to those monitored 

In  all  RBDs  in  Germany,  all  substances  are  taken  into  account  in  the  assessment  of  status. 

Depending on the RBD, between 31 and 41 substances are reported as monitored. 

The  status  of  surface  water  bodies  not  monitored  for  chemical  status  has  been  derived  or 
extrapolated  from  monitoring  available  for  comparable  water  bodies  (grouping).  25-80  %  of 
surface water bodies are reported not to be monitored across the 10 RBDs. 

47 The percentages of water bodies failing are the same as in the graph above for the substances already appearing 
in the graph. The percentages of water bodies failing because of tributyltin cation is 1.9% and isoproturon 0.6%. 
48 Amended by Directive 2013/39/EU 
49 Brominated diphenylether, Mercury and its compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Tributyltin,  PFOS, 
dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 
50https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water  (p40-41  of  the  report).  Also  available  in  a  more 
interactive format at :  
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_Chemical_Status_Maps/SWB_F
ailing_Good_Chemical_Status_RBD?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:display
_count=no&:showVizHome=no 

80 

 
                                                      
Application of alternative environmental quality standards for water, biota and sediment  

Germany  reported  that  34  of  the  41  environmental  quality  standards  laid  down  in  Part  A  of 
Annex  I  of  the  Directive  2008/105/EC  for  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  of  bodies  of 

surface  water  had  been  applied  and  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status.  For  seven 
substances, namely anthracene, fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, lead and its compounds, nickel 

and its compounds, naphthalene and brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 
100, 153 and 154) the revised standards from Directive 2013/39/EU were applied. 

Use of mixing zones  

Article 4 of the EQS Directive13 provides Member States with the option of designating mixing 
zones adjacent to points of discharge in surface waters. Concentrations of priority substances 
may exceed the relevant environmental quality standard within such mixing zones  if they do 

not affect the compliance of the rest of the surface water body with those standards. Member 
States that designate mixing zones are required to include within their RBMPs a description of 

the  approaches  and  methodologies  applied  to  define  such  zones,  and  a  description  of  the 
measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zones in the future. 

Mixing zones have not been designated under Article 4 of the EQS Directive for any of the 10 

RBDs in Germany.  

Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

The  EQS  Directive  stipulates  that  Member  States  have  the  possibility,  when  assessing  the 
monitoring results against the environmental quality standard, to take into account: 

(a) natural background concentrations for metals and their compounds, if they prevent 
compliance with the environmental quality standard, and; 

(b)  hardness,  pH  or  other  water  quality  parameters  that  affect  the  bioavailability  of 
metals. 

into 
Natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  and 
consideration where such concentrations prevent compliance with  the relevant  environmental 

their  compounds  are 

taken 

quality standards only in three RBDs (Weser, Elbe and Odra). No background concentrations 
were taken into account for the remaining 7 RBDs in Germany. 

The bioavailability of metals has been taken into account when assessing compliance with the 
standards in eight of the 10 RBDs. No information was reported for the Eider and Schlei/Trave 
RBDs.  Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  the  bioavailability  was  not  taken  into  account  in 

81 

 
these RBDs because there was no exceedance of the environmental quality standards for any 

metal. 

4.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

In comparing the number of sites and water bodies monitored for operational and surveillance 
purposes for chemical monitoring between the first and second RBMPs, there appears to be a 

net  increase  (from  the  first  to  second  cycle)  in  monitoring  sites  and  surface  water  bodies 
monitored for operational purposes (an increase of 5038 sites and 3270 water bodies) both due 
to  a  relatively  large  increase  in  river  monitoring.  For  surveillance  monitoring  the  number  of 

sites has increased by 195 and the number of water bodies has increased by 57 since the first 
cycle. Germany subsequently clarified that the spatial extent and the frequency of monitoring 

is  determined by  expert judgement in  the light  of the widespread exceedance of the mercury 
environmental quality standard.    

Overall between the two RBMPs, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of surface 
water  bodies  with  good  chemical  status  from  88  %  to  0  %  and  a  significant  increase  in  the 

proportion failing to achieve good status from 8 % to 100 %. This pattern occurred across all 
RBDs and Natural/Heavily Modified/Artificial water body categories. The principal reason for 

this  is  that  all  monitoring  samples  showed  levels  of  mercury  that  do  not  meet  the  relevant 
environmental quality standard and therefore the assessment 'failing to achieve good' has been 

extrapolated to  all surface water bodies.  In the second RBMPs,  Germany  also  used the more 
stringent standards introduced in the revised EQS Directive.  

Information on Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status for the first cycle 
was  not  systematically  reported  contributing  to  the  difficulties  in  making  a  comparison  with 

the second cycle. However, some aggregated information was collated and indicated that in the 
first RBMP heavy metals as a whole were responsible for 2.51 % of surface water bodies that 

fail to achieve good status for Germany as a whole. The influence of mercury on the chemical 
status of surface waters  has been established as  a result of monitoring reported in the second 

RBMP. 

Overall in Germany, 15 Priority Substances were reported to have caused the improvement of 

water bodies from failing to achieve good status in the previous cycle, to be at good chemical 
status since the first RBMP. For example, improvements were reported for DDT, p,p' (1.4 % of 

surface  water  bodies),  cadmium  (1.4  %),  Total  DDT  (DDT,  p,p'  +  DDT,  o,p'  +  DDE,  p,p'  + 
DDD, p,p') (1.4%) and tributyltin-cation (1%). The improvements predominantly occurred in 
river water bodies. 

82 

 
4.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  The  frequency  of  chemical  monitoring  should  be  harmonised 
across  the  "Länder"/RBMPs”  according  to  the  requirements  of  the  WFD.  Different 

frequencies of chemical monitoring were applied in the first cycle. 

Assessment  

In  Germany  as  a  whole,  each  of  the  41  Priority  Substances  monitored  in  water  for 

status  assessment  is  monitored  12  times  per  year  or  more  and  in  every  year  in  the 
cycle at some monitoring sites; this meets the recommended minimum frequencies for 
operational  and  surveillance  monitoring.  At  the  remainder  of  the  sites,  these 

frequencies  are  not  achieved.  Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  expert  judgement 
has  been  used  to  decide  the  appropriate  frequency  in  order  to  explain  and  act  on 

exceedances in accordance with the provisions of the WFD. In some cases the planned 
frequency of 12 per year has not been achieved due to operational reasons. Monitoring 

of  biota  for  status  assessment  is  undertaken  every  year  in  Germany  as  a  whole. 
Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  the  frequency  of  the  sediment  and  biota 

monitoring (once a year) is in accordance with the requirements of German legislation 

For  the  purpose  of  long-term  trend  assessment  in  sediment  and/or  biota,  monitoring 

should  take  place  at  least  once  every  three  years,  unless  technical  knowledge  and 
expert judgment justify  another interval.  Monitoring of biota for trend assessment  is 

undertaken every three years in Germany as a whole.  Germany subsequently clarified 
that  expert  judgement  has  been  used  to  decide  the  appropriate  frequency  in 

accordance with the provisions of the WFD.     

With regard to the frequency of monitoring for status assessment and long-term trend 

analysis,  Germany  reports  a  range  of  frequencies.  For  the  majority  of  Priority 
Substances  and  at  the  majority  of  sampling  sites,  the  reported  frequencies  meet  the 
recommended minimum frequencies in the relevant Directives. Where the frequencies 
are lower, Germany has clarified that expert judgement has been used to determine the 

appropriate frequency in accordance with national legislation.   

With  the  information  available  it  was  not  possible  to  assess  whether  the 

recommendation  was  fulfilled  (no  assessment  has  been  possible  of  the  basis  for  the 
expert judgment).  

83 

 
  Recommendation: Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are not the 
only  priority  substances  for  which  monitoring  in  a  non-water  matrix  (biota  in  these 
three instances) is appropriate. The requirement for trend monitoring in sediment or 

biota  as  specified  for  several  substances  in  Directive  2008/105/EC  Article  3(3)  will 
also need to be reflected in the next RBMP. 

Assessment: Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were reported to 

be monitored in biota for status assessment in some but not all RBDs, and in some but 
not all water categories. However Germany mentioned that they reported only priority 

substances exceeding their standards, and not all priority substances monitored so no 
conclusion can be made  on the basis of the information  reported. Germany clarified 

that monitoring was performed at the recommended minimum frequency. 

According to WISE, the number of substances monitored in sediment and/ or biota for 

trend assessment varied between 1 and 14 depending on the RBD. Trend monitoring 
is  performed  at  or  above  the  recommended  minimum  frequency  at  some  but  not  all 

sites. Germany subsequently clarified that expert judgement had been used to decide 
the appropriate frequency in accordance with the provisions of the WFD.  

This recommendation is only partially fulfilled (in particular because not all relevant 

substances are monitored for trend assessment in all RBDs). 

84 

 
 
 
 
Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative 
status of groundwater bodies 

5.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

5.1.1. Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Germany  is  1177  (Table  2.3).  151  groundwater 

bodies are not subject to monitoring for quantitative status (Table 5.1). This means that 13 % 
of  groundwater  bodies  are  not  monitored.  Assessment  of  the  RBMPs  and  background 

documents found that some but not all RBDs reported that grouping was applied. 

The number of groundwater bodies increased by 19 % from 989 in the first RBMP to 1177 in 

the  second  RBMP  but  the  total  groundwater  body  area  remained  nearly  the  same.  913 
groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased from 881 in the first RBMP to 1026 in 
the second RBMP. The number of monitoring sites for quantitative status is listed in Table 5.3. 

85 

 
Table 5.1 

Number of water bodies in Germany directly monitored and the purpose of monitoring 

Monitoring Purpose 

AGR - 

Ground
water 
abstract
-ion site 
for 
irrigatio
n 

CHE – 

Chemi-
cal 
status 

0 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

154 

425 

38 

139 

224 

22 

27 

18 

16 

35 

DRI – 

Ground
-water 
abstract
ion site 
for 
human 
consum
ption 

115 

51 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0  

RBD 

Total 

groundwater 
bodies 
directly 
monitored 

DE1000 

162 

DE2000 

433 

DE3000 

38 

DE4000 

139 

DE5000 

224 

DE6000 

DE7000 

DE9500 

DE9610 

DE9650 

24 

29 

18 

19 

36 

DWD - 

Drinkin
g water 
- WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.i 

IND – 

Ground
water 
abstra-
ction 
site for 
indust-
rial 
supply 

INT – 

Intern-
ational 
netwo-
rk of 
other 
intern-
ational 
conven-
tion 

NID - 

Nutrient 
sensitive 
area 
under 
the 
Nitrates 
Directiv
e - WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.iv 

OPE – 

Opera-
tional 
monit-
oring 

QUA - 

Quanti-
tative 
status 

REF - 

Referen
ce 
network 
monitor
ing site 

SOE - 

EIONET 
State of 
Environ-
ment 
monitori-
ng 

SUR – 

TRE - 

Surveil
-lance 
monit-
oring 

Chemic
al trend 
assessm
ent 

84 

77 

0 

7 

20 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0  

7 

16 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0  

67 

30 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

81 

0 

53 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

54 

254 

26 

79 

132 

10 

23 

10 

6 

31 

143 

372 

34 

130 

221 

24 

29 

18 

19 

36 

0 

0 

0 

0 

22 

0 

0 

16 

17 

0 

6 

77 

9 

30 

54 

8 

13 

6 

6 

0 

152 

369 

38 

106 

197 

20 

27 

18 

16 

32 

146 

153 

24 

123 

185 

10 

0 

18 

16 

36 

Source: WISE electronic reporting.  

86 

 
Table 5.2 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in Germany monitored for quantitative 
status 

European Union 
RBD Code 

No of groundwater bodies 

with quantitative 
monitoring 

Total No. groundwater 
bodies 

% of total groundwater 

bodies monitored for 
quantitative status 

DE1000 

DE2000 

DE3000 

DE4000 

DE5000 

DE6000 

DE7000 

DE9500 

DE9610 

DE9650 

143 

372 

34 

130 

221 

24 

29 

18 

19 

36 

170 

457 

40 

144 

228 

25 

32 

23 

19 

39 

84.12% 

81.4% 

85% 

90.28% 

96.93% 

96% 

90.63% 

78.26% 

100% 

92.31% 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

87 

 
 
 
 
Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Germany and their purpose 

Monitoring Purpose 

AGR - 

Ground
water 
abstract
-ion site 
for 
irrigatio
n 

0 

12 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

CHE – 

Chem-
ical 
status 

434 

2,026 

445 

1,255 

2,310 

223 

228 

84 

80 

149 

DRI – 

Ground
-water 
abstrac-
tion site 
for 
human 
consum-
ption 

221 

109 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

RBD 

Total 

groundwater 
bodies 
directly 
monitored 

DE1000 

719 

DE2000 

3,007 

DE3000 

712 

DE4000 

1,624 

DE5000 

5,269 

DE6000 

896 

DE7000 

443 

DE9500 

244 

DE9610 

477 

DE9650 

338 

DWD - 

Drinkin
g water 
- WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.i 

IND – 

INT – 

Ground
water 
abstract
ion site 
for 
industri
-al 
supply 

Inter-
national 
network 
of other 
inter-
national 
conve-
ntion 

142 

181 

0 

9 

34 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

19 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

84 

38 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

NID - 

Nutrient 
sensitive 
area 
under 
the 
Nitrates 
Directiv
e - WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.iv 

15 

297 

0 

173 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

88 

OPE – 

Oper-
ational 
moni-
toring 

QUA - 

Quan-
titative 
status 

REF - 

Referen
ce 
network 
monitor
ing site 

SOE - 

EIONET 
State of 
Envi-
ronment 
moni-
toring 

SUR – 

TRE - 

Surve-
illance 
monit-
oring 

Chemic
al trend 
assessm
ent 

143 

316 

1,273 

1,381 

377 

758 

482 

959 

0 

0 

0 

0 

28 

156 

18 

38 

367 

367 

1,304 

579 

369 

250 

1,119 

1,197 

1,414 

3,927 

199 

117 

1,429 

1,867 

109 

206 

61 

27 

72 

847 

236 

212 

451 

317 

0 

0 

42 

82 

0 

14 

19 

15 

8 

0 

165 

124 

84 

79 

94 

0 

84 

93 

266 

338 

 
5.1.2. Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

Map  5.1  displays  the  most  recently  assessed  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies.  It 
shows that 1126 of 1177 groundwater bodies (96 %) were in good quantitative status and 51 (4 

%)  were  failing  good  status  (Figure  5.1).  In  terms  of  area  this  means  that  about  3.5  %  were 
failing good quantitative status. Figure 5.2 shows that, with the exception of three groundwater 

bodies, there is  high  confidence in  status  classification. All  groundwater  bodies had  and still 
have a known status, in  the first and in the second RBMP. The total number of groundwater 

bodies failing  good quantitative status  increased  significantly from  38  groundwater bodies in 
the first  RBMP to 51 in the second RBMP (from 2.7 % to 3.5 % of the total groundwater body 

area).  

In  all  10  RBDs  water  balance  was  assessed  by  using  reliable  information  on  groundwater 

levels across the groundwater body. 

The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  are  shown  in 

Figure 5.3. 35 groundwater bodies are failing good status due to the water balance test which 
means  that  the  long-term  annual  average  rate  of  groundwater  abstraction  is  exceeding  the 
available  groundwater  resource,  33  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  due  to  damage  to 

groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems,  25  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  due  to 
deterioration  of  the  status  of  groundwater  associated  aquatic  ecosystems,  and  seven 

groundwater  bodies  are  failing  due  to  saline  intrusion.  The  expected  date  of  achievement  of 
good quantitative status in Germany is shown in Figure 5.4.  

In  all  RBDs,  the  criterion  of  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  has  been  fully  applied  in 
accordance  with  WFD  Article  2(27).  In  all  RBDs  all  environmental  objectives  have  been 

considered in status assessment. 

In total, 94 groundwater bodies are at risk of failing good quantitative status. 80 groundwater 

bodies are at risk of failing good quantitative status due to failing the water balance test, 47 due 
to  damage  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems,  four  due  to  deterioration  of  the 

status of groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and six due to saline intrusion. 

89 

 
Map 5.1 Map of the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4. 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

5.1.3. Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater  associated  surface  waters  were  not  reported  as  indicated  by  Annex  0,  but  have 

been considered in status assessment in all RBDs. For four groundwater bodies (in two RBDs), 
diminution of the status of associated surface waters is causing risk of failure.  

The  vast  majority  of  groundwater  bodies  are  linked  with  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems.  Groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  have  been  considered  in  status 

assessment  in  all  RBDs.  For  47  groundwater  bodies,  damage  to  groundwater  dependent 
terrestrial ecosystems is causing risk of failure. The needs of terrestrial ecosystems have been 

considered in status assessment in all RBDs. 

90 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
  
 
Figure 5.1  Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Germany for the second RBMP, 

for  the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  parenthesis  is  the 
number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  each  cycle.  NB  -  the  period  of  the 

assessment  of  status  for  the  second  plan  was  2008  to  2015.  The  year  of  the 
assessment of status for the first plan is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 5.2  Confidence in the classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

in Germany based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
5.3 

Reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  in 

Germany based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Notes: 
‘Water balance’ = long-term annual average rate of abstraction exceeds the available groundwater resource which 

may result in a decrease of groundwater levels. 
‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) for associated surface water 

bodies resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions; significant diminution of 
the status of surface waters resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions. 

‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial 

ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration. 
‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced 

sustained changes in flow direction. 

92 

 
 
 
Figure 5.4  Expected date of achievement of good quantitative and good chemical status 

of groundwater bodies in Germany.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

5.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  increased  by  19  %,  but  the  total  groundwater  body  area 
remained nearly the same. 913 of 1177 groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first 

RBMP.  Examination  of  the  RBMPs  identified  that  all  the  RBMPs  assessed  included  a 
summary of changes or updates. For example: 

 

In the Oder RBD, the delineation has been adjusted and two  groundwater bodies have 
been  split.  A  new  LAWA51  method  for  assessing  the  qualitative  status  has  been 
developed in 2011, but it remains unclear if it has been applied.  

 

In  the  Weser  RBD,  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  has  not  changed,  but  the 

delineation  has  been  adjusted.  All  steps  of  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy 
Guidance 18 are now considered in the improved methodology. The assessment of the 
relation  between  groundwater  and  surface  water  needs  further  development  of  the 
methodologies. 

The  status  changes  show  that  the  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good 
quantitative status increased significantly by 34 % from 38 groundwater bodies in the 

first  RBMP to 51 in the second RBMP (from 2.7 % to 3.5 % of the total groundwater 
body area). Examination of the RBMPs identified that the main reasons for changes in 

51 The LAWA is the German Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government 
represented by the Federal Environment Ministry. www.lawa.de/index.php?a=2  

93 

 
 
                                                      
quantitative 

status  are:  modified 

(stricter) 

status  assessment  methodology, 

implementation  of  effective  measures,  changes  in  the  monitoring  network  and 
subsequent better data. 

5.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

Recommendation:  In  groundwater  bodies  shared  by  different  Länder,  coordinated 

methodologies  and  measures  should  be  applied.  The  way  national  guidance  is  used 
should be explained in the different RBMPs.  

Assessment:  The  assessment  did  not  allow  for  conclusions  to  be  drawn  relating  to 

that  status  assessment  and 
harmonisation.  Germany  subsequently  clarified 
classification  of  quantitative  status  was  based  on  agreed  and  harmonised 

recommendations by LAWA. 

94 

 
 
 
Topic  6  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical 
status of groundwater bodies 

6.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

6.1.1. Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Germany  is  1177  (Table  2.3).  Monitoring  of 

chemical  status  is  required  by  the  German  groundwater  ordinance  (Grundwasserverordnung, 
201052):  In  total  202  (17  %)  groundwater  bodies  are  not  subject  to  surveillance  monitoring 
(Table 5.1)53. About 46 % of the groundwater bodies in Germany are at risk and according to 
the data submitted to WISE, in the Danube and Odra RBDs54 not all groundwater bodies at risk 
are  subject  to  operational  monitoring.  The  assessment  of  selected  RBMPs  and  background 
documents  found  indications  in  some  RBMPs  that  expert  judgement  or  grouping  of 

groundwater bodies for monitoring and assessment of chemical status was applied. In the Odra 
and  Weser  RBDs,  no  information  is  provided  on  whether  grouping  is  applied.  In  the  Weser 
RBD (North Rhine-Westphalia) grouping is mentioned, but no details are provided. 

The number of groundwater bodies increased by 19 % from 989 in the first RBMP to 1177 in 
the  second  RBMP  but  the  total  groundwater  body  area  remained  nearly  the  same.  913 

groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. The change happened only in 4 
of 10 RBDs, with the largest increase in the Danube (from 46 to 176 groundwater bodies) and 

Rhine RBDs. 

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  surveillance  monitoring  increased  from  919  in  the 

first  RBMP to 975 (83 %) in the second RBMP; considering the total number of groundwater 
bodies at  each planning  cycle, the monitoring coverage decreased from  93 % to  83 % of the 

total  groundwater  bodies.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  is  listed  in  Table  5.3  and  shows  a 
decrease  from  5472  in  the  first  RBMP  to  5306  in  the  second  RBMP.  The  number  of 
operational monitoring sites has been increased since the first RBMP, from 3868 to 4440 (in 
625 groundwater bodies). 

52 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/grwv_2010/GrwV.pdf 
53 Germany clarified that grouping is applied in those cases. For example, there are remote groundwater bodies on 
the islands in the North Sea where no chemical monitoring is taking place. Those groundwater bodies (ST08, O1 
und  O2)  were  assessed  together  with  hydro-geologically  similar  groundwater  bodies  on  the  mainland  where 
monitoring is carried out.  
54  Germany  clarified  that  there  are  several  reasons  for  this:  expert  judgement  necessary  because  of  missing 
operational  monitoring  sites,  (meanwhile  installed)  or  grouping  of  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  because  of 
forbidden pesticides. 

95 

 
                                                      
According to their Annex 0, Germany could not report substances causing risk to WISE in the 
desired  format.  All  WFD55  core  parameters  -  nitrate,  ammonium,  electrical  conductivity, 
oxygen and pH - are monitored in all RBDs  

6.1.2. Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map 6.1 and Figure 6.1 display the chemical status of groundwater bodies for the most recently 

assessed status. It shows that 750 of 1177 groundwater bodies (64 %) were of good chemical 
status,  424  groundwater  bodies (36 %)  are failing to meet  good status  and for the remaining 

three groundwater bodies the status is unknown. In terms of area, this means that about 38 % 
are  failing  good  chemical  status.  Figure  6.2  shows  the  confidence  in  status  classifications 

which  is  mainly  high  and  medium.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  unknown  status 
increased from two in the first to three in the second RBMP. 

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good chemical status increased since the first  
RBMP from 367 to 424 groundwater bodies, but in terms of percentage of the total number of 

groundwater bodies in each cycle, it decreased from 37% to 36% (see Figure 6.1). In terms of 
groundwater body area failing good status, there was a slight increase from 36.6% to 37.5% of 
the total groundwater body area. The expected date of achievement of good chemical status in 

Germany is shown in Figure 5.4. 

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 

6.3.  For  393  groundwater  bodies  the  general  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  for  the 
groundwater body as a whole failed56. This assessment considers the significant environmental 
risk from pollutants across a groundwater body and a significant impairment of the ability to 
support  human  uses.  75  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  the  drinking  water  test  which  means 

that the requirements of Drinking Water Protected Areas have not been met. 27 groundwater 
bodies  are  failing  the  groundwater  associated  surface  water  test  which  means  that  there  is 

diminution  of the status  of  groundwater associated surface water. 37  groundwater bodies are 
failing the groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystem test which means that there is damage 

to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  and  7  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  good 
chemical status due to saline or other intrusions. Figure 6.4 shows the top 10 pollutants causing 

failure of status and the top 10 causing a sustained upward trend.  

55  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  framework  for  the 
Community 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060  
56  Germany  subsequently clarified that there could be  a reporting error for those groundwater bodies failing the 
general quality assessment.  

policy 

action 

water 

field 

the 

of 

in 

96 

 
                                                      
In all RBDs, the calculation of the extent of exceedance of a groundwater quality standard or a 

groundwater threshold value is based on the groundwater body area.  

In  three  RBDs,  groundwater  threshold  values  have  not  been  established  for  all  pollutants  or 

indicators of pollution causing a risk of failure of good chemical status. 

It  is  mentioned  in  the  RBMPs  that  only  some  Groundwater  Directive57  Annex  II  substances 
were considered. One could also notice differences between the RBMPs assessed. In all RBDs, 
natural  background  levels  have  been  considered  in  the  groundwater  threshold  value 

establishment.  

A trend and trend reversal methodology is available and assessments have been performed in 

all RBDs. 

57 Groundwater Directive (GWD): Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 
December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration. 

97 

 
                                                      
Map 6.1 

Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies in Germany based on the most 

recently assessed status of the groundwater water bodies 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

98 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1 

Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Germany for the second RBMPs, 

for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is 
the number of groundwater bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the 

assessment of status for the second plan was 2008 to 2015. The year of the 
assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 6.2 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies in 
Germany based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.3 

Reasons for failing good chemical status in Germany for the most recent 

assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Notes: 
‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) in associated surface water 

bodies or significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such surface water bodies. 

‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend 
directly on the groundwater body. 

‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced 
sustained changes in flow direction. 

‘Drinking Water Protected Area’ = Deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption. 

‘General water quality assessment’ = Significant impairment of human uses; significant environmental risk from 
pollutants across the groundwater body. 

6.1.3. Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater  associated  surface  waters  were  not  reported  as  indicated  by  Annex  0.  21 
groundwater  bodies  in  two  RBDs  are  failing  good  chemical  status  due  to  groundwater 
associated surface waters and they have been considered in status assessment in all RBDs.  

The  vast  majority  of  groundwater  bodies  are  linked  with  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems  except  in  the  Warnow/Peene  RBDs  where  no  groundwater  body  is  linked  to  a 

100 

 
 
 
 
terrestrial ecosystem58. 21 groundwater bodies in  two RBDs are failing  good chemical  status 
due to terrestrial ecosystems and they have been considered in status assessment in all RBDs. 

In all RBDs, groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems and groundwater associated aquatic 

ecosystems have been considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values. 

Figure 6.4 

Top ten groundwater pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in 

Germany 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 6.5 

Top ten pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in Germany 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

58  Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  there  seems  to  be  a  reporting  error  as  all  groundwater  bodies  in  the 
Warnow/Peene RBD are linked to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 6.6 

Percentage of groundwater bodies in Germany at risk of failing good 

chemical status and good quantitative status for the second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

6.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

As  described  in  section  5.2,  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  increased  by  19  %  (with  the 

strongest changes in the Danube RBD), but the total groundwater body area remained nearly 
the same. 913 of 1177 groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP.  

No conclusion can be derived about whether the monitoring situation has improved or not. In 
the  first  RBMP  about  93  %  of  the  groundwater  bodies  (919  of  965)  were  subject  to 

surveillance  monitoring  which  decreased  in  the  second  RBMP  to  about  82  %  coverage.  In 
absolute  figures,  the  number  of  monitored  groundwater  bodies  as  well  as  the  number  of 

surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  sites  significantly  increased.  But  considering  the 
increase of the total number of groundwater bodies by about 19 %, the coverage of the number 

of  groundwater  bodies  with  surveillance  monitoring  decreased  from  about  93  %  of 
groundwater bodies (919 of 965) in the first RBMP to about 82 % in the second RBMP. It is 

not  clear  whether  all  groundwater  bodies  without  monitoring  are  covered  by  grouping  of 
groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes. 

The  status  changes  between  cycles  show  that  the  total  groundwater  body  area  failing  good 
chemical status increased slightly from 36.6 % to 37.5 % of the total area. Assessment of the 

RBMPs and background documents identified significant discrepancies in the status results in 
some  RBMPs.  The  main  reasons  for  changes  were:  changes  to  the  status  assessment 

methodology, changes in the monitoring network and improvements in data. 

102 

 
 
6.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Groundwater  trend  assessment  should  be  carried  out  as  soon  as 

long (sufficiently reliable) time- series are available. 

Assessment: The recommendation is now fulfilled. Trend and trend reversal assessment 
methodologies are available and assessments have been performed in all RBDs. 

  Recommendation:  In  groundwater  bodies  shared  by  different  Länder,  coordinated 
methodologies and measures should be applied. The way the national guidance is used 

should be explained in the different RBMPs. 

Assessment:  The  recommendation  cannot  be  assessed.  Assessments  of  the  data 

uploaded  to  WISE  and  the  RBMPs  and  background  documents  did  not  allow 
conclusions  to  be  drawn  on  harmonisation  of  methodologies  within  each  RBD  as  the 
details  of  the  assessment  methodologies  in  each  RBMP  could  not  be  analysed. 
However,  since  the  first  RBMP  Germany  has  a  new  groundwater  ordinance  which 

stipulates  uniform  methodologies  for  status  classification,  trend  and  trend  reversal 
assessment  to  all  of  Germany.  This  ordinance  addresses  chemical  status  and  how  to 

define it. 

  Recommendation:  Report  about  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  (and  the  related 
parameters) as this is an important element in the status assessment and in the PoM. 

Assessment:  The  recommendation  is  partially  fulfilled.  Information  on  groundwater 

bodies at risk is available but not on the substances causing risks (Annex 0).  

6.4.   

103 

 
 
 
Topic  7  Designation  of  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial  Water 
Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 

7.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle for designation  

7.1.1. Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

Heavily modified water bodies and/or artificial water bodies are designated in all RBDs. The 

WFD requires a review of designation every six years. As a result there are several changes in 
the  designations  of  river  and  lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies. 

For river heavily modified water bodies, there are changes in all RBDs. Specifically, there is a 
reduction  of  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  in  eight  RBDs  (especially  in  the 

Warnow/Peene  RBD  from  61  %  to  41  %  of  total  river  water  bodies)  and  an  increase  in  two 
RBDs (especially in the Ems RBD from 57 % to 66 % of total rivers water bodies). For river 

artificial  water  bodies,  only  minor  changes  (increase  or  decrease)  are  observed  with  the 
exception  of  the  Warnow/Peene  RBD  where  there  is  an  increase  from  7  %  to  27  %  of  total 
river water bodies.  

In terms of changes in the designations of lake heavily modified water bodies, the most notable 
ones are in the Rhine RBD where lake heavily modified water bodies increased from 28 % to 

41%, in the Ems RBD where lake heavily modified water bodies decreased from 50 % to 17 % 
and in the Meuse RBD, where five lakes are now designated as heavily modified water bodies 
compared to none in the first cycle59 (Figure 7.1). For lake artificial water bodies, there are no 
major changes except for the Danube RBD where five lake artificial water bodies from the first 

cycle have been de-designated and there are now no lake artificial water bodies. 

For coastal and transitional heavily modified water bodies, no changes are noted.  

In  7  out  of  10  RBDs,  there  are  reservoirs  which  are  designated  as  river  or  lake  heavily 
modified  water  bodies.  In  all  these  seven  RBDs,  there  are  reservoirs  which  were  originally 

rivers  and  are  designated  as  lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  According  to  the  Common 
Implementation Strategy guidance on this issue, though, these should have been designated as 

river  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  In  four  RBDs,  there  are  reservoirs  (originating  from 
rivers)  which  are  designated  as  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  In  three  RBDs  (Odra, 

59 German authorities have informed that this refers to reservoirs (Talsperren) which are now categorized as lakes 
according to a recommendation by LAWA, the German Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and 
the Federal Government. 

104 

 
                                                      
Schlei/Trave,  Warnow/Peene),  there  are  no  heavily  modified  water  bodies  which  are 

reservoirs.  

Figure 7.1 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  in  Germany  that  has  been 

designated as heavily modified or artificial  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

The  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies  designation  is  explained  for  all  RBMPs 
and includes all key aspects of the heavily modified water bodies designation method (criteria 

for the identification of substantial change in character, types of physical alterations and water 
uses considered, criteria for the assessment of significant adverse effect on the use, explanation 

of  the  assessment  of  better  environmental  options).  The  RBMPs  state  that  in  general  the 
Common Implementation Strategy guidance no. 4 and a new national  guidance document on 
heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies (of 2013) have been applied.  

The  main  water  use  for  which  river  water  bodies  are  designated  as  heavily  modified  water 

bodies  is  agricultural  land  drainage  in  all  10  RBDs  except  one  (Danube).  Agricultural  land 
drainage  is  followed  in  terms  of  importance  for  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies 

designation by flood protection and urban development. In the Danube RBD, the main use of 
river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  is  hydropower,  followed  by  flood  protection  and  land 

drainage.  

105 

 
 
 
Lake heavily modified water bodies are designated mainly due to flood protection, hydropower 

and other uses which are not specified in the WISE reporting. Coastal heavily modified water 
bodies  are  designated  due  to  transport  (navigation/ports)  and  transitional  heavily  modified 

water bodies in their majority due to transport (navigation/ports) and flood protection. 

The  main  physical  alterations  of  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are  channelisation  / 

straightening  /  bed  stabilisation  /  bank  reinforcement,  land  drainage,  dredging  /  channel 
maintenance  and  weirs/dams/reservoirs.  For  lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  the  main 

alterations  are  weirs/dams/reservoirs,  followed  by  channelisation  /  straightening  /  bed 
stabilisation  /  bank  reinforcement,  land  drainage  and  dredging  /  channel  maintenance.  In 

coastal  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  the  main  physical  alterations  are  land  reclamation  / 
coastal modifications / ports and in transitional heavily modified water bodies, channelisation / 

straightening / bed stabilisation / bank reinforcement and dredging / channel maintenance.  

The  new  national  guidance  document  provides  a  list  of  significant  adverse  effects  of 

restoration measures on the use and the wider environment as well as a list of criteria on when 
effects  are  not  significant.  This  information  is  provided  for  the  main  water  users  (shipping, 
recreation, water supply, hydropower, flood protection, etc.) and the wider environment.  

The national guidance also provides a broad set of alternatives ("other means") along the main 
water  uses  (shipping,  recreation,  water  supply,  hydropower,  flood  protection,  etc.)  to  check 

against  in  the  different  RBMPs.  It  also  gives  some  guidance  on  how  to  assess  technical 
feasibility  and  disproportionate  costs  related  to  other  means.  These  are  nationally  applicable 

suggestions in order to have a common baseline across Germany. 

Specific information on the outcome of the assessment of significant adverse effects and better 
environmental options is not given at water body level.60 

7.1.2. Definition of Good Ecological  Potential for Heavily Modified  and Artificial  Water 

Bodies 

Good  ecological  potential  is  reported  as  defined  in  all  10  RBDs.  In  three  RBDs  (Danube, 

Rhine and Meuse), the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance approach is used to define 
good  ecological  potential  (approach  based  on  biological  quality  elements  as  illustrated  in 

Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  No  4).  In  the  other  seven  RBDs,  a  hybrid 
approach  combining  elements  of  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  and  the 

Prague approach (based on the identification of mitigation measures) is used. In eight RBDs, 

60  German  authorities  have  informed  that  some  Federal  States  provide  additional  information  by  background 
documents. 

106 

 
                                                      
definition  of  good  ecological  potential  has  been  done  for  groups  of  heavily  modified  water 

bodies/artificial  water  bodies  of  the  same  use/physical  modification.  In  two  RBDs 
(Schlei/Trave,  Eider),  definition  of  good  ecological  potential  has  taken  place  at  water  body 

level.  

A  method  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  has  been  developed  at  a  national  level 

(harmonisation  of  the  definition  of  good  ecological  potential  based  on  the  Common 
Implementation  Strategy  guidance  no.  4),  but  there  are  also  some  methodological  aspects 

reported  at  regional/RBD  level.  The  national  method  focuses  on  river  and  lake  water  bodies 
but does not focus on specific water uses. In some cases, additional methodological documents 

have  been  developed  and  reported,  but  the  link  between  these  and  the  national  guidance  for 
good ecological potential definition are not entirely clear. 

Good ecological potential is reported to be defined in terms of biology in all 10 RBDs but the 
biological quality elements for which biological values have been derived to define maximum 

ecological  potential  and  good  ecological  potential  differ.  In  seven  RBDs,  biological  values 
have been derived for fish and benthic invertebrates. In one RBD, biological values are derived 
for  fish,  benthic  invertebrates,  phytobenthos  and  macrophytes.  For  two  RBDs,  values  have 

been  derived  for  up  to  seven  biological  quality  elements  (fish,  benthic  invertebrates, 
phytoplankton, phytobenthos, macrophytes, angiosperms, macroalgae).  

Good ecological potential definition in terms of biology takes place on the basis of biological 
quality  elements  using  assessment  methods  for  ecological  status.  According  to  the 

methodological  documents,  biological  quality  elements  are  estimated  in  the  same  way  as  for 
natural  water  bodies.  Information  is  provided  on  the  techniques  used  for  the  estimation  of 

biological  values  of  biological  quality  elements  for  maximum  ecological  potential  and  good 
ecological  potential,  including  available  data  and  monitoring,  statistical  analyses  and  expert 

judgment. 

Biological  quality  elements  assessment  methods  sensitive  to  hydrological  and  morphological 

changes are reported for all water categories. For rivers, one method for fish (FIBS) and one 
for benthic invertebrates (PERLODES) are reported as sensitive to altered habitats due to both 

hydrological and morphological  changes. For lakes, three methods are reported (one for fish, 
one  for  benthic  invertebrates  and  one  for  macrophytes/phytobenthos)  as  sensitive  to  both 

hydrological and morphological changes.  For coastal water bodies, two methods are reported 
for  angiosperms  which  are  sensitive  to  both  hydrological  and  morphological  changes.  One 

method  is  reported  for  benthic  invertebrates  which  is  sensitive  to  morphological  but  not  to 
hydrological  changes.  For  transitional  water  bodies,  one  method  is  reported  for  fish  and  one 

107 

 
method  is  reported  for  benthic  invertebrates,  which  are  sensitive  to  both  hydrological  and 

morphological changes  

Mitigation  measures  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  have  been  reported  for  all  10 

RBDs.  However,  there  is  no  information  on  how  the  ecological  benefits  of  the  mitigation 
measures are assessed. In the national methodology document on definition of good ecological 

potential, it is stated that measures are part of the PoM and are subject to the local conditions.  

A comparison between good ecological potential and good ecological status has not been done 
in any of the RBDs61. 

7.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

As described above, there have been modifications in the extent of designation of water bodies 

as heavily modified or artificial in several RBDs since the first RBMPs.  

The  reasons  for  changes  in  the  number  or  size/area  of  water  bodies  designated  as  heavily 

modified water bodies and artificial water bodies since the first cycle are generally explained. 
The number of water bodies, their typology and characteristics have changed because of new 

mapping  of  the  hydromorphological  status  and  a  basic  revision  of  the  natural  and  heavily 
modified water bodies. Changes in the number of heavily modified water bodies and artificial 

water  bodies  are  also  due  to  the  application  of  a  new  methodology  for  designating  heavily 
modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies  (national  methodology  of  2013),  new 

designations of water bodies in general and improved data available.  

Agricultural land drainage seems to have greatly increased in importance as a water use linked 

to the designation of heavily modified water bodies. However, a quantitative comparison with 
the uses for designation in the first cycle is not possible due to the lack of data from the first 

cycle. 

Although  a  new  methodology  was  developed  and  reported,  the  details  of  the  changes  to  the 
methodology  since  the  first  cycle  are  not  provided.  The  background  paper  to  the  new 
methodology  explains  why  changes  have  been  made  but  specific  changes  to  the  different 

designation steps are not described. 

There are apparently also changes in the method used for good ecological potential definition. 

In  the  second  RBMPs,  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  approach  is  used  to 

61 According to the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016, on the comparability between GEP and GES, see conclusions 
of  the  2010  CIS  HMWB  workshop,  paragraph  60A:  https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/cd419883-ff4d-4d43-a82b-
aef3d33e04ed/Conclusions%20HMWB%20workshop%20Brussels%20March%202009.pdf 

108 

 
                                                      
define good ecological potential in three RBDs (Danube, Rhine and Meuse). In the other seven 

RBDs,  a  hybrid  approach  combining  elements  of  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy 
Guidance and the Prague approach is used. The situation was different in the first cycle, where 

the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  approach  was  reported  for  the  RBDs  Eider, 
Schlei/Trave  and  the  Danube  (out  of  which  only  the  Danube  RBD  reports  the  same  in  the 

second  RBMPs).  In  the  first  cycle,  the  Prague  approach  was  reported  for  the  Odra,  Meuse, 
Warnow/Peene, Ems, Weser and Elbe RBDs. In the Rhine RBD, both approaches were used in 

the first cycle, depending on the Länder involved. 

A new methodological document is reported at national level (harmonisation of the definition 

of  good ecological  potential) which refers to  improvements in  the assessment methodologies 
related to fish and benthic fauna. The methodology incorporates the result of several research 

projects. This new methodology has been applied in all RBMPs. 

7.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

 

Recommendation: The designation of heavily modified water bodies should comply with 

all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their 

use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should 
be  specifically  mentioned  in  the  RBMPs.  This  is  needed  to  ensure  transparency  of  the 

designation process. 

Assessment:  The  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies  designation  is 

explained  for  all  RBMPs  and  includes  all  key  aspects  of  the  heavily  modified  water 
bodies  designation  method  (criteria  for  the  identification  of  substantial  change  in 
character,  types  of  physical  alterations  and  water  uses  considered,  criteria  for  the 

assessment  of  significant  adverse  effect  on  the  use,  explanation  of  the  assessment  of 
better  environmental  options).  The  RBMPs  state  that  in  general  the  Common 

Implementation  Strategy  guidance  no.  4  and  a  new  national  guidance  document  on 
heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies (of 2013) have been applied.  

The national guidance document on heavily modified water body designation contains 
a list of examples of cases describing significant adverse effects on the use and better 

environmental  options  that  can  be  used  in  the  argumentation.  However,  specific 

109 

 
information on the outcome of the assessment of significant adverse effects and better 
environmental options is not given on water body level62. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  "Review  the  designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  in 
particular  taking  into  account  restoration  measures  that  would  make  it  possible  for 

water  bodies  to  achieve  good  status,  which  will  in  turn  provide  a  legal  driver  for 
restoration measures."  

Assessment: The designation of heavily modified water bodies has been reviewed and 
the  reasons  for  changes  in  the  numbers  or  size/area  of  water  bodies  designated  as 

heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies  since  the  first  cycle  are 
generally  explained.  The  number  of  water  bodies,  their  typology  and  characteristics 

have  changed  because  of  new  mapping  of  the  hydromorphological  status  and  a  basic 
revision  of  the  natural  and  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  Changes  in  the  number  of 

heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies are also due to the application 
of  a  new  methodology  for  designating  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial 

water  bodies  (national  methodology  of  2013),  new  designations  of  water  bodies  in 
general and improved data available.  

Although the national guidance on heavily modified water bodies designation provides 
information  on  how  to  take  into  account  of  restoration  measures  that  would  make  it 

possible  for  water  bodies  to  achieve  good  status  and  how  to  assess  the  significant 
adverse effects  of such restoration measures, specific information  on the  outcomes of 
this assessment are not provided in all cases63. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

62 The German authorities subsequently informed that some  Federal States have provided additional information 
by background documents. 
63  The  German  authorities  have  informed  that  some  Federal  States  have  provided  additional  information  by 
background documents. 

110 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

8.1.1.  Environmental objectives 

The  environmental  objectives  are  defined  in  Article  4  of  the  WFD.  The  aim  is  long-term 
sustainable water management based on a high level of protection of the aquatic environment. 

Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objectives to be achieved in all surface and groundwater 
bodies,  i.e.  good  status  by  2015.  Within  this  general  objective,  specific  environmental 

objectives are defined for heavily modified water bodies (good ecological potential and good 
chemical  status  by  201564),  groundwater  bodies  (good  chemical  and  quantitative  status  by 
2015)  and  for  Protected  Areas  (achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  associated  Directive  by 
2015 unless otherwise specified).  

Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status have been reported in all RBDs as 
well  as  for  good  quantitative  and  chemical  groundwater  status.  Good  ecological  potential  is 

defined and objectives for transitional waters and coastal waters are reported.  

Assessments of the current status of surface and groundwater bodies in Germany are provided 

elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical 
status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  (Chapter  5); 

chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6); status of surface and groundwater bodies 
associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15). 

For  the  second  cycle,  Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  date  when  they  expect  each 
surface  and  groundwater  body  to  meet  its  environmental  objective.  This  information  is 

summarised  for  Germany  elsewhere  in  this  report:  for  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 
waters  (Chapter  3);  chemical  status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of 

groundwater bodies (Chapter 5); chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6).  

8.1.2.  Exemptions 

Where  environmental  objectives  are  not  yet  achieved  exemptions  can  be  applied  in  case  the 

respective conditions are met and required justifications are explained in the RBMP. Figure 8.1 
summarises the percentage of water bodies expected to be at least in good status in 2015 and 

64 For priority substances newly introduced by Directive 2013/39/EU, good status should be reached by 2027, and 
for  the  2008  priority  substances,  for  which  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  revised  by  Directive 
2013/39/EU, good status should be reached in 2021. 

111 

 
                                                      
the  use  of  at  least  one  exemption  in  Germany  for  the  four  main  sets  of  environmental 

objectives. 

Figure 8.1  Water bodies in Germany expected to be in at least good status in 2015 and 

use of exemptions. 1 = Surface water body ecological status/potential; 2 = 
Surface water body chemical status; 3 = Groundwater body quantitative 

status; 4 = Groundwater body chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reports. For some water bodies the date for achievement of good status is unknown 

Article  4  of  the  WFD  allows  under  certain  conditions  for  different  exemptions  to  the 
objectives:  extension  of  deadlines  beyond  2015,  less  stringent  objectives,  a  temporary 

deterioration,  or  deterioration  /  non-achievement  of  good  status  /  potential  due  to  new 
modifications, provided a set of conditions are fulfilled. The exemptions under WFD Article 4 

include the provisions in Article 4(4) - extension of deadline; Article 4(5) - lower objectives; 
Article 4(6) - temporary deterioration; and Article 4(7) - new modifications / new sustainable 

human  development  activities.  Article  4(4)  exemptions  may  be  justified  by:  disproportionate 
cost,  technical  feasibility  or  natural  conditions,  and  Article  4(5)  by  disproportionate  cost  or 
technical  feasibility.  In addition,  Article  6(3) of the Groundwater Directive65  allows Member 

65 Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 
of groundwater against pollution and deterioration  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711 

112 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
States  to  exempt  inputs  of  pollutants  to  groundwater  from  the  PoM  under  certain  specified 

circumstances. 

Figure 8.2 summarises the percentage of water bodies subject to each type of exemption (and 

reason) in relation to the four types of environmental objective in Germany. 

Figure 8.2 

Type of exemptions reported to be applied to surface water and groundwater 

bodies for the second RBMP in Germany. NB - Ecological status and 
groundwater quantitative status exemptions are reported at the water body 

level. Chemical exemptions for groundwater are reported at the level of each 
pollutant causing failure of good chemical status, and for surface waters for 

each Priority Substance that is causing failure of good chemical status  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

113 

 
 
Application of Article 4(4) 

The number of Article 4(4) exemptions for surface water bodies in all RBDs has increased in 
the  second  cycle66.  The  number  of  Article  4(4)  exemptions  for  groundwater  shows  a  mix  of 
increasing and decreasing trends among the RBDs. 

Similar to the first cycle, the main reasons for applying exemptions according to Article 4(4) 

are technical feasibility and natural conditions. Disproportionate costs are less often used as a 
justification. 

Technical  feasibility is argued in all basins by the fact that it takes longer to fix the problem 
than time is available and the lack of technical solutions. For some basins it is also argued that 

there is no information on the cause of the problem.  

According to WISE, disproportionate costs justifications are argued across the German RBDs 

by  Cost-Effectiveness  Analysis  and/or  distribution  of  costs  and/or  other  arguments.  In  the 
RBMPs assessed in more depth (North Rhine Westphalia RBMP covering parts of the Rhine, 

Weser,  Ems  and  Maas),  the  justification  for  disproportionate  costs  refers  to  the  justifications 
provided  in  the  CIS  reporting  guidance  document  and  includes  references  to  specific 
justifications  such  as  “limiting  factors  from  market  mechanisms“  or  “excessive  burden  for 

benefactors”. 

The drivers behind the exemptions under Article 4(4) applied in surface waters are agriculture, 

industry  and  energy  (in  all  RBDs),  fisheries  and  aquaculture  in  the  Danube,  Rhine,  Ems, 
Weser, Elbe, Meuse, Warnow/Peene RBDs), flood protection and urban development (Danube, 

Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra, Meuse, Warnow/Peene RBDs), forestry (Rhine, Weser, Elbe, 
Odra, Meuse, Warnow/Peene RBDs), tourism and recreation (Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra, 

Warnow/Peene  RBDs)  and 
in  Danube,  Rhine,  Ems,  Weser,  Elbe,  Odra, 
Warnow/Peene  RBDs.  The  main  driver  behind  the  exemptions  applied  in  groundwater  is 

transport 

agriculture  in  all  RBDs;  other  drivers  are  industry  (all  RBDs  except  Danube,  Weser,  Eider, 
Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene). Urban development is a driver in the Elbe and Rhine RBDs. 

The pressures responsible for exemptions to the good ecological status in surface waters come 
from  a  broad  range  of  activities  including  urbanisation,  industry,  agriculture,  mining, 

atmospheric deposition and activities causing changes in hydromorphology. In the Elbe RBD, 
the number of pressures reported is by far the highest in all German RBDs. A similar range of 

significant pressures are responsible for exemptions in relation to chemical status (Table 8.1).  

66 Germany subsequently clarified that this is also because of the new delineation of water bodies in the second 
cycle. 

114 

 
                                                      
Table 8.1 

Pressure responsible for Priority Substances in Germany failing to achieve 

good chemical status and for which exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on surface 
water bodies 

Failing Priority 
Substances 

Article 4(4) - Technical 
feasibility exemptions 

Article 4(5) - Technical 
feasibility exemptions 

Number 

Number 

Number 

1.1 - Point - Urban wastewater 

1.2 - Point - Storm overflows 

1.3 - Point - IED plants 

1.4 - Point - Non IED plants 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites 
or abandoned industrial sites 

1.7 - Point - Mine waters 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated sites 
or abandoned industrial sites 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not 
connected to sewerage network 

2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric 
deposition 

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - 
Unknown 

9 - Anthropogenic pressure - 
Historical pollution 

10 

13 

10 

10 

15 

3 

10 

10 

17 

8 

9 

2 

4 

7 

2 

5 

10 

312 

490 

42 

65 

32 

36 

140 

35 

2422 

236 

179 

5 

7 

11685 

9 

385 

165 

0 

0 

0 

0 

22 

64 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

61 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

For  groundwater,  the  main  pressures  responsible  for  an  exemption  in  relation  to  chemical 
status  in  all RBDs  are  point  and  diffuse  pollution  from  atmospheric  deposition,  industry  and 
agriculture  (Table  8.2).  For  groundwater  the  main  pressures  responsible  for  an  exemption  in 
relation to quantitative status in all RBDs is abstraction.  

115 

 
  
 
 
 
Table 8.2 

Pressure responsible for pollutants in Germany failing to achieve good 

chemical status in groundwater and for which exemptions have been applied  

Number of exemptions  

Significant 
pressure on 
groundwater 

Number 
of failing 
pollutants 

Article 4(4) 
- Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(4) 
– 
Disproport-
ionate cost 

Article 4(4) 
- Natural 
conditions 

Article 4(5) 
- Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(5) 
– 
Disproport-
ionate cost 

1.5 - Point - 
Contaminated sites 
or abandoned 
industrial sites 

1.6 - Point - Waste 
disposal sites 

1.7 - Point - Mine 
waters 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - 
Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse - 
Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - 
Agricultural 

2.5 - Diffuse - 
Contaminated sites 
or abandoned 
industrial sites 

2.8 - Diffuse - 
Mining 

3.2 - Abstraction or 
flow diversion - 
Public water supply 

6.2 - Groundwater - 
Alteration of water 
level or volume 

7 - Anthropogenic 
pressure - Other 

16 

2 

14 

5 

7 

9 

26 

3 

17 

1 

1 

2 

17 

2 

21 

1 

3 

12 

111 

36 

4 

8 

8 

18 

15 

12 

12 

2 

4 

12 

38 

1 

16 

28 

28 

25 

5 

16 

26 

442 

9 

3 

4 

46 

3 

8 

91 

32 

1 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

The  main  impacts  from  exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  for  surface  and  groundwater  are 
chemical and nutrient pollution and hydro-morphological changes in surface water 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Application of Article 4(5) 

Article  4(5)  exemptions  for  surface  waters  increased  in  those  RBDs  where  it  was  applied 
already  in  the  first  cycle  (Rhine,  Weser,  Meuse,  Warnow/Pene).  Article  4(5)  is  also  newly 

applied in the Elbe and Warnow/Peene RBDs, but it is no longer applied in the Meuse RBD.  

The number of RBDs where Article 4(5) is applied in groundwater increased from one (Meuse, 

Elbe) to six (Rhine, Weser Meuse, Elbe, Odra, Warnow/Peene). Exemptions under Article 4(5) 
to the achievement of good quantitative status in groundwater by 2015 have been applied in the 

Rhine,  Elbe,  Odra,  Meuse  and  Warnow/Peene  RBDs.  Exemptions  under  Article  4(5)  to  the 
achievement of good chemical status have been applied in the Rhine, Weser Elbe, Odra, Meuse 

RBDs. 

The  justifications  for  applying  Article  4(5)  in  surface  waters  and  groundwater  are  technical 

feasibility and disproportional costs. Technical feasibility is more often used as a justification 
than disproportionate costs.  

The German Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government 
has developed a guidance document including a methodology for proofing and justifying lower 
objectives.  In the RBMPs assessed it is  reported  that this methodology  has been applied  and 

the justifications have been followed. 

The drivers for the application of Article 4(5) are in surface water industry and agriculture in 

the Rhine, industry in the Weser, agriculture, energy, flood protection urban development and 
industry  in  the  Elbe,  industry  in  the  Meuse  and  transport  in  the  Warnow/Peene.  For 

groundwater  exemptions  under  Article  4(5)  the  drivers  are  industry  and  agriculture  in  the 
Rhine, industry in the Weser, agriculture, energy and industry in the Elbe, energy and industry 

in the Oder, agriculture and industry in the Meuse. 

The pressures behind exemptions under Art 4(5) are similar to those related to Article 4(4).  

Application of Article 4(6) 

Article 4(6) exemptions are not applied. 

Application of Article 4(7) 

In the first RBMP, Article 4(7) exemptions were applied in the Rhine (NRW) RBD. According 

to the information reported to WISE, Germany applies Article 4(7) in the second RBMP in the 
Rhine  and  Meuse  RBDs.  From  the  assessed  Rhine  (NRW)  RBMP,  it  becomes  clear  that  the 

117 

 
Article 4(7) exemption has been applied to continue lignite mining. The impact on the status of 

water  was  assessed  and  continuing  lignite  mining  was  concluded  to  negatively  impact  the 
groundwater.  Chapter  2  of  the  RBMP  provides  a  detailed  assessment  of  the  quantitative  and 

chemical  status  of  groundwater.  The  impacts  are  analysed  for:  i)  impacts  before  2009;  ii) 
impacts  2009-2015;  iii)  foreseeable  impacts  2015-2027;  and  iv)  long  term  impacts  beyond 

2027.  There  is  a  clear  statement  that  lignite  mining  will  be  the  only  modification  and  so  no 
cumulative effects can be expected. Alternatives to protect the groundwater have been assessed 

and there is  argumentation on why these alternatives cannot  be applied.  Alternatives refer to 
alternative mining technologies, various technologies for reducing the lowering of groundwater 

tables  (e.g.  icing,  dictation  walls,  etc.)  material  reallocation  and  pyritoxidation  and  various 
sealing approaches.  

For  surface  waters,  it  is  stated  that  the  deterioration  will  only  be  temporary  (no  time  frame 
provided)  as  several  measures  to  mitigate  the  negative  impacts  are  taken.  The  clarifications 
provided by the Weser court case67 are already considered in the assessment.  

Article 4(7)(c) requires that the new modification is justified because it is of overriding public 
interest / the benefits of the project outweigh the benefits of achieving the WFD Environmental 

Objectives. In relation to this Article, there is  a clear description of the importance of lignite 
mining  for  generating  energy  in  Germany.  Lignite  mining  is  the  main  source  for  primary 

energy production in Germany and also the main source for electricity. There is a discussion on 
alternative  energy  supply  sources  addressing  nuclear  and  renewable  energy.  Germany  will 

phase out nuclear energy by 2022. Renewable energy is constantly being developed but is still 
not  sufficient  to  deliver  the  required  quantities.  It  is  further  stated  that  the  lignite  policy  is 

currently under development beyond 2030. It is also stated that coal is currently essential for 
industrial energy production. 

Article 4(7) also  requires better environmental options to  be taken into account.  The issue is 
discussed in the background paper related to lignite mining where such mining is considered to 

be an important factor for energy supply in Germany and the same arguments are put forward 
as for Article 4(7)(c).  

Application of Article 6(3) Groundwater Directive 

Exemptions to groundwater under Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive68 have not been 
applied. 

67 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-461/13  

118 

 
                                                      
8.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In  the  first  RBMP  in  the  Rhine  RBD,  Article  4(7)  of  the  WFD  has  only  been  applied  in  the 
North Rhine-Westphalia part of the RBD in a few exceptional cases for groundwater and for 

surface waters. In the second cycle, it is applied in the Rhine and Meuse RBDs. The number of 
Article 4(4) applications for surface water cases in all RBDs has increased. Use of Article 4(5) 

for surface water increased in those RBDs where it was applied already in the first cycle, and it 
is again applied in the Elbe and Warnow/Peene RBDs, but it is no longer applied in the Meuse 
RBD69.  The  number  of  Article  4(4)  applications  for  groundwater  shows  a  mix  of  increasing 
and  decreasing  trends  (a  full  comparison  is  not  possible  as  the  data  in  the  first  cycle  is 
organized  in  a  different  way).  The  number  of  RBDs  in  which  Article  4(5)  is  applied  in 

groundwater increases from one (Meuse RBD) to five (Rhine, Weser, Elbe and Odra RBDs). 

8.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation:  A  significant  number  of  exemptions  have  been  applied  in  the  first 
RBMPs. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons 

for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. 

Assessment:  Exemptions  are  shown  at  the  water  body  level  and  the  justifications 

provided are more detailed in the second cycle compared to the first cycle. However, a 
in  Germany.  The 
significant  number  of  exemptions  remains 

to  be  applied 

recommendation has partly been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Should  all  measures  not  be  put  in  place  in  the  second  RBMP 
Germany is expected to  provide better justification for exemptions to the achievement 

of  environmental  objectives  (in  particular  as  regards  the  assessment  of  affordability 
and disproportionate costs). 

68  Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 
of groundwater against pollution and deterioration  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711 
69  Germany subsequently clarified that the revised assessment for the second RBMP led to the conclusion that the 
objectives might be achieved for the surface water bodies concerned within the time horizon of time extensions 
according  to  article  4(4)  WFD.  Regarding  the  groundwater  bodies  concerned,  article  4(7)  WFD  was  applied 
instead of article 4(5). 

119 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
Assessment:  Exemptions  are  shown  at  the  water  body  level  and  the  justifications 

provided are more detailed in the second cycle compared to the first cycle. Some of the 
RBMPs include references to justifications such as “excessive burden for benefactors” 

in  relation  to  disproportionate  cost,  which  should  be  further  specified.  The 
recommendation has partly been fulfilled.  

120 

 
 
Topic 9 Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the Programmes of Measures reported by 

Member  States;  more  specific  information  on  measures  relating  to  specific  pressures  (for 
example arising from agriculture) is provided in subsequent chapters. 

The Key Type of Measures (KTM) referred to in this section are groups of measures 
identified by Member States in the Programme of Measures, which target the same 
pressure  or  purpose.  The  individual  measures  included  in  the  Programme  of 
Measures  (being  part  of  the  RBMP)  are  grouped  into  KTMs  for  the  purpose  of 
reporting. The same individual measure can be part of more than one KTM because 
it may be multi-purpose, but also because the KTMs are not completely independent 
silos.  KTMs  have  been  introduced  to  simplify  the  reporting  of  measures  and  to 
reduce  the  very  large  number  of  Supplementary  Measures  reported  by  some 
Member States (WFD Reporting Guidance 2016).  

A KTM may be one national measure but it would typically comprise more than one 
national  measure.  The  25  predefined  KTMs  are  listed  in  the  WFD  Reporting 
Guidance 2016. 

The  KTMs  should  be  fully  implemented  and  made  operational  within  the  RBMP 
planning period to address specific pressures or chemical substances and achieve the 
environmental objectives. 

9.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

9.1.1.  General issues 

An  indication  as  to  whether  or  not  measures  have  been  fully  implemented  and  made 
operational is when they have been reported as being planned to tackle significant pressures (at 

the  KTM  level).  Significant  pressures  are  also  reported  at  the  water  body  level.  It  would 
therefore  be  expected  that  there  would  be  measures  planned  in  the  RBMP  to  tackle  all 

significant pressures. Germany has reported significant pressures causing water bodies to fail 
to  be  of  good  status  in  groundwater  and  surface  waters  for  all  10  RBDs,  as  well  as  KTMs 

where measures have been made operational.  

121 

 
 
 
In  some  RBDs  no  operational  KTMs  were  reported  for  some  significant  pressures  causing 

water bodies to fail to be of good status, for example for groundwater in the international RBD 
Danube:  2.10  Diffuse70  –  other  and  3.3.  Abstraction  or  flow  diversion71  –  industry;  in  the 
international  RBD  Rhine:  1.6  Point  sources  –  waste  disposal  and  3.7  Abstraction  or  flow 
diversion – other; in the Weser RBD: 1.7 Point source – mining and 2.10 Diffuse – other; and 

in  the  Eider,  Schlei/Trave  and  Warnow/Peene  RBDs:  2.1  Diffuse  –  urban  run-off; 
Schlei/Trave: 8 Anthropogenic – unknown. 

On the other hand, it is indicated that KTMs have been put in place for significant pressures 
which have not been reported as causing water bodies to fail to be of good status72, e.g. in the 
Rhine  RBD:  1.4  Point  sources  –  non-IED  plants;  in  the  Weser  RBD:  2.5  Diffuse  – 
contaminated  sites  or  abandoned  industrial  sites;  and  in  the  Schlei/Trave  RBD:  7 

Anthropogenic  pressures  –  other;  and  Schlei/Trave  and  Warnow/Peene:  3.1  Abstraction  or 
flow diversion – agriculture73. It is possible that this is due to inconsistent reporting and that, 
for  example  the  measures  put  in  place  in  the  Weser  RBD  under  KTM  type  2.5  (Diffuse  - 
contaminated  sites  or  abandoned  industrial  sites)  are  in  fact  intended  to  address  the  pressure 
2.10 (Diffuse – other) that are causing a failure of good status. Similarly, in the Schlei/Trave 

RBD the measures identified as having been put in place to address “Anthropogenic pressures 
– others” may address the pressure “Anthropogenic pressures – unknown” as causing a failure 

of good status. 

Similarly for surface water, no operational KTMs were reported for some significant pressures, 

e.g.  in  the  Danube  RBD:  1.3  Point  source  –  IED  plants,  3.5  Abstraction  or  flow  diversion  – 
hydropower, 4.2.3, Dams, barriers and locks – drinking water, 4.2.5 Dams, barriers and locks – 

recreation,  4.2.7  Dams,  barriers  and  locks  –  navigation,  and  5.1  Introduced  species  and 
diseases74. On the other hand, a number of significant pressures that have not been identified in 
this RBD as causing water bodies to fail to be of good status have been addressed by KTMs, 
e.g. 2.5 Diffuse sources – contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites, 2.8 Diffuse sources 

70  Germany  clarified  that  whilst  the  pressure  2.10  –  Diffuse  –  other  occurs  in  the  Danube  RBD,  it  does  not 
adversely impact the status of groundwater bodies and therefore no measures were deemed to be necessary. 
71 Germany subsequently clarified that “water abstraction” was used in the reporting for the Danube just as in the 
WG  ECOSTAT:  Water  abstracted  because  of  e.g.  hydropower  and  fed  back  to  the  water  body  downstream. 
Significant  water  abstraction  with  consumption  (e.g.  for  irrigation)  does  not  occur  in  the  Danube  area,  thus  no 
KTM were reported. 
72  Germany  subsequently noted that  in  the Elbe  RBD  measures have been  included for  water bodies that are in 
good status to prevent deterioration. 
73  Germany  subsequently  noted  that  an  error  had  been  made  in  the  reporting  to  WISE  and  that  the  significant 
pressure 3.1 Abstraction or flow diversion  – agriculture is responsible for causing  failures of good status in one 
groundwater body in the Schlei/Trave RBD, and 3 groundwater bodies in the Warnow/Peene RBD.  
74  Germany  clarified  that  whilst  certain  pressures  occur  in  the  Danube  RBD,  they  do  not  adversely  impact  the 
status of water bodies and therefore no measures were necessary. 

122 

 
                                                      
– mining, 3.6 Abstraction or flow diversion – fish farms, 4.3.6 Hydrological alterations – other, 

4.5  Hydromorphological  alterations  –  other,  and  5.2  Exploitation  or  removal  of  animals  or 
plants75.  

In the Weser RBD, no KTMs have been operational to address significant pressures causing a 
failure  of  good  status  in  surface  waters  from:  1.5  Point  sources  –  contaminated  sites  or 

abandoned  industrial  sites,  2.3  Diffuse  –  forestry,  3.2  Abstraction  or  flow  diversion  –  public 
water  supply,  3.3  Abstraction  or  flow  diversion  –  industry,  9  Anthropogenic  pressure  – 

historical  pollution.  On  the  other  hand,  additional  KTMs  are  put  in  place  to  address  the 
significant pressures: 4.1.1 Physical alteration – flood protection, 4.3.2 Hydrological alteration 

– transport, and 4.5 Hydromorphological alterations – other, but these pressures have not been 
identified as causing a failure of good status in surface waters.  

In  the  Eider  RBD,  no  KTMs  appear  to  have  been  adopted  to  address  significant  pressures 
causing  a  failure  in  good  status  in  surface  water  from  2.5  Diffuse  sources  –  contaminated 
sites76  or  abandoned  industrial  sites,  although  KTMs  are  in  place  to  address  the  following 
significant  pressures  which  have  not  been  identified  as  causing  a  failure  of  good  status  in 
surface  waters:  2.4  Diffuse  sources  –  transport,  4.2.7  Dams,  barriers  and  locks  –  navigation, 

4.3.1 Hydrological alteration – agriculture, 5.2 Exploitation or removal of animals or plants, 7 
Anthropogenic pressure – other.  

The  national  measures  have  been  mapped  against  KTMs  in  all  10  RBDs,  and  all  include  at 
least one KTM developed by Germany (see 9.1). Furthermore, 31 national basic measures and 

110 national supplementary measures were mapped; and 19 % of basic measures were mapped 
against  KTM1  -  Construction  or  upgrades  of  wastewater  treatment  plants.  15  %  of 

supplementary  measures  were  mapped  against  KTM6  –  Improving  hydromorphological 
conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity, and 13 % were mapped against 

KTM8 – Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households. 
Basic measures are in place to address all the requirements of Article 11(3) of the WFD (see 

Table 9.2). 

An inventory of national measures was provided as part of the electronic reporting to WISE. 

Further clarification on the inclusion of information on basic and supplementary measures was 
sought in the assessment of the RBMPs and background documents. This found that the basic 

75 Germany clarified that in the Danube RBD measures have been adopted to control pressures not causing water 
bodies to fail to be of good status in order to maintain good status and to prevent deterioration. 
76  Germany  commented  that  this  is  a  reporting  error  due  to  linking  LAWA  codes  from  maßnahmenkatalog  to 
KTM. 

123 

 
                                                      
measures  in  Germany  are  only  those  measures  which  fall  under  part  A  of  Annex  VI  of  the 
WFD77. The LAWA has developed a catalogue of measures for the Floods Directive78, WFD 
and Marine Strategy Framework Directive79. The Länder can and have detailed them further. 
However,  there  is  no  stipulation  as  to  what  is  mandatory  or  voluntary  and  in  fact  some 
measures can be both. For example, a buffer strip can be part of a basic measure and therefore 

mandatory, but also be part of a supplementary measure and therefore voluntary. The detailed 
implementation  of  measures  is  subject  to  different  authorities  (from  federal  to  local  level) 

responsible for either certain parts of the water body or responsible for certain activities (e.g. 
shipping,  energy  production).  The  measures  are  more  oriented  to  addressing  pressures,  than 

specific  sectors  and  therefore  are  often  difficult  to  allocate.  For  example,  re-naturation  can 
address urban, flood protection and agriculture at the same time. In general,  measures related 
to  licensed  activities (Urban Wastewater Treatment  Directive80, Hydropower) are more often 
mandatory as they are part of the licensing process. 

The  percentage  of  water  bodies  not  expected  to  achieve  good  status/  potential  by  2027  was 
reported  for  significant  pressures  on  groundwater  and  surface  water  in  all  RBDs,  including 
information  for  many  sub-basins;  it  varies  from  “0”,  to  “0-10”;  but  “no  information”  is 
indicated for a large number of pressures in many RBDs and sub-basins81.  

KTMs  used  to  tackle  significant  pressures  are  listed  against  individual  substances  for 

groundwater  for  all  RBDs  except  the  Odra,  Meuse  and  Warnow/Peene  RBDs,  although 
substances  causing  failure  in  groundwater  (including  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies 
failing)  are  listed  for  all  RBDs82.  Whilst  KTMs  are  also  listed  against  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants  in  surface  waters  for  all  RBDs,  except  the  Meuse  and  Warnow/Peene,  significant 

pressures in surface water bodies causing failure of objectives are not listed.  

in 

of 

the 

field 

water 

action 

policy 

77  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  framework  for  the 
Community 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060  
78  Directive  2007/60/EC  on  the  assessment  and  management  of  flood  risks  entered  into  force  on  26  November 
2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060  
79 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework 
for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive) 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056  
80  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of  21  May  1991  concerning  urban  waste-water  treatment  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271  
81 Germany commented that data in dashboard 9.8b seem to be partly incorrect for the RBD Elbe. For example: 
All of the 4 GWB with the pressure 2.1 will achieve the good status until 2027 (and not “no information” as listed 
in the dashboard).  
82  Germany  clarified  that  for  the  Warnow/Peene  RBD  there  is  no  groundwater  body  in  DE9650,  where  an 
exceedance  of  pollutants  other  than  nitrate  or  ammonium  caused  the  failure  of  achieving  the  objectives  (WISE 
electronic  reporting,  RBMP  DE9650,  Chapter  4.3.2).  Nevertheless  KTM  2  “reduce  nutrient  pollution  from 
agriculture”, 12 “advisory services for agriculture” and 14 “Research, Improvement of knowledge base reducing 
uncertainty”  have  been  made  operational  for  groundwater  to  tackle  the  significant  pressures  and  to  prevent 
deterioration 

124 

 
                                                      
The main individual substances causing failures in groundwater are nitrate and pesticides and 

their  metabolites;  and  these  are  addressed  mainly  with  KTM12  –  Advisory  services  for 
agriculture,  but  also  with  KTM2  –  Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture  and  KTM3  – 

Reduce  pesticide  pollution  from  agriculture.  Other  Pollutants  include  sulphate,  chloride,  and 
tri- and tetra-chloroethylene. Whilst these are addressed using various KTMs in the Elbe RBD, 

in  others  (e.g.  the  Rhine,  Ems  and Weser)  they  appear  to  be  addressed  mainly  by  KTM14  – 
Research, and the new KTM40 which addresses impacts from human activities. Some Priority 

Substances are also listed among the Pollutants as causing failure of objectives in groundwater 
but are not covered by KTMs. 

KTMs have been reported for some Priority Substances causing failure of WFD objectives in 
surface water in all RBDs, except in the Warnow/Peene RBD although this RBD did identify 
the  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  of  objectives83.  However,  many  pressures  are  not 
addressed, e.g. for the Rhine only seven of 19 Priority Substances seem to be addressed, in the 
Ems five of nine have been addressed84, in the Weser five of 10 have been addressed, and in 
the  Elbe  14  of  27  have  been  addressed85.  Moreover,  in  many  cases  KTM14  –  Research  is 
identified as the KTM that will be used.  

Cost  effectiveness  analysis  is  an  appraisal  technique  that  provides  a  ranking  of  alternative 
measures  on  the  basis  of  their  costs  and  effectiveness,  where  the  most  cost-effective  has  the 

highest  ranking.  A  cost  effectiveness  analysis  was  undertaken  in  Germany  during  the 
development  of  the  first  PoM  (2009-2015)  for  all  measures  and  for  all  significant  pressures. 

However, the following factors limited the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in the first PoM: 

  Lack of information  on the environmental effectiveness  of some measures in 
terms  of  reducing  pressures  and  improving  water  body  status  for  some 

pressures. 

  Lack of information on the regulatory effectiveness of some measures in terms 
of reducing pressures and improving water body status for some pressures. 

83 Germany clarified that for the Warnow/Peene RBD an error had been made in the reporting  – measures are in 
place but were not reported against specific substances. 
84  Germany  clarified  that  in  the  Ems  RBD  the  four  substances  for  which  measures  were  not  reported  (diuron, 
nickel, cadmium and PAHs) only one water body is affected. It was further clarified that for diuron measures are 
in place (prohibition of use). 
85  Germany  clarified  that  only  some  “Länder”  of  the  RBD  Elbe  have  reported  measures  for  specific  chemical 
substances  causing  failure  of  WFD  objectives,  but  all  of  the  Länder  reported  measures  for  pressures  causing 
failure of WFD objectives. These pressures of course include specific chemical substances. 

125 

 
                                                      
  Lack of information on the time-lag between making measures operational, the 

pressures being reduced and improvements being apparent. 

  Lack of information on the costs of measures for some pressures. 

The first RBMPs indicated that the cost-effectiveness analysis was one out of several selection 
criteria  in  the  selection  process,  but  it  remained  unclear  to  what  extent  it  was  used.  For  the 

second PoM, it was reported that qualitative cost effectiveness analysis was reported for eight 
RBDs,  a  quantitative  analysis  for  one  (the  Odra  RBD)  and  a  combined  analysis  for  the 

remaining RBD (the Schlei/Trave RBD). Links to relevant documents are provided for all 10 
RBDs.  This  was  further  examined  in  the  assessment  of  RBMPs  and  background  documents 

where it was found that in Germany a cost-effectiveness analysis is only undertaken for some 
measures, at the level of the specific measure or combination of measures, and at the RBD/sub-

basin/water body scale. No methodology is described. However, the RBMP further states that 
experience shows that the situation at the water body level is usually very complex, and that 

real  alternatives  are  not  always  available  in  practice  or  are  already  at  an  early  stage  in  the 
decision process for reasons of effectiveness or for practical reasons. Moreover, cost efficiency 
is  not  a  fixed  attribute  of  the  individual  measures,  but  a  result  of  the  entire  measure 

identification  and  selection  process.  A  ranking  of  individual  measures  according  to  a  one-
dimensional  cost-effectiveness  ratio  is  therefore  only  possible  and  appropriate  under  certain 

conditions.  Given  the  large  number  of  individual  measures  and  bundles  of  measures,  the 
explicit carrying out  of  cost-benefit  analyses for each individual measure is  considered to  be 

disproportionate,  primarily  because  of  the  procedural  effort  involved.  Also  the  monetary 
expenditure for an explicit proof must be in relation to the actual measures costs. This is not 

the  case,  especially  for  small  measures,  which  are  associated  with  a  low  monetary  cost. 
Therefore, instead of explicit computational efficiency studies, other methods integrated in the 

planning  process  are  being  used  in  Germany  to  ensure  cost-efficiency  in  planning  measures. 
Methodologically,  this  approach  is  based  on  the  meta-criterion  of  organizational  efficiency. 

The existence of existing water management structures and processes offers the possibility of 
pursuing other methodological  ways to  ensure cost  efficiency.  In Germany, the measures are 

identified or planned, selected and prioritized in firmly established and legally regulated water 
management  structures  and  processes.  Within  these  processes  and  structures,  in  turn,  a  large 

number of mechanisms and instruments already apply, which ensure the cost-effectiveness of 
measures.  During  the  implementation  of  the  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  WFD 

through  several  planning  or  selection  phases,  the  measures  are  gradually  specified  or 
prioritized. The question of the cost-effectiveness of the measures arises at all stages of action 

126 

 
identification and selection; ultimately, cost effectiveness analysis is part of the outcome of the 

entire planning and selection process. 

Although the procedure for finding and selecting measures by state, by type of water, by type 

of  measure,  by  natural  region  and  many  other  parameters  can  vary,  it  is  generally  true  in 
Germany  that  a  variety  of  similar  mechanisms  at  various  decision-making  levels  come  into 

play  and  thus  (cost-)  efficiency  of  measures  is  ensured  in  the  decision-making  process.  Key 
tools  and  mechanisms  that  support  the  selection  of  cost-effective  measures  throughout  the 

country include procedural rules for economic and economic implementation of public-sector 
projects. The budgetary law provides for reasonable cost-effectiveness analyses of government 

and  municipal  funding.  In  state-subsidized  construction  projects,  a  technical  and  economic 
examination is required in the grant procedure. Finally, by tendering measures in accordance 

with procurement rules, cost-efficiency in the execution of measures in market competition is 
also  ensured.  In  addition  to  these  requirements  for  explicit  profitability  studies,  the  existing 

structures and processes as well as their interaction play a role in the selection of cost-efficient 
measures. Thus, e.g. the organization or process organization of an institution involved in the 
decision-making process also contributes to the selection of cost-effective measures. 

Germany  did  not  hold  data  in  the  correct  format  to  be  able  to  report  the  costs  of  Basic 
Measures (Article 11(3)(a-l), Article (11)(4) or Article (11)(5)) for any cycle, nor was it able to 

include an indication of whether European Union funding had been obtained. Furthermore, no 
explanatory documents were provided where this information could have been presented. 

Germany has provided an enormous volume of data entries relating to the gaps to be filled by 
KTMs and indicators for the scale and progress with implementation of measures until 2027. 

However, the data provided often represent the aggregation of data for a sub-set of sub-units 
only of the respective RBD and not for the entire RBD. Although Germany indicated this in its 

reporting  the  information  reported  could  not  be  assessed  sufficiently  for  providing  a 
comparable picture at RBD level86. However, some gap analyses have been reported, with gap 
indicators such as for example the number or length  of water bodies, or the number of point 
sources  failing,  and  also  measure  indicators    in  terms  of  number  of  water  bodies  or  sites 

requiring measures or number of measures required. Gap values are often given for 2015 only, 
sometimes  for  2015  and  2021,  but  not  for  2027.  In  some  cases  some  improvements  are 

indicated for 2021. 

86 Germany clarified that the use of “9999” and “0” in the electronic reporting of this information to WISE was 
intended to indicate that the figures represented the aggregation of a sub-set of basins. Unfortunately, this method 
of reporting makes it impossible for the information reported to be assessed as it is not clear exactly what has been 
reported.  

127 

 
                                                      
Co-ordination of the preparation of all RBMPs and PoM with the Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive87  is  reported  for  all  of  the  RBDs  whereas  joint  consultation  on  the  RBMPs  and 
Marine  Strategy  is  indicated  for  three  of  the  RBDs  only  –  the  Eider,  Schlei/Trave  and 

Warnow/Peene.  Consideration  of  the  need  for  additional  or  more  stringent  measures  beyond 
those  required  by  the  WFD  in  order  to  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  relevant  Marine 

Strategy Framework Directive objectives in coastal and marine environments was reported for 
four  RBDs  –  the  Danube,  Rhine,  Ems  and  Meuse,  in  all  of  which  additional  measures  for 

nutrients and other substances were implemented.  

KTMs that are relevant to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are listed and the relevant 
KTM are listed for all RBDs except the Danube88, with an indication of the type of measure, 
but  not  indicating  the  pressures  they  are  addressing.  The  measures  are  predominantly 

supplementary  (all  in  the  Rhine,  Ems,  Weser,  Meuse  and  Warnow/Peene),  but  some  other 
basic measures are included in the other RBDs. 

The  RBMPs  and  Floods  Directive89  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  have  not  been  integrated 
into  a  single  plan  in  any  of  the  RBDs.  However,  coordination  of  RBMPs  and  Flood  Risk 
Management Plans, consideration of the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive in 

the  second  RBMPs  and  PoM  was  carried  out  on  all  RBDs.  Win-win  measures  in  terms  of 
achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive,  drought  management  and  use  of 

Natural Water Retention Measures have also been included in the PoM, and the design of new 
and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, has 

been  adapted  to  take  account  of  WFD  Environmental  Objectives  in  all  RBDs.  No  financial 
commitments have been secured for the implementation of PoM in the flood protection sector 

in  any  of  the  RBDs,  nor  has  WFD  Article  9(4)  been  applied  to  impoundment  for  flood 
protection. As such it could be an activity/use which should be subject to cost recovery under 
Article 9 in all RBDs.90 

87 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework 
for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive) 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056 
88 Germany clarified that KTMs that are relevant to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive were not planned 
because there were no reduction targets for N-concentration to the Black Sea. Modelling with the target value for  
N-concentration  of  2.8  mg/l  NO3-N  analogue  to  North  and  Baltic  Sea  indicates  no  significant  N-pressure  from 
German Danube RBD. 
89  Directive  2007/60/EC  on  the  assessment  and  management  of  flood  risks  entered  into  force  on  26  November 
2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060  
90 Germany subsequently informed that it does not consider this a requirement of any of the Directives and that 
the German definition of water services is in conformity with the WFD, following a judgment of the ECJ. 

128 

 
                                                      
9.1.2.  Measures related to other significant pressures 

Most  of  the  other  significant  pressures  relate  to  unknown  anthropogenic  pressures  –  other, 
unknown, and historical pollution, exploitation of animals or plants, and introduced species or 

diseases. The indicator gaps are given for some of these as number of water bodies or lengths 
of water bodies for 2015, or in a few cases for 2021 (with some reductions indicated), but none 

for 2027. For the Ems and Weser RBDs no reductions are expected by 2021, where indicated. 
Similarly,  indicator  values  for  the  KTM  associated  for  each  significant  other  pressures  have 

been provided for some cases only and mainly for 2015, some also for 2021 but none for 2027, 
with some reductions indicated between 2015 and 2021. 

9.1.3.  Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

It  was  expected  that  Member  States  would  be  able  to  report  their  PoM  by  associating  their 

national measures with predefined Key Types of Measure. Key Types of Measure are expected 
to  deliver  the  bulk  of  the  improvements  through  reduction  in  pressures  required  to  achieve 

WFD Environmental Objectives. A Key Type of Measure may be one national measure but it 
would  typically  comprise  more  than  one  national  measure.  Member  States  are  required  to 
report on the national measures associated with the Key Types of Measures, and whether the 

national  measures are basic (Article 11(3)(a) or  Article 11(3)(b-l)) or supplementary  (Article 
11(4)).  

Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant 
Key Types of Measures in Germany. Also shown is the number of RBDs for which the Key 

Type  of  Measure  has  been  reported.  Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  type  of  basic  measures 
associated with the national measures mapped against the Key Type of Measure. 

KTM have been mapped against the national measures in all 10 RBDs, and all include at least 
one  KTM  developed  by  Germany  (KTM40  –  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  impacts  from 

human activities). All significant pressures seem to be covered in a sample of the RBDs that 
were checked (Danube, Rhine, Ems and Weser). An inventory of national measures is provided 

(WISE electronic reporting). 

The percentage of water bodies not expected to achieve good status or potential by 2027 was 

reported  for  significant  pressures  on  groundwater  and  surface  water  in  all  RBDs,  including 
information  for  many  sub-basins;  it  varies  from  “0”,  to  “0-10”;  but  “no  information”  is 

indicated for a large number of pressures in many RBDs and sub-basins.  

129 

 
Table 9.1 

Mapping of the types of national measures to Key Types of Measure in 

Germany  

Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of RBDs 
where 
reported 

KTM1  -  Construction  or  upgrades  of  wastewater  treatment 
plants 

(e.g. 

improvement  of  knowledge  base 

-  Drinking  water  protection  measures 

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 
KTM13 
establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 
KTM14  -  Research, 
reducing uncertainty 
KTM15  -  Measures  for  the  phasing-out  of  emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for 
the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority 
Substances 
KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater 
treatment plants (including farms). 
KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and 
surface run-off 
KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of invasive alien species and introduced diseases 
KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of recreation including angling 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants 
KTM21  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of 
pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 
KTM4  -  Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical 
pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) 
KTM5  -  Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (e.g.  establishing 
fish passes, demolishing old dams) 
KTM6  -  Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 
KTM7  -  Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment 
of ecological flows 
KTM8  -  Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation, 
industry, energy and households 
KTM40 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of other human activities 
KTM60  - Additional  measures as  may be necessary in order 
to achieve objectives 

6 

2 

1 

4 

2 

3 

2 

4 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

7 

3 

4 

4 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

5 

4 

10 

2 

2 

4 

2 

6 

3 

17 

5 

14 

4 

4 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

31 

110 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

130 

10 

10 

8 

10 

7 

7 

10 

6 

3 

10 

9 

10 

10 

6 

7 

10 

8 

10 

10 

10 

8 

10 

1 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in Germany  

Basic 
Measure 
Type 

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

2 

1 

4 

e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d

s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

e
s
u
f
f
i
d

r
e
t
a
w
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

e
g
r
a
h
c
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
u
a

s
r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

n
a
b
r
U

r
e
t
a
w
e
t
s
a
W

6 

t
c
e
r
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

4 

2 

1 

2 

4 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

7 

1 

1 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of 
wastewater treatment plants 

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 
KTM13 - Drinking water protection 
measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard 
zones, buffer zones etc) 

KTM14 - Research, improvement of 
knowledge base reducing uncertainty 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of 
emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Hazardous Substances or for the reduction 
of emissions, discharges and losses of 
Priority Substances 
KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of 
industrial wastewater treatment plants 
(including farms). 

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment 
from soil erosion and surface run-off 
KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from 
agriculture 

KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control 
the adverse impacts of fishing and other 
exploitation/removal of animal and plants 
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control 
the input of pollution from urban areas, 
transport and built infrastructure 

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 
KTM25 - Measures to counteract 
acidification 
KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from 
agriculture. 
KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites 
(historical pollution including sediments, 
groundwater, soil) 
KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity 
(e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing 
old dams) 
KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological 
conditions of water bodies other than 
longitudinal continuity 

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime 
and/or establishment of ecological flows 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key 
‘IPPC IED’ = Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive 
(2010/75/EU) . 

‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). 

‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause 
pollution. 

‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to 
cause pollution. 

‘Pollutants direct groundwater’ = Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater. 

‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 
7) including those to reduce the level of purification required for the production of drinking water. 

‘Recharge augmentation groundwaters’ = Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of 
artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies. 

‘Urban Wastewater’ = Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) . 

9.1.4.  Pressures  for  which  gaps  to  be  filled  to  achieve  the  WFD  objectives  have  been 

reported and the Key Types of Measures (KTMs) planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  the  WFD 
Environmental  Objectives  in  terms  of  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 

groundwater;  in  terms  of  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status;  and  in 
terms  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential. 

Member  States  were  asked  to  report  predefined  indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be  filled  or  other 
indicators where relevant. Values for the gap indicators were required for 2015 and 2021, and 

were optional for 2027. 

The  information  reported  in  WISE  on  the  gaps  to  fulfil  to  achieve  good  ecological  status 

include detailed data on the significant pressures on surface and groundwaters that may cause 
failure on the environmental objectives. For chemical  status,  the Member States reported the 
specific chemical substances causing failure. 

This information is reported at the sub-unit level. Sub-units are smaller geographic areas within 

particular  RBDs  identified  by  Member  States.  Not  all  Member  States  have  defined  and 
reported sub-units. 

Member States were required to report which KTMs are to be made operational to reduce the 
gaps to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD environmental objectives. A number 

of  indicators  were  predefined  for  each  KTM.  Values  of  the  indicators  for  the  second  and 

132 

 
 
subsequent  planning  cycles  were  also  to  be  reported  to  give  an  indication  of  the  expected 

progress and achievements: the values for 2027 could be optionally reported. This means that 
the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as measures are implemented. A value of 

zero is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status.  

This  information  was  reported  at  sub-unit  level,  or  at  RBDs  level  if  sub-units  have  not  been 

reported by the Member State. 

9.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In general, the amount and quality of readily available information has improved between the 
two cycles because of the revised reporting schema. Often there is no equivalent information 

for  the  first  cycle  and  it  is  difficult,  therefore,  to  make  direct  comparisons  between  the  two 
cycles, since the data has changed significantly.  

Progress  since  the  first  RBMP  was  reported  as  “some  measures  completed”,  but  obstacles 
include  Governance  (one  of  the  10  RBD);  lack  of  finance  (four  RBDs);  lack  of  mechanisms 

(three RBDs), not cost effective (eight RBDs), and “other” (land availability) in all RBDs. A 
large  number  of  significant  pressures  have  been  listed  for  different  sources  and  sectors,  and 

some  gap  analyses  have  been  reported,  although  for  a  limited  number  of  pressures  (see  also 
lack of progress concerning recommendations in section 1.3 below). Further information was 

sought in the assessment of RBMPs and background documents. Two RBDs were selected for 
assessment.  In  the  first  RBD,  the  Odra,  although  information  had  been  provided  addressing 

changes between the two cycles this did not address the PoM. In the second RBD, the Rhine, a 
sub-level C plan relating to Saarland was examined where it was identified that smaller urban 

wastewater treatment plants with phosphorus removal were planned. They also identified that 
the selection of measures in the second cycle was based more on monitoring data, rather than 

expert judgement which had been used in the first RBMPs. 

No new legislation or regulations to implement the PoM in the first cycle was reported for any 
of the 10 RBDs91. 

91  Germany  commented  that  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  is  not  needed  to  be  under  a 
legislation 

133 

 
 
                                                      
9.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation: “Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status and 

that the PoM is designed and implemented to close that gap” 

Assessment:  Whilst  a  large  number  of  measures  are  now  reported  as  operational,  a 
limited number of gap analyses have been provided for some significant pressures and 

also for “Other significant pressures” for 2015 and for a smaller number also for 2021, 
with  limited  improvements  predicted  for  2021.  This  recommendation  is  partially 

fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  “Germany  should  include  in  the  RBMPs  a  clear  timetable  for  the 

measures to be implemented.” 

Assessment: There is no clear timeline for all the measures to be completed, except the 

indications  from  the  gap  analyses  (see  also  assessment  of  Recommendation  above). 
important  measures.  This 
Some  RBD’s  have 

for  most 

timelines 

reported 

recommendation is partly fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  “Improve  knowledge  (in  designing  and  making  operational  the 
measures for the second RBMP) on the link between pressures and impacts in order to 
refine the significance of the pressures by quantifying those which are likely to prevent 

the achievement of environmental objectives.” 

Assessment: Whilst national measures seem to be available for all significant pressures, 

no KTM were reported in some RBDs for several significant pressures (for details, see 
the assessment in section 1.1 above). More information is available in Chapter 2. This 

recommendation is partly fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  “Assess 
environmental objectives”. 

the  reduction 

in  pressures  required 

to  achieve 

Assessment:  This  has  been  addressed  to  some  extent  through  gap  analyses,  although 

these  are  limited  and  not  all  pressures  are  covered  (see  the  assessment  in  section  1.1 
above). This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

134 

 
  Recommendation:  “Apportion  the  source  and  clearly  identify  the  responsible 

sectors/areas.”  

Assessment:  A  large  number  of  significant  pressures  have  been  listed  for  different 

sources and sectors. This recommendation is fulfilled. 

  Recommendation  “Provide  more  information  in  the  RBMPs  about  the  measures, 
especially  the  expected  impact/effect  on  the  water  bodies´  status.  Other  information, 
such as the location, timing and financing would add a level of specificity to the second 

RBMPs that was a weakness in the first RBMP.”  

Assessment: Details of measures have been provided for each RBD, but their effects on 

water bodies’ status is not clear in many cases, due to limited gap analyses and lack of 
detailed/sectoral financial commitments. This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  “Meaningful  information  regarding  the  scope,  the  timing  and  the 
funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so that the approach to achieve 
the  objectives  is  clear.  All  the  relevant  information  on  basic  and  supplementary 

measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to ensure transparency of the 
planned  actions  for  the  achievement  of  the  environmental  objectives  set  out  in  the 
WFD.”  

Assessment:  A  large  number  of  KTMs  have  been  reported  to  be  operational,  but  no 
costs/funding  or  timing  of  measures  were  reported  electronically  to  WISE.  Overview 

information  has  been  provided  in  some  RBDs.  This  recommendation  is  partially 
fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  “Provide  better  information  on  how  measures  are  selected  and 
targeted towards a water body. While uncertainties related to the status and the effects 
of  measures  were  provided  in  the  first  RBMPs  it  is  expected  that  many  of  these 

obstacles should have been overcome in the second RBMPs.” 

Assessment:    Adequate  information  is  given  in  RBMPs  and  POMs  for  some  RBDs. 

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  “Provide  more  ambitious  programmes  of  measures  for  the  second 

RBMPs to increase the number of water bodies at good status by 2021.” 

135 

 
Assessment: Gap analyses for some pressures indicate improvements by 2021, e.g. the 

number of point sources from urban wastewater is expected to reduce from 474 in 2015 
to 12 in 2021 in surface water of the Rhine RBD, but others show no improvements and 

gap analyses are limited. This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: “Set out better information on the allocation of financial resources 

for measure implementation in the second RBMPs.”  

Assessment:  Apart  from  an  overall  financial  commitment  to  implement  PoM  in  all 

RBDs,  little  detail  on  the  allocation  of  financial  resources  have  been  provided.  This 
recommendation is not fulfilled. 

136 

 
 
 
Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

10.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

10.1.1. Water exploitation and trends  

Water  abstraction  (understood  as  consumptive  use)  has  not  been  identified  as  a  significant 
pressure at the RBD level (or in significant portions of the RBD); however several RBDs have 
more  than  10%  of  groundwater  bodies  in  poor  quantitative  status  (Odra,  Meuse92  and 
Warnow/Peene93 RBDs) or more than 20 % of surface water bodies with significant abstraction 
pressures (Danube RBD). The reported information on pressures and status are not conclusive. 
The  Water  Exploitation  Index+  is  not  calculated;  and  water  quantity  data  have  not  been 

previously reported to support the European State of the Environment Report. Water scarcity is 
not considered an issue at the international level. The RBMPs do not include a water resource 

allocation and management plan. 

10.1.2. Main uses for water consumption  

Germany has not  reported the uses of water consumption as water quantity  pressures are not 
reported as significant. 

10.1.3. Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

Regarding  basic  measures  (Article  11(3)(e)),  in  Germany  there  is  a  permitting  regime  and  a 

register  of  abstractions  for  surface  water  and  groundwater  and  a  concession,  authorisation 
and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  water  impoundment  and  a  register  of  impoundments. 

Furthermore, small abstractions are not exempted from these controls.  

Measures  for  the  efficient  and  sustainable  use  of  water  (Article  11(3)(c))  have  been 

implemented in the first cycle and no new measures and/or significant changes are planned for 
the  second  cycle,  except  for  the  Weser  and  Odra  RBDs  where  new  measures  are  planned; 
however, these are not the RBDs facing the most relevant water quantity pressures.  

Measures  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater 
bodies  (Article  11(3)(f)  have  been  implemented  in  the  first  cycle  and  no  new  measures  or 

92  Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  deficits  in  the  German  part  of  RDB  Meuse  are  due  to  the  specific 
conditions in the lignite mining area. 
93 Germany subsequently clarified that in the  RBD Warnow/Peene 5 groundwater bodies are in bad quantitative 
status.  For  three  of  them,  the  reasons  are  the  anthropogenic  pressures  ‘abstraction’  and  ‘saline  intrusion  due  to 
abstraction’. For the other two water bodies, the reasons are unknown and investigations are taking place to find 
the cause for the lowering of the water tables. 

137 

 
                                                      
significant  changes  are  planned  for  the  next  period  for  all  RBDs,  except  for  the  Weser  and 

Odra RBDs. 

Complementary  measures  under  KTMs  are  reported  for  addressing  abstraction  pressures, 

applying a rather varied set in the different RBDs. Measures under KTM8 - Water efficiency, 
technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry,  energy  and  households  will  address  gaps  in 

approximately  50  water  bodies  in  the  Danube,  Rhine,  Ems,  Elbe,  Schlei/Trave  and 
Warnow/Peene  RBDs.  Measures  under  KTM7  -  Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or 

establishment  of  ecological  flows  as  well  as  KTM13  and  KTM14  are  only  foreseen  for  a 
limited number of water bodies in the Elbe RBD. Measures under KTM5, KTM6, KTM21 and 

KTM24 are planned in the Rhine RBD to address water abstraction pressures. 

The list of measures under KTMs proposed for addressing water abstraction pressures seems 

rather  casual  and  is  very  different  between  the  RBDs,  with  some  KTMs  listed  that  do  not 
necessarily have an apparent influence in reducing pressures (especially in the Rhine and Elbe 

RBDs). On the other hand, it is also noteworthy that water pricing is apparently not foreseen 
for any RBD. 

10.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Measures  for  the  efficient  and  sustainable  use  of  water  (Article  11(3)(c))  have  been 
implemented in the first cycle and no new measures and/or significant changes are planned for 

the second cycle, except for the Odra RBD where new measures are planned (however, this is 
not one of the RBDs facing the most relevant water quantity pressures). 

10.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no recommendations from the first RBMPs for this topic. 

138 

 
 
 
Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Pressures and impacts on water quality from agriculture are reported in all RBDs and include 

pollutants  such  as  nutrients  (and  associated  eutrophication)  and  pesticides,  as  well  as 
morphological modifications.    

A gap assessment for the reduction in the number of applications of pesticides is only provided 
for  the  Rhine  RBD.  A  gap  assessment  for  loads  of  nitrogen/phosphorus  to  be  reduced  to 

achieve  objectives  was  done  in  all  RBDs  but  the  values  provided  do  not  allow  a  detailed 
assessment for all RBD’s94. 

Measures match the identified pressures: KTM2 – Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture, 
KTM3 – Reduce pesticides pollution, KTM12  – Advisory services for agriculture, KTM13 – 

Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.), 
KTM17  –  Measures  to  reduce  sediment  from  soil  erosion  and  surface  run-off,  KTM23  – 
Natural  water  retention  measures  are  applied  in  all  RBDs.  The  LAWA95  -BLANO 
Maßnahmenkatalog  translates  the  KTM  into  national  measures,  which  are  voluntary  and 

mandatory at the same time. This can be explained by the fact that the measures can be applied 
under the legal requirements (e.g. Nitrates Directive96) but also on a voluntary basis (e.g. under 
the Rural Development Programme). 

Implementation  of  basic  measures  Article  11(3)(h)  for  the  control  of  diffuse  pollution  from 

agriculture at source is ensured in all RBDs where the same rules apply across the whole RBD. 
for 
Supplementary  measures  are  applied 

in  all  RBDs.  General  binding 

rules 

microbiological/bacteriological  pollution,  nitrates,  organic  pollution,  other  pollutants, 
pesticides, phosphorus and sediments to control diffuse pollution from agriculture are set and 

applied in all RBDs. 

The  Rhine  RBD  has  been  checked  to  identify  whether  mandatory  safeguard  zones  around 
Drinking Water Protected Areas have been established to protect drinking water sources from 

agricultural pollution and such zones are implemented.  

94 Germany subsequently stated that for some RBDs further explanation is provided in the RBMPs. 
95 The LAWA is the German Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government 
represented by the Federal Environment Ministry. www.lawa.de/index.php?a=2  
96  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
agricultural 
caused 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676  

sources 

nitrates 

from 

by 

139 

 
                                                      
In  these  zones,  mandatory  measures  in  all  RBMPs  addressing  the  Rhine  refer  to  measures 

under  the  Nitrates  Directive  without  detailing  them  further.  There  is  also  a  reference  to  the 
national plant protection regulation in all plans. Further measures are only voluntary97. 

Farmers/Farmers'  Unions  have  been  consulted  under  the  Public  Consultation  process  in  all 
RBDs. 

According  to  WISE,  financing  of  measures  is  not  secured  in  any  of  the  RBDs  and  no 
information  on  potential  costs  is  provided98.  Germany  subsequently  stated  that  this  is  a 
reporting error and that financing is secured. In WISE, there is also no information on potential 
sources of funding. For the Rhine RBD, which was assessed on an exemplary basis, the main 

sources  of  funding  for  the  voluntary  measures  come  from  the  Rural  Development  fund  and 
revenues from water abstraction fees.  

11.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Pressures and impacts remain mostly the same as in the first cycle.  

A gap assessment for the reduction in the number of applications of pesticides is only provided 

for the Rhine RBD. A gap assessment for load of nitrogen/phosphorus to be reduced to achieve 
objectives was done in all RBDs but the values provided do not allow a detailed assessment for 
all RBDs99.  

In  the  first  cycle,  there  was  some  information  on  costs  and  funding  of  agriculture  measures. 

This information is not provided in electronic reporting (see Annex 0) in the second cycle. 

11.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programmes  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Check  that  their  nutrient  standards  are  consistent  with  biological 
requirements for the achievement of good status and set out a more coherent strategy 

in  the  second  RBMPs  that  reflects  for  agriculture  what  will  be  achieved  through 
measures  to  implement  the  Nitrates  Directive,  through  basic  measures  under  Article 

97  Germany  subsequently  stated  that  in  all  drinking  water  protection  areas,  specific  mandatory  and  detailed 
regulations exist to prevent water pollution. Those are supplemented by further voluntary measures (cooperative 
famers unions). 
98 Germany subsequently clarified that this is a reporting error and financing of measures is secured.  
99 Germany subsequently stated that for some RBDs further explanation is provided in the RBMPs. 

140 

 
                                                      
11(3) of the WFD, basic measures included in pillar 1 (GAEC, greening) of the  CAP 

and supplementary measures under pillar 2 of the CAP. 

Assessment: According to WISE, a gap assessment for loads of nitrogen/phosphorus to 

be reduced to achieve objectives was done in all RBDs. In the RBMPs from the Rhine 
(Bavaria) and Danube RBDs, it is stated that such an assessment is available for nitrate 
and  phosphorous  pollution  as  a  result  of  the  MONERIS100  modelling  exercise.  This 
exercise was done for all of Germany but the relevant studies have not been reported to 

WISE. In the Bavaria RBMP for the Rhine RBD, some key figures are provided on the 
reductions in nitrates and phosphorous. It is stated that basic measures will not lead to 

any further reductions, but that the new fertiliser ordinance under the Nitrate Directive 
is expected to have a positive impact. Also measures such as buffer strips and measures 

to reduce erosion, and nitrate leaching into groundwater and surface water are likely to 
have an impact. The expected reductions are provided for nitrate and phosphorus on the 

sub  basin  level  (planning  unit).  The  plan  of  Baden-Württemberg  (Rhine  and  Danube 
RBD)  also  refers  to  the  MONERIS/More  modelling  exercise  and  refers  to  further 
details  in  a  background  document.  The  background  document  shows  the  different 

nutrient  loads  coming  from  various  point  and  diffuse  sources  but  provides  no 
information  regarding  what  could  be  achieved  in  terms  of  reduction  through  various 

measures.  This  is  planned  as  a  future  activity.  Mandatory  measures  are  only  foreseen 
under existing legislation (e.g. Nitrates Directive, Pesticides, Drinking Water Directive) 

or  to  reduce  nutrients  or  pesticides  and  in  Protected  Areas.  Most  of  the  measures  are 
voluntary  and  funded  under  the  Rural  Development  Programme  or  by  the  water 

abstraction fees. This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Germany  should  put  in  place  a  revised  nitrates  action  programme 

under the Nitrates Directive that can address this issue meaningfully.  

  Assessment: In 2018 on the basis of the old fertiliser legislation, the European Court of 
Justice  has  declared  “that,  by  failing  to  adopt  supplemental  or  enhanced  measures  as 
soon  as  it  became  apparent  that  the  measures  of  the  German  action  programme  were 
inadequate  and  by  failing  to  review  that  action  programme,  the  Federal  Republic  of 

Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(5) and (7) of Council Directive 
91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against 

100 MONERIS is a nutrient emission model, which is used for regional, national and international studies of water 
quality in catchment areas. 

141 

 
                                                      
pollution  caused  by  nitrates  from  agricultural  sources”101.  In  the  meantime,  Germany 
has  adopted  a  new  fertilizer  ordinance  that  led  to  a  revision  of  its  action  programme. 
However, it is still considered as being not sufficient to protect water against pollution. 

This recommendation is not fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  Make  a  clear  distinction  in  the  RBMPs  between  mandatory 
measures (the minimum being basic measures to implement article 11.3.) and voluntary 
ones that will be funded e.g. under the EARDF.  

  Recommendation:  (first  RBMP) Concerning Agriculture, i) a strategy mainly built  on 
voluntary measures will not deliver. A right balance between voluntary actions and a 

strong  baseline  of  mandatory  measures  needs  to  be  set  up,  ii)  the  baseline  for  water 
protection needs to be very clear so that all farmers know the rules and the authorities 

in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and 
cross compliance water requirements. 

Assessment: In none of the plans assessed is it clearly stated which technical/physical 
measures  are  mandatory  or  voluntary  measures102.  However,  in  general,  voluntary 
measures  prevail  before  mandatory  measures.  Mandatory  measures  are  only  foreseen 

under existing legislation to reduce nutrients or pesticides and in Protected Areas. The 
LAWA-BLANO-Maßnahmenkatalog  translates  the  KTMs  into  national  measures, 

which can be both voluntary and mandatory at the same time. What this means is that 
the  measures  can  be  applied  under  the  basic  measures  (minimum  requirements  to  be 

complied  with  (e.g.  Nitrates  Directive)  but  also  on  a  voluntary  basis  (e.g.  under  the 
Rural  Development  Programme).  Thus,  farmers  know  the  rules  and  some  of  the 

measures  are  subject  to  cross  compliance  controls  while  others  are  voluntary  and 
funded  by  the  CAP,  and  so  they  depend  on  the  uptake  by  farmers.  These 

recommendations are partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Make  clear  to  what  extent  the  full  range  of  agriculture  measures 
included in the RBMP will be sufficient to redress agriculture pressures to allow good 
status objectives to be achieved. 

Assessment:  This  recommendation  has  been  partly  fulfilled  as  a  gap  assessment  has 
been carried out,  but  limited information  is  provided in  the plans assessed as to  what 

101 See Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — European Commission v Federal Republic of 
Germany (Case C-543/16) 
102 Germany subsequently stated that it is not the case for all RBDs. 

142 

 
 
                                                      
 
extent the full range of agricultural measures included in the RBMP will be sufficient 

to redress agriculture pressures to allow good status objectives to be achieved. 

  Recommendation:  Review  regulation  on  the  use  of  pesticides  (beyond  nutrients)  in 
order  to  prevent  pollution  at  source  and  effectively  reduce  current  levels  of 
contamination  of  both  surface  and  groundwater,  making  clear  linkages  with  the 

implementation  of  the  Directive  on  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides.  If  the  National 
Action Programme (to implement the SUD) is intended to fulfil the requirement to have 

controls on pesticide pollution as required by article 11(3) of the WFD, then the detail 
on these controls (mandatory measures) should be set out in the RBMPs and the PoMs.   

Assessment: A new national Action programme under the Directive on the sustainable 
use of pesticides was adopted on 15 May 2013. The programme refers to the federal and 
Länder control system as set out in the national legislation implementing the Directive 
on  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides.  The  assessed  plans  refer  to  the  national  adopted 

legislation. This recommendation has been fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  Mainstream  across  Germany  good  practices  from  some  Länder  on 
consistently addressing hydromorphological pressures through the Rural Development 
Programmes. 

Assessment:  Such  measures  can  be  found  in  all  German  RBMPs  and  Rural 
Development Programmes. To what extent good practices have been mainstreamed into 

the  latter  has  not  been  assessed,  as  this  would  rely  on  an  in-depth  assessment  of  the 
Rural Development Programmes.  

  Recommendation:  Explore  all  opportunities  to  secure  necessary  funding  to  pay  for 
RBMP measures, e.g. wider application of article 9, RDPs, national flood budget (with 

a  priority  for  natural  water  retention  measures),  water  company  investment  and 
industry measures to reduce chemicals at source..  

Assessment:  All  RBMPs  refer  to  the  issue  of  funding  and  address  a  wide  range  of 
funding options such  as  EU funds,  Länder  Funds, nature conservation  funds, national 

flooding  funds.  Private  investments  are  triggered  due  to  internalising  environmental 
costs (higher environmental standards) or quality  requirements to  drinking water. The 

wider  application  of  Article  9  is  not  discussed  in  the  plan.  This  recommendation  is 
partially fulfilled. 

143 

 
  Recommendation:  (PoM)  Define measures targeted to  agriculture with a much better 
level of detail to ensure their uptake by farmers, their inspection by relevant agencies 
and  to  assist  tracking  of  compliance.  Basic  measures  are  mostly  presented  as 

legislative  acts  and  in  the  next  RBMPs  Germany  should  present  detail  on  technical 
measures included in such acts. 

Assessment:  The  LAWA-BLANO-Maßnahmenkatalog  (List  of  Measures)  translates 
the  KTMs  into  national  measures  which  go  some  way  towards  making  the  measures 

more easily taken up by farmers.  Under KTM12  – Advisory services for agriculture, 
advice  continues  to  be  made  available  to  farmers  to  support  their  uptake  and 

implementation of measures. This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

144 

 
 
Topic  12  Measures  related  to  pollution  from  sectors  other  than 
agriculture  

12.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

In  the  context  of  this  topic,  pollution  is  considered  in  terms  of  nutrients,  organic  matter, 
sediment, saline discharges and chemicals (priority substances, river basin specific pollutants, 

groundwater  pollutants  and  other  physico-chemical  parameters)  arising  from  all  sectors  and 
sources apart from agriculture.  

KTMs  relevant  to  non-agricultural  sources  of  pressures  causing  failure  to  achieve  the  WFD 
objectives have been reported for all RBDs in Germany. In total, 17 different KTMs have been 

reported including: 

  KTM 1 - “Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants”; 

  KTM4 - "Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, 

groundwater, soil)"; 

  KTM15 – “Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of 
Priority Substances”;  

  KTM16  –  “Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants 

(including farms)”; 

  KTM  21  -  “Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure”.  

The  WFD  specifies  that  PoM  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic  measures”  and,  where 
necessary  to  achieve  objectives,  “supplementary  measures”  when  basic  measures  are  not 

enough to address specific significant pressures (see the chapter 9 in this report). Quantitative 
information  on  basic  and  supplementary  measures  used  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-

agricultural  sources  is  provided  in  all  German  RBMPs.  Quantitative  information  on  basic 
measures to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources (number of measures per KTM) is 

provided for five measure types for five of the 10 German RBDs (Danube, Rhine, Weser, Elbe, 
Odra). 

145 

 
Germany  provided  more  targeted  information  on  basic  measures  required  under  Article 

11(3)(c) to (k). Use of an authorisation and/or a permitting regime to control wastewater point 
source  discharges  (Basic  measures  Article  11(3)(g))  was  reported  for  all  German  RBDs  for 

surface  and  groundwater.  The  register  of  wastewater  discharges  (Basic  measures  Article 
11(3)(g)) is available in all German RBDs for surface and groundwater. 

In  all  German  RBDs,  there  are  no  thresholds  below  which  wastewater  discharges  do  not 
require permits and are not subject to registration (Basic measure Article 11(3)(g)). According 

to the information reported electronically to WISE, some direct discharges to groundwater are 
authorised in accordance with Article 11(3)(j) in  German RBDs (Danube103, Rhine, Ems and 
Meuse104). According to the reporting in WISE, there is no prohibition of direct discharges to 
groundwater in the other 6 RBDs in Germany. However, Germany subsequently clarified that, 

according to  the Federal  Water Act,  discharges into groundwater are subject  to  authorisation 
and authorisation is only possible under specified conditions. 

Measures  to  eliminate  or  reduce  pollution  from  Priority  Substances  and  other  substances 
(Basic measures Article 11(3)(k)) are reported to be in place in all RBDs in Germany. 

12.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle  

In the first RBMPs, general measures did not target specific chemical substances but focused 
on  industrial  and  household  emissions.  Additionally,  the  Danube  and  the  Rhine  RBMPs 

included  emissions  from  agriculture  and  the  Weser  RBMP  included  emissions  from  potash 
mining.  Information  relating  to  substance-specific  measures  was  not  found  in  the  RBMPs  of 

the Rhine and Danube. However, some information on substance-specific measures was given 
in the other RBMPs. 

For  the  second  RBMPs,  it  was  reported  to  WISE  that  KTMs  are  in  place  for  significant 
pressures from specified Priority Substances causing non-compliance in nine out of ten RBDs. 

Further  details  were  provided  in  the  RBMPs  regarding  these  measures,  which  do  not  always 
match  the  reported  information.  For  measures  for  Priority  Substances  causing  failure,  the 

RBMP  for  the  Schlei/Trave  RBD  refers  to  a  measure  called  "Priority  Substances  national 
action  plan  for  plant  protection  substances"  because  all  Priority  Substances  causing  failure 

except mercury are produced by agricultural activities. No specific measure related to mercury 

103 Germany subsequently clarified that the targeted questions regarding this point were ambiguously worded; in 
the  Danube  RBD  only  re-infiltration  of  thermally  altered  groundwater  takes  place,  no  discharge  of  chemical 
substances 
104 Germany subsequently clarified that no direct discharges into groundwater are known for the German part of 
the Meuse RBD and that this may have been a reporting error. 

146 

 
                                                      
has  been  found.  The  measures  in  the  Programmes  of  Measures  are  mainly  legal  actions  and 

refer only to the Priority Substances as such without specifying single substances. Similarly, in 
the  Elbe  RBMP,  the  PoM  does  not  explicitly  link  measures  to  single  Priority  Substances 

causing  failure,  although  this  was  reported  in  WISE.  The  text  in  the  PoM  also  refers  just  to 
Priority Substances without providing any further details. The RBMP states that "With regard 

to  these  pollutants,  the  measures  aim  at  a  gradual  reduction  and,  with  regard  to  priority 
hazardous  substances,  at  ending  or  phasing  out  discharges,  emissions  and  losses  of  these 

substances. The basic measures can help to ensure that the priority hazardous substances are no 
longer used and can therefore no longer be released into the environment." The same approach 

has been applied in the Danube and Rhine RBDs where the Programmes of Measures does not 
explicitly  link  measures  (basic  and  supplementary)  to  single  Priority  Substances  causing 

failure.  

As far as measures for River Basin Specific Pollutants causing failure are concerned the RBMP 

for  Bavaria  refers  to  other  substances  beside  Priority  Substances  but  the  measures  are  not 
linked to any specific substances. The same approach has been used in the Elbe, Schlei/Trave 
and Rhine RBDs. 

The  Programmes  of  Measures  do  not  distinguish  between  surface  and  groundwater  for 
chemicals,  therefore  do  not  link  specific  measures  to  individual  pollutants  in  groundwater 

either, but rather consider measures in relation to groups of pollutants. 

12.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation:  “Check that their  nutrient  standards  are consistent  with biological 
requirements for the achievement of good status and set out a more coherent strategy 

in  the  second  RBMPs  that  reflects  for  urban  areas:  what  will  be  achieved  through 
compliance with the UWWTD and what will be required beyond this (e.g. tightening of 

standards,  addressing  storm  water  overflows).  In  particular  it  is  expected  that  the 
second RBMPs, based on the necessary reduction in nutrient load, clearly identify the 

extent  to  which  the  measures  already  taken  under  the  implementation  of  the  ND  and 
UWWTD  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  WFD  objectives  and  which  additional 

measures should be taken to actually achieve these objectives. A clear identification of 
basic (mandatory) measures is expected to be made transparent both to the sectors and 

the  general  public.  Clarity  on  timescale  of  implementation  of  the  measures  is  also 
expected.   

147 

 
Assessment: Measures to tackle urban point sources are reported in each German RBD 

in  the  WISE  electronic  reporting.  Gap  assessments  were  carried  out  for  nutrients 
covering  point  and  diffuse  pollution  for  the  whole  of  Germany.  For  other  chemical 

substances such assessment is only planned. In 2017 annual  emissions were modelled 
for  the  following  substance  groups105:  nutrients  (nitrogen,  phosphorus),  heavy  metals 
(cadmium,  chromium,  copper,  mercury,  nickel,  lead,  and  zinc),  polycyclic  aromatic 
pharmaceuticals 
hydrocarbons 

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 

(∑  EPA-PAH16), 

(ibuprofen, diclofenac, iomeprol, sulfamethoxazol), industrial chemicals (nonylphenol), 
biocide  triclosan  and  herbicide  terbutryn.  Furthermore,  it  is  stated  in  all  RBMPs 

assessed  that  the  Urban  Wastewater  Treatment  Directive  and  Industrial  Emissions 
Directive106 are fully implemented in Germany and that this significantly contributes to 
achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD.  Supplementary  measures  are  taken  at  a  few 
sewage treatment plants due to emission considerations, if the discharge into the aquatic 

environment produces a significant pressure that prevents achievement of the objective. 
This covers improved treatment technology, establishing higher degrees of connection 
of households, and improved operation and expansion of existing plants.  

This recommendation is thus considered largely fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  “Include  in  the  second  RBMPs  a  more  consistent  approach  to 
substance-specific measures in the different Länder and put in place substance-specific 

and general measures to address pollutants at source.” 

Assessment: KTMs have been reported for significant pressures from specific Priority 

Substances  causing  non-compliance  in  nine  out  of  ten  RBDs.  In  Germany,  for  those 
substances where a European Union regulation/measure or national regulation/measure 

exists,  a  more  consistent  approach  is  taken.  The  German  LAWA  has  developed  a 
catalogue  of  measures  from  which  the  Länder  can  select  the  appropriate  measures. 

However, there is still some flexibility in selecting and implementing measures due to 
the  subsidiarity  principle  in  Germany.  For  example,  the  new  fertilizer  ordinance  sets 

maximum values for nitrogen in groundwater and requires certain measures. However, 
the Länder have the opportunity to apply stricter rules. No information could be found 
on measures for addressing pollution at source. 

This recommendation is considered partially fulfilled. 

105 See http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/9/4/239/htm 
106  Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  November  2010  on  industrial 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
emissions 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075  

(integrated 

prevention 

pollution 

control) 

and 

148 

 
                                                      
Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Significant hydromorphological pressures, and operational KTMs to address them, are reported 

for  all  RBDs.  In  most  water  bodies,  the  sectors  related  to  significant  physical  alterations  are 
flood protection and agriculture, however there is a significant number of water bodies where 

the sector/driver is unknown/obsolete or indicated as "other" (not specified as one of the key 
sectors  in  the  WISE  reporting).  The  main  sectors  related  to  dams,  barriers  and  locks  are 

hydropower, flood protection and irrigation. For the majority of water bodies affected by this 
pressure,  the  sector/driver  is  unknown/obsolete  or  indicated  as  "other”.  The  main  sectors 

related to significant hydrological alterations are agriculture, hydropower and “other”. 

There  are  many  different  KTMs  which  are  made  operational  to  tackle  hydromorphological 

pressures.  The  most  frequently  applied  are  KTMs  5,  6,  7,  14  and  23.  KTM24  (adaptation  to 
climate change) is also applied for hydromorphological pressures in some RBDs. In addition to 

these,  several  other  KTMs  not  typically  related  to  hydromorphology  are  applied  to  tackle 
hydromorphological  pressures  in  a  few  RBDs  (these  include  KTMs  1,  2,  4,  8,  12,  16,  20 

and 21). 

The  types  of  specific  hydromorphological  measures  planned  are  diverse  across  the  different 

RBDs, including reduction of abstractions, minimum water flow, restoration of continuity (e.g. 
via  fish  ladders,  bypass  channels,  barrier  removal),  habitat  restoration  (including  banks  and 

river beds).  

In  terms  of  basic  measures,  there  is  an  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  in  place  to 

control physical modifications in all RBDs, which covers changes to the riparian area of water 
bodies,  according  to  WFD  Article  11(3)(i)  in  all  RBDs.  There  is  also  a  register  of  physical 

modifications of water bodies in all RBDs. 

Overall  management  objectives  in  terms  of  river  continuity  have  been  set  and  the  KTM5 
(Improving  longitudinal  continuity)  is  reported  for  all  RBDs.  Respective  quantitative 

objectives (e.g. km of rivers connected, number of obstacles to be made passable) are set in all 
RBDs except in Odra according to the information reported in WISE.  

149 

 
Win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD107 and Floods Directive108, 
drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures are reported to be included 
in  the  PoM  in  all  RBDs.  The  specific  KTM23  on  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  is  also 

applied in all RBDs to tackle significant hydromorphological pressures. 

The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and 

tidal barriers, is reported to have been adapted to take into account the WFD objectives in all 
RBDs. 

In seven RBDs (Danube, Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra and Meuse), ecological  flows have 
been  partly  derived  (for  some  relevant  water  bodies).  In  these  RBDs,  the  ecological  flows 

which have been derived have been implemented only in some relevant water bodies. Overall, 
the work on ecological flows is still on-going, but the second RBMPs do not provide further 

information on the timeline for completing the implementation of ecological flows. According 
to the information reported in WISE, in three RBDs (Eider, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene109), 
ecological flows have not been derived for the relevant water bodies110 and there are no plans 
to  do  so  during  the  second  cycle.  Although  the  RBMPs  refer  to  reducing  abstractions  and 
setting  minimum  water  flows  linked  to  authorisation  permits  for  abstractions,  it  is  not  clear 

whether  these  measures  are  specifically  targeting  the  achievement  of  ecological  flows. 
Furthermore, no information was found on specific regulations to establish ecological flows or 

initiatives to set new standards for ecological flow definition according to the WFD objectives. 

Some  indicators  on  the  gap  to  be  filled  for  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are 

reported  for  2015  and  2021  but  not  for  2027.  From  the  information  available,  it  can  be 
concluded  that  there  will  be  different  levels  of  progress  in  the  various  RBDs  in  terms  of 

closing the  gap for different  types of hydromorphological  pressures by 2021.  In many cases, 
the reduction in hydromorphological pressures between 2015 and 2021 is not yet known, and 

indicator  values  are  not  provided.  In  cases  where  some  information  is  available  on  gap 
indicators, reductions in hydromorphological pressures can be expected at an average level of 

ca. 40 %, which varies for the different RBDs and different pressure types. In terms of barriers 

in 

the 

field 

action 

107  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  framework  for  the 
Community 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060  
108  Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and  management of flood risks entered into force on 26 November 
2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060  
109 Germany subsequently informed that the information on the RBD Warnow/Peene is a reporting error and, in 
this  RBD,  ecological  flows  have  been  partly  derived  (for  some  relevant  water  bodies)  and  the  work  is  still  on-
going.   
110 Germany clarified that the permits for water abstraction are regulated by the existing water law. 

policy 

water 

of 

150 

 
                                                      
 
incompatible with the WFD objectives, it is expected that there will be some reduction in their 

number from 2015 to 2021 in at least half of the RBDs. 

13.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Due  to  the  improved  WISE  reporting,  the  links  between  hydromorphological  pressures,  uses 
and relevant measures has become clearer.  

The RBMPs indicate the  hydromorphological measures which have been implemented in the 
first cycle, the ones planned for the second cycle and discuss progress made. Several measures 
of  the  first  cycle  which  have  not  been  implemented  yet  are  related  to  hydromorphology,  the 

reasons including lack of acceptance, lack of financial and human resources and issues related 
to land ownership. 

13.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

  Recommendation:  Consider  properly  ecological  flows  wherever  existing  and  planned 
abstractions  may  jeopardize  the  achievement  of  environmental  objectives.  This  is 
particularly crucial when considering the review of water allocations and permits. 

Assessment: The work on deriving and implementing ecological flows is still on-going, 
but  the  second  RBMPs  do  not  provide  further  information  on  the  timeline  for 

completing  this  process.  According  to  the  WISE  reports,  in  three  RBDs  (Eider, 
Schlei/Trave,  Warnow/Peene111),  ecological  flows  have  not  been  derived  for  the 
relevant water bodies and there are no plans to do it during the second cycle. Although 
the RBMPs refer to  reducing abstractions and setting minimum  water flows linked to 

authorisation  permits  for  abstractions,  it  is  not  clear  whether  these  measures  are 
specifically  targeting  the  achievement  of  ecological  flows.  Furthermore,  the  second 

RBMPs do not provide information on how ecological flows are defined and whether 
they are considered in the review of water allocations and permits. 

Therefore, not enough information on progress regarding this recommendation could be 
found in the RBMPs. 

111 Germany subsequently informed that the information on the RBD Warnow/Peene is a reporting error and, in 
this  RBD,  ecological  flows  have  been  partly  derived  (for  some  relevant  water  bodies)  and  the  work  is  still  on-
going.   

151 

 
                                                      
  Recommendation:  Review  the  legislative  base  on  morphology  to  ensure  that  controls 

exist to adequately prevent new morphological pressures.  

Assessment:  In  the  second  cycle,  it  is  reported  that  there  is  an  authorisation  and/or 

permitting regime in place to control physical modifications in all RBDs, which covers 
changes  to the riparian  area of water bodies according to WFD Article 11(3)(i) in  all 

RBDs. There is also a register of physical modifications of water bodies in all RBDs. 
However,  no  specific  information  was  found  that  the  legislative  base  on  morphology 

has been reviewed since the first RBMPs. 

Based on the information reported, this recommendation seems to be fulfilled in terms 

of basic measures under WFD Article 11(3)(i). However, it cannot be concluded on the 
basis of the information found, whether this is a marked improvement compared to the 

legislative base in the first RBMPs. 

  Recommendation:  Consider  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green  infrastructure  and/or 
natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements 
in  water  quality,  flood  protection,  habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic 

benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.  

Assessment: The KTM23 on Natural Water Retention Measures is applied in all RBDs 

to  tackle  significant  hydromorphological  pressures.  No  information  was  found  in  the 
second  RBMPs  on  a  specific  national  or  regional  strategy  that  prioritises  the 

implementation  of  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  and  green  infrastructure 
measures. 

This recommendation has thus been partially fulfilled. 

152 

 
 
 
Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

14.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 
requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation 
and compliance 

Overall,  there  were  no  significant  modifications  regarding  the  implementation  of  Article  9 
between the two cycles. There is limited information regarding the calculation of cost recovery 

rates,  the  contribution  of  different  sectors  and  uses  to  cost  recovery,  and  the  calculation  and 
internalisation  of  environmental  and  resource  costs.  The  definition  of  water  services  has  not 

changed. 

The economic analysis has been updated in all RBDs, with the developments and trends in the 

baseline scenario being updated, and there are some improvements on the information on the 
incentive function of water pricing. 

Due to the limited modifications in comparison to the first RBMP, no major improvements in 
implementation and compliance are noted. 

14.2.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, 
including  impoundments,  abstraction,  storage,  treatment  and  distribution  of  surface 
waters,  and  collection,  treatment  and  discharge  of  waste  water,  also  when  they  are 

"self-services",  for  instance  self-abstraction  for  agriculture.  The  cost  recovery  should 
be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource 

costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on 
the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring 

an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken 
into account should be provided in the RBMPs. 

Assessment:  A  general 
specific 
policies/instruments/legislation  in  place  (charging,  licensing  etc.),  the  adequate 

is  provided 

explanation 

through 

that 

contribution  to  cost  recovery  is  ensured  (no  details  are  given  for  specific  water 
services and/or contributions by specific water uses).  

Financial Cost Recovery rates are provided for all RBDs, and are exactly 100 % for 

both water services, except in the Ems RBD where the cost recovery rates are 102 to 
104 % for water supply and 102 to 114 % for water treatment. 

153 

 
However, it is not made clear how the Cost Recovery rates have been calculated, and 

it cannot be seen if such rates are "broken down" per water use sector. In all RBDs, 
the three water uses (households, agriculture and industry) are reported as contributing 

to the costs of both water services. In all RBDs, households and industry are reported 
as  sectors  benefiting  from  both  water  services.  This  also  holds  for  agriculture 

regarding the water service "Drinking water abstraction (surface and/or groundwater), 
treatment  and  distribution".  Regarding  the  water  service  "Sewage  collection  and 

wastewater treatment", most RBDs report agriculture as a sector benefiting, with the 
exception of the Donau, Rhine, Ems, Maas, and Warnow/Peene RBDs.  

In the  LAWA recommendations for the update of the economic analysis, it is stated 
that indirect discharges (from households and industry) to municipal sewage treatment 

plants  have  an  impact  on  the  cost  of  the  water  service.  Depending  on  the  type  and 
amount  of  discharges,  the  effort  required  to  provide  the  necessary  infrastructure 

treatment  plants  and  pipeline  network)  varies.  The  appropriate 
(wastewater 
contribution by the indirect initiators is made on the one hand via a basic fee (to cover 
the fixed costs) and  also  through  a fee that is  based on consumption. Rainfall water 

discharges are also taken into account in the calculation for indirect discharges from 
all areas. For industrial discharges into public sewage systems and sewage treatment 

plants,  so-called  heavy-pollutant  contributions  can  also  take  into  account  the 
particular  material  loads  of  the  sewage  treatment  plant.  The  special-law  water 

associations, which are responsible for a considerable part of the wastewater treatment 
in North Rhine-Westphalia, also base their contribution assessment on causative levy 

scales,  which  take  into  account  both  the  amount  of  waste  water  and  the  pollutant 
loads. 

Water  withdrawals  (by  households,  industry  and  agriculture)  from  the  public  water 
supply network affect the provisioning costs of this water service. The tariffs for the 

provision of drinking water for the uses mentioned include basic prices to cover fixed 
costs and volume-based prices. In this respect, a reasonable contribution is assumed. 

Diffuse  substance  inputs,  especially  from  agriculture,  into  surface  waters  and 
groundwater  often  lead  to  an  increased  processing  effort  on  the  part  of  the  water 

service  "public  water  supply".  Here,  Article  9(1),  second  sentence,  indent  2  of  the 
WFD112  calls  for  an  "adequate  contribution"  to  cover  the  costs  of  water  services, 

112  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  framework  for  the 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Community 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060  

policy 

action 

water 

field 

the 

of 

in 

154 

 
                                                      
based on the economic analysis and taking into account the polluter-pays principle. It 

is  stated  that  a  legally  required  exact  assignment  of  causation  is  impossible  and  tax 
law  instruments  do  not  exist  so  far  in  this  area.  Further  it  is  stated  that  there  are  a 

number of regulatory instruments aimed at the prevention of inputs of substances and 
the  preventive  protection  of  waters  (such  as  the  prohibitions  tin  water  conservation 

areas, the designation of strips of water bodies with restrictions on use, regulations in 
the field of fertilizers and phytosanitary legislation) which indirectly lead to a partial 

charge to the polluter. 

All  German  RBDs  report  for  both  water  services  that  environmental  and  resource 

costs are calculated. Yet, not all RBMPs explain and present the relevant calculations. 
Additionally, it is stated that there is no harmonised methodology at EU level and that 

there  are  significant  methodological  problems  with  calculating  environmental  and 
resource  costs.  References  to  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  for  the  Water 
Framework Directive Guidance Document No 1,  Economics and the Environment113 
are made. It is further stated that the waste water fee is based upon how harmful the 
waste water is (no further details are given). This approach is seen as a step towards 

the internalisation of the environmental and resource costs. 

Most  of  the  RBDs  report  for  both  water  services  that  Environmental  and  Resource 

Costs are "partly" internalised (exceptions are the Danube, Eider, and Warnow/Peene 
RBDs, which report "Null"). 

In all RBDs and for both water services, the environmental and resource costs are not 
considered to be significant. 

Regarding the internalisation of environmental and resource costs in the cost recovery, 
Germany states that this took place, but at the same time states that environmental and 

resource Costs are not significant. Approaches/methodologies for a calculation of the 
environmental and resource costs are not provided. 

Regarding  the  incentive  function  of  water  pricing  for  all  water  services,  Germany 
provided  more  details  in  the  second  RBMPs  than  in  the  first    cycle,  but  the 

information is still on a general level (not per sector/water service).  

It is further stated that the objectives of Article 9(1)(1) of the WFD have already been 

met, for three reasons: 

113https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/cffd57cc-8f19-4e39-a79e-20322bf607e1/Guidance%20No%201%20-
%20Economics%20-%20WATECO%20(WG%202.6).pdf  

155 

 
                                                      
1.  Due  to  the  relatively  high  polluter-payment  for  drinking  water  supply  and  sanitation, 
water consumption per capita in Germany has been falling continuously for years. 

2.  High technical  standards have been in  place for  years to  reduce water losses in  water 

services. 

3.  Environmental charges, such as the wastewater tax and regionally differentiated water 

abstraction levies are levied on a nationwide basis. 

The German RBMPs mention the polluter-pays-principle (PPP) as a basic principle of 

German water pricing policy (but without providing details on where or how the PPP 
is  realized  in  the water pricing policy) and as being reflected in  the contributions  of 
the different water users to cost recovery. No further details are provided.114 

In summary, there is little progress on this recommendation. 

114  Germany  has  informed  the  Commission  that  this  is  implemented,  for  example,  through  the  Waste  Water 
Charge  regulated  by  Federal  Law,  water  abstraction  fees  regulated  by  Federal  State  Law,  local  fees  for  water 
services. Moreover, any permit issued for  water uses induces costs  for implementing requirements stipulated in 
the permit by the permit holder. 

156 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, 
monitoring, objectives and measures) 

15.1. Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Germany has reported Protected Areas for all relevant directives in the second RBMPs except 
for the Nitrates115 and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directives in surface waters, for which a 
whole  territory  approach  was  applied.    For  groundwater,  Protected  Areas  have  only  been 
associated  with  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas  and  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the 

Birds and Habitats Directives.   

Table 15.1  Number of Protected Areas of all types in each RBD of Germany, for surface 

and groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for human 
consumption under Article 7 

Recreational waters, including areas 
designated as bathing waters under 
Directive 76/160/EEC116 

Protection of species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the status 
of water is an important factor in their 
protection, including relevant Natura 2000 
sites designated under Directive 
79/409/EEC (Birds)117 

Protection of habitats or species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the status 
of water is an important factor in their 
protection, including relevant Natura 2000 
sites designated under Directive 
92/43/EEC (Habitats)118 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas 
designated as vulnerable zones under 
Directive 91/676/EEC and areas 
designated as sensitive areas under 

Number of Protected Areas associated with 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal  Groundwater 

125 

615 

16 

659 

527 

110 

2833 

351 

23 

584 

17 

10 

2391 

256 

10 

68 

3229 

Whole 
territory 

Whole 
territory 

Whole 
territory 

Whole 
territory 

Whole territory 

115  Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  a  whole  territory  approach  has  been  used  to  the  designation  under  the 
Nitrates Directive so no individual Protected Areas are in place but monitoring is undertaken.  
116  Directive  2006/7/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  February  2006  concerning  the 
management  of  bathing  water  quality  and  repealing  Directive  76/160/EEC  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0007  
117  Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 
conservation of wild birds http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147  
118  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 
flora http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043  

157 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Protected Area type 

Directive 91/271/EEC 

Areas designated for the protection of 
economically significant aquatic species 
(fish and shellfish) 

Number of Protected Areas associated with 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal  Groundwater 

168 

10 

1 

16 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

The  status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is  comprehensively  reported 

(Figure 15.1) with the status classification reported as being of high or medium confidence due 
to the presence of monitoring in a high proportion of Protected Areas. 

Figure 15.1  Status of water bodies associated with the Protected Areas report for 

Germany. NB - based on status/potential aggregated for all water bodies 

associated with all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
Germany reported that, for Protected Areas designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives 

some specific water objectives have been set to protect water dependent habitats or species but 
in other cases they had not because the additional needs of the interest features are not known. 

It  is  not  possible  to  judge  if  this  refers  to  the  fact  that  it  is  not  known  if  the  objectives 
according  to  the  WFD  will  also  cover  the  objectives  according  to  other  European  Union 

legislation.  Overall,  it  is  unclear  which  the  unknown  additional  needs  are.  Germany  has  not 
indicated in  the information  reported to  WISE  whether the WFD objectives for water bodies 

associated with these Protected Areas is sufficient to also reach the objectives according to the 
parent  Directives.  This  means  that,  in  principle,  all  Protected  Areas  should  have  a  specific 
additional  objective119.  Further  work  is  required  in  the  third  cycle  to  determine  whether 
additional  objectives  for  water  dependent  interest  features  in  Natura  2000  sites  are  required 

where they have not been set in the second cycle. 

For  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas,  no  additional  objectives  are  set  either.  With  respect  to 

Protected  Areas  designated  in  relation  to  shellfish  harvesting,  additional  objectives  had  been 
set  in  2  RBDs  (Ems  and  Weser)  comprising  microbiological  standards  that  are  identical  to 

those in the repealed Shellfish Waters Directive. Additional objectives were not set in 3 other 
RBDs (Elbe, Eider and Schlei/Trave). 

Monitoring sites of surface water associated with Protected Areas are only reported for those 

under  Article  7  of  the  WFD,  the  Nitrates,  Urban  Waste  Water,  Habitats  and  Bathing  Waters 
Directives  (Table  15.2).  No  specific  monitoring  sites  are  reported  as  associated  with  other 

Protected Areas (those designated under the Birds Directive). Furthermore monitoring sites are 
only  reported  for  surface  freshwaters  and  not  for  transitional  or  coastal  waters  (which  could 

partially account for the low level of monitoring in relation to bathing). No data are reported on 
monitoring  sites  of  groundwater  associated  with  Protected  Areas,  except  for  Drinking  Water 

Protected Areas and nutrient sensitive areas under the Nitrates Directive. Further information 
on the purpose of monitoring sites for surface water and groundwater status assessment can be 

found in Chapters 3 and 4 (ecological and chemical status of surface waters) and Chapters 5 
and 6 (quantitative and chemical status of groundwater) of this report. Monitoring is reported 
for  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the  Nitrates  and  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment 

119 Germany subsequently clarified that the specific regulations in Protection Areas had been mostly set up already 
before  the  WFD.  The  application  of  these  regulations  was  deemed  to  be  sufficient  to  guarantee  the  appropriate 
level of protection, and therefore no specific additional objectives were considered necessary. 

159 

 
                                                      
Directives120.  However  the  number  of  monitoring  stations  for  the  Nitrates  Directive  is 
relatively low (0.8 stations per km²). 

The  extent  of  monitoring  of  water  sites  associated  with  Protected  Areas  for  the  purpose  of 

establishing  status  and  progress  towards  meeting  objectives  is  inadequate  when  compared  to 
the number of Protected Areas reported.  

For Drinking Water Protected Areas, there are safeguard zones in the 10 RBDs and there are 
no plans to change the regulations as a result of this RBMP. The measures to be taken in these 

are not clearly described in the RBMPs: reduction in nutrient pollution to be implemented by 
the competent authorities. 

Table 15.2  Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in Germany 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for 
human consumption under Article 7 

Recreational waters, including areas 
designated as bathing waters under 
Directive 76/160/EEC 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 
areas designated as vulnerable zones 
under Directive 91/676/EEC  

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 
areas designated as sensitive areas 
under Directive 91/271/EEC 

Protection of habitats or species where 
the maintenance or improvement of the 
status of water is an important factor in 
their protection, including relevant 
Natura 2000 sites designated under 
Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats) 

Number of monitoring sites  
associated with Protected Areas in 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Groundwater 

4 

8 

22 

22 

76 

1 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

374 

530 

NR 

NR 

490 

456 

NR 

NR 

19 

NR 

NR 

Source: WISE electronic reports. NR - Not reported to WISE 

For  Birds  and  Habitats  Protected  Areas,  the  description  of  measures  in  the  RBMPs  is  very 

general.  A  comprehensive  PoM  is,  however,  not  to  be  expected,  as  most  of  the  areas  do  not 
have  an  additional  objective,  because  the  additional  needs  of  the  water  dependent  interest 

features are not known. 

120  As  stated  above  Germany  clarified  that  a  whole  territory  approach  has  been  used  to  designation  under  the 
Nitrates Directive so no individual Protected Areas are in place but monitoring is undertaken. Germany reported 
that with regard to the monitoring under the Nitrate Directive a significant change of the monitoring programme 
took place with the aim of achieving a more representative picture of the situation. 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
In general, as specific objectives are not set for Protected Areas, specific additional measures 
were not expected to be included121. 

Exemptions are only used in two RBDs in Germany – Rhine and Weser with respectively 22 % 

and 44 % exemptions. The main justification of the exemptions is related to natural conditions 
and technical feasibility, whereas only 5% of the exemptions are explained by disproportionate 

costs. 

15.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There seem only to be minor changes in relation to Protected Areas designated under Article 7 

of  the  WFD  (number  increased  in  the  second  cycle)  and  those  designated  under  the  Bathing 
Water Directive (a decrease in the second cycle). 

It  should  be  noted  that  in  the  first  cycle,  the  number  of  Protected  Areas  in  relation  to  the 
Nitrates Directive was reported - this was not the case in the second cycle122. This is due to the 
fact that since the first cycle, Germany has adopted a whole territory approach.  

Protected Areas related to economically significant species (fish and shellfish)123 were reported 
neither  in  the  first  nor  in  the  second  RBMP.  No  areas  related  to  the  Urban  Waste  Water 
Treatment  Directive  were  reported  in  the  first  cycle,  but  these  were  included  in  the  second   

RBMP. It should be noted that the category "Other European" was used in the first   RBMP for 
a small number of Protected Areas without indicating the specific European Union directive. 

A  very  high  number  of  monitoring  sites  in  Protected  Areas  were  reported  in  the  first  cycle 
RBMP covering all relevant Protected Areas - whereas the number in the second RBMP was 
very limited with gaps for certain types of Protected Areas124. 

15.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no recommendations from the first RBMPs for this topic. 

121 The Elbe RBD in Germany subsequently clarified that specific objectives are defined only when they have to 
be stricter than the objectives of WFD, and only then an extra monitoring has to be established. 
122   Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  a  whole  territory  approach  has  been  used  to  designation  under  the 
Nitrates Directive so no individual Protected Areas are reported but monitoring is undertaken. 
123   Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  Protected  Areas  for  economically  sensitive  species  were  suspended  in 
2013. 
124   Germany  subsequently  clarified  that  when  it  comes  to  the  monitoring  under  the  Nitrates  Directive,  a 
significant  change  of  the  monitoring  programme  took  place  with  the  aim  of  achieving  a  more  representative 
picture of the situation. 

161 

 
 
                                                      
Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Climate  change  adaptation  was  considered  in  various  ways  in  all  RBDs.  The  Danube  RBD 

which had not addressed climate change in the first RBMP did so now in the second cycle. The 
following specific climate change aspects have been considered: 

  Danube, Rhine, Elbe and Meuse RBDs included climate change when assessing direct 
and  indirect  climate  pressures  and  for  Drought  management  and  water  scarcity,  and 

Monitoring changes at reference sites.  

  Rhine,  Ems,  Weser,  Elbe,  Odra,  Meuse,  Eider,  Schlei/Trave,  Warnow/Peene  RBDs 
included climate change when checking the effectiveness of measures, forecasting the 

economics  of  water  supply  and  demand  and  for  the  preferential  selection  of  robust 
adaptation measures. 

  All RBDs considered detection of climate change signals and flood risk management. 

In  the  second  cycle  RBMP  a  climate  proofing  of  measures  was  done  in  all  RBDs  and  it  is 

stated that the guidance on how to adapt to climate change (Common Implementation Strategy 
Guidance Document No. 24) was used. The Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra and Meuse RBDs 

all apply KTM24 – adaptation measures to address significant pressures. Sub-plans for climate 
change are not reported.  

According to the 2012 Topic Report on Assessment of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in a 
selection of European Union RBMPs125, droughts are not relevant for Germany, except for the 
Danube  RBD.  No  exemptions  have  been  applied  for  Germany  following  Article  4(6)  due  to 
prolonged droughts. 

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member 
States have prepared them in order to cope with droughts. 

No Drought Management Plan has been reported for Germany. This situation is similar to 2012 
when such plans were not in place. 

125 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf 

162 

 
 
                                                      
16.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The climate change for the Danube RBD is addressed in the second while in the first one it was 
not. While in the first cycle RBMPs in all RBDs concrete adaptation measures were reported 

with the exception of the Ems RBD, this is now only the case for the Rhine RBD. The Rhine, 
Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra and Meuse RBDs apply KTM24 to address significant pressures. 

No  Drought  Management  Plan  has  been  reported  for  Germany.  This  is  consistent  with  the 
conclusions from 2012 (Topic report on: Assessment of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in 
a selection of European Union RBMPs126), when such plans were not in place. 

16.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The European Commission made no recommendation regarding drought management. 

126 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf 

163