SPECIAL ISSUE

The Water Framework Directive as an approach for IntegratedWater Resources Management: results from the experiencesin Germany on implementation, and future perspectives

Sandra Richter • Jeanette Volker • Dietrich Borchardt •

Volker Mohaupt

Received: 20 July 2012 / Accepted: 6 March 2013 / Published online: 29 March 2013

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Abstract The implementation of the EU-Water Frame-

work Directive (WFD) might also be considered an

approach for the implementation of Integrated Water

Resources Management in Europe. The WFD outlines the

ambitious goal of attaining ‘‘good status’’ for Europe’s

rivers, lakes, groundwater bodies and coastal waters by

2015 in accordance with clearly defined time lines and

legally binding programmes of measures. EU member

states submitted their WFD river basin management plans

to the European Commission in March 2010. Almost all

member states accomplished the formal implementation,

but nations like Germany are far from achieving the ‘‘good

status’’. For Germany, exemptions have been claimed for

82 % of all surface water bodies and for 36 % of all

groundwater bodies. According to the identified significant

pressures and impacts, the German Federal States, the

Federal government and the European Union will have to

significantly increase the coordination and coherence of the

policies in the field of agriculture, energy generation,

transport (shipping) and production or use of chemicals.

The next generation of river basin management plans may

be used for the harmonisation of these topics and extend to

the polluter-specific characterization of water body pres-

sures and impacts, structures and methods of monitoring,

allowing the differentiation of multiple stressors, the

designation of heavily modified water bodies and the

determination of good ecological potential, exemptions and

their justification, coherent transregional management

objectives and reporting issues. The present study focuses

on the assessment of the status of German water bodies, the

achievement of environmental objectives and the necessary

measures required to meet the goals.

Keywords Water Framework Directive � River basin

management plans � Surface and groundwater status �Programmes of measures � Germany � Integrated Water

Resources Management

Introduction

IWRM and the implementation of the WFD

The paradigm of Integrated Water Resources Management

(IWRM) has been generally accepted and is the basis for

improving management in the water sector worldwide

(Leidel et al. 2011). The Water Framework Directive

(WFD) (European Parliament and Council 2000) intro-

duced a new approach in the management of water

resources in Europe, as it requires not only the compliance

of polluters with emission targets but also the achievement

of ‘‘good status’’ for surface and groundwaters and the

integration of economic issues such as the polluter-pays

principle and full cost recovery. The WFD has also been

one of the first European Directives to have been broadly

adopted which integrates the key requirements of the

Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public

Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in

Environmental Matters. The WFD thus pursues an inte-

grated approach and addresses core elements of Integrated

S. Richter (&) � J. Volker � D. Borchardt

Department Aquatic Ecosystems Analysis and Management

(ASAM), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ,

Bruckstraße 3a, 39114 Magdeburg, Germany

e-mail: sandra.richter@ufz.de

V. Mohaupt

Umweltbundesamt, Worlitzer Platz 1,

06844 Dessau-Roßlau, Germany

123

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:719–728

DOI 10.1007/s12665-013-2399-7

Water Resources Management (Dworak and Kranz 2005;

Volker et al. 2013).

Management planning periods

The majority of EU member states (23 out of 27 countries)

have now submitted their Water Framework Directive river

basin management plans to the European Commission,

which will now determine whether these plans and pro-

grammes meet Water Framework Directive requirements

and if they will achieve the relevant environmental and

formal objectives. Completion of the river basin manage-

ment plans marked the start of the first river basin man-

agement planning period, which will extend from 2009 to

2015. The WFD’s objectives must be achieved by 2015 in

sofar as no exemptions are claimed. Member states availing

of a deadline extension beyond 2015 are required to

achieve all of the WFD’s objectives by the end of the

second or third river basin management planning periods,

which extend from 2015 to 2021 and 2021 to 2027,

respectively.

Management in river basins

River basin management plans were formulated for

extensive river basin districts rather than for individual

water bodies. If a river basin extends across international

boundaries the directive specifically requires it to be

assigned to an international river basin district (RBD)

(Nilsson 2004). In many cases two or more EU member

states are responsible for protecting and managing the area.

Of the ten river basins defined in Germany (the Danube,

Rhine, Maas, Ems, Weser, Oder, Elbe, Eider, Warnow-

Peene and Schlei-Trave), eight extend across at least one

international border, and only the Weser and Warnow-

Peene river basins are confined to Germany and thus

managed exclusively within the country.

Coordination and participation process

In order to meet the Water Framework Directive objectives

water protection must become a European effort. The EU’s

member states will thus need to coordinate their river basin

management plans and programmes of measures in a cross-

border fashion. This is the only way of ensuring that water

management problems will be evaluated and managed

according to uniform or comparable criteria. Germany is a

federation consisting of 16 federal states, each with its own

constitution, parliament and government. The German

federal and state government agencies will also need to

coordinate their actions. And in the EU, neighbour states

will need to engage in extensive cooperation for the fol-

lowing: elaborating cross-border monitoring programmes,

developing and harmonising comparable assessment pro-

cedures and defining cross-border water management

issues.

This coordination process requires a coordinating body

that steers and monitors the necessary efforts. National and

international river basin associations are thus being used or

established for this purpose. For example, the ten federal

states in the Elbe river basin formed a river basin associ-

ation known as River Basin Community Elbe. The existing

International Commission for Protection of the Elbe is used

as a logistics platform for international coordination of the

measures taken to protect the Elbe river.

Water authorities and other specialized bodies in

Germany’s 16 states have already completed the necessary

technical legwork and have exchanged information with

each other during the process. These agencies are also

responsible for implementing the programmes of measures.

The participation of interested parties and the broader

public is an important instrument in the implementation of

the Water Framework Directive to both manage and reduce

uncertainty where possible. During the participation pro-

cess the German states initiated intensive communication

and discussion, and there was a high level of interest and

feedback with regard to the various documents, mainly

from municipalities and environmental organisations, as

well as affected user groups. This feedback was then used

during the reworking of the river basin management plans,

which was completed on 22 December 2009.

Database

For the present study, results from monitoring programmes,

water body status, exemptions, measures and other infor-

mation were made available on the nationwide data base

Portal WasserBLick (http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/

is/1/?lang=en). WasserBLick was established to aggregate

and submit nationwide results from the German river

basins to the European Commission, in accordance with the

WFD timeline. For this purpose, those responsible within

the river basins are obliged to fill in the so-called ‘reporting

sheets’ to achieve a consistent and transparent database. In

accordance with river basin management plans and the

programmes of measures, results are documented on dif-

ferent spatial scales both in written and digital records.

Whereas the status of surface water and groundwater

bodies are assessed and documented on the water body

level, planned measures are documented in larger units. For

surface waters these are condensed into ‘planning units’

and for groundwater into ‘working areas’ (plans for

envisaged measures have been drawn up at the water body

level and can be found in a multitude of background doc-

uments from the federal states and river basins).Water

720 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:719–728

123

bodies are defined as parts of rivers, lakes, transitional

waters or coastal waters and aquifers. A water body should

be uniform in type and status. Germany has just under

9,900 surface water bodies (rivers: 9,070; lakes: 710;

transitional waters: 5; coastal waters: 74) and some 1,000

groundwater bodies. These water bodies were grouped into

225 planning units (surface water bodies) and 41 working

areas (groundwater bodies).

Status assessment of German water bodies

Monitoring programmes

After completion of the characterization process in 2004,

according to Article 5 WFD, from 2005 until 2008 moni-

toring programmes were designed and implemented to

evaluate these results and to classify water body status for

the river basin management plans. The monitoring pro-

grammes were established for surface waters, groundwater

and water-dependent protected areas (LAWA 2007).

The Water Framework Directive differentiates between

the surveillance, operational and investigative monitoring

of surface waters. Surveillance monitoring gives an over-

view of water body status, supplements the results of

characterisation and tracks long-term changes within a

river basin. It has been established as a relatively wide-

meshed measuring network comprised of nearly 400 sur-

face water monitoring sites in Germany (rivers: 290; lakes:

67; transitional waters: 5; coastal waters: 32), with each

site not extending over more than 2,500 square kilometres.

At surveillance monitoring sites all aspects of quality rel-

evant to the water category are measured: all biological,

hydromorphological and physicochemical elements, prior-

ity pollutants and those specific to the river basin.

Operational monitoring is used for status assessments of

water bodies unlikely to meet the Water Framework

Directive objectives and is thus also an instrument for

verifying the success of implemented measures. 7,820

surface water monitoring sites have now been installed in

Germany (rivers: 7,252; lakes: 449; transitional waters: 20;

coastal waters: 100). Operational monitoring normally

focuses exclusively on the biological, chemical or physi-

cochemical quality elements that indicate the presence of

extensive anthropogenic pressures in the assessed water

bodies.

Investigative monitoring is used in cases where the

origins of high water body pressures are unknown or where

the scope and impact of accidental water pollution need to

be determined. At present, only 375 such sites have been

installed in Germany. 9,000 sites have been chosen for the

monitoring of the quantitative and chemical status of

groundwater bodies. 5,500 are used for surveillance

monitoring and 3,900 are used for the operational moni-

toring network (some of these sites are ‘multi-purpose’, i.e.

they can be used for surveillance, operational and/or

quantitative monitoring).

Ecological status and ecological potential of surface

water bodies

Status assessments for water bodies in Germany are based

on data from monitoring programmes. For surface water

bodies, ecological status is to be assessed in accordance

with the biological components fish fauna, benthic inver-

tebrates and aquatic flora. Different assessment methods

are used for each biological group (e.g. AQEM Consortium

2004; Hering et al. 2003; Meilinger and Schneider 2005;

Rolauffs et al. 2004). Finally, the worst assessment of each

group is the determining factor for the overall assessment

(‘worst-case’ or ‘‘one out, all out’’ approach). The classi-

fication scheme for the ecological status of water bodies

includes five status classes: 1: high, 2: good; 3: moderate;

4: poor and 5: bad. From classes 3 to 5 measures are

necessary to reach the WFD objectives. Together with the

biological elements, river basin-specific pollutants, physi-

cochemical quality elements (e.g. temperature, oxygen, pH,

nutrient conditions = general conditions) and hydromor-

phological features must also be assessed. These support-

ing elements are classified as ‘good’ or ‘less than good’.

The requirements for achieving ‘good ecological status’ are

(1) all biological elements must be rated ‘good’, (2) envi-

ronmental quality standards (with defined concentrations)

for river basin-specific pollutants must not be exceeded

(‘good’) and (3) values for general conditions and hydro-

morphology must fall within a range that allows for good

ecosystem functionality (‘good’). Among natural surface

water bodies, 15.5 % are classified as very good’ (1.6 %)

or with ‘good ecological status’ (13.9 %) at present.

84.5 % of surface water bodies are divided into the classes

‘moderate’ (32.5 %), ‘poor’ (30.5 %) and ‘bad’ (4.5 %)

(Fig. 1).

Apart from the ecological status defined for natural

surface bodies, ‘good ecological potential’ is the environ-

mental objective that permits the continued use of water

bodies that are either artificial, such as artificially con-

structed canals, or heavily modified, with their hydromor-

phological characteristics so heavily altered that ‘good

ecological status’ would not be achievable without signif-

icantly compromising their long-term and economically

significant use. In Germany, 37 % of all surface water

bodies are classified as heavily modified and 15 % as

artificial. 52 % of all surface water bodies thus need to

attain ‘good ecological potential’. Only 5 % of all heavily

modified or artificial water bodies reach the objectives.

27.5 % are classified as ‘moderate’, 38 % ‘poor’ and

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:719–728 721

123

‘1.5 % had ‘bad ecological potential’ (Fig. 1). In Germany

there are about 9,900 surface water bodies altogether, 10 %

of which have achieved ‘high’ or ‘good’ ecological status/

potential. 87 % of surface water bodies are classified as

‘moderate’ (30 %), ‘poor’ (34 %) and ‘bad’ (23 %). A

small percentage of surface water bodies (3 %) have not

yet been assessed and are thus classified as ‘uncertain’

(Fig. 1). In Germany, if a body of flowing water does not

achieve ‘‘good ecological status’’, it is usually due to rad-

ical changes to its hydromorphology via pressures such as

navigation, hydropower or excessively high nutrient load,

mostly caused by agricultural activities. For lakes, transi-

tional and coastal waters, failing this objective is mainly

due to high nutrient input.

Chemical status of surface water bodies

Keeping water bodies free of hazardous substances is a key

goal in European water protection policy. The chemical

status of surface water bodies includes EU-quality stan-

dards for

– 33 priority substances from Annex X of WFD as set out

in the new daughter directive 2008/105/EC (European

Parliament and Council 2000).

– Some pollutants that fall under the scope of directive

2006/11/EC (European Parliament and Council 2006a)

and.

– Nitrate in accordance with the EU Nitrate Directive

91/676/EEC (European Council 1991b).

The chemical status of surface water bodies is classified

as ‘good’ and ‘failing to achieve good’, and quality stan-

dards apply to both natural water bodies and heavily

modified (and artificial) water bodies. In total, 88 % of all

surface water bodies comply with ‘good chemical status’

(rivers: 88 %; lakes: 92 %; coastal waters: 98 %). Of the

five transitional water bodies, two have achieved ‘good

chemical status’

Some federal states have already applied the quality

standards set out in the daughter directive. Some standards

in this directive are stricter than earlier national standards.

It is to be assumed that after full implementation of the

daughter directive, considerably fewer water bodies will

achieve ‘good chemical status’. For example, under earlier

national law 9 % of all assessed water bodies in the Elbe

river basin failed to achieve ‘good chemical status’,

whereas under the new directive the failure rate is 17 %.

Until now, for example none of the federal states have used

the biota standard for mercury, which is probably now

exceeded everywhere.

Quantitative and chemical status of groundwater

Groundwater status is subdivided into the quantitative

status and the chemical status. They are classified as ‘good’

or ‘poor’. The main criterion for the assessment of quan-

titative status is the stability of groundwater levels: The

long-term mean annual abstraction must not exceed the

available groundwater resources; saltwater or other intru-

sions must not occur and groundwater levels must not be

subject to anthropogenic changes. Significant damage to

associated surface waters and terrestrial ecosystems

directly dependent on the groundwater bodies must also not

occur.

At present, only 4 % of the 1,000 groundwater bodies in

Germany fail to achieve ‘good quantitative status. These

failures are mostly caused by a substantial reduction in

groundwater level over decades in mining areas in the

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

high good moderate poor bad uncertain

natural water bodies

heavily modified or artificial water bodies

all surface water bodies

Fig. 1 Ecological status of

natural surface water bodies and

ecological potential of heavily

modified or artificial surface

water bodies in Germany (data

source: Portal WasserBLicK,

2010)

722 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:719–728

123

western parts of the river basins Maas and Rhine and the

river basins Elbe and Oder. In these areas, the groundwater

level will take a very a long time to restore. Groundwater

abstraction for drinking water supply or irrigation is a

significant stressor in only a small number of specific

regional areas. The chemical status of groundwater is

assessed on the basis of environmental quality standards

and threshold values. To achieve ‘good chemical status’,

pollutant concentrations (nitrate, pesticides and other pol-

lutants) must exceed these values and groundwater quality

should not harm surface waters and the terrestrial ecosys-

tems dependent on that groundwater. The groundwater

directive also requires that any significant and sustained

upward trends in pollutant concentrations must be reversed

(European Parliament and Council 2006b).

In Germany, 37 % of groundwater bodies fail to achieve

‘good chemical status’, whereas 63 % do meet the goal and

\1 % are classified as uncertain (Fig. 2). Failing is mainly

due to nitrate inputs from agriculture which percolate into

the groundwater. Nitrate thus exceeds environmental

standards of 50 mg/l in many groundwater bodies. Pesti-

cides and other pollutants play a smaller role in ground-

water pollution (Fig. 3). In total, 62 % of groundwater

bodies have achieved ‘good status’ (quantitative and

chemical status).

Long-term studies of nutrient and pollutant concentra-

tions, extending over decades, are also necessary in order

to investigate trends in groundwater bodies. Trends have

thus not been observed for 93 % of all groundwater bodies.

A significant upward trend has been observed in 6 %, a

downward trend in 1 % of groundwater bodies.

Environmental objectives and exemptions

The environmental objectives for water bodies are clearly

set in Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive. Four

main objectives have been defined: (1) all surface waters

and groundwater bodies shall achieve ‘good status’ by

2015, (2) any deterioration in water body status should be

prevented, (3) input of priority substances should be lim-

ited and input of priority hazardous substances should be

completely eliminated and (4) the standards and objectives

set out in the EU regulations for protected areas (e.g.

drinking water abstractions) should be met.

In substantiated cases, it is possible to make use of the

following exemptions:

– to extend the deadline for the objectives to 2021 or

2027

– to define less stringent objectives under strict

requirements

– to allow for temporary deterioration resulting from e.g.

flooding or drought or

– to allow for deteriorations due to modifications in the

physical character of the water body due to new

sustainable human development activities.

Germany’s federal states agreed to prioritise the appli-

cation of deadline extensions for the first river basin

management plans. During the first river basin manage-

ment planning period, no exemptions have been claimed

Fig. 2 Chemical status of Germany’s groundwater bodies (data

source: Portal WasserBLicK, 2010)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Nitrates Pestizides Other pollutants

poor

good

Fig. 3 Assessment of key substances for groundwater chemical

status rankings in Germany (data source: Portal WasserBLicK, 2010)

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:719–728 723

123

for temporary water body status deterioration or changes in

physical water body characteristics due to new sustainable

human development activities. Exemptions were used for

82 % of surface water bodies (incl. heavily modified and

artificial water bodies). This means that only 18 % of all

surface water bodies will achieve the environmental

objectives by 2015. It is not possible in the short term to

recover modifications to water bodies made in recent

decades due to the way they are presently used in a densely

populated industrial country such as Germany.

Exemptions have been claimed for 36 % of groundwater

bodies. 62 % have already achieved ‘good status,’ and only

another 2 % will achieve ‘good status’ by 2015 (Fig. 4).

There are various reasons for this: for example, due to the

long retention time of groundwater there is a significant

time lag between the application of measures for reducing

nutrient concentrations and the desired effect. The same

applies to returning species or the introduction of new

species to river segments after renaturation.

Most of the exemptions are deadline extensions for

surface waters (99 %) and groundwater (89 %). Less

stringent environmental objectives are applied if water

bodies are so polluted or have been morphologically

modified to such an extent that it is not possible to improve

their condition in the foreseeable future (i.e. by 2027) using

proportionate measures. This is relevant for groundwater in

the mining areas in the Rhine, Maas, Elbe and Oder river

basins; it is also relevant for surface waters in the Weser

river basin, where heavy metals from mining slagheaps,

mining pits and abandoned industrial sites enter smaller

water bodies.

Exemptions were often based on existent ‘natural con-

ditions’. For example, it often takes a long time for mea-

sures to have a quantifiable positive effect on water bodies

and their ecology. Another reason for exemptions is fre-

quently the lack of ‘technical feasibility.’ This means that

there is no ‘off the shelf’ technical solution to the pollution

problem, i.e. technical measures must be carried out in

strict sequence, the applied procedures are time-consuming

or further research is needed to optimise the measures.

‘Disproportionate costs’ is a third reason on which

exemptions can be based, but this is seldom used. River

basin managers often justify deadline extensions, with

technical infeasibility or natural conditions.

Programmes of measures

Article 11 of the Water Framework Directive requires each

member state to establish a program of measures for each

river basin district or for the part of an international river

basin district that lies within its territory, as well as to

implement these measures, applicable laws and subsidy

programmes by 2012. The WFD distinguishes between

measures as basic or supplementary (Article11 (2) and (3),

Annex VI). Basic measures comprise the minimum

requirements for water body protection. They are already

defined in existing EU law, such as the directives for urban

wastewater treatment, nitrates and drinking water (European

Council 1980, 1991a). Supplementary measures are nec-

essary if basic measures are not sufficient for achieving the

WFD’s environmental objectives. They can include advi-

sory services, rehabilitation projects, subsidy programmes

or educational projects.

Measures are selected based on different criteria, such as

ecological effectiveness, duration, number and constella-

tion of measures, feasibility (technical and financial) and

cost efficiency. The programmes of measures were estab-

lished on the basis of a list of measures that was drawn up

by Working Group of the Federal States on Water to ensure

nationwide uniformity. The key water management issues

in all ten river basins in Germany are to reduce nutrient and

pollutant input into surface waters and groundwater from

diffuse and point sources, to improve surface-water

hydromorphology and to restore free passage for fauna,

particularly fish. In a number of river basins other regional

Objectives achieved today

Achievement of objectives scheduled for 2015

Exemptions under Art. 4

9.5 %

8.5 %

82.0 %

36.0 %

2.0 %

62.0 %Fig. 4 Use of exemptions in

surface water bodies (left) and

groundwater bodies (right) and

achievement of objectives to

date and by 2015 in Germany

(data source: WasserBLicK,

2010)

724 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:719–728

123

water management issues such as mining pollution were

also identified. Measures need to be implemented in the

majority of water bodies in Germany that fail to meet the

environmental objectives.

The aggregation of documentation in planning units

(surface water bodies), working areas (groundwater) and

reporting sheets as envisioned in the programmes of mea-

sures makes it impossible to analyse measures and affected

sectors on an individual water body basis. For this reason,

Figs. 5 and 6 only present the numbers from planning units

or working areas for the relevant measures.

In nearly all planning units for surface waters, there are

activities planned for morphology, agriculture, continuity,

municipality/household and stormwater. Administrative

and economic measures or measures for information (such

as advisory services for agriculture) are also often imple-

mented. Mining, other industrial sectors and contaminated

sites are only relevant at the regional level and thus are of

lesser importance in the planning units. In the working

areas for groundwater, measures have been planned with a

clear view to reduce nutrient and pesticide input from

agriculture, which are currently the main sources of

groundwater pollution.

Financing instruments

The WFD regulates ecological and economic aspects for

the implementation of environmental objectives by con-

sidering the viable financing of measures. Further aims to

be taken into consideration are (1) the implementation of

the full recovery principle, for the costs associated with

water supply and sewage treatment; (2) the principle of

preventing the costs of environmental damage and costs

resulting from water resource overuse from being trans-

ferred to future generations, (3) the polluter pays principle,

which means that water users pay for measures for

reducing ecological damage connected with their water

consumption and (4) the commensurability of the costs of

the measures.

In Germany, the costs of implementing the necessary

measures have been estimated at 9.4 billion Euros by the

end of the first management plan period in 2015. Most

costs are covered by tax revenues, fees and charges. The

key sources for financing the realization of these pro-

grammes of measures are various funds from the European

Union, the Federal government, state governments and

local authorities, e.g. the European Agricultural Fund for

Rural Development (EAFRD) and Germany’s Joint Task

for the Improvement of Agricultural Structures and Coastal

Protection (German abbreviation: GAK).

0 50 100 150 200 250

Morphology

Agriculture

Continuity

Municipalities and households

Advisory services

Stormwater/combined waste water

Fisheries

Trade and industrial sectors

Contaminated sites

Mining

Number of planning units Number of planning units with measuresFig. 5 Surface water measures

in planning units (data source:

WasserBLicK, 2010)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Agriculture

Advisory services

Mining

Contaminated sites

Number of working areas Number of working areas with measures

Fig. 6 Groundwater measures in working areas (data source: Was-

serBLicK, 2010)

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:719–728 725

123

As mentioned earlier, member states are obliged to

implement the cost-recovery principle, which means that

operational costs must be covered by the rates charged for

water, and the rates must also include the environmental

and resource costs entailed by water service provisioning.

In Germany this principle is integrated in most river basin

management plans, but in the majority of cases it is only

the operational costs that are considered. Existing inter-

nalisation instruments make it possible to take environ-

mental and resource costs into consideration. These are

already being recovered from polluters via the following

instruments: nationwide sewage fees, the water abstraction

fees imposed in 11 states and via precautionary and com-

pensatory measures from restrictions associated with

operating permits.

Conclusions and outlook

The Water Framework Directive deadlines are ambitious.

The environmental objectives must be met by 2015 and

ultimately by 2027 in cases where deadlines were exten-

ded. By 2012, measures for the initial river basin man-

agement planning period were implemented. Despite the

great efforts made in Germany to characterize the status of

water bodies in accordance with the WFD’s assessment

rules, a multitude of uncertainties remain and further

research is still required.

Need for coordination and research

In Germany, many key issues of river basin management

have been accomplished through state regulations and

methods rather than by implementing measures on the

national level. Differences can be found in the provision of

information in river basin management plans, in the rules

for the designation of heavily modified water bodies or the

use of exemptions. That is why the German Federal States

agreed to initialise a harmonisation process to ensure a

transparent and harmonised approach for the next river

basin management planning phase. This harmonisation

process has recently begun and is organised by the German

Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and

the Federal Government represented by the Federal Envi-

ronment Ministry. Monitoring will be another major chal-

lenge, e.g. concerning the number and spatial distribution

of monitoring sites, pressure-related parameters or the

frequency of obtaining representative data on water body

status. The use of appropriate models may be necessary to

assess the restoration success of measures (Herrmann

2012). Moreover, trans-boundary monitoring programmes

need to be strengthened to provide continuous informa-

tion for the further development of management plans

(Dimitriou et al. 2012). Biological assessment methods and

environmental quality standards need to be further devel-

oped and adapted. Chemical status assessments must be

based on the requirements laid out in the new Environ-

mental Quality Standard daughter directive of the Water

Framework Directive, which was only recently imple-

mented in Germany in summer 2011. As a result, the

threshold value for mercury in biota is probably exceeded

throughout the whole of Germany due to elevated emis-

sions from incineration plants, and the debate on the need

for further measures for reducing mercury and other toxins

is already under way. Any resulting minimisation measures

would serve not only rivers and lakes, but also oceans.

Within the EU the discussion process on the revision of the

Environmental Quality Standard daughter directive is

already nearly finished. About a dozen further substances

will probably be listed and several earlier standards will be

changed.

Considering the effects of climate change

Climate change is set to take on increasing importance

when it comes to implementing river basin management

plans, which currently do not provide for the fact that

climate change is relevant for water resources. Further-

more, climate change can affect various socio-economic

sectors. For example, hydrological changes will increase

the risk of flooding in winter, whilst low flows during

summer will adversely affect inland navigation and reduce

water availability for agriculture and industry (Middelkoop

2001). Therefore, the effects of climate change and the

necessary adaptation strategies will inevitably become

relevant for future action plans.

Instruments for more effective water protection

Moreover, there is a strong need to integrate more effective

water protection instruments into the agri-environment.

Many measures which would comply with the polluter-pays

principle are voluntary for farmers and are often subsidised.

Decisions are needed on a more specific definition of ‘‘good

agricultural practice’’ and its realisation together with

coordinated voluntary measures. The polluter-pays princi-

ple must ensure the integration of all users responsible for

ecological deficits and the loss of ecological functions. This

extends also to the construction of water bodies for hydro-

power generation and shipping. The basic principle still

applies, and there is a clear policy trend towards ‘‘user-

pays’’ regimes of full water cost recovery but political

resistance to the concept is still considerable (Kallis and

Butler 2001).

The Water Framework Directive stipulates that member

states must develop efficient water pricing policies by

726 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:719–728

123

2010. This will entail implementation of water prices that

allow for the recovery of all operational, environmental

and resource costs, which in turn must be allocated to the

main user groups in accordance with the polluter-pays

principle. Germany has already implemented effective

instruments for the internalisation of external costs for the

water services, water supply and waste water discharge,

with the Federal Waste Water Charges Act and Water

Abstraction Fees in 11 Federal States.

Water management challenges of tomorrow

Article 1 of the WFD promulgates the obligation of member

states to protect marine waters, but harmonisation between

the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (European

Parliament and Council 2008) and the WFD has not been

adequately carried out yet. Future river basin management

plans must then take even more overruling objectives for

nutrients and hazardous substances into consideration for

the protection of the marine environment. The water man-

agement and protection policies of tomorrow in Germany

and Europe will certainly have to centre on water use in

agriculture, energy production, transport (inland navigation

and shipping), and in the production and use of chemicals.

In order to achieve the ecological objectives, new ways

must be found to reconcile the interests and concerns of the

whole spectrum of water users and their interactions. The

WFD in a wider sense offers a framework for identifying

pathways towards the sustainable use of water resources

and simultaneously protect the natural aquatic ecosystems

in an efficient and timely manner. In the next cycle, there-

fore, river basin management plans should be used for

harmonisation and further development of suitable methods

for addressing the mentioned issues.

Acknowledgments The results given here represent and summarise

a brochure published in July 2010 by the Federal Ministry for the

Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (Richter

2010). The authors would like to thank many colleagues from the

German Federal Environment Agency, the German Federal Ministry

for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety and

ECOLOGIC, who contributed to the study. The authors are grateful

also to Olaf Buttner (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental

Research—UFZ) and Jan Kirchmeyer (Schimmelmann Consult) for

data processing and creating maps and to Dr. Ralf Busskamp (Federal

Institute of Hydrology) for data provisioning.

References

AQEM Consortium (2004) Manual for the application of the AQEM

system. A comprehensive method to assess European streams

using benthic macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of

the Water Framework Directive

Dimitriou E, Mentzafou A, Zogaris S, Tzortziou M (2012) Ass00essing

the environmental status and identifying the dominant pressures

of a trans-boundary river catchment, to facilitate efficient

management and mitigation practices. Environ Earth Sci 66(7):

1839–1852 doi:10.1007/s12665-011-1409-x. ISSN: 1866-6280

Dworak T, Kranz N (2005) Die EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie als

Ansatz fur ein integriertes Flussgebietsmanagement. In: Integri-

ertes Wasserressourcen-Management (IWRM). Nomos, Baden

45-60. ISBN: 3-8329-1111-1

European Council (1980) Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July

1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human

consumption as amended by Council Directives 81/858/EEC

and 91/692/EEC (further amended by Council Regulation

1882/2003/EC)

European Council (1991) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May

1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment

European Council (1991) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12

December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against

pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

European Parliament and Council (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000

establishing a framework for Community action in the field of

water policy as amended by Decision 2455/2001/EC and

Directives 2008/32/EC, 2008/105/EC and 2009/31/EC

European Parliament and Council (2006a) Directive 2006/11/EC of

the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006

on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged

into the aquatic environment of the Community

European Parliament and Council (2006b) Directive 2006/118/EC of

the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December

2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and

deterioration

European Parliament and Council (2007) Directive 2007/60/EC of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on

the assessment and management of flood risks

European Parliament and Council (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008

establishing a framework for community action in the field of

marine environmental policy

Hering D, Buffagni A, Moog O, Sandin L, Sommerhauser M,

Stubauer I, Feld C, Johnson RK, Pinto P, Skoulidikis N,

Verdonschot PFM, Zahradkova S (2003) The development of a

system to assess the ecological quality of streams based on

macroinvertebrates—design of the sampling programme within

the AQEM project. Int Rev Hydrobiol 88(3–4):345–361

Herrmann F, Berthold G, Fritsche JG, Kunkel R, Voigt H-J, Wendland

F (2012) Development of a conceptual hydrogeological model for

the evaluation of residence times of water in soil and ground-

water: the state of Hesse case study, Germany. Environ Earth Sci

67(8):2239–2250. doi:10.1007/s12665-012-1665-4

Kallis G, Butler D (2001) The EU water framework directive:

measures and implications. Water Policy 3(2):125–142

LAWA—Landergemeinschaft Wasser (2007) Framework Concept

Monitoring. http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/42489/?high

light=rahmenkonzeption

Leidel M, Niemann S, Hagemann N (2011) Capacity development as

a key factor for integrated water resources management

(IWRM): improving water management in the Western Bug

River Basin Ukraine. Environ Earth Sci 65(5):1415–1426. doi:

10.1007/s12665-011-1223-5

Meilinger P, Schneider S, Melzer A (2005) The Reference Index

method for the macrophyte-based assessment of rivers—a

contribution to the implementation of the European Water

Framework Directive in Germany. Int Rev Hydrobiol 90(3):

322–342. doi:10.1002/iroh.200410768

Middelkoop H et al (2001) Impact of climate change on hydrological

regimes and water resources management in the Rhine basin.

Climatic Change 49:105–128

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:719–728 727

123

Nilsson S, Langaas S, F Hannerz (2004) International River Basin

Districts under the EU Water Framework. Official Publication of

the European Water Association (EWA) � EWA 2004

Richter S, Volker J (2010) Water Framework Directive—The way

towards healthy waters. Results of the German River Basin

Management Plans 2009. from the Federal Ministry for the

Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety

Rolauffs P, Stubauer I, Zahradkova S, Brabec K, Moog O (2004)

Integration of the saprobic system into the Water Framework

Directive approach. Hydrobiologia 516:285–298

Volker J, Richter S, Borchardt D, Mohaupt V (2013) Risk and

monitoring based indicators of receiving water status: alternative

or complementary elements in IWRM? Water Sci Technol

67(1):33–39

728 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:719–728

123