Environmental Policy: Water Framework Directive - Summary of River Basin District Analysis 2004 in Germany

Water Framework Directive -
Summary of River Basin District Analysis 2004 in Germany

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
Imprint
Published by: Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU)
Public Relations Division 11055 Berlin
E-mail: service@bmu.bund.de
Internet: www.bmu.de
Editing: Sandra Richter (Universitt Kassel); Volker Mohaupt (UBA)
Authors: Dietrich Borchardt (Universitt Kassel); Udo Bosenius (BMU); Rolf-Dieter Drr (BMU);
Hans-Peter Ewens (BMU); Christa Friedl; Ulrich Irmer (UBA); Heide Jekel (BMU);
Lutz Keppner (BMU); Volker Mohaupt (UBA); Stephan Naumann (UBA);
Bettina Rechenberg (UBA); Jrg Rechenberg (UBA); Sandra Richter (Universitt Kassel);
Simone Richter (UBA); Werner Rohrmoser (BMU); Thomas Stratenwerth (BMU);
Jrg Willecke (Universitt Kassel); Rdiger Wolter (UBA)
Typesetting and design: Feldes & Vogt, Bonn www.feldes-vogt.de
Photo credits, cover page: Getty Images (M. Dunning); Enercon / Block Design; Visum
(K. Sawabe); zefa; Getty Images (C. Coleman)
Printing: Bonifatius, Paderborn
Date of publication: June 2005 (2nd edition, 6,000 copies)
3
Preface
Dear readers,
Are we on the road to achieving the environmental objectives of the European
Water Framework Directive? Will our water resources be in good shape a decade
from now? In which realms of water stewardship have we been successful thus
far, and which tasks lie ahead of us? A first step toward answering these
questions is provided by the results of the EU-mandated characterization process
whereby the German states have assessed environmental pressures on water
bodies and the impact of human activity on water resource status.
This pamphlet summarizes the results of the characterization of the ten river
basin districts that are relevant for Germany and provides a panorama of water
status for our entire country. The characterization process revealed that a small
minority of our water bodies have already achieved good water status, while the
status of a substantial proportion of our water resources cannot be determined
as yet because the requisite investigations remain to be conducted. However,
a considerable number of ground and surface water bodies are unlikely to
achieve the environmental objectives set by the Water Framework Directive
without additional measures.
Negative results of this scope come as something of a surprise, for as we all
know, substantial financial resources have been invested in water resource
stewardship. Numerous wastewater treatment plants have been constructed,
while others have been upgraded. Germanys water treatment plants provide
us with consistently high quality water, while industrial water treatment plants
are becoming increasingly more efficient and are continuously reducing their
wastewater output. In addition, numerous renaturing programmes are restoring
surface water bodies to a near natural state.
We have gone a long way toward achieving effective water stewardship in
Germany, but much remains to be done. The objectives of the Water Framework
Directive are based on the premise that a body of water must display and retain
specific natural functions and characteristics in order to be given a clean bill of
ecological health. Thus, the scope of water status assessment criteria has been
greatly enlarged, while at the same time implementation of the WFD objectives
confronts us with new water management challenges. Apart from the use of
water resources for drinking water, power generation, industrial processes and
agriculture, water also plays a key role as a habitat for flora and fauna, and as
rivers that in many ways are the lifeblood of our country. Surface and ground-
water bodies provide us with countless benefits, but it behooves us to ensure
that these resources are safeguarded for both present and future uses. We must
restore our rivers and streams to a near natural state so that the habitats they
support can both thrive and survive. River continuity needs improvement for the
benefit of fish and other aquatic organisms. Nutrient pressures must be reduced
in such a way as to protect groundwater bodies from excessive nitrates, and
lakes and oceans from unduly high levels of algae growth.
Preface
4
The Water Framework Directive provides us with new tools to achieve these
goals. Inasmuch as most rivers are flow through more than one country,
in the coming years water resources will be managed collaboratively for large
river catchment areas that encompass multiple Laender (states) and countries.
The general public will be involved in the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive, particularly when it comes to developing programmes
of measures and water management plans.
The areas around Europes river and ocean waterbodies have been inhabited
for centuries, and key dimensions of Germanys economic, social and cultural
life have unfolded on the banks of our rivers and along our coastline.
In implementing the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, our water
resource management policies and practices will have to strike a balance
between water resource benefits and the demands of various interest groups.
In doing this, we will need to bring back to public consciousness the concept
that water is an integral part of nature that is vital to life itself.
A proper balance between the many demands that are placed on water
resources both in Germany and in its neighboring countries can be achieved
through cooperative efforts within the various river basin districts,
by proactively providing users and other public and private sector stakeholders
with information, and by making these stakeholders active participants in the
water management process.
Optimized water resource management cannot be achieved overnight.
The success of water resource management is inextricably bound up with
the evolution of environmental policy and society as a whole. Good water
management is indispensable for todays society, and this need is underscored
only too clearly by natural catastrophes whose virtue may lie in the fact that
only they have the power to awaken us to the critical importance of water
resource management. The water body characterizations carried out by the
German states are a major achievement whose results have already proven
useful in enabling numerous organizations to act as public advocates, and the
Federal Ministry of the Environment has supported this work in numerous ways.
The current pamphlet will help to make future water resource management
planning a more open process, and will also enable the general public to
obtain key information about our water resources.
5
Contents
Page
1 INTRODUCTION 6
2 RIVER BASIN DISTRICT ANALYSIS:
AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS 8
G Key results for Germanys water bodies 12
3 THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE: THE ROAD TO
WATER PROTECTION THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY 16
G New water protection objectives 16
G River basin districts and water bodies 17
4 RIVER BASIN DISTRICT ANALYSIS 20
G Transboundary cooperation 21
4.1 Surface water bodies 23
G Ecoregions and water body types 23
G Delineation of bodies of surface water 24
G Heavily modified and artificial water bodies 26
G Identification of pressures 29
G Assessment of the impact on water body status 32
G Impact on rivers 34
G Impact on lakes 37
G Impact on transitional and coastal waters 39
4.2 Groundwater 45
G Good chemical and good quantitative status 45
G Delineation of groundwater bodies 46
G Initial characterization of groundwater bodies 48
5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USES 53
G The economic significance of water uses 53
G Water uses and cost-recovery for water services 55
G Development of a baseline scenario for forecasts of the economic drivers of water use 56
G Assessment of cost efficiency measures 57
6 PROTECTED AREAS 58
7 THE WAY FORWARD 60
References 63
Annex 64
Index of sources 67
Introduction
6
1. Introduction
In the wake of the adoption into German law of the EU Water Framework
Directive (WFD), the characterization process constituted a kind of baseline
assessment, as well as a first step toward implementation of the Directive.
The present brochure summarizes the results of this initial characterization
of Germanys ground and surface waters, defines the concept of water body
characterization, and describes the results and conclusions of the investigations
that were undertaken.
The Water Framework Directive aims to achieve and maintain good water
status. Toward this end, it emphasizes the ecological dimensions of reducing
the chemical pressures to which bodies of surface water are subject, while at
the same time requiring that good quantitative status be maintained for
groundwater.
Implementation of the Directive is a multi-stage process that encompasses
initial characterization, validation of the results of this characterization by
means of measurements, classification of water bodies according to their
respective ecological status classes, and implementation of measures that aim
to reduce pressures on water bodies and maintain the good status of water
resources. Since water bodies span national borders, the Directive requires the
Member States to coordinate all programmes of measures for whole river basin
districts where use of water may have transboundary effects. This means that
the Member States are required to cooperate with other Member (and where
possible, non-member) states whose territory falls within the same international
river basin so that water resource management challenges can be assessed and
addressed on the basis of a standardized, or at a minimum analogous strategy.
The initial characterization process for surface waters comprised three phases.
In the characterization and typology definition phase, each water body was
identified as falling within a water body category, and a determination was
then made as to which organisms and substances would occur in each of these
habitats in a state largely uninfluenced by anthropogenic activity. In the second
phase, an assessment was made of the anthropogenic pressures to which the
water body is currently subject and the impact of these pressures on the status
of the water body. The various German states then used these results as a basis
for determining whether a specific river reach, lake or aquifer meets its
objectives as defined by the Directive or if additional measures are required.
In the third and final step of the characterization process, the following
economic issues were addressed: Do water services fees recover the costs
incurred? How is a particular river basin likely to evolve socioeconomically by
the year 2015? What information is available in regard to the cost and efficiency
of measures aimed at reducing pressures on river basins?
In view of the complexity of the Water Framework Directive, a Common
Implementation Strategy has been established so as to ensure that the Member
States all meet the requirements of the Directive in a largely standardized
7
fashion, and guidelines were elaborated by various working groups for both
the implementation and characterization processes. Among these guidelines
are those devised by the Lnderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA; German
Working Group of the Federal States on water issues) on the basis of the
European Directive that allow for an assessment as to whether a water body
can meet the WFD objectives without the need for extensive measures. These
guidelines at the Community and Member State level were the starting point
for the work that was done in the German states.
The present report is based on reports issued by the German States up to 2005
regarding Germanys ten river basin districts (see Figure 7). Inasmuch as the
Oder, Elbe, Rhine, Ems, Maas and Danube are transborder river basins, joint
summary reports were also published by the Member States concerned.
Unless otherwise specified, the information contained in the present report is
based solely on the key information in the aforementioned reports pertaining to
the part of each river basin district that lies within the boundaries of Germany.
The information and evaluations of the various river basin districts in the
present report are for the most part executive summaries that do not go into
detail about water status in the various German Laender (states).
Detailed background reports describing the criteria and methods that formed
the basis for the results presented here can be downloaded from the internet or
are available from Laender authorities (most documents are available in German
only).
The results presented here also reflect differences between Germanys various
regions. For example, the impact on ecological status of weirs that pose an
insurmountable obstacle to the upstream migration of fish is evaluated different-
ly in the various states. In the case of groundwater as well, the Laender have
evolved differing methods for evaluating the chemical status of groundwater
bodies and numerous other parameters.
Water body status is color coded as follows in the graphics: green for Not at risk
of failing the WFD objectives; yellow for Possibly at risk of failing the WFD
objectives; and red for at risk of failing the WFD objectives without additional
measures. However, by no means do these categories constitute the water body
status classifications that are to be established in accordance with Water
Framework Directive criteria by the end of 2006 when the results of the
monitoring programmes will become available. These programmes entail
operational monitoring that is intended to provide a coherent and com-
prehensive overview of ecological and chemical status within each river basin
and will allow for the validation (or repudiation) of assessments based on results
that are currently inconclusive. This will in turn enable the competent
authorities to immediately begin planning programmes of measures for water
bodies whose environmental criteria cannot be conclusively fulfilled (i.e. by
exceeding good status environmental quality standards) and whose sources of
pollution have been identified.
While the German Laender to some extent used differing characterization
methods, and although the status of myriad water bodies has yet to be
Introduction
River Basin District Analysis
8
conclusively determined, there is no disputing the fact that many of Germanys
water bodies will not achieve an acceptable ecological status by the Water
Framework Directives 2015 deadline unless far-reaching measures are taken.
This is attributable to two factors. On one hand, the Community has instituted
a new European water management paradigm that is based on the principle
that water protection as embodied by the Water Framework Directive should
be an integrative and ecologically oriented enterprise. But on the other hand,
this evolution is also an outgrowth of the worst case scenario in which excee-
ding even a single test parameter is sufficient to cast doubt on whether a water
body has fulfilled the prescribed criteria. However, assessments that differentiate
between chemical, biological, hydromorphological and quantitative criteria yield
a far less grim picture and in fact show that most German water bodies already
meet many of the currently applicable criteria.
The results of the characterization process should not be taken to mean that
German water protection policies have failed dismally, since many water bodies
in Germany exhibit a good oxygen balance and extremely low levels of chemical
pollution. Nonetheless, the Water Framework Directive has set its sights on a
broader range of water bodies, as well as more natural ones, and in so doing
aims to ensure that future water resource management policies and practices
will strike a productive balance between stewardship of water body ecology and
ensuring that water bodies remain available for a versatile range of uses.
2. The River Basin District Analysis:
an executive summary of the results
Initial characterization of the anthropogenic pressures to which water bodies
are subject constitutes one of the most important steps toward implementation
of the Water Framework Directive in the Member States. The Directive requires
that the effects of anthropogenic activity on the statuses of surface and ground
water bodies be assessed. Once all testing has been completed and the relevant
data has been assessed, a determination is then made as to whether the environ-
mental objectives of the Water Framework Directive can be met without further
measures. These objectives are defined as good chemical and good ecologi-
cal status for bodies of surface waters, and good chemical and good quanti-
tative status for groundwaters.
The characterization process revolves around the following three questions:
G Which water bodies might fail the environmental WFD objectives?
G Which chemical and non-chemical pressures are to blame for the failure to
meet these objectives?
G Which mechanisms and effects should therefore be the focus of operative
monitoring?
The results of these investigations will form the basis for the elaboration of
the monitoring programmes, the programmes of measures and the river basin
management plans.
A look at how bodies of water were assessed in the past
For many years, the main goal of water protection programmes was to achieve good chemical water quality
by minimizing pollution pressures. But the Water Framework Directive now places the ecological dimension
of water protection at center stage.
In the past, surface water bodies in Germany were assessed according to biological, chemical and hydromor-
phological criteria. The assessment of biological water quality was based on a seven-level ranking system that
classified bodies of water primarily according to the saprobic index, which takes into account oxygen balance
only and not the totality of all pollution and non-pollution pressures on water bodies. Nonetheless, biological
water quality does provide an overview of pressure trends. For example, the proportion of German river
reaches in quality class II and higher increased from 47% in 1995 to 65% in 2000, which means that water
quality in rivers and streams has improved considerably in recent years. This evolution is attributable to,
among other things, the fact that almost 95% of the German population is now serviced by sewage treatment
plants, as well as improved purification performance of these plants.
Most morphological changes in water bodies in Germany are documented by means of a hydromorphology
assessment system that was developed by Lnderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser, LAWA (German Working Group
of the Federal States on water issues). As can be seen in Figure 1, hydromorphological changes are far more
prevalent than inadequate biological water quality. Statistically speaking, this means that of 33,000 km of
watercourses assessed, only 20% are in a nearly natural state (ecomorphological classes 1, 2 and 3), while 33%
are in a highly or completely altered state (ecomorphological classes 6 and 7). Thus, altered ecomorphology
and impediments to the migration of fish and smaller organisms constitute a significant risk factor in
Germanys intensively used natural environment.
9
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
7
58
31
3
0 0
2
8
11
19
27
23
10
Biological water quality
Unchanged
Unpolluted
or very
slightly polluted
Slightly
changed
Slightly
polluted
Moderately
changed
Moderately
polluted
Distinctly
changed
Critically
polluted
Obviously
changed
Heavily
polluted
Strongly
changed
Very heavily
polluted
Completely
changed
Extremely
polluted
Ecomorphological quality
Figure 1: Comparison of biological water quality
(oxygen balance disturbances) and ecomorphological status
10
The initial characterization undertaken by the German states in late 2004
yielded the following results (Figure 2):
Bodies of surface water
G Approximately 14% of the water bodies assessed are likely to meet the
WFD objectives.
G 26% of the water bodies assessed are possibly at risk of failing the
WFD objectives.
G Approximately 60% of the water bodies assessed are at risk of failing the
WFD objectives.
Approximately 63% of the water bodies assessed were designated as natural,
while 23% were provisionally identified as heavily modified, and 14% fell into
the artificial category.
Groundwater
G Approximately 47% of the water bodies assessed are likely to meet the
WFD objectives.
G Approximately 53% of the water bodies assessed are possibly at risk/at risk
of failing the WFD objectives.
The Water Framework Directive stipulates that bodies of surface water (rivers,
lakes, transitional and coastal waters) are to achieve good ecological and
good chemical status by 2015. Failure of the Directive objectives is probably
attributable in most cases to physical alterations affecting the hydrology and/or
geomorphology of a water body, as well as transverse structures such as weirs
Surface water bodies Groundwater bodies
53%
Not at risk of failing
the WFD objectives
Possibly at risk of failing
the WFD objectives
At risk of failing
the WFD objectives
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
14%
26%
60%
47%
Figure 2: Results of the characterization of surface and
ground water bodies
11
and sills that impede the upstream migration of fish and smaller aquatic organisms
(Figure 3). Another causal factor in this regard is nutrient inputs from diffuse sources,
mainly agricultural activities, as well as other chemical pressures such as wastewater
treatment plants and precipitation drainage. These inputs provoke algae growth in
many bodies of surface water, particularly lakes.
The results of the characterization also showed that in most cases the failure of a
water body to achieve good status is attributable to several factors. Thus for example,
dam-regulated watercourses that are also subject to nutrient inputs regularly develop
algae growth. Water bodies are classified as heavily modified when their morpho-
logy has been greatly and permanently modified by use. This classification was
mainly assigned owing to the presence of commercial shipping, hydropower and/or
anthropogenic river bank activities, all of which are enabled by transverse structures
that subject water bodies to considerable pressure.
Hydromorphology
including
river continuity
Nutrients Chemical substances,
physicochemical
conditions (Annex VIII)
Priority substances
(Annexes IX and X)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
i
m
e
s
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
The Water Framework Directive stipulates that groundwater is to achieve good
chemical and good quantitative status. It is clear from the German Laender reports
that despite considerable groundwater abstraction in Germany, 75% of whose
drinking water is derived from aquifers, the quantitative status of the countrys
groundwater is seldom jeopardized. It is probable that only approximately 5% of
Germanys groundwater bodies will fail to achieve good quantitative status. However,
the picture is more clouded when it comes to good chemical status, an objective that
the characterization results indicate 52% of Germanys groundwater bodies are
possibly at risk/at risk of failing unless additional measures are taken.
The main pressure on groundwater bodies is attributable to nutrient inputs
(particularly nitrates) from agricultural areas. Although other chemical pressures do
not pose a widespread problem, they could have adverse effects on the regional level.
Figure 3: The causes for failing Directive objectives mentioned most
frequently in the ten river basin reports
Key results for Germanys water bodies
12
Figure 4 shows the factors that can result in failure to meet Directive objectives.
To some extent the various river basin district reports reach radically different
conclusions as to whether the water bodies investigated will meet the Directives
criteria. In addition to variances in the pressures to which river basin districts
are subject, these discrepancies are also probably attributable to the Laender
(German states) having employed diverse calculation methods and databases.
For example, the report on the Maas river basin states that approximately 80%
of that areas groundwater bodies are possibly at risk/at risk of failing good
chemical status, while the possibly failure rate for groundwater bodies in the
Danube catchment area is only 22%. There is currently no sure way of
determining whether these discrepancies are solely attributable to differences in
the pressures to which the various water bodies are subject, or if methodological
factors are to blame also.
The following key results are emblematic of current water body status in
Germany:
Watercourses
G Water body morphology in most German states and thus in nearly all of the
countrys river basins has been altered by human beings along vast stretches
of watercourse.
Figure 4: Factors that can result in failure to meet Directive objectives
of groundwater bodies
(based on the number of groundwater bodies that are at risk of failing the WFD objectives)
Diffuse sources
(primarily nutrients)
Other pressures
(e.g. other substances,
lowering of ground water levels)
Volume, abstractions
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
b
o
d
i
e
s
13
G A substantial proportion of Germanys rivers and streams are at risk of failing
the Water Framework Directives objectives unless systematic efforts are made
to improve water body status. For water bodies in the city-states of Berlin,
Bremen and Hamburg, good ecological status appears to be out of reach,
mainly owing to the intensive economic activity in these regions that has pro-
voked long-term alterations in water body morphology.
Lakes
G High levels of nutrient input are mainly to blame for the failure on the part
of Germanys lakes to meet the Directives environmental objectives.
Transitional waters and coastal waters
G Eutrophication is also the most serious problem facing transitional waters
and coastal waters.
All surface water bodies
G The main source of nutrient and pollutant pressures on bodies of surface
water is agricultural activity followed by wastewater and rainwater drainage
systems.
Groundwater
G The good quantitative status of most of Germanys groundwater bodies is
intact, which means that the country has sufficient groundwater resources
for the foreseeable future. The elevated chemical pressures on many of the
countrys groundwater bodies are mainly attributable to agricultural
activities.
Cost recovery
G The economic analysis realized by the German states during the cha-
racterization process revealed that current prices for drinking water and
wastewater services recover the costs of providing these services, thus
fulfilling one of the principal economic aims of the Water Framework
Directive. However, resource costs were for the most part excluded from
consideration.
Figures 5 and 6 contain an overview of the findings for all surface water
categories and the groundwater.
14
Figure 5: Characterization findings pertaining to the good status
of larger surface water bodies in Germany
15
Number of water bodies assessed
k|vers. orrroi|rote|v 7.000. |o|es. orrroi|rote|v 800
Coosto| or1 trors|t|oro| Woters. orrroi|rote|v 0. Crour1Woter |o1|es. orrroi|rote|v 780
Likelihood of achieving groundwater objectives Likelihood of achieving surface water objectives
Not ot r|s| of fo|||rc t|e W| o|ject|ves
|oss|||v ot r|s| of fo|||rc t|e W| o|ject|ves
At r|s| of fo|||rc t|e W| o|ject|ves
Surface waters
Rivers
Lakes
Coastal and
transitional waters
Groundwaters
Likelihoods of achieving
WFD objectives
(percentage of water bodies)
Primary reason
for failing the objectives
Hv1rororr|o|ocv |rc|u1|rc
r|ver cort|ru|tv
Nutr|erts
Ot|er ro||utorts
Hv1rororr|o|ocv |rc|u1|rc
r|ver cort|ru|tv
Nutr|erts
Ot|er ro||utorts
Nutr|erts
Hv1rororr|o|ocv
Ot|er ro||utorts
Nutr|erts
Ot|er ro||utorts
Hv1rororr|o|ocv
Nutr|erts
Ot|er rressures
A|stroct|ors
Not ot r|s| of fo|||rc t|e W| o|ject|ves
|oss|||v ot r|s||ot r|s|
of fo|||rc t|e W| o|ject|ves
18
c4
18
l4
cc
c0
7l
c
lc
cc
cc
4
S1
Figure 6: Characterization findings for, and major pressures on,
German surface water and ground water bodies
The Water Framework Directive: the road to water protection throughout the Community
16
3. The Water Framework Directive: the road to water
protection throughout the Community
New water protection objectives
The Water Framework Directive that came into force in late 2000 aims to
implement standardized transboundary water management within the
European Community. The legislation also marks a major shift in Community
water policy in that a regionally and use-oriented water management paradigm
will now give way to an integrated and ecologically oriented water management
system. Under the new Directive, rivers, lakes, transitional waters, coastal waters
and groundwaters are required not only to minimize chemical pollution but
must now also achieve and maintain good ecological status and good
quantitative status. All Member States are obligated to protect, enhance and
restore their water bodies in accordance with these principles.
In the new paradigm embodied by the Water Framework Directive, water bodies
and their catchment areas constitute an unbroken ecological unit comprising
interdependent groundwaters, surface waters and floodplains. The Directive
places far greater importance than was heretofore the case on the ecosystem
function of lakes and rivers as habitats for animal and plant organisms, and thus
aims to protect these environmental compartments. Ecological stewardship will
henceforth take priority over chemical water quality.
Under the Directive, the ecological status of water bodies is assessed on the basis
of five classifications ranging from good to bad, the radical departure from
past practice being that the assessments differentiate between the various types
of water bodies. This means that the status of each type of water body in a
predominantly unaltered (natural) state serves as a benchmark for the assess-
ment of water body status.
However, the ambitious goals set by the Directive are not universally applicable.
Article 4 allows for an extension of the deadlines for achievement of the
required objectives, as well as excemptions in regard to good status
classifications. In addition, artificial water bodies such as newly constructed
canals and heavily modified water bodies that are impounded for beneficial
purposes or whose physical characteristics are modified are exempt from the
requirement to achieve good ecological status. These water bodies need only
achieve good ecological potential as reference which means the status of a
body of water following the implementation of measures that improve its
ecological characteristics as much as possible but do not significantly restrict
its beneficial uses. However, these exceptions apply only insofar as measures
necessary to achieve good ecological status significantly impinge upon the
beneficial uses of the water body. The Directive also requires that a determi-
nation be made as to whether the benefits concerned can be achieved by
other means that constitute a significantly better environmental option.
17
Submit report to European Commission
regarding the characterization process
Establish monitoring
programme
Implementation of
programmes of measures
Time to achieve
objectives
Implementation of
monitoring programmes,
elaborate programmes
of measures
Water Framework Directive
goes into effect
Implementation of relevant legal framework
Monitoring programmes operational
Implementation schedule
for the Water Framework Directive
Submit report to European commission (March 2016)
Programmes of measures and river basin district
management programmes have been established
Measures have been implemented
Submit report to European commission
Good status has been achieved - new river
basin management plan comes into force
Initial River Basin
Analysis
Dec. 2000
Dec. 2003
Dec. 2004
Dec. 2006
Dec. 2009
Dec. 2012
Dec. 2015
Figure 7: Implementation schedule for the Water Framework Directive
Figure 7 shows the implementation schedule for the Water Framework Directive.
Member States may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily
modified when the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that
body which would be necessary for achieving good ecological status would
have significant adverse effects on:
G The wider environment
G Navigation
G Recreational uses
G Water storage for drinking-water supply, power generation or irrigation
G Water regulation, flood protection, land drainage
G Other equally important sustainable human activities
18
River basin districts and water bodies
Rivers, lakes, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwaters sometimes
extend across national boundaries, thus creating a situation in which more
than one Member State is responsible for protecting a body of water. In the
Water Framework Directive, Community legislators have purposely
abandoned the notion that national boundaries apply to water management
scenarios. Instead, the Directive supports the goal of transborder
management of river basin districts.
Of the river basin districts that fall within the borders of Germany the
Danube, Rhine, Maas, Ems, Weser, Oder, Elbe, Eider, Warnow/Peene and
Schlei/Trave (see Figure 8) eight extend into other countries, with only the
Weser and Warnow/Peene being managed at the national level only.
Inasmuch as in most cases an entire or partial catchment area would be
too unwieldy to allow for monitoring, the implementation of protective
measures or the determination of water body quality, the various river basin
districts are divided into bodies of surface water, each of which is a discrete
surface water or groundwater unit. These are also the actual water manage-
ment areas within which environmental pressures are measured, their effects
monitored and measures taken in response to these effects. One of the first
steps that must be realized in implementing the Water Framework Directive
is to identify these water bodies and assign them to a river basin district.
19
Figure 8: River basin districts in Germany
20
4. The River Basin District Analysis
How likely or unlikely is it that a body of water will achieve the environmental
objectives set out in the Water Framework Directive? If a water body fails to
meet the objectives, to which pollution and non-pollution-pressures is this failure
attributable? Which effects must therefore be investigated during the operative
monitoring process? The Directive stipulates that these questions must be an-
swered by means of the initial characterization process. In Germany, this
requirement was met by having the various states identify and investigate the
effects of anthropogenic activity on the status of surface and ground water
bodies.
The findings of these characterizations allow for minimization of the costs of the
ensuing measurement programmes by ensuring that these programmes focus
on the highest-priority environmental pressures on the bodies of water
concerned. The characterization process also forms the basis for the elaboration
of the plans of activities and river basin management plans that are to be com-
pleted by 2009 (see Figure 7). Thus, in this sense the outcome of the initial cha-
racterization process will determine the course of nearly all succeeding
activities. In accordance with the six year planning cycle stipulated by the
Directive, the initial characterization process is to be repeated and/or updated
in 2013 and again in 2019.
A number of essential steps must be taken in order to (a) determine whether a
water body meets the environmental criteria of the Directive and (b) gather all
data required for the report to the European Commission (Figure 9).
In the coming years, Community water resources management will be realized
in river basin districts that encompass surface water bodies, transitional waters,
coastal waters and groundwaters.
In the interest of obtaining a clear picture of the extent to which a given water
body is at risk of failing to meet good status requirements, Germanys surface
water bodies were assessed according to the following categories:
G Waters that are likely to achieve good status (not at risk of failing to achieve
the WFD objectives).
G Waters that may fail to achieve good status (possibly at risk of failing to
achieve the WFD objectives). This assessment is often attributable to a lack of
sufficient data.
G Waters that are unlikely to achieve good status (at risk of failing to achieve
the WFD objectives).
Groundwater bodies were designated as either not at risk of failing to achieve
the WFD objectives or possibly at risk/at risk of failing to achieve the WFD
objectives.
21
Operative monitoring is to be carried out for water bodies that are possibly at
risk or at risk of failing to meet the WFD objectives. This more extensive
monitoring process is to be supported by a versatile, tightly knit network of
monitoring stations and is to be carried out for all water bodies that are subject
to environmental pressures. Thus, the Directive operates on the assumption that
uncertainties in regard to risk assessments constitute a clear indication that the
water body in question is at risk of failing the WFD objectives and that therefore
further characterization of the relevant pressures and impacts is needed. In
addition, programmes of measures for water bodies that are clearly at risk of
failing the objectives should be elaborated during the monitoring process.
Transboundary cooperation
Classifying Community bodies of water into large river basin districts also has
major implications for the process of initial characterization in that the Member
States affected have agreed that a joint overall report is to be elaborated and
submitted for each transboundary river basin district. This entails cooperation at
three levels within each transboundary river basin. At the A level, activities
must be coordinated amongst various countries for a single river basin district,
Determination of water body category
(river, lake, coastal/transitional water, groundwater)
Submit report to European Commission in March 2005
Economic analysis of water uses
Assessment of the likelihood that Directive objectives will be achieved
Identification of pressures on water bodies and assessment
of impacts; analysis of groundwater characteristics
Identification of artificial water bodies;
provisional identification of heavily modified water bodies
Identification of ground and surface water bodies
Determination of water body typology and investigation
of reference water bodies for purposes of defining
high ecological status
Description of initial characterization
Figure 9: Constituents of the characterization process
resulting in, for example, an A report for the Danube involving 13 Member States.
Reports at this level summarize the key aspects of the river basin district concerned.
The second B level consists of coordination amongst the various water resource
management (sub-basin) survey areas that have been carved out of large river basin
districts such as the Rhine and Elbe. In these regions, which often encompass more
than one German Land (state), one Land acts as lead coordinator, collecting all
information that is to be processed at the third level. This final level, known as the
(local area) working level (level C) focuses on smaller sub-regions that in most cases
are confined to one German state. During this stage, detailed information is collated
regarding the various water body catchment areas and portions thereof.
Table 1 lists the public players (countries and German Laender) in each of Germanys
river basin districts.
22
RIVER BASIN
DANUBE
EIDER
ELBE
EMS
MAAS
ODER
RHINE
SCHLEI/ TRAVE
WARNOW/ PEENE
WESER
SURVEY AREA
(INCLUDING WITH GERMAN SEGMENT)
--
--
Mulde-Elbe-Schwarze Elster
Saale
Havel
Middle Elbe/Elde
Tideelbe
--
--
Middle Oder
Lausitzer Neie
Lower Oder
Stettiner Haff
Alpine Rhine/Lake Constance
High Rhine
Neckar
Upper Rhine
Moselle/Saar
Main
Middle Rhine
Lower Rhine
Rhine Delta
--
--
Fulda/Diemel
Werra
Weser
BUNDESLNDER (GERMAN STATES)
IN THE RIVER BASIN DISTRICT
Baden-Wurttemberg, Bavaria
Schleswig-Holstein
Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Hamburg,
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, Lower Saxony,
Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein,
Thuringen
Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia
North Rhine-Westphalia
Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania,
Saxony
Baden-Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Hessen, Lower
Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rheinland-
Pfalz, Saarland, Thuringen
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania,
Schleswig-Holstein
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania
Bavaria, Bremen, Hessen, Lower Saxony,
North Rhine-Westphalia , Saxony-Anhalt,
Thuringen
NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES
IN THE RIVER BASIN DISTRICT
Austria, Switzerland, Czech
Republic
Denmark
Austria, Poland, Czech Republic
The Netherlands
Belgium, France, Luxemburg,
The Netherlands
Poland, Czech Republic
Belgium, France, Luxemburg,
The Netherlands, Austria,
Switzerland
Denmark
--
--
Table 1: Public players in the various river basin districts
23
Surface water bodies
4.1 Surface water bodies
The Water Framework Directive stipulates that bodies of surface water are to achieve
good ecological and good chemical status by 2015. This requirement far exceeds
the scope of the water body assessments previously realized by Member States in that
they are now required to characterize the ecological quality of a body of water. The
ecological status classifications are determined by the extent to which actual water
quality deviates from the conditions found in a comparable type of water body that
for the most part has not been altered by anthropogenic activity.
Ecoregions and water body types
Each water body constitutes a biological community with distinct characteristics and a
different level of susceptibility to anthropogenic activities. In the interest of including
susceptibility to pollutants and other pressures in the assessment process, all water
bodies were first characterized according to their typologies and ecoregions. In
accordance with Water Framework Directive requirements, a reference list containing
all flora and fauna species found in each type of water body was then compiled.
In Germany, 24 types of flowing water, 14 types of lakes, one type of transitional water,
as well as four types of coastal waters on the Baltic Sea and five on the North Sea were
identified. For each type a profile was elaborated that describes its key cha-
racteristics. Figure 10 contains two examples of profiles of types of flowing water.
Figure 10: Examples of watercourse profiles
Morphological profile
Stretches of river that meander through narrow and in
some cases canyon-like or broad valleys. In broad valleys,
floodplains can arise and multibed channels can also occur
depending on gradient and sediment characteristics. This
type of river is flat and often has fords, islands and/or
divided currents. The riverbed is predominantly composed
of gravel and cobbles with sand, with minor amounts of
clayey silt. Large amounts of deadwood occur naturally,
mainly large trunks or uprooted trees that remain on the
surface of the water despite the rapid currents. Uprooted
trees in the main and side channels result in accumulations
of smaller pieces of deadwood and other organic material.
Type 10: River with gravel bottom
Elbe at Rathen (SN) Photo: F. Schll
24
Longitudinal disposition 10-100 km
2
RB
Valley floor slope 2 - 7
Flow pattern:
Wide, calm river with short, turbulent sections containing
deadwood and root barriers, eddies at potholes.
Bed substrates:
Predominantly sand of varying grain sizes, often gravel
as well (varying sizes), in some instances clays and marl;
frequent occurrence of glacial erratics; organic substrate.
In lowland moor areas, peat banks and similar materials
in the subsoil and other areas.
Characterization of a macrozoobenthos colony
Functional groups: A sandy brook with gravel banks and a large amount of
deadwood is colonized by a few organisms in the fine sediment, as well as by
organisms in the hard substrate and in secondary substrates such as deadwood
and aquatic plants. Owing to the accumulation of deadwood and fallen leaves in
the nearly natural reference water bodies, organisms that crush their food con-
stitute a substantial proportion of the feeding types, most notably grazing organ-
isms which are found mainly on rocks and gravel. Organisms that eat detritus
and sediment consisting of minute particles of organic debris inhabit sand holes.
In addition to species in relatively fast moving and slow moving waters, a small
number of species are found in still water areas. Variants containing
groundwater are characterized by a high proportion of cold stenothermal and
crenal species.
Delineation of surface water bodies
The various river basin districts are divided into clearly delineated surface water
bodies for purposes of water resource management. The Water Framework
Directive defines a surface water body as a discrete and significant element of
surface water such as a lake, a reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a
stream, river or canal, a transitional water or a stretch of coastal water.
However, individual water bodies cannot be delineated randomly. By discrete,
the Directive means that phenomena such as the transition from one water body
category to another, a change in the type of water, or a significant change in
the status of a water body must all be taken into consideration when water
bodies are delineated. This process is iterative, i.e. it did not end with the
conclusion of the initial characterization phase and will be repeated at regular
intervals in the future. In this process, water bodies can be merged for purposes
Type 14: Lowland stream with sandy bottom
Rotbach (NW). Photo: M. Sommerhuser
Figure 10 (continued): Examples of watercourse profiles
25
of monitoring, reporting and management, or they can be amalgamated into
groups, providing that the entities thus formed retain their homogeneity. Most
of the German Laender (states) have delineated the various water bodies in
accordance with the course of the main rivers and tributaries concerned.
Approximately 9,800 surface water bodies have been delineated in Germany,
and the about 9,000 rivers among them are an average of nearly 20 km in
length. The state of Baden-Wurttemberg has delineated water bodies that
encompass a sufficiently large surface area to be homogenous, manageable and
at the same time serve as habitats for native species. These water bodies include
80 km of streams, rivers and canals, which is well above the average length in
other German Laender. Figure 12 shows the mean sizes of watercourses in the
various German states.
Figure 11: Schematic drawing of water body delineation
For the German states whose reports either had not been published by the
cutoff date for this pamphlet (Jan. 31, 2005) or from whose reports the
requisite data could not be reliably extrapolated, the data used for the
graphics in this pamphlet was taken from the data gathered and published
by LAWA in April 2004 (LAWA 2004). This holds true as well for all graphics
in this pamphlet containing data pertaining to the German Laender.
26
Heavily modified and artificial water bodies
Inasmuch as anthropogenic activities can heavily and in some cases irreversibly
modify water body morphology, the Water Framework Directive defines dedi-
cated objectives for such heavily modified water bodies. However, the question
then arises: What exactly is a heavily modified water body and under which
conditions can a body of water be assigned to this category? In the interest of
answering these questions, a guidance document entitled Identification and
designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies was issued in
November 2002 within the framework of the Common Implementation Strategy.
The designation heavily modified pertains solely to water bodies that are
impounded, or upon which structures are built for specific uses, and for which
achievement of good ecological status would necessitate mitigation measures
that would significantly undermine achievement of the social and economic
benefits derived from the water body. The Guidance Document states that the
designation heavily modified will be provisional until the end of 2004, since
a definitive designation cannot be adopted until a comprehensive economic
analysis is carried out and until a determination is made as to whether the
beneficial objectives can be obtained by other means. The definitive desig-
nations are to be decided upon by 2009.
Provisional identification entails determining whether the various water bodies
are likely to achieve good ecological status. Only those water bodies that fail
good ecological status owing to hydromorphological changes are to be pro-
visionally identified as heavily modified.
In Germany, the results of mapping ecomorphogical data and data regarding
current uses of water bodies formed the basis for provisional identification of
heavily modified water bodies. The criteria for this assessment were not uni-
formly interpreted in every case, however. For example, some German states
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Mean val ue
M
e
a
n
w
a
t
e
r
b
o
d
y
s
i
z
e
(
i
n
k
m
)
T
h
u
r
i
n
g
e
n
S
c
h
l
e
s
w
i
g
-
H
o
l
s
t
e
i
n
S
a
x
o
n
y
-
A
n
h
a
l
t
S
a
x
o
n
y
S
a
a
r
l
a
n
d
R
h
e
i
n
l
a
n
d
-
P
f
a
l
z
N
o
r
t
h
R
h
i
n
e
-
W
e
s
t
p
h
a
l
i
a
L
o
w
e
r
S
a
x
o
n
y
M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
W
e
s
t
P
o
m
e
r
a
n
i
a
H
e
s
s
e
n
H
a
m
b
u
r
g
B
r
e
m
e
n
B
r
a
n
d
e
n
b
u
r
g
B
e
r
l
i
n
B
a
v
a
r
i
a
B
a
d
e
n
-
W
u
r
t
t
e
m
b
e
r
g
Figure 12: Mean length of water bodies in the German Laender (states)
27
provisionally classified only shipping lanes and dams as heavily modified water
bodies, while Lower Saxony and Mecklenburg-West Pomerania also placed in this
category water bodies that play a key role in farmland whose morphology has
been permanently and significantly altered to facilitate water abstraction. The
state of Bavaria provisionally designated the section of the Danube between
Straubing and Vilshofen as a heavily modified water body. This stretch of river is
the final freely flowing section of the navigable Danube in Germany. In contrast,
the freely flowing stretch of the Elbe between the Czech border and the
Geesthacht weir near Hamburg was identified as a natural river. Mecklenburg-
West Pomerania combined artificial water bodies and water bodies pro-
visionally identified as heavily modified into a single category, while Bavaria
added a category, Potentially classifiable as heavily modified, which in Figure
13 is combined with the provisionally identified as heavily modified category.
Moreover, already during the initial phase of the characterization process several
German states assessed the hydromorphological changes in water bodies not on
the basis of good ecological status but rather on the basis of good ecological
potential, which has less stringent requirements.
To date, approximately 2,250 water bodies (23%) in Germany have been pro-
visionally identified as heavily modified and 1,400 (14%) have been identified
as artificial. This accounts for nearly 37% of all surface water bodies that have
been assessed to date and translates into 30,000 km of streams, rivers and canals
in Germany that have been provisionally identified as heavily modified, and an
additional 10,000 km that have been designated as artificial waterways. The
assessment results for the various German states and Germanys river basin
districts are shown in Figures 13 and 14 respectively.
Provisionally identified as a heavily modified water body Artificial water body
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
14
23
T
h
u
r
i
n
g
e
n
S
c
h
l
e
s
w
i
g
-
H
o
l
s
t
e
i
n
S
a
x
o
n
y
-
A
n
h
a
l
t
S
a
x
o
n
y
S
a
a
r
l
a
n
d
R
h
e
i
n
l
a
n
d
-
P
f
a
l
z
N
o
r
t
h
R
h
i
n
e
-
W
e
s
t
p
h
a
l
i
a
L
o
w
e
r
S
a
x
o
n
y
M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
W
e
s
t
P
o
m
e
r
a
n
i
a
H
e
s
s
e
n
H
a
m
b
u
r
g
B
r
e
m
e
n
B
r
a
n
d
e
n
b
u
r
g
B
e
r
l
i
n
B
a
v
a
r
i
a
B
a
d
e
n
-
W
u
r
t
t
e
m
b
e
r
g
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
Figure 13: Artificial surface water bodies and surface water bodies pro-
visionally identified as heavily modified in Germany
1
1
In Bavaria, where provisionally heavily modified (HMWB) and artificial (AWB) water bodies were estimated in terms of
the length of river streams and number of lakes, 20% of the river length was classified as provisionally HMWB, 31% as
candidates for HMWB and 3% as AWB, and 23 of the 54 lakes were classified as HMWB (2 lakes) or AWB (21 lakes).
28
Figure 14: Natural and artificial water bodies and water bodies that have been provisionally
identified as heavily modified in Germany
Identification of pressures
Another key dimension of the characterization process apart from water body
characterization is the identification of significant pressures on water bodies and
the assessment of these pressures. Annex II(1)(4) of the Water Framework
Directive requires that pressures from substances, water abstraction, water flow
regulation and morphological alterations be identified and that their impact on
water bodies be assessed.
This process is described in various Guidance Documents and the LAWA guide-
lines and will now be outlined using watercourses as an example.
The Water Framework Directive stipulates that the initial characterization must
take into account all significant sources of pressures as well as any potential risk,
including risk that is constituted by a combination of pressures. Figure 15 shows
the key types of pressures that are mentioned in the Directive.
Pollution pressures
The objective of keeping water resources as free as possible from pollutants and
nutrients remains a key focus of Community water protection policy under the
Water Framework Directive. Chemical pollutants originate either from clearly
definable point sources or are introduced into water bodies from diffuse sources.
29
Figure 15: Key types of environmental pressures
(adapted from Gadermann, Baden-Wurttemberg)
30
Point source pollution
In the interest of determining which point sources subject water bodies to significant
pressure, LAWA has proposed criteria that are based on applicable Community
legislation such as the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment.
Inputs from wastewater treatment plants are a significant point source. Household and
industrial wastewater is treated at over 10,000 municipal wastewater treatment plants
in Germany. In the former East Germany, the wastewater generated by 76% of the
population is treated in wastewater treatment plants, while in western Germany the
figure is approximately 96%. Additional point sources include industrial wastewater
treatment plants whose effluent is introduced directly into the sewer system.
For example, the Weser river basin district has approximately 500 municipal and 80
industrial wastewater treatment plants, while the Eider river basin has approximately
65 municipal plants and only one industrial facility. The transborder Rhine river basin
contains approximately 2,850 municipal wastewater treatment plants and over 900
industrial facilities.
Discharges from rainwater drainage systems are a source of pressure on water bodies,
particularly during heavy rains. A substantial amount of the inputs from heavy metal,
phosphorus compounds and oxygen depleting chemicals originate in polluted rain-
water, particularly from densely populated areas with a high density of sealed sur-
faces. Inputs from residential areas are regarded as significant when a total of more
than 10 km
2
of sealed surfaces is connected to the sewer system. Little quantitative
data regarding this type of pressure on water resources was collected during the
characterization process. For example, the Weser catchment area contains approxi-
mately 30 districts that could potentially be sources of significant inputs into water
bodies. Certain inorganic salts can also pose problems for water bodies. For example,
approximately 100 kilograms of chloride per second are dumped into the Weser river
basin district owing to potash mining at the Werra mines there.
Diffuse sources
Diffuse sources play a more significant role than point sources in terms of nutrient
(particularly nitrogen), pesticide, and other forms of pollution. In Germany from 1998-
2000, nitrogen accounted for approximately 80% of all inputs, while phosphorus
accounted for approximately 70%. The inputs are particularly high for areas in which
large animal stocks are kept on soils that are especially susceptible to discharges.
The Rhine is one of the worlds most heavily used watercourses. Approximately 58
million people live in its catchment area, and the region is the site of more than
50% of the worlds chemical plants. Thanks to international cooperation, despite the
enormous use pressures on the Rhine region, its chemical and biological statuses
have greatly improved compared with two or three decades ago. The return of
salmon to the Rhine river is living proof of how an ecosystem can be successfully
restored.
31
Despite substantial emissions reductions, nutrient concentrations in water bodies
are still unduly high. In carrying out the characterization process, the German
states placed particular emphasis on the assessment of inputs from nitrogen,
phosphorus and pesticides, all of which stem mainly from intensively cultivated
farmland.
Other diffuse sources include inputs from the atmosphere, contaminated sites,
and roads, highways and other sealed surfaces, which taken together are
regarded as significant in only rare cases owing to the negligible levels of
pollution involved.
Non-pollution pressures
In developed countries, non-pollution pressures such as water abstraction, water
flow regulation and morphological changes often have a major impact on water
body quality. In addition to modifying the landscape, such changes also rob
aquatic organisms of their habitats and hence their means of survival.
Water abstraction
Water abstraction arising from the use of water for industrial processes or power
generation is assessed according to varying criteria, e.g. the ratio of abstractions
to flows within water bodies. The German states have rarely regarded lake and
river abstractions as a significant pressure since they tend to have an impact in
individual cases and on relatively small areas in the ecosystem. However, water
abstraction for cooling processes can often be environmentally damaging by
virtue of the fact that heated coolant water is discharged back into the water
body. For example, the warming of the Wupper (part of the Rhine river basin)
provoked by heated coolant water from thermal power plants is currently sub-
jecting the river to considerable environmental pressure.
Water flow regulation
Water flow regulation is realized in Germany for purposes of flood protection,
hydropower, commercial shipping and land reclamation, among other appli-
cations. Transverse structures that have used for flow regulation are deemed to
exert considerable environmental pressure when they have more than 30 cm
water level differences and thus impede the upstream migration of myriad fish
species and other aquatic organisms. The state of Hessen has 2,650 such struc-
tures distributed over approximately 8,440 km of watercourse, which translates
into an average of one barrier every three km. The situation is similar in the
Elbe, Mulde and Schwarze Elster catchment area, which contains approximately
Germany currently has approximately 400,000 farms that cultivate an average
of approximately 40 hectares each. This means that approximately 170,000
km
2
are used for agricultural purposes, which is 50% of the countrys total
surface area.
32
2,160 significant transverse structures distributed over 6,720 km of watercourse.
The Neckar catchment area has approximately 1,100 such structures, which works out
to an average of one barrier every two km. Moreover, with 45 transverse structures,
the Neckar river is impounded along virtually its entire length, particularly since 27
of these structures are located along an approximately 185 kilometer stretch.
In short, virtually all of Germanys catchment areas are studded with dams, weirs and
the like, despite the various natural and use oriented features that dot the same land-
scape. Thus, migration barriers and altered ecomorphology constitute a significant risk
factor for the ecological status of Germanys water resources.
Morphological alterations
The morphology of Germanys water bodies is in many cases the product of extensive
socioeconomic use. For example, rivers are truncated, riverbanks are built up, dams
are constructed, water is diverted into canals, and dikes are built for purposes of flood
protection. Larger rivers are used by commercial vessels and power generation, weirs
and locks are built, and floodplains are for the most part segmented by dikes.
Structures are also built on most smaller rivers and streams for power generation,
flood protection and agricultural purposes. The results of the morphological
investigations that have been conducted reflect these conditions.
LAWA has elaborated a classification system that allows for the assessment of water
body morphology. Of 33,000 km of watercourses assessed, only 20% are in a nearly
natural state (ecomorphological classes 1, 2 and 3), while 33% are in a strongly or com-
pletely changed state (ecomorphological classes 6 and 7). The morphology of water
bodies in urban and intensively cultivated areas has been most drastically changed.
For example in the state of Bremen, only one water body was identified as
moderately changed, while over 60% of the states water bodies were designated as
strongly or completely changed. This same pattern is repeated elsewhere in
Germany, and the hydromorphology of virtually all of the countrys river basin dis-
tricts have been altered by anthropogenic activity along broad stretches of
watercourse.
Assessment of the impact on water body status
The fact that a body of water is subjected to pollution or non-pollution pressures does
not necessarily mean that it fails the environmental objectives of the Water
Framework Directive. In order to make this determination, it was necessary to define
which status is to be designated as good. Inasmuch as some ecological assessment
procedures are still in the process of being elaborated, or are not widely applied or
well established, the criteria used in Germany were based on existing information and
measurements.
Different criteria were applied to assessments of the various water body categories
such as standing and flowing waters. In addition, parameters that provide information
pertaining to the entire length of a water body (e.g. water body ecomorphology) were
distinguished from those that yield sampling data only.
33
This means that a risk identified on the basis of sampling data should be applied to the whole stretch of water
affected. LAWA recommends that in view of the numerous significant water uses involved, achievement of the
Directives environmental objectives for oxygen balance (saprobic index) should be assessed as possibly at risk
in cases where 30% to 70% of a watercourse is affected, and as at risk when more than 70% of a watercourse
is affected.
The impact of these scenarios was assessed on the basis of a series of defined threshold criteria. The criteria for
watercourses recommended by LAWA are shown in Table 2.
Indicator
Pressures on oxygen
balance (saprobia)
Nutrient pressures
(trophic status)
Specific pollutants
Warming
Salinization
Acidification
Abstractions
Flow regulation
Morphological
alterations
Criteria for a probably failing of the WFD objecitves
Ecomorphological status lower than class II (LAWA 2000) for more than 70% of
watercourse length. If more than 30% of the water body is affected, it is identified
as being possibly at risk of failing the WFD objectives.
Eutrophication worse than class II according to the LAWA classification
Or: annual mean concentration of orthophosphate-P >= 0.2 mg/l as well as
nitrate-N >= 6.0 mg/l.
Exceeds environmental quality standards.
Exceeds upper limit for temperatures or temperature increases as required under
the Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC).
Annual chloride concentration exceeds 200 mg/l.
Acid status classification non-compliant with LAWA.
Abstractions exceed one third of mean low-water flow, 50 l/s, or 10% of mean flow.
Structures with the following properties:
- High drops that exceed 30 cm, that are characterized by smooth sliding, and that
are devoid of structures that promote river continuity and aquatic wildlife movement.
- Backwater scenario in which a minimum of 20% of the water body is nearly devoid
of flow at the mean water level.
Water body morphology, transverse structures, backwater or other key structural
parameters have been designated as class 6 or 7 along more than 70% of the length
of the water body. If more than 30% of the length of the water body falls into this
category, it is classified as possibly at risk of failing WFD objectives.
Table 2: Impact assessment indicators and criteria recommended by LAWA; German Working Group
of the Federal States on water issues (source: Kriterienpapier fr Fliegewsser; status as at
March 31, 2003)
34
Impacts on rivers
The assessment techniques realized by the various German states differed in numerous
respects, most notably the following:
G The selection and analysis of assessment parameters (e.g. transverse structures,
general physicochemical parameters, specific pollutants)
G The definition of significance and limit thresholds
G The application of aggregate results to specific water bodies as a whole
A survey conducted by LAWA in 2004 regarding the procedures used and initial
results obtained during the characterization process found that in the absence of a
standard European Community or German system for the assessment of the biological
quality of algae, aquatic plants, benthic fauna, and fish, the German states applied
existing assessment criteria. Where assessment data was available, such information
(e.g. regarding fish or benthic fauna) was included in the assessments.
The states of Hamburg, Hessen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saarland and Saxony-Anhalt
assessed phosphorus nutrient pressure on the basis of total phosphorus and a thres-
hold value of 0.15 mg/l (as P) rather than on the basis of orthophosphate phosphorus
(LAWA, 2004). These states compared the threshold with the 90th percentile value,
while Hamburg used the annual mean as a reference value. Hessen and North Rhine-
Westphalia categorized a phosphorus range of 0.15 to 0.3 mg/l (as P) as possibly at
risk of failing the WFD objectives, while the state of Berlin set the threshold for this
category at 0.09 mg/l (as P) on account of its nutrient-sensitive lakes.
The Water Framework Directive explicitly states that water body continuity should
not be impaired to the point where the water body fails to achieve good water status.
In the face of unduly low water body continuity, the state of Baden-Wurttemberg
reached the conclusion that all of its surface water bodies are possibly at risk of failing
to achieve the WFD objectives. In the states of Hessen and Lower Saxony on the other
hand, although engineering structures were counted as pressures and the morphology
was assessed, this parameter was not included in the assessment of the ecological
status.
Pollutants that occur in specific river basin districts were assessed on the basis of an
ordinance for the Water Framework Directive that was elaborated by LAWA and that
served as a blueprint for the 16 German state ordinances that are being used primarily
to implement Annexes II and V of the Directive. This model ordinance lists thresholds
for specific pollutants that occur in significant quantities in the various river basin
districts. The German states prioritized these substances differently in assessing water
body status. In most cases, assessments were based on sampling data, but in some
cases were also based on measurements taken along an entire water body subsegment.
In some cases, pollutant data for specific river basins was taken into account only if
overall assessment results were inconclusive.
35
All of the German states abided by the Directives worst case scenario, which stipulates
that a water body is at risk or possibly at risk of failing the WFD objectives if it is
noncompliant with even one assessment criterion.
Results for rivers
The Water Framework Directive stipulates that the ecological status of all water bodies
that constitute a 10 km
2
catchment area or greater are to be assessed. In Germany, this
means that the ecological status of approximately 130,000 km of river had to be
investigated and classified a stretch 7.5 times longer than Germanys entire national
highway network and three times longer than its railway network. Thus, the cha-
racterization process was a daunting water management task that necessitated the
adoption of dedicated procedures.
Approximately 9,000 river water bodies were identified and assessed in Germany.
The assessment, using the methods described in the present report, showed that 61%
of the water bodies investigated are at risk of failing to achieve good ecological status
by 2015.
The results also showed that 24% of the water bodies assessed are possibly at risk
of failing the WFD objectives, while only 15% are likely to achieve them (Figure 16).
The good ecological potential of heavily modified and artificial water bodies was
included in these figures.
Figure 19 shows the characterization results for the ecological status of lakes and rivers
in the various river basin districts. Figure 21 provides an overview of the ecological
and chemical status results for lakes and rivers in the various river districts.
River status
Ecological status of rivers
Chemical status of rivers 63 28 9
15 24 61
12 26 62
the WFD objectives
the WFD objectives
At risk of failing
the WFD objectives
100% 75% 50% 25% 0%
Figure 16: Characterization results for rivers
36
In order to assess the chemical status of rivers, it was necessary to assess the 33 priority
substances defined by the Water Framework Directive, the pollutants regulated by the
EU Dangerous Substances Directive (daughter directives), as well as nitrate. However,
since the data needed for this assessment was unavailable for most water bodies, the
extent to which a water body meets the criteria for good chemical status was based
on a rough estimate in most cases.
The chemical status of the nearly 7,700 water bodies assessed by the German states
yielded more positive results than the assessment of ecological status. It was found
that approximately 63% of the water bodies assessed will probably meet the
environmental objectives of the Directive, 28% are possibly at risk of failing the
objectives (in some cases owing to a lack of data or the fact that the assessments did
not include measuring data), and that only 9% of the water bodies assessed are at risk
of failing the objectives. Figure 20 shows the results of the initial characterization for
the chemical status of lakes and rivers in the various river basin districts.
Figure 17 shows the results for surface water bodies broken down by state. Rheinland-
Pfalz, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania and Saarland used the not at risk and at risk
categories only. The Bavarian results, which were reported as separate categories
(saprobia, eutrophia, ecomorphology, and chemical pressures) and in terms of stream
length instead of number of water bodies, were aggregated for the graphic so as to
harmonize them with the results from other states.
Not at risk of failing the WFD objectives Possibly at risk of failing the WFD objectives At risk of failing the WFD objectives
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
60
26
14
T
h
u
r
i
n
g
e
n
S
c
h
l
e
s
w
i
g
-
H
o
l
s
t
e
i
n
S
a
x
o
n
y
-
A
n
h
a
l
t
S
a
x
o
n
y
S
a
a
r
l
a
n
d
R
h
e
i
n
l
a
n
d
-
P
f
a
l
z
N
o
r
t
h
R
h
i
n
e
-
W
e
s
t
p
h
a
l
i
a
L
o
w
e
r
S
a
x
o
n
y
M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
W
e
s
t
P
o
m
e
r
a
n
i
a
H
e
s
s
e
n
H
a
m
b
u
r
g
B
r
e
m
e
n
B
r
a
n
d
e
n
b
u
r
g
B
e
r
l
i
n
B
a
v
a
r
i
a
B
a
d
e
n
-
W
u
r
t
t
e
m
b
e
r
g
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
Figure 17: Initial characterization of Germanys surface water bodies
37
Despite the diverse assessment methods employed by the various German states,
it can be stated with certainty in regard to Germanys watercourses as a whole that a
substantial proportion of the countrys rivers and streams will probably fail the WFD
objectives, particularly those pertaining to good ecological status, unless programmes
of measures aimed at improving water body status are systematically implemented. In
many cases, this failure to meet the objectives is mainly attributable to the irreversible
effects of anthropogenic activity. Altered hydromorphology and deficient water body
continuity constitute a particularly serious ecological problem in all German states
and river basins. The initial characterization also showed that water bodies in densely
populated areas are highly unlikely to achieve good ecological status by 2015.
As anticipated, a substantial number of the water bodies in these regions were
provisionally identified as heavily modified. In Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg only
about 1% of all water bodies are expected to meet the Directives environmental
objectives.
According to the characterization results for the water bodies assessed, the most severe
environmental pressures currently facing Germanys water bodies are engineering
structures, insufficient water body continuity, and chemical inputs provoked by
extensive agricultural activities. In most cases, the likelihood that a water body will
achieve good ecological status is determined by the interplay between multiple
environmental pressures.
Impacts on lakes
The Water Framework Directive stipulates that the ecological status of lakes and other
still waters that are upwards of 50 hectares in size is to be assessed. For purposes of the
assessment, lakes were classified according to the river basin district in which they are
located. Most of Germanys natural lakes are located in the northern lowlands and
Alpine foothills; lakes large enough to require assessment are rare in the countrys low
mountain regions. Artificial lakes are structures such as surface mining lakes formed
through the activities of extractive industries. Weirs and dams fall into the heavily
modified category. These are bodies of (formerly) flowing water that have been
robbed of this property by impoundment and whose category has therefore been
changed.
As is the case with bodies of flowing water, the ecological status of lakes and other still
waters is primarily determined by their biological properties, which are constituted by
algae, aquatic plants, fish, and benthic invertebrate fauna. The German states mainly
based their assessments of lakes on the LAWA Guidance Document since the definitive
assessment system is still being elaborated. Nutrient pressures (trophic status) and to a
lesser extent riverbank morphology constituted the main assessment parameters.
In assessing trophic status, a reference status was first established by determining
which nutrient concentrations and algae levels (trophic class) the type of water body
under study could support in a natural state, i.e. in the absence of environmental
pressures. Lakes that were found to deviate by more than one trophic level from this
reference status were classified as being unlikely to achieve good ecological status.
38
More than 70% of the shorelength of a lake had to fulfill the criteria of a natural
water body in order to meet the environmental objectives of the Directive.
Aquatic plant status was also assessed for some lakes if the requisite data was
available. In some cases temperature, oxygenation, pH values (as an indicator
of acidification) and chloride concentration were also taken into consideration
as supporting physicochemical quality elements. And of course, a lake cannot
achieve good ecological status unless environmental quality standards for
pollution are met. However, this parameter was applied to the assessments
somewhat less often.
Results for lakes
Approximately 800 bodies of still water, including some dams, weirs and
artificial lakes, have been assessed thus far as part of the initial characterization.
Of the lakes assessed, over 400 are located in the German part of the Elbe river
basin district. 38% of the lakes assessed are not at risk to achieve good ecological
status by 2015, for 24% the outcome is in doubt, and 38% are at risk of failing to
achieve good ecological status (Figure 18).
High levels of nutrient input constitute the most common reason why a lake fails
the Directives environmental objectives. For example, it was found that the
majority of the lakes in the Elbe and Schlei/Trave river basin districts are subject
to environmental pressures from high levels of nutrient input that stem from
agricultural activities. 110 lakes in the Elbe river district were designated as
possibly at risk of failing the WFD objectives because it was not possible to
determine the characteristics of their original natural status. An additional 180
lakes fail good ecological status owing to low trophic status and aquatic plant
related deficiencies. The situation was similar in the Schlei/Trave river basin dis-
trict where 35 of the 51 lakes assessed are at risk of failing the WFD objectives.
Morphological changes in river banks constitute an additional and increasingly
prevalent environmental pressure since this factor plays a pivotal ecological role.
In addition, inputs of contaminated water from point sources such as sewage
treatment plants can have a highly adverse impact on lake ecology.
Lakes 38 24 38
100% 75% 50% 25% 0%
the WFD objectives
the WFD objectives
At risk of failing
the WFD objectives
Figure 18: Assessment results for lakes
39
Figures 19, 20 and 21 show the characterization results for ecological, chemical
and overall status for the lakes and rivers in Germanys river basin districts.
The restoration program that was undertaken for Lake Constance (Bodensee)
is a good example of successful international cooperation. Back in the 1970s
the International Commission for the Protection of Lake Constance (IGKB)
began a restoration program that successfully reduced the lakes phosphorous
content from 87 mg/l in 1979 to its current level of 12 mg/l, thus achieving
long term ecological stability for the lakes open waters. However, the lakes
near-shore waters and shallow areas still have morphological problems.
Inasmuch as 59% and 43% of the upper and lower sections (respectively) of
Lake Constance are no longer in a natural state, its banks are at risk of failing
the WFD objectives (see Figures 5, 19 and 21).
The city of Constance on Lake Constance (photo: dpa)
40
Figure 19: Characterization results pertaining to the good ecological status of Germanys lakes
and rivers.
41
Figure 20: Characterization results pertaining to the good chemical status of Germanys lakes and
rivers
Figure 21: Characterization results for the good status of Germanys lakes and rivers
42
43
Impacts on coastal and transitional waters
Transitional waters (so named because they constitute a transition from fresh to salt water)
are located in close proximity to estuaries and are primarily affected by influxes of fresh
water, although their salt content is high owing to their proximity to the seacoast.
They also transport chemicals via water motion and are the site of exchange processes
between the animal and plant realms. The Water Framework Directive emphasizes the
importance of minimizing ocean pollution in that the Directives priority substance list
includes those substances designated as particularly hazardous in international treaties on
the protection of the marine environment such as the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki
Convention. The Water Framework Directive stipulates that emissions, discharges and
losses of hazardous substances to the marine environment should cease by 2020.
The German states have established nine coastal water categories, five for the North Sea
and four for the Baltic Sea, and one type of transitional water for the North Sea: the tidal
estuary of the flatland coast.
As with flowing waters, the status of coastal and transitional waters was determined by first
delineating the relevant water bodies, then ascertaining the nature and extent of the
environmental pressures on them, and finally determining each water bodys potential for
achieving the WFD objectives. The quality elements for coastal and transitional waters were
nutrients, specific pollutants, priority substances and morphological changes. Biological
data such as that pertaining to the Ems estuary was also taken into consideration.
The following assessment include only coastal waters within the one-mile limit and exclude
coastal waters between the one-mile limit and the territorial limits, which are only subject
to good chemical status management requirements.
Results for coastal and transitional waters
91% of Germanys coastal and transitional waters are at risk of failing the WFD objectives
unless programmes of measures are undertaken. 2% are possibly at risk of failing the
objectives and only 7% are not at risk to achieve them (Figure 22).
The most severe pressure on coastal and transitional waters is high nutrient load, although
chemical pressures and morphological changes also constitute an environmental risk for
these water bodies. Input from nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen mainly stems
from agricultural activities in the catchment area. According to the Federal Environmental
Agency, 70% of these discharges originate in agricultural areas. The ecology of coastal
wasters is also jeopardized by specific pollutants originating from shipyards, harbors, and
Coastal and transitional waters
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
7 2 91
the WFD objectives
the WFD objectives
At risk of failing
the WFD objectives
Figure 22: Characterization results for coastal and transitional waters
44
Figure 23: Characterization results for the good status of Germanys
transitional and coastal waters.
industrial sites such as factories and mines. In addition to chemical inputs, coastal
waters can also be harmed by physical changes resulting from harbor activities,
dredging for commercial shipping, or structures for coastal protection.
As things now stand, the coastal and transitional waters in the Elbe river basin district
are at risk of failing good ecological status, and nutrient pressures on the coastal
waters in the Schlei/Trave river basin districts are unduly high. The transitional waters
in the Eider river basin district have been provisionally identified as heavily modified
owing to irreversible morphological changes provoked by a flood barrier that
separates the North Sea from the mouth of the Eider. The coastal waters around the
latter are at risk of failing good ecological status owing to unduly high nutrient inputs.
The characterization process revealed that many German coastal and transitional
water bodies are at risk of failing to achieve good biological status. This is exemplified
by the transitional waters of the Ems which have lost nearly all of their migrating fish
species. To date, inclusion of priority substances in the characterization process has
been more the exception than the rule, one example being the Ems and its coastal
and transitional waters, which are unlikely to achieve good chemical status by 2015.
The characterization results for coastal and transitional waters are shown in Figure 23.
45
4.2 Groundwater
As the source of approximately 75% of Germanys drinking water and an
integral component of the water cycle, groundwater is particularly deserving of
protection. Moreover, since in most cases groundwaters and surface waters con-
stitute an interdependent system, groundwater quality has a direct impact on
surface water ecology. In addition, many terrestrial ecosystems such as wetlands
are fed by groundwater that either emerges at the surface or originates in areas
where the water table is very close to the surface. Polluted aquifers or excessive
abstractions from them can have an adverse effect on such ecosystems. Thus, a
key objective of sustainable water management is to maintain adequate quality
and quantity while at the same time safeguarding groundwater resources
against contamination.
Good chemical and good quantitative status
The Water Framework Directive lays down far reaching groundwater protection
requirements with a view to achieving good chemical and good quantitative
status. The Directive also requires that surface waters that are dependent on
groundwater and terrestrial ecosystems be identified and that any pollution
provoked by groundwater be analyzed and assessed.
Although the Directive lays down definitive regulations regarding the quanti-
tative status of aquifers, it provides only a general framework for the achieve-
ment of good chemical status for groundwater. However, Article 17 requires the
European Parliament and the Council to adopt specific measures to prevent
and control groundwater pollution so as to achieving the objective of good
groundwater chemical status. A daughter directive proposed by the Commis-
sion in September 2003 laid down criteria for the assessment of good chemical
status for groundwater, the elaboration of water quality standards and thres-
holds for pollutants, the measurement and reversal of increasing environmental
pressures, and measures aimed at preventing or limiting indirect inputs. These
regulations constitute minimum groundwater protection requirements for the
Member States.
Good quantitative status means that a balance is achieved between groundwater
abstraction and recharge. Under no circumstances should the abstraction rate
exceed the recharge rate, and under normal circumstances the abstraction
should be far lower than the recharge rate. If the abstraction and recharge rates
are the same, groundwater levels decrease and with them the amounts of water
available to supply surface waters and wetlands. Hence, achieving good quanti-
tative status presupposes that changes in groundwater levels will not jeopardize
the achievement of quality objectives for surface water, nor should such changes
provoke environmental damage in terrestrial ecosystems that are directly
dependent on groundwater bodies.
Groundwater
Groundwater
46
The quantitative status of groundwater is classified as bad in cases where
overuse leads to the following:
G deterioration in the status of groundwater-dependent surface waters
G environmental pressures on terrestrial ecosystems
G the failure of surface waters to achieve quality objectives
Good chemical status is deemed to have been achieved when Community quality
standards and thresholds are adhered to for nitrates, pesticides and biocides, i.e.
pollutants that stem mainly from the agricultural sector. The Commissions draft
directive stipulates that the required environmental quality standards must be
upheld for these three substance groups at each individual measuring point in a
given water body so as to ensure that the values from various measuring points
are not aggregated and averaged. Hence, exceptionally high environmental
pressures must be clearly documented so that the appropriate strategic risk
prevention measures can be implemented. Adoption of these regulations would
improve protection levels. The Commissions proposed Directive also stipulates
that the Member States should designate threshold values for the following
pollutants by the end of 2005: trichlorethylene, tetrachlorethylene, ammonium,
arsenic, cadmium, chloride, lead, mercury and sulfate.
It often happens that once groundwater has been polluted, it can not longer be
restored to its original state in a reasonable amount of time and at a reasonable
cost. In view of this fact, the Water Framework Directive stipulates that any
significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of any pollutant
should be identified and reversed at the latest when pollutant concentration
reaches 75% of the defined quality standard.
Delineation of groundwater bodies
The Water Framework Directive defines a body of groundwater as a distinct
volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers. The latter are defined as
all subsurface layers of rock or other geological strata of sufficient porosity and
permeability to allow either a significant flow of groundwater or the abstraction
of significant quantities of groundwater.
In order to manage all water resources in a river basin efficiently, the ground-
water bodies in its catchment areas must be assigned to the relevant surface
water bodies. The Directive does not specify how groundwater bodies are to
be designated. However, it follows from the regulations as they now stand that
each groundwater body should be a maximally homogenous entity so that its
quantity and chemical status can be readily assessed, characterized and
monitored. In order to assess quantitative status, groundwater bodies should
be delineated in such a way that they constitute a maximally closed hydraulic
system. Natural groundwater properties and land uses can also be applied as
delineation criteria for groundwater bodies.
47
Flow direction is a key parameter for the segmentation of the various sections
of an aquifer into groundwater bodies of suitable size because this parameter
determines which environmental compartment might be jeopardized by water
abstraction or changes in the chemical properties of groundwater.
However, the segmentation of aquifers into groundwater bodies is a complex
process that must include a suitable water body characterization and risk assess-
ment procedure, while at the same time avoiding the pitfall of fragmenting the
aquifer into an unmanageable number of minute units. Processes such as
groundwater characterization, monitoring and risk assessment can be simplified
by aggregating groundwater bodies into maximally homogenous groups.
However, groundwater bodies can only be delineated optimally following
completion of the initial characterization process and on the basis of the
initial monitoring results.
The average size of the approximately 980 groundwater bodies that have been
delineated in Germany thus far ranges from 120 to 1,250 km
2
. Most of the
German states delineated groundwater bodies that have a maximum of 400 km
2
in size, and in three states the sizes range from 675 to 1,250 km
2
(Figure 24).
The data from Lower Saxony also includes the groundwater bodies in Bremen,
since the two states are cooperating closely on implementation of the Water
Framework Directive.
Groundwater
0
200
400
600
800
1.000
1.200
1.400
M
e
a
n
w
a
t
e
r
b
o
d
y
s
i
z
e
(
i
n
k
m
2
)
Mean val ue
T
h
u
r
i
n
g
e
n
S
c
h
l
e
s
w
i
g
-
H
o
l
s
t
e
i
n
S
a
x
o
n
y
-
A
n
h
a
l
t
S
a
x
o
n
y
S
a
a
r
l
a
n
d
R
h
e
i
n
l
a
n
d
-
P
f
a
l
z
N
o
r
t
h
R
h
i
n
e
-
W
e
s
t
p
h
a
l
i
a
L
o
w
e
r
S
a
x
o
n
y
M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
W
e
s
t
P
o
m
e
r
a
n
i
a
H
e
s
s
e
n
H
a
m
b
u
r
g
B
r
a
n
d
e
n
b
u
r
g
B
e
r
l
i
n
B
a
v
a
r
i
a
B
a
d
e
n
-
W
u
r
t
t
e
m
b
e
r
g
Figure 24: Mean size of groundwater bodies in the German states
Groundwater
48
Initial characterization of groundwater bodies
For the German states the process of characterizing their groundwater bodies
entailed first analyzing the relevant hydrological and hydrogeological data and
then describing the characteristics of the groundwater bodies. The latter step
involved determining the characteristics of the overlying strata, as well as the
hazards that each groundwater body could be susceptible to. These hazards were
assessed on the basis of data pertaining to (a) chemical pressures from point and
diffuse sources; (b) groundwater abstraction; and (c) groundwater replenishment
realized by channeling surface water strategically into aquifers. All of the
available data was then compared, resulting in an assessment of groundwater
bodies that are at risk of failing the WFD objectives. Water bodies that fall into
this category will have to undergo further characterization.
Chemical pressures on groundwater stem from agricultural activities, urban
areas and abandoned waste dumps and industrial sites. The assessment of
pollutant pressures were mainly based on nitrogen (particularly nitrate),
pesticide, chloride and sulfate data. The various German states used differing
methodologies for the characterization process. Some states assessed the scope
of agricultural land use in each catchment area, while others measured
excessive inputs of manure fertilizer. Most states, however, used groundwater
monitoring as an assessment criterion. The states then determined whether the
concentrations and inputs of nitrogen (nitrates) and pesticides exceeded specific
thresholds, which were defined on the basis of the applicable Community
directives.
The quantitative status of groundwater was assessed on the basis of both fore-
casts and current trends. For example, the states determined whether water abs-
traction exceeds a percentage of available water supply ranging from 10 to 50%.
The Water Framework Directive also stipulates that in addition to quantitative
status, inputs of saline water must also be assessed since overuse of aquifers in
coastal areas can provoke salt water percolation into deep subterranean layers.
In view of this regulation, chloride content in groundwater was also included in
the analysis of quantitative status for the Eider and Schlei/Trave river basin dis-
tricts. In Hamburg and Lower Saxony e.g. the existence of salt deposits can result
in a salinisation of the groundwater bodies. The states also incorporated the ana-
lysis of groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems into the characterization
process, and drew up maps and lists for this parameter as well. These analyses
were based on biotope maps, landscape plans and registers of protected areas.
Results
The assessment of groundwater status for all river basin districts revealed that
approximately 95% of all groundwater bodies currently have good quantitative
status, which means that Germany is assured of having adequate groundwater
resources in the future. The situation is quite different when it comes to che-
mical status, however, since approximately 52% of the water bodies assessed are
possibly at risk/at risk of failing the WFD objectives unless additional measures
are realized (Figure 25).
49
These water bodies comprise approximately 45% of Germanys surface area.
The characterization results for Germanys river basin districts can be found in
Figures 27 and 28. Figure 26 shows the extent to which groundwater bodies in
the various German states are at risk of failing the Water Framework Directive
quantitative and chemical objectives.
Groundwater
Quantitative status of
groundwater bodies
Chemical status of
groundwater bodies
Status of
groundwater bodies
95 5
48 52
47 53
Not at risk of failing the WFD objectives Possibly at risk/at risk of failing the WFD objectives
100% 75% 50% 25% 0%
T
h
u
r
i
n
g
e
n
S
c
h
l
e
s
w
i
g
-
H
o
l
s
t
e
i
n
S
a
x
o
n
y
-
A
n
h
a
l
t
S
a
x
o
n
y
S
a
a
r
l
a
n
d
R
h
e
i
n
l
a
n
d
-
P
f
a
l
z
N
o
r
t
h
R
h
i
n
e
-
W
e
s
t
p
h
a
l
i
a
L
o
w
e
r
S
a
x
o
n
y
M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
W
e
s
t
P
o
m
e
r
a
n
i
a
H
e
s
s
e
n
H
a
m
b
u
r
g
B
r
e
m
e
n
B
r
a
n
d
e
n
b
u
r
g
B
e
r
l
i
n
B
a
v
a
r
i
a
B
a
d
e
n
-
W
u
r
t
t
e
m
b
e
r
g
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
47
53
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Not at risk of failing the WFD objectives Possibly at risk/at risk of failing the WFD objectives
Figure 25: Characterization results for groundwater
Figure 26: Characterization results for groundwater bodies in the Bundeslaender (German states)
2
2
In Bavaria, where the risk of failing the WFD objectives was estimated in terms of proportion of surface area, 20% of the
states surface area was classified as being at risk or possibly at risk of failing the WFD objectives, in Hamburg 76% and in
Thuringen 64,5%.
Groundwater
50
Figure 27: Initial characterization of the good chemical status of groundwater bodies in Germany
51
Groundwater
Figure 28: Initial characterization of the good quantitative status of groundwater bodies
in Germany
Groundwater
52
Most pressure on groundwater bodies stems from chemical inputs.
Approximately 85% of the groundwater bodies that are at risk of failing good
ecological status are subject to chemical pressures from diffuse sources, as well
as pesticides. Inputs from former waste dumps and industrial sites are of lesser
overall importance but in some cases are significant at the local level.
For example, aquifers in the state of Berlin contain elevated sulfate concen-
trations from deposits of construction and demolition waste.
Although quantitative pressures on groundwater bodies are not a widespread
phenomenon in Germany, they reach significant levels in some regions owing
to factors such as lignite mining. 95% of the water bodies in the Rhine river
basin district have good quantitative status, although a few areas suffer from
extremely low groundwater levels. Lignite mining has a major environmental
impact on the Maas river basin district, 35% of whose groundwater bodies fail
good quantitative status owing to incremental decreases in groundwater levels
over a period of many years. 16 of 210 groundwater bodies in the Elbe catch-
ment area are at risk, or probably at risk, of failing good quantitative status
owing to lignite mining.
53
5. Economic analysis of water uses
Rivers, lakes, transitional waters, coastal waters, and groundwater are used in the
European Community for a broad range of economic purposes including commercial
shipping, hydropower, drinking water, wastewater discharge, agriculture, tourism, and
construction materials. Such uses can have a direct or indirect impact that can provoke
consequential costs for the environment that are often detected at a very late stage.
Consequently, socioeconomic factors play a important role in implementation of the
Water Framework Directive. In addition to an analysis of river basin district and water
body characteristics, Article 5 of the Directive also requires that an economic analysis
of water use be performed according to the specifications in Annex III.
The main constituents of the economic analysis that is being conducted in 2005
as part of the initial characterization process are as follows:
G Description of water uses and their economic significance
G Substantiation that water services costs are recovered
G Long-term forecasts of supply and demand for water (until 2015)
G Elaboration of assessment criteria for the cost effectiveness of measures
The Directive defines water use as water services together with any other activity
identified under Article 5 and Annex II having a significant impact on the status of
water. The main user groups for water are industry, households and SMEs. The
Directive defines water services as (...) all services which provide, for households,
public institutions or any economic activity: (a) abstraction, impoundment, storage,
treatment and distribution of surface water or groundwater; (b) waste-water collection
and treatment facilities which subsequently discharge into surface water.
The economic significance of water uses
The purpose of the economic characterization process was to describe the use of
water for anthropogenic activities and the impact of these activities on socioeconomic
indicators, with a view to determining the economic importance of significant levels
of water use in river basin districts that are the site of extensive economic activity.
This analysis aimed to ascertain the long-term cost benefit ratio of water use.
The economic analysis of water use was to some extent based on the LAWA guidance
document for implementation of the Water Framework Directive. This guidance
document is in turn based on the Guidance Document for economic analysis that
was developed by the Member States and the European Commission as part of the
EUs Common Implementation Strategy. The conclusions reached in the reports by
the German states and the river basin districts differ somewhat, particularly in regard
to the current and prognosticated economic significance of water use.
54
Tables 3 and 4 below summarize selected results pertaining, insofar as data was
available, to the German areas of the Elbe, Rhine, Danube and Weser river basin dis-
tricts. It should be noted, however, that the data pertaining to the Rhine river basin is
incomplete. Although 54% of the surface area of this region and 64% of its population
are located in Germany, only data pertaining to the Neckar, Main and Middle Rhine
regions, whose catchment areas lie wholly within Germany, could be presented here.
Some of the key sociogeographic indicators are shown in Table 3.
River basin district
Elbe
Rhine
Neckar
Main
Middle Rhine
Weser
Danube
Surface area, all
countries (in km
2)
> 148,000
197,080
Surface area, Germany
only (in km
2)
> 97,000
105,500
13,900
27,000
13,500
49,000
56,295
Total population, all
countries (in millions)
25
57.8
Total population, Germany
only (in millions)
18.5
36.9
5.5
6.6
2.7
9.4
9.2
Table 3: Sociogeoraphic indicators for selected river basin districts
Elbe
Rhein
Neckar
Main
Mittelrhein
Weser
Donau
Workforce
(in millions of
persons)
1.96
0.99
0.99
0.35
1.20
1.54
GVA (in billions
of euros)
83.70
56.80
52.40
17.30
65.00
83.69
Workforce
(in millions of
persons)
5.58
1.66
2.34*
0.76
1.80
3.16*
GVA (in billions
of euros)
258.18
88.60
135.5*
37.70
73.00
178.31*
Workforce
(in millions of
persons)
0.180
0.049
0.080
0.026
0.060
0.178
GVA (in billions
of euros)
5.23
0.96
1.58
0.50
3.40
3.42
Table 4: Economic indicators for selected river basin districts (figures rounded off)
The manufacturing, service, and agricultural sectors are the most important areas
of economic activity in the river basin districts described. Table 4 shows the GVAs
(gross value added) and employment statistics for these river basin districts.
*own calculation
figures rounded off
River basin
district
Manufacturing sector Service sector Agricultural sector
55
Water uses and cost-recovery for water services
The most significant type of water use in Germany, apart from public water utilities
and wastewater management, is constituted by water use for various economic
purposes such as water abstraction realized in the manufacturing, processing and
agricultural sectors. Energy producers also use water as a coolant and for hydropower.
The use of rivers for commercial shipping also has a significant impact on the status of
water bodies in Germany.
In some German river basins, the following additional types of commercial users play
an important role, to some extent at the regional level only:
G In Central Germany and the Lausitzer region, large volumes of water are pumped
out of the Elbe for lignite mining and as a rule are discharged back into the river
without being used
G Usage by waterbodies for touristic and recreational purposes, e.g. in the catchment
areas of Danube, Rhine and Weser
Nonetheless, the use of water for public water utilities and municipal wastewater
management is still of extremely major economic importance in Germany, since 98%
of the German population obtains its drinking water from municipal waterworks and
the lions share of household wastewater is treated by municipal water treatment
plants. Usage levels in this domain range from 84.6% in the Elbe river basin district to
93% in the Danube region.
The need to promote sustainable water use while at the same time ensuring that
sufficient water resources will be available in the future, gave rise to one of the Water
Framework Directives key requirements, which is to that the cost of water services be
recovered by the prices that are charged for them. Hence, the Water Framework
Directive requires the Members States to take steps to ensure that by 2010 the costs of
all wastewater treatment and drinking water abstraction and purification processes
are recovered by water prices, and furthermore to institute water-pricing policies
[that] provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently.
Article 9 requires EU Member States to take account of the principle of recovery of
the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs (...).
In Germany, this principle is firmly embedded in legislation that has been adopted
by all states. Current levels of cost recovery for public water utilities and municipal
wastewater management were analyzed in three representative regions Middle
Rhine, the Lippe sub-basin, and Leipzig county with a view to obtaining reference
values that could be applied to other regions as well. Table 5 shows the current levels
of cost recovery for these regions.
56
The Water Framework Directive requires that cost recovery levels take into account
environmental and resource costs in addition to operating costs, rather than operating
costs alone as has been the case in past studies. However, it has not been possible to
assess these costs precisely and comparably as yet owing to the fact that the suitability
of various cost assessment and internalization methods is still a matter of debate at
the Community and national level. In Germany, water abstraction charges, sewage
charges, as well as precautionary and compensatory measures as determined by
special requirements based on administrative decisions must first be given
consideration for purposes of internalizing environmental and resource costs.
Development of a baseline scenario for forecasts of the
economic drivers of water use
The Water Framework Directive requires Member States to elaborate programmes of
measures that will prevent an upward trend in environmental pressures on polluted
water bodies and relieve these pressures so as to allow for the achievement of good
ecological status. This means that in addition to managing water resources at an
operational level, Member States are also required to develop a baseline scenario to
interpret forecasts of key economic drivers that are likely to influence pressures and
water usage.
In analyzing the various river basin districts, drivers of water supply and demand were
identified and scenarios were elaborated for all water uses that are likely to have a
major impact on water body status. These scenarios also took into consideration water
demand trends in the household, industrial and agricultural sectors, chemical pres-
sures arising from wastewater discharges, and diffuse nutrient inputs from the agricul-
tural sector.
At the regional level, the impact of mining activities on the quantitative status of
groundwaters in the Elbe catchment area, as well as the impact of salt and heavy
metal deposits from mining activities on the ecomorphology of the Weser river basin,
were exhaustively analyzed. The characterizations of both of these regions indicate
that water balance status is likely to improve. In the case of the Elbe catchment area,
this is attributable to coal production cutbacks that are planned there by 2015, which
will relieve pressure on the regions aquifers. The increase in groundwater levels and
flooding of open-cast residual holes will also promote long term water balance
stabilization in this region. The situation is similar in the Weser region where analysis
of historical data showed that no increase in wastewater pressures from potash and
ore mining activities is anticipated.
Cost recovery level (in percent)
Water supply
Wastewater treatment
Middle Rhine
98.5 (Hessen)
100.9 (Rhineland-Pfalz)
89.0 (Hessen)
Lippe
103.3
102.8
Leipzig
101.1
94.0
Table 5: Current levels of cost recovery for representative regions
57
For Germanys public water utilities, the long-term evolution of supply and demand is
a critical factor in maintaining an adequate supply of drinking water, as well as
efficient wastewater management. During the characterization, efforts were made to
forecast these trends by elaborating supply and demand scenarios for individual river
basin districts. For example, water demand in the Elbe catchment area was simulated
using three models based on various baseline assumptions. These simulations revealed
that drinking water demand will probably stagnate in this region. Simulations for the
Weser and Rhine regions based on per-person consumption and population trends
likewise indicate that water demand in these regions will remain relatively stable over
the next decade. The Danube catchment area constitutes an exception in this regard,
however, in that population increases in the region could drive up water demand by
1.3% to 1.9%.
Wastewater pressures from municipal wastewater plants are likely to remain at current
levels as well. The characterization showed that there is unlikely to be any significant
increase in environmental pressures from municipal wastewater treatment plants,
thanks to clearer legal regulations, continuous optimization and modernization of
wastewater treatment plants, the use of new technologies and the expansion of
rainwater treatment capacities.
Assessment of cost efficiency measures
The Water Framework Directive stipulates that the economic analysis must include
enough information to determine which measures can improve the status of polluted
water bodies most cost efficiently. Toward this end, German government researchers
elaborated a specific methodology that allows for identification of the most cost
effective and proficient combinations of measures for the achievement of good water
body status. A description of this method (Basic principles for selecting the most cost-
effective combinations of measures for inclusion in the programme of measures as
described in Article 11 of the Water Framework Directive) was published and made
available to the competent authorities in all German states in 2004. The approach
proposed by this manual was also used for the German initial characterization reports
pertaining to the river basin districts discussed in the present document.
Protected areas
58
6. Protected areas
Many endangered animal and plant species depend for their survival on habitats
that cannot thrive without water and thus require special protection. Such areas are
also an indispensable source of drinking water, and are also important for touristic
and recreational activities. The Water Framework Directive stipulates that by 2004
Member States shall ensure the establishment of a register of all areas lying within
each river basin district which have been designated as requiring special protection
under specific Community legislation for the protection of their surface water and
groundwater or for the conservation of habitats and species directly depending on
water. According to the Directive, the types of areas designated as protected are
as follows:
G Areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption
G Areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species
G Bodies of water designated as recreational waters, including areas designated as
bathing waters
G Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as vulnerable zones
G Areas designated for the protection of habitats or species where the maintenance
or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection
The register of protected areas is also to include maps indicating the location of each
protected area. Although (in contrast to other characterization results) the Directive
does not require that a report documenting elaboration of the register of protected
areas be submitted to the European Commission by March 22, 2005, all reports of the
German states and river basin districts on water status include such documentation.
Water protection areas
Germany contains over 11,000 areas that are designated by article 7 of the Water
Framework Directive as areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for
human consumption. These areas comprise more than 36,000 km
2
, or approximately
10% of the total surface area of Germany.
Approximately 2,500 protected water areas comprising nearly 9,500 km
2
or nearly
10% of the German Elbe catchment area have been identified there. In the Weser
river basin district, the drinking and medicinal spring water areas designated thus
far comprise 8,860 km
2
; it is planned to designate further areas comprising 273 km
2
.
Taken together, this represents approximately 20% of this river basin district.
Areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species
The main focuses of aquatic species protection in Germany are shellfish waters and
fisheries, irrespective of the economic significance of such species. A total of 17 water
body habitats have been identified in Germany that support shellfish and snails and
enable them to propagate. Pursuant to the 1978 EC Freshwater Fish Directive,
250 water bodies or water body segments in Germany have been designated as
fisheries thus far, although the Alpenrhein, Upper Rhine and Main survey areas
59
could not be included in these designations since the number of fisheries in those
regions was not ascertainable from the reports submitted.
Bodies of water designated as recreational waters,
including areas designated for swimming
Many lakes and coastal waters are used for swimming in Germany. The EUs 1976
Bathing Water Directive (76/160 EC), which also protects such areas, stipulates that
swimming areas are to be monitored regularly and that their bacteriological loads
are to be tested at regular intervals. The Directive stipulates that these waters are to
contain few pathogenic bacteria, that specific indicator organisms are not to exceed
defined thresholds, and that their transparency is to be a minimum of one meter.
According to the report regarding the quality of bathing sites as at 2004, Germany
has 1,951 bathing sites, 390 of which are located in coastal regions.
Nutrient sensitive areas
Many ecosystems are vulnerable to nutrient inputs. The EUs Nitrates Directive was
enacted with a view to limiting nitrate pressures from agricultural sources and there-
by avoiding further pollution. The Directive also provides protection against unduly
high pollutant inputs from municipal water treatment plants with a view to avoiding
discharges of inadequately purified municipal effluents into rivers, and ultimately the
North Sea. The Action Program set forth by the Nitrate Directive has been applied
throughout Germany, and hence it is not necessary to identify the countrys nitrate
sensitive areas. The areas identified as sensitive as required under the Urban Waste-
water Directive also comprise a substantial portion of Germanys surface area, al-
though the requirements pertaining to wastewater discharges pursuant to section 7a
of Germanys Water Resources Act (Wasserhaushaltgesetz) apply to the entire country.
EU bird and FFH protection areas
In Germany, a total of 469 bird protection areas comprising 24,958 km
2
of surface
area, and 4,210 FFH areas encompassing 30,822 km
2
of surface area have been
identified, as required under the Flora Fauna Habitat Directive. These figures do not
include any intertidal, water, shallow (Bodden) or ocean areas, of which there are par-
ticularly large expanses in the states of Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony and Meck-
lenburg-West Pomerania. According to the Bird Protection and FFH Directives, 7% and
8.6% of Germanys surface area comprises bird protection areas (as at December 2004)
and FFH areas (as at January 2005), respectively.
The EU enacted the Flora Fauna Habitat (FFH) Directive in May 1992. The broad aim of
this Directive is to contribute towards the maintenance of biodiversity in the European
Union through the designation, conservation and development of habitats that sup-
port endangered species of wild flora and fauna, as well as to maintain or restore
biodiversity in nearly natural watercourses and floodplains.
The transborder Rhine river basin district encompasses a total of 1,114 FFH areas that
serve to protect important fish habitats and provide birds with areas in which they can
breed, rest and spend the winter.
Protected areas
The way forward
60
7. The way forward
The overarching goal of the Water Framework Directive is for all bodies of
surface water to achieve good ecological status by 2015. The determining
criteria for this objective are biological and chemical water quality, as well as
water body morphology. This means that all uses of rivers that have a morpho-
logical impact will take on greater importance, including inland shipping
structures and hydropower dams. Apart from their economic significance,
both of these types of uses also play a major role in achieving environmental
objectives such as protecting the ecological balance of water bodies and natural
areas, as well as reducing carbon emissions by shifting to renewable energy
resources and more ecologically sustainable means of transportation.
However, much remains to be done in Germany in the realm of chemical water
quality. Although water protection programmes have scored major successes in
recent years, they have mainly been based on a scenario in which most chemical
inputs stem from readily identifiable point sources and the municipal or indus-
trial stakeholders responsible for the attendant wastewater treatment costs can
be identified and fees and/or fines can be assessed accordingly. But todays
inputs mainly originate from diffuse sources, primarily from agricultural
activities and air emissions. Another significant, insufficiently recognized, but
growing source of pollution is constituted by widespread substances such as
endocrine disrupters and the residues of pharmaceutical products, most of
which are borne by household wastewater.
The first crucial step toward implementation of the Water Framework Directive
is the initial characterization process, which the various German states com-
pleted for the most part by late 2004. The results of the initial characterization
for surface water and groundwater bodies, as well as the economic analysis of
water use, were submitted to the European Commission in March 2005. These
results will form the basis for the next phases of implementing the Directive,
which are the monitoring program, which is to be operational by the end of
2006, and the river basin management plans, which are to be completed by the
end of 2009.
During the characterization process, the German states estimated, on the basis
of the information available to them, the extent to which achievement of WFD
objectives is currently at risk. The fact that approximately 60% of Germanys
surface water bodies and 53% of its groundwater bodies currently fail the
criteria for good water status does not mean that this will also hold true in 2015.
Once the characterization results have been carefully reviewed along with new
data obtained from measurements and farther reaching assessment methods as
required by the Water Framework Directive, dedicated programmes of measures
will be elaborated for each water body identified as being at risk of failing the
environmental quality objectives. Systematic implementation of these measures
will surely not enable all water bodies to achieve good water status by 2015, but
the status of the vast majority of them will have improved compared to their
current condition.
61
Despite the provisional nature of the initial assessments, they are a relatively
reliable guide to the scope and nature of the work that lies ahead. One of the
most important tasks is to close the data gap in terms of both biological data
for the assessment of the ecological status of water bodies, as well as the data
needed to assess the chemical status of water bodies in terms of their priority
substance concentrations. Additional investigations are also needed in order
to obtain additional data for the assessment of pressures on aquifers. In terms
of the economic analysis, it is also important that socioeconomic data and
analytical methods be optimized.
Hence, a key element of the work that lies ahead is to institute water body
monitoring and programmes of measures that target the environmental pres-
sures on water bodies at risk of failing the WFD objectives. Efforts to develop
measures and the economic tools to support them should focus on improving
water body morphology and water body continuity, and on reducing diffuse
chemical inputs from agricultural activities. In addition, significant pressures
from point sources such as rainwater and wastewater effluent drainage into
smaller water bodies with low flow conditions should be reduced. In some cases,
more extensive cleanup programmes are needed for contaminated sites, waste
dumps and abandoned industrial sites. Research programmes are also needed,
including research into the interplay between factors such as water body mor-
phology and biological quality, and surface water and groundwater dynamics.
The Water Framework Directive does not place all of the responsibility for these
tasks on the shoulders of the Member States. The European Commission and
other Community organs should also play an active role in implementing the
Water Framework Directive, particularly in terms of the planned groundwater
protection Daughter Directive and strategies to reduce environmental risk from
inputs of priority substances. The objective of completely eliminating emissions
of priority hazardous substances within 20 years can only be achieved at the
Community level.
The myriad uses to which water resources are put in the household, agricultural,
industrial and tourist sectors make water a pivotal economic factor in todays
society. Unfortunately, these uses often harm water body ecosystems, which
results in additional environmental costs. Thus, economic instruments will make
a growing contribution in the coming years to achievement of sustainable water
resources protection and should be incorporated more extensively into water
resource management models and policies. Toward this end, methods for the
elaboration and assessment of measures that reduce environmental pressures
cost efficiently are needed, including pragmatic mechanisms that incorporate
environmental and water resource costs into such solutions.
The data and insights that have been acquired during the characterization
process provide an excellent starting point for the surface water management
policies of the future and constitute an invaluable resource for the currently
ongoing process of elaborating EU Marine Strategy. The conservation and
restoration of the natural functions of our water bodies, as well as stewardship
of the natural habitats of all species of plants and animals, are important
The way forward
The way forward
62
challenges that are directly related to our responsibility to use natural resources
sustainably and properly. The range of environmental stewardship tasks and
demands on natural resources that confront us today should be regarded not as
competing interests but instead as indispensable and complementary elements
of an integrated water policy that in the long run will have to center around the
agricultural, energy and commercial shipping sectors.
These integrative tasks pose a major challenge for Germany, particularly in
terms of interdisciplinary coordination and cooperation between various
government agencies. In addition, more extensive involvement on the part of
the general public in river basin district planning may prove daunting, at least
at first, for individuals who have little experience with such processes. The task
of achieving integrated river basin planning will be complicated in Germany by
the fact that predominantly transborder areas are involved.
In order for Germany to achieve its ecological objectives, new ways must be
found to reconcile the various uses and users of water resources. Classic methods
alone will not suffice because the implementation of water resource
management policies necessitates the participation of stakeholders from across
the political and policy spectrum. All of these stakeholders in all of the sectors
involved must cooperate with each other and coordinate their efforts in such a
way as to reach a consensus regarding water resource policies. If the difficulties
that were encountered in harmonizing data-gathering and assessment processes
during the initial characterization are any guide, the joint elaboration of water
management plans and programmes of measures promises to pose a major
challenge, particularly for a country such as Germany whose federal system,
controversial though it may be, necessitates a high degree of readiness to com-
promise and work together to achieve success. This process can only be pro-
moted by fostering widespread acceptance of the need to reform water use
practices. The more transparent the planning and decision processes involved,
and the more far-reaching the dialogue between public officials and the general
public, the more rapidly and efficaciously the objectives of the Water Framework
Directive will be implemented. The success of these efforts will stand or fall on
our ability to integrate permanently the tenets of sustainable water resource
management into everyday practice. For the fact of the matter is that water
resource stewardship that has its eye firmly fixed on the future yields both
ecological and economic benefits in the present and in the final analysis is a
far more cost effective remedy than policies and measures based solely on well-
worn methods and outdated pollution data.
63
References
Bundesministerium fr Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU):
Die Wasserrahmenrichtlinie Neues Fundament fr den Gewsserschutz in Europa,
Kurzfassung. Bonifatius, Paderborn. September 2004.
Bundesministerium fr Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU):
Die Wasserrahmenrichtlinie Neues Fundament fr den Gewsserschutz in Europa,
Langfassung. Bonifatius, Paderborn. September 2004.
CIS HMWB. Identification of Water Bodies.WFD CIS Guidance Document 4,
Directorate General Environment of the European Commission, Brssel, 2003a.
CIS IMPRESS. Analysis of Pressures and Impacts. WFD CIS Guidance Document 3,
Directorate General Environment of the European Commission, Brussels, 2002.
CIS WATECO. Economics and the Environment The Implementation Challenge of
the Water Framework Directive. WFD CIS Guidance Document 1, Directorate General
Environment of the European Commission, Brussels, 2002.
CIS WATER BODIES. Identification of Water Bodies. WFD CIS Guidance Document 2,
Directorate General Environment of the European Commission, Brussels, 2002.
European Communities, L 327: Decision of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the
field of water policy (2000/60/EC).
LAWA. Workshop LAWA-EUF Bonn III Bestandsaufnahme nach WRRL:
Vorgehensweisen und Ergebnisse, Siegburg, 2004.
LAWA. Arbeitshilfe zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. April 2003.
Themenbezogenes Arbeitspapier Nr.4: Kriterien zur Erhebung von anthropogenen
Belastungen und Beurteilung ihrer Auswirkungen zur termingerechten und aussage-
krftigen Berichterstattung an die EU-Kommission.
Umweltbundesamt (UBA). CD-Rom zur EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Berlin, 2005.
References
Annex
64
Annex
Table 1: Notes regarding the various river basin districts
Table 2: Notes pertaining to the maps
River basin
Danube
Eider
Elbe
Ems
Maas
Oder
Rhine
Schlei/Trave
Warnow/Peene
Weser
Notes
- In the interest of comparing the Danube with other river basin districts, the saprobic, trophic, hydromophological,
and specific chemical pollutant categories for the Bavarian segment of the Danube were aggregated for the various
water bodies.
No indications for this river basin district.
- Only about 70% of this river basin districts water bodies were assessed as regards the good chemical status.
- Good ecological and good chemical status could only be assessed differentially for the North Rhine-Westphalian segment
of this river basin district, i.e. for approximately 240 of 530 water bodies.
- In the Alpine Rhine/Lake Constance survey area, good ecological and good chemical status could only be assessed
differentially for the part of the Rhine river basin district that lies in Baden-Wurttemberg.
- Ecological and chemical status could be assessed differentially only for the rivers in this catchment area.
- Water bodies provisionally identified as heavily modified and artificial were assessed as an amalgamated category.
- Only about 35% of this river basin districts 1400 water bodies were assessed as regards the good chemical status.
Map
All maps
Natural and artificial
water bodies as well
as water bodies
provisionally
classified as heavily
modified
Notes
Source data: Data aggregated from information provided by German states.
Source maps: Federal Environmental Agency and Bundesamt fr Kartographie und Geodsie, 2004.
Selection of large watercourses and still water bodies in accordance with Figures 8 and 14, supplemented with data regarding
the most important canals.
Pie charts: The pie charts include all of the surface water body data that was assessed for the characterizations.
The maps, however, contain only some of that information (see above).
Water bodies in Bavaria that were designated as candidates for the heavily modified category are shown in the present
report in combination with water bodies that were provisionally identified as heavily modified. The same procedure was
followed for the Bavarian segments of the Danube and Rhine river basin districts.
65
Annex
Table 3: Natural, provisionally identified as heavily modified and artificial water bodies
in Germanys river basin districts
Table 4: Characterization results rivers and still waters
in German river basin districts
River basin
Danube
Eider
Elbe
Ems
Maas
Oder
Rhine
Schlei/Trave
Warnow/Peene
Weser
Number of water bodies
assessed
Natural water bodies
(in percent)
44
70
55
51
67
55
70
94
67
75
Approximately 6,150
Water bodies provisionally identified as
heavily modified (in percent)
49
3
20
28
31
16
27
5
15
Approximately 2,250
Artificial water bodies
(in percent)
7
27
25
21
2
29
3
1
10
Approximately 1,400
River basin
Danube
Eider
Elbe
Ems
Maas
Oder
Rhine
Schlei/Trave
Warnow/Peene
Weser
assessed
Percentage results for
good water status
NAR PAR AR
21 24 55
0 5 95
12 25 63
2 52 46
0 18 82
13 12 75
16 22 62
6 3 91
20 - 80
19 48 33
approximately 9,800
Percentage results for good
ecological status
NAR PAR AR
22 23 55
0 5 95
15 22 63
2 13 85
0 18 82
14 12 73
17 21 62
6 3 91
12 - 88
21 49 30
approximately 9,800
chemical status
NAR PAR AR
91 8 1
99 0 1
70 24 6
8 87 5
17 64 19
84 15 1
55 38 7
99 0 1
55 - 45
33 48 19
approximately 7,700
Key: NAR= not at risk of failing the objectives; PAR= possibly at risk of failing the objectives; AR= at risk of failing the objectives
33
Annex
66
Table 5: Characterization results for coastal and transitional waters
in German river basin districts
Tab. 6: Characterization results for groundwater bodies in German river
basin districts
River basin
Danube
Eider
Elbe
Ems
Maas
Oder
Rhine
Schlei/Trave
Warnow/Peene
Weser
assessed
Percentage results for good water status
NAR
-
17
0
0
-
0
-
0
16
0
PAR
-
8
0
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
AR
-
75
100
100
-
100
-
100
84
100
70
Key: NAR = not at risk of failing the objectives; PAR= possibly at risk of failing the objectives; AR = at risk of
failing the objectives; - = district has no coastal or transitional water in Germany
Danube
Eider
Elbe
Ems
Maas
Oder
Rhine
Schlei/Trave
Warnow/Peene
Weser
Number of water
bodies assessed
River basin district Percentage results for
good water status
quantitative status
chemical status
NAR PAR/AR
78 22
63 37
44 56
33 67
19 81
53 47
46 54
61 39
63 37
37 63
NAR PAR/AR
100 0
100 0
93 7
98 2
65 35
89 11
97 3
100 0
100 0
97 3
NAR PAR/AR
78 22
63 37
48 52
35 65
19 81
53 47
46 54
61 39
63 37
38 72
approximately 980
Key: NAR = not at risk of failing the objectives; PAR/AR = possibly at risk/at risk of failing the objectives
67
Index of sources
Index of sources
Website addresses for the various German river basin districts
River basin district
Danube
Eider
Elbe
Ems
Maas
Oder
Rhein
Schlei/ Trave
Warnow/ Peene
Weser
State
Berlin
Baden-Wurttemberg
Bavaria
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hessen
Hamburg
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine-Westphalia
Rheinland-Pfalz
Schleswig-Holstein
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony-Anhalt
Thuringen
Web address
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/wasser/wrrl/index.shtml
http://www.wrrl.baden-wuerttemberg.de/
http://www.wasserrahmenrichtlinie.bayern.de/wrrl_live/navigation/show.php3?id=243&nodeid=243&p=
http://www.mlur.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php?id=173081&_siteid=800
http://www.umwelt.bremen.de/buisy/scripts/buisy.asp?Doc=WA+WRRL
http://www.flussgebiete.hessen.de
http://www.wrrl.hamburg.de
http://www.wrrl-mv.de/
http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/16702/
http://www.flussgebiete.nrw.de
http://www.niers.nrw.de/
http://www.schwalm.nrw.de
http://www.rur.nrw.de/
http://www.erft.nrw.de
http://www.rheingraben-nord.nrw.de/
http://www.sieg.nrw.de
http://www.wupper.nrw.de
http://www.ruhr.nrw.de
http://www.emscher.nrw.de
http://www.lippe.nrw.de
http://www.ijssel.nrw.de
http://www.ems.nrw.de
http://www.weser.nrw.de
http://www.wasser.rlp.de/wrrl/index.html
http://www.wasser.sh/
http://www.umwelt.saarland.de/1800_11589.htm
http://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/de/wu/umwelt/lfug/lfug-internet/wasser_9936.html
http://www.sachsen-anhalt.de
http://www.thueringen.de/de/tmlnu/themen/wasser/flussgebiete
Information from the various Bundeslaender (German states) regarding the Water Framework Directive
Web address
International Commission for the protection of the Danube River: www.icpdr.org
Data pertaining to implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Schleswig-Holstein: http://www.wasser.sh/
Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe: www.ikse.de
Flussgebietsgemeinschaft Elbe: www.fgg-elbe.de
Arbeitsgemeinschaft fr die Reinhaltung der Elbe: www.arge-elbe.de/
Wasserblick: www.wasserblick.net
Schwalm management subregion: www.schwalm.nrw.de
Rur management subregion: www.rur.nrw.de/
Niers management subregion: ww.niers.nrw.de/
International Commission for the protection of the Odra River against pollution: www.mkoo.pl
International Commission for the protection of the Rhine: www.iksr.de
Internationale Maaskommission: www.cipm-icbm.be
Data pertaining to implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Schleswig-Holstein: http://www.wasser.sh/
Wasserblick: www.wasserblick.net
Flussgebietsgemeinschaft Weser: www.fgg-weser.de
Contact:
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
Public Relations Division
D - 11055 Berlin
Fax: +49 (1888) 3 05 - 20 44
Internet: www.bmu.de
E-mail: service@bmu.bund.de
This brochure is part of the public relations work of the German Federal Government.
It is distributed free of charge and is not intended for sale.
Printed on 100 % recycled paper.

Environmental Policy: Water Framework Directive - Summary of River Basin District Analysis 2004 in Germany

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Policy: Water Framework Directive - Summary of River Basin District Analysis 2004 in Germany

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Policy: Water Framework Directive - Summary of River Basin District Analysis 2004 in Germany

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Framework Directive -

Summary of River Basin District Analysis 2004 in Germany

You might also like