Analysis of Rergional Cross-Border Cooperation On Flood Management in Nature Areas - 5

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions
Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org
1
INTERREG IIIC Network FLAPP www.flapp.org

Compiled and edited by: Chris Baker, Wetlands International, Wageningen Office Pieter van Eijk, Private Consultant1 Contributions from: Fred van den Brink, Province of Limburg, The Netherlands Josu Elso, Environmental Management of Navarra, Spain Matthijs Logtenberg, Dienst landelijk Gebied Regio Oost, The Netherlands Alfredo Ollero, University of Zaragoza, Spain Miklos Pannonhalmi, North-Transdanubian Environment Protection and Water Directorate, Hungary Frederik Vanlerberghe, Service of Environment, Provincie Vlaams-Brabant, Belgium Mieke De Wilde, Service of Water, Provincie Vlaams-Brabant, Belgium
March 2006 INTERREG IIIC Network FLAPP www.flapp.org FLAPP stands for 'Flood Awareness and Prevention Policy in border areas'. It is an EU-funded network through which local and regional flood experts from across Europe share knowledge and experience about how to prevent and forecast floods, evacuate people and limit the damage when floods happen. FLAPP comprises 35 partners located in eight river basins in 12 countries. Euregio Maas-Rijn PO Box 5700 NL-6202 MA Maastricht info@flapp.org
Now working at Wetlands International, Wageningen Office, The Netherlands.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.5 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3. 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6 4. 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1. 3 4.1. 4 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 5
Executive Summary 7 Role of wetlands in sustainable flood management. 7 Recommendations for the implementation of the FRMD 8 Values of and threats to cross border rivers and wetlands in Europe... 8 Sustainable Flood Management in Cross-Border Areas. 9 Benefits ............................................................................................................................... 9 Obstacles .......................................................................................................................... 10 Solutions............................................................................................................................ 11 Recommendations 12 Sustainable flood management and wetlands 13 Introduction.13 Wetland Services...14 Role of wetlands in flood risk management..15 Role of floods for wetlands.. 17 Cross border rivers and wetlands in Europe: values and threats 18 Overview of key transboundary protected and internationally important wetland areas in Europe.18 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 18 Approach ........................................................................................................................... 19 Transboundary Ramsar sites ............................................................................................ 20 Wetlands in Eastern Europe ............................................................................................. 24 Gaps in knowledge............................................................................................................ 28 Synthesis and Conclusions ...............................................................................................28 Case Studies and best practices 30 Sustainable development of floodplains along the river Rhine..30 Area description ................................................................................................................ 32 Aims and approaches ...................................................................................................... 33 Cross-border and cross-institutional elements.................................................................. 34 Project outcome and lessons learned ............................................................................... 36 Sustainable development of the River Niers Valley, TheNetherlands and Germany. 36 Area description ................................................................................................................ 39 Aims and approaches........................................................................................................ 40 Cross-border and cross-institutional elements.................................................................. 41 Project outcome and lessons learned ............................................................................... 43 Flood management in the Dijle valley, Belgium 44 Area description ................................................................................................................ 45 Aims and approaches........................................................................................................ 47 Cross-border elements...................................................................................................... 50 Project outcome and lessons learned ............................................................................... 50 Towards a fluvial territory in Aragon and Arga rivers (Spain) 52 Area description ................................................................................................................ 53 Aims and approaches ........................................................................................................ 55 Cross-border and cross-institutional elements.................................................................. 57 Project outcome and lessons learnt .................................................................................. 57
5. 5.1 5.2. 5.3 5.4 6. 6.1
The need for a fluvial territory or room for the river: living with floods by acceptance of their functions Floods as natural processes and their importance for wetlands Present problems in European rivers Why a fluvial territory or room for the river is needed Fluvial territory: key objectives and principles for its establishment. Policy Analysis The role of wetlands in flood risk management: implications for the Flood Risk Management Directive... Introduction............................................................................................................................ Significance of the FRMD for wetlands ................................................................................. Need, solutions and recommendations for sustainable flood management Introduction.. Need for sustainable flood risk management.. A shift towards sustainable flood management: strategy and possible solutions.. Recommendations to achieve sustainable flood management.... . Literature Annexes Annex 1. List of FLAPP Component 4 Partners.. Annex 2. Ramsar datasheet: example. Annex 3. Characteristics, values and threats of transboundary Ramsar sites in Europe1 Annex 4. Values, uses and threats of transboundary Ramsar sites: summary of data Annex 5. Characteristics and threats of transboundary rivers and associated wetlands in Eastern Europe. Annex 6. Characteristics and threats of transboundary rivers and associated wetlands in Eastern Europe: summary of data.
59 59 60 61 62 64
6.1.1 6.1.2 7. 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8. 9. 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5
64 64 65 69 69 69 70 72 73 76 76 77 80 90
91
9.6
96
INTRODUCTION This report is the result of collaboration between the partners 2 of the FLAPP 3 project working under Component 4 (ecologically sustainable water management). Its aim is to provide policy and practice recommendations for the (ecologically) sustainable management of flood risk in rivers, with particular attention being given to cross-border areas in Europe. These are aimed at to the EU, Member States and related agencies at national, provincial and local levels. In the context of the FLAPP project it is intended to provide a / an: Input to the FLAPP Policy Working Group Joint Approach document on flood management best practices; Vehicle for FLAPP partners to integrate best practices from their experiences to influence the work of the Policy Working Group that is focusing on the joint approach; Opportunity for FLAPP partners to learn from experiences elsewhere in Europe; Summary of current practice and thinking based on arguments and case studies established at the European level to support FLAPP partner policy and advocacy work nationally and regionally. The report presents information that is broadly applicable to sustainable flood risk management with particular focus on cross border areas. Therefore information and case studies are both specific and non-specific to cross-border areas. The term crossborder is broadly interpreted; borders at the national and sub-national level (e.g. regional, municipal) are considered. Furthermore cross-border is more than transboundary; it is taken to refer to initiatives that address issues across a border but not necessarily in areas that physically are connected. This allows consideration of the results of initiatives that have focused on geographically separate sites in the same basin. The report has been compiled and edited in consultation with the partners of Component 4. Wetlands International was engaged by the Secretariat of the FLAPP project to undertake the task of compilation and editing. Drafts have been shared with Component 4 partners at consecutive FLAPP Conferences in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland (2006) and Debrecen, Hungary (April 2006). They have provided editing comments throughout and assisted the work of the editors so that the report can be considered to be a reflection of the groups vision. A number of specific contributions have been made by specific partners from Component 4; all such contributions are acknowledged within the respective sections. The report is structured into seven main sections: 1. Executive summary: A summary of the main findings of the report. 2. Sustainable flood management and wetlands: A brief overview summary of the relationship between wetlands and flooding.
2 3
See Annex 1 for a full list of partners. FLood Awareness and Prevention Policy in border Areas
3. Cross border rivers and wetlands in Europe: values and threats: Evaluates the value of the Europe-wide transboundary wetland and river resource based on an analysis of readily available data and information. 4. Case studies of sustainable flood risk management in Europe: Presentation of 4 case studies from Europe profiling the contexts, needs and challenges in managing rivers sustainably for flood risk management and conservation goals. The principles, approaches and practical tools used are summarised. 5. The need for a fluvial territory or room for the river: living with floods by acceptance of their functions. An analysis of the problems confronting sustainable river management in Europe and the need for a new concept in planning and management to contribute to addressing these. 6. Policy analysis. An analysis of the draft EU Flood Risk Management Directive4 (FRMD), its implications for wetlands and the needs for its implementation if wetlands are to be addressed in line with sustainable principles. 7. Need, solutions and recommendations for sustainable flood management: Based on the reports analysis and their own experience, Component 4 partners present their key solutions and recommendations for sustainable flood management in Europe
Note: the report addresses the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of floods Brussels, 18.01.2006, COM(2006) 15 final.
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1
Role of wetlands in sustainable flood management Wetlands are ecosystems that are integral to flooding both in terms of the influence of wetlands on floods and the influence of floods on wetlands. Wetlands away from the river can regulate water flows and affect the magnitude and timing of flood peaks. Wetlands adjacent to rivers can store, slow down and release flood waters affecting flood peaks. Wetlands adjacent to rivers normally rely on flooding to maintain their health and functioning. Wetlands (including river and lake aquatic ecosystems) are natural systems that provide benefits to nature and to people. Consisting of a large number of habitat types, they are home to an impressive diversity of plants and animals species. They perform important services to people, among others as sources of food (fish, meat), as agricultural land and for harvest of semi-aquatic products (reeds, fibres, wood). The livelihoods of many people (particularly in Eastern Europe) are directly related to these services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). In addition intact wetlands perform highly valued social services (aesthetic value, recreation, ceremonies). Plans to alter the flooding regime of a wetland must be considered carefully in relation to the way that the functioning of wetlands is affected. Floods are crucial processes in the geomorphological, hydrological and ecological functioning of wetlands. Changes to the flooding regime of a river will often negatively affect the functioning and therefore the benefits to people and to nature. Failure to recognise this in Europe has had a dramatic effect on many of the natural wetland ecosystems associated with rivers and their flooding regimes. In many instances this has had a knock-on effect on the way of life and livelihood of many people. Flood management can offer opportunities to restore wetlands and this option should be considered whenever possible. There are a number of important principles that should be borne in mind when planning for this. Central to these is that the river should have its own space and this should be as wide and continuous as possible to enable ecological conditions in wetlands to be as natural as possible. This could be defined as a rivers Fluvial Territory and should be defined by natural processes and boundaries as far as possible and not social, political boundaries.
1.2
Recommendations for the implementation of the FRMD
The FRMD is a key piece of European legislation that offers opportunities to enhance wetland conservation and management and should be welcomed from this perspective. However its lack of specific measures leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation and misunderstanding that could equally have a detrimental effect. The following points refer to specific elements of the Directive that have the most significant implications in this regard: Assessment of flood risk under the Directive must include consideration of the role of wetlands in flooding processes, both in terms of how they directly interact with flood waters and how they contribute to the generation of flood waters. This requires consideration of the functioning of wetland ecosystems outside the immediate flood risk area. Wetlands are part of a natural floodplains capacity to reduce floods downstream. Therefore flood risk maps should not only focus on potential (economic) damage, but also include the areas where wetlands are essential to help reduce flooding and where natural flooding is essential to the ecological functioning of the river and its floodplain. Flood risk management plans should also take into account the protection levels and measures that will contribute to maintaining the ecological value of wetlands and their related values to nature and people. The principle of solidarity in the FRMD must be applied to take into account the role of upstream wetlands on flood-risk downstream and across borders. This should be taken into account both in the conservation and management of existing wetland areas and in restoration or recreation. The FRMD must be implemented in line with the Water Framework Directive and should therefore embrace the principle of ecological sustainability as is enshrined in the latter Directive. Values of and threats to cross border rivers and wetlands in Europe There are many hundreds of transboundary wetlands in Europe; currently most of these are situated in Northern and Eastern European locations. Transboundary wetlands in Europe have importance for people. When readily available data on transboundary wetland sites are considered it can be seen that there is particular importance for agriculture (91% of sites), recreation (81%), fishing (73%), hunting (49%), traditional cultural use (18%) and harvest of natural products (15%). This is especially the case in Central and Eastern Europe. Therefore flood management must balance the effects of flood management against the possible effects on peoples dependence on wetland related services.
8
1.3
Transboundary wetlands in Europe have particular importance or potential as part of flood management. Of all transboundary Ramsar sites, 50% are described as being important for flood mitigation and 14% for flow regulation. The majority of these sites are located in Central and Eastern Europe. Transboundary wetlands have importance for nature. More than 40% of all wetlands in Eastern Europe can be considered as exceptionally diverse in terms of biodiversity and landscape characteristics. An additional 50% can be considered to be fairly valuable. Transboundary wetlands in Europe are subjected to a number of different threats. One of the foremost of these is structural modification which includes (but is not limited to) structures related to flood defence measures. There are insufficient resources readily available to enable a comprehensive overview of European wetlands, their importance and their role in flood risk management to be easily undertaken. Whilst resources may exist at national and regional level in parts of Europe, efforts must be made to improve these data to assist in flood risk management and planning. Data on the socio-economic values of transboundary wetlands, or indeed wetlands generally are insufficiently available to enable their easy consideration in decisions concerning flood risk management.
1.4
Sustainable Flood Management in Cross-Border Areas
The report focuses strongly on the rationale and benefits for sustainable approaches for flood management. A particular focus is given to this in cross-border areas: 1.4.1 Benefits
There are a number of benefits that can be seen that arise from successful cross-border sustainable flood management: Wetlands in border areas are often of high value and such approaches help to maintain and restore them, enhancing their importance to people and nature. For instance this holistic approach to management can benefit some species that require habitat that may occur on different sides of a border. Improved ecological processes in rivers and wetlands that generate upstream downstream benefit across borders such as fish migration. Increased capacity to store floodwaters upstream decreasing flood risk downstream and improving wetland habitat and associated services. Creation of cross-border recreational resources that foster improved cooperation and understanding between border communities and enhanced livelihoods.
9
Enhanced groundwater recharge, improving water resources for domestic and industrial use in the region. Reduced damage and loss of agricultural production through strategic land use planning that is in harmony with river flooding.
1.4.2
Obstacles
Communication across language and cultural differences. The ability to communicate clearly between two countries is essential when addressing border area flood management. With human security at stake, it is essential that both parties understand one anothers motives and the technical solutions on the table. This is even more important when addressing sustainable flood management as it can seem to be the opposite to conventional wisdom that dictates resistance to flooding, not resilience. Institutional culture, structure, hierarchy and decision-making processes. The different sectors involved in sustainable flood risk management on either side of a border will most likely have differences in the way they operate. This affects the speed and effectiveness of their activities and the tools they choose to use in their work. Understanding of these differences and creating a working agreement to overcome these is essential. Sectoral differences. Sustainable flood risk management in one country requires that different sectors work together to identify the best option for flood risk management and nature conservation / development / restoration objectives. This brings government, private and community organisations together with differing perspectives. In border areas, this adds another layer of complexity to the already existing communication and cultural differences. Nature conservation objectives and planning trajectories. Organisations on either side of a border may have different management objectives and planning trajectories. To achieve sustainable flood risk management across a border these need to be integrated to ensure that activities on one side of the border are not compromised by others. For instance one side of the border may be more concerned with establishing a forested ecosystem whilst the other an open grassland system; this may not lead to a holistic approach to planning and management. Cultural differences in attitudes to flood. Depending on a countrys position in a catchment it is likely to have a different attitude to and tolerance of flooding. This can lead to differences in the way floodwater is managed. In the Netherlands for instance the philosophy is to move floodwater as fast as possible out of the country, whilst in Germany there is more tolerance of longer periods of flooding. These differences must be resolved if transboundary sites are to be managed holistically.
10
1.4.3
Solutions
In the case studies (see section 4) the following technical solutions are mentioned to achieve sustainable flood risk management: Increasing water retention capacity, such as through reconnection of former floodplains to rivers, construction of side channels, removal of levees and construction of sand traps. This has significantly reduced flood risk in many project areas whilst increasing their nature values. Improving water flow in flood prone areas, among others through dredging activities and removal and adaptation of obstacles such as bridges, dams and roads. Improving natural values through structural measures; reforestation activities, creation of side channels and restoration of riverbeds, oxbow lakes and floodplains. Improving natural values through active water flow management; creating artificial floods from headwater reservoirs to restore river dynamics; increasing flooding level through adaptation of mowing regimes. Improving opportunities for nature development and reducing damage from floods through redesign of land use in floodplains.
The case studies also reveal a number of solutions to the border area specific obstacles: Sharing experiences and knowledge are important to build common understanding and approaches. There is no prescriptive answer to what the final approach should be; this should be identified through discussion and negotiation. Key mechanisms to achieve this include expert groups to share knowledge and expertise across borders and intersectoral fora to discuss how to combine differing landscape management objectives. Planning and strategy development are critically important to achieving sustainable flood risk management in cross-border areas. Mechanisms such as joint planning committees are essential to achieve this to ensure engagement of all stakeholders on both sides of the border in plan development in order to overcome problems related to communication, working culture and institutions. Implementation must be jointly carried out. This implies joint planning of objectives and timetables and collaborative field working. Step-wise implementation. By dividing the overall plan into tangible, time-bounded steps that are mutually exclusive, there are opportunities for lessons to be learned and shared. This also enables early results to be used to generate enthusiasm and interest elsewhere in the area.
11
1.5
Recommendations
1. Develop a policy recommendation to develop a common framework to enable joint implementation of FRMD and WFD to ensure that issues of ecological sustainability encapsulated in the WFD are taken into account by the FRMD. 2. Develop a guidance document for the implementation of the FRMD that takes into account the importance of wetlands in the regulation of flooding and the importance of flooding for healthy wetlands. One option would be to revise the Horizontal Guidance document for Wetlands that has been developed for the implementation of the WFD. 3. Place nature conservation and management at the heart of flood management planning as a means to improve the environment, enhance the services provided to people and improve flood risk management; the approach could be called safety on the wings of nature. 4. Develop policy advice to funders of flood management initiatives that recommends adopting an integrated basin approach that fully adopts an ecosystem approach; EU INTERREG could be one such target donor. 5. Develop a European database of wetlands that describes their distribution and potential importance to flood management and their vulnerability to change.
12
2.
SUSTAINABLE FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND WETLANDS
Chris Baker, Wetlands International and Fred van den Brink, Province of Limburg, The Netherlands Purpose of section: To briefly summarise the generally accepted relationship between wetlands and flooding in order to provide the context for later sections.
2.1
Introduction
For flood management to be truly sustainable it must balance the risk to a wide range of complex human, social, economic and environmental dimensions that often interact with one another. Historically flood management has not tended to do this, focusing more on economic and human safety aspects. This has lead to unsustainable approaches that have often increased loss of life, damage to property, infrastructure and development as well as degrading the environment and the social and cultural basis of our societies. Increasingly it is recognised that this must change and the role of the environment in flooding and its interactions with other areas where risk might be experienced must be addressed. Flooding is a natural process that the environment is integral to and derives benefits from. In this context, the environment is best described by ecosystems that are collectively termed wetland. The Ramsar Convention is an international agreement, to which 153 governments are signatories, that is focused on wetland conservation and wise use; it defines wetlands as: areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres." Furthermore wetlands: "may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres at low tide lying within the wetlands". This means that when we talk about flooding and ecosystems wetlands are the ecosystems that deliver and store water (i.e. rivers and lakes) and that receive water during periods of flood (i.e. floodplains). Furthermore they can be ecosystems that are key components of the terrestrial water cycle regulating water flows. These systems might not be flooded but hold significant volumes of water that can help regulate river flows and therefore flooding. Examples of these include upland lakes and peatlands (ecosystems with organic soils that act as sponges). Research in wetlands globally has helped to clarify the importance of wetlands as ecosystems in their own right (i.e. their value to nature) and as ecosystems that provide benefits to people. The following sections provide an overview of understanding to provide a context for the rest of the report.
13
2.2
Wetland Services
Although wetlands are often better understood and recognised in terms of their nature related values, there are significant socio-economic values provided by their services. Globally wetlands are recognised as providing a range of important use (economic) as well as non-use (social, cultural) services to mankind and to represent significant environmental values. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) 5 analysed these services and established a list (See Table 1). Included in this list are a number of services related to the role of wetlands in the water cycle; clearly identified is their role in natural hazard regulation and more specifically flood control. Furthermore they are described as providing freshwater and regulating its availability through recharge and discharge functions. In the context of the forthcoming Flood Risk Management Directive it is therefore important that these services are understood and the implementation of the Directive takes them into account. This is both in terms of the potential role wetlands may have to assist in flood risk management and the potential effects that flood risk management may have on their other services which may have important socioeconomic values. Services Provisioning Food Fresh water Fiber and fuel Biochemical Genetic materials Regulating Climate regulation source of and sink for greenhouse gases; influence local and regional temperature, precipitation, and other climatic processes groundwater recharge/discharge retention, recovery, and removal of excess nutrients and other pollutants retention of soils and sediments flood control, storm protection habitat for pollinators production of fish, wild game, fruits, and grains storage and retention of water for domestic, industrial, and agricultural use production of logs, fuelwood, peat, fodder extraction of medicines and other materials from biota genes for resistance to plant pathogens, ornamental species, and so on Comments and Examples
Water regulation (hydrological flows) Water purification and waste treatment Erosion regulation Natural hazard regulation Pollination Cultural
A report produced through the contributions and review of more than 2000 authors, in conjunction with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.
14
Spiritual and inspirational Recreational Aesthetic Educational Supporting Soil formation Nutrient cycling
source of inspiration; many religions attach spiritual and religious values to aspects of wetland ecosystems opportunities for recreational activities many people find beauty or aesthetic value in aspects of wetland ecosystems opportunities for formal and informal education and training sediment retention and accumulation of organic matter storage, recycling, processing, and acquisition of nutrients
Table 1: Ecosystem Services Provided by or Derived from Wetlands, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005.
2.3
Role of wetlands in flood risk management
Wetlands can play an important role in reducing the impact of floods. The role of wetlands in flood control is frequently referred to in wetlands literature over the last 2030 years. Many studies have demonstrated that wetlands can contribute to reducing floods and consequent damage through a number of different mechanisms. In a review article of wetland hydrological functioning (Bullock and Acreman 2003) all types of hydrological functioning of wetlands are considered. Based on a global review of wetland studies, with a strong bias towards European cases, the study shows that most floodplain wetlands do reduce floods. However, when reviewing non-floodplain wetlands the paper shows that whilst in general this still holds true, the extent to which wetlands regulate flow and therefore reduce floods is more variable, according to the specific hydrological context and wetland type. Nevertheless, the overall picture is that in most cases wetlands exert positive influences on flood risk reduction. The papers results mean that whenever water managers are considering water resource management, including flood risk, wetlands and their role must be considered. Furthermore, according to the climate change models of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the frequency of periods with heavy precipitation will increase over the years, leading to higher river discharges and an increase in flood risks. This strengthens the necessity to preserve wetlands and through this their natural sponge function.
15
Wetlands play a crucial role in mitigating floods via their natural sponge function (e.g. Potter, 1994; Zedler, 2003, IUCN, 2006). In case of excessive rainfall related flood discharges, wetlands may function as natural sponges playing an important role in the detention and retention of water. They can store (as a basin or depression) and / or delay floodwaters, e.g. by increasing resistance to water flow (hydraulic resistance) as a result of vegetation density and morphology or by absorbing water in soil. This can reduce the height of flood peaks (detaining floodwater during peak flow, extending the period over which a flood takes place) or reduce the overall volume of floodwaters (retaining water from the surface flow system downstream) passing downstream. Where a series of wetlands functioning in this way occur in the same basin but in different tributaries then this can have a strong cumulative effect further downstream where these tributaries combine. This service is strongest in wetlands located in floodplains where direct interaction with floodwaters can take place. However, upstream wetlands on slopes and plateaus can also regulate floods by detaining or even retaining floodwaters from reaching river channels and contributing to flood events; peatlands with deep organic porous soils are often attributed with this role. In addition wetlands regulate the frequency of drought periods (IPCC, 2001). During periods with no rainfall some wetland types can continue to supply small tributaries with water and keep them from falling dry. Moreover, wetlands may also serve as natural filters and sinks for chemical compounds from waste water, such as fertilizers and toxic compounds and as sediment traps. Hence they play a distinct role in the natural process of self purification of rivers and streams and contribute to the improvement of the chemical water quality of rivers during a flood pulse (Junk et al., 1989; Van Oorschot, 1996; Crumpton, 2001; Zedler, 2003).
16
2.4
Role of floods for wetlands
Wetlands represent a wide range of different ecosystems and biodiversity which depends on the quantity, distribution and timing of water in the landscape. Each wetland is therefore dependent on specific hydrological regimes for their ecological functioning (Junk et al., 1989; Poff et al., 1997). This ecological functioning drives most of the services attributed to wetlands in Table 1. In turn this means that the social and economic value of wetlands to people depends on the hydrological regime. If this should be in some way disturbed, the effects on a wetlands value can be severe. Wetlands whose functioning typically depends on flooding have a hydrological regime that varies from periods with high water levels with strong currents to periods with stagnant water and lower water tables over large areas. Floods drive rejuvenation processes due to their connection with the main channel which establishes new habitats, and thereby species diversity (Van den Brink et al., 1996; Aarts et al., 2004; Junk & Wantzen, 2004; De Nooij et al., 2006; Geerling et al., 2006). It underpins essential biogeochemical processes (Van den Brink, 1994; Lamers et al., 2006) which make nutrients available to plants and animals, which often can have an economic value (e.g. fish, reeds, waterfowl). It creates water habitat that is attractive to animal species on a seasonal basis. Therefore care should be taken not to negatively affect wetland functioning through unsustainable water management; certain approaches to flood risk management can lead to this. Establishment of infrastructure and management of river regime often contributes to this (e.g. dams to withhold peak flows, dykes to protect floodplain land, sluices to regulate flow), especially when the needs of wetlands are not taken into account. This applies both in circumstances where infrastructure creates situations of too much as well as too little water. Although floods are essential for the ecological functioning of wetlands, there are limitations: for instance flooding to a great depth / creating stagnant water conditions may degrade the nature values of wetlands that are adjusted to different conditions (Van den Brink, 1994; Baptist et al., 2006). Groundwater related wetlands are vulnerable towards unnatural, man-induced floods which would lead to unnatural long periods of flooding during the growth season with water of a poor quality (Lamers et al., 2006). Also flood regulation measures such as dams and sluices may form obstacles for migratory fish.
17
3.
CROSS BORDER RIVERS AND WETLANDS IN EUROPE: VALUES AND THREATS
Pieter van Eijk, Wetlands International, The Netherlands. Purpose of section: To describe the wetlands in the cross-border areas of Europe to summarise the importance of the resource and the threats they face. This gives context to the practices and policy (including the Flood Risk Management Directive) discussed later in this report in border areas.
3.1
Overview of key transboundary protected and internationally important wetland areas in Europe.
3.1.1 Introduction Europe comprises an area that includes more than 40 different national entities, meaning that it is criss-crossed by numerous borders. Many of these borders date back centuries and were often initially drawn up based on natural barriers that hindered movement and trade between different areas. Wetlands, including rivers, are one of those natural barriers. A quick look at the map of Europe reveals that rivers often form the basis for the designation of many national borders. As a result, Europe harbours many hundreds of transboundary wetlands, ranging from small streams to major river systems to large coastal areas. These cover hundreds of thousands of hectares and run for many hundreds of kilometres. The implementation of the Flood Risk Management Directive has implications for wetlands including those in transboundary areas. It will guide the classification of flood risk in river basins and the measures taken to address this. Wetlands are sensitive ecosystems whose functioning is very closely related to the maintenance of particular hydrological conditions. Flood management often changes this (e.g. through dykes, flood retention areas, bypass channels, drainage, dams etc) and can lead to changes in wetland functioning, often in a negative sense. As such it will affect the use and management of wetlands. This gives cause for concern both in terms of border and nonborder areas. In cross-border areas additional issues are added such as the effects of differing management regimes on either side. Therefore, from the perspective of sustainable wetland use, including conservation, the manner of the implementation of the Flood Risk Management Directive will be critically important. In order to understand the scope and importance of this issue in the Directives implementation it is important to understand the nature of the resource. That is to say how many transboundary wetlands there are, what area they cover and what their importance is with regard to nature and economy. This chapter provides an insight into the extent and characteristics of transboundary wetlands in Europe. Based on readily available information, it reviews their values and uses, threats, hydrological functioning, the importance for flood mitigation and other characteristics relevant in the light of Flood Risk Management Directive. It also identifies gaps in knowledge that urgently need to be filled to support sustainable implementation of flood risk management initiatives.
18
3.1.2 Approach This section does not conduct a complete review of all information resources available across Europe. Information on transboundary wetlands is scattered and often incomplete. Although many national level institutions and agencies hold information on national wetland resources, there are few resources that easily enable a comparative analysis to be carried out, especially in border areas. Therefore readily available information sources have been used to enable a quick assessment to highlight the main facts and issues. This section analyses two sources: the results of a study on transboundary wetlands in central Europe performed by Wetlands International in 1999 (van Loon-Steensma & van Oord (unpublished data)) and information on transboundary Ramsar wetlands available in the online Ramsar database (see Box 1). The Ramsar database provides information on all wetland sites designated by Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention. As of October 2006 a total of 110 wetlands (both inland and coastal) are described as being transboundary within Europe6. The study on wetlands in central Europe (van Loon-Steensma & van Oord) assesses 90 different rivers and accompanying flood plains and builds on a study of transboundary rivers and international lakes, performed by the UN/ECE task force on monitoring and assessment. It focuses on small and middle sized river systems in 14 countries in central Europe7.
Box 1 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands The Ramsar convention (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) provides an intergovernmental framework for the protection of wetlands which are of international importance with regard to their natural values. As of September 2006, 153 countries signed the treaty. Together they have designated a total of 1616 Wetlands of International Importance, committing themselves to the wise use of wetlands in their territories. Contracting Parties are required to designate at least one site when joining the Convention and can continue to designate further sites at their discretion. There is no requirement to designate a certain number of sites within a specified time period. For a site to qualify for designation it has to meet one or more of a number of criteria which illustrate its high conservation value (e.g. value as habitat for waterbirds, fish other rare or endangered species). Designation includes the completion of a data sheet describing the site and its submission to the Ramsar Secretariat. This information forms the basis of the Ramsar Database. An example of a datasheet is provided in Annex 2. Inclusion in the list of wetlands of international importance by no means guarantees full protection. Many Ramsar sites suffer from continued pressures such as land conversion, structural modification, drainage, pollution and over harvest of natural materials. For more information see: www.Ramsar.org (website Ramsar convention) www.wetlands.org/RSDB (Ramsar database)
For details of the European Countries included see the Ramsar website where the boundary of Europe is defined. Note that there are many more transboundary wetlands in Europe but these have not been indicated as transboundary by Contracting Parties. The report considers the following countries: Austria, Albania, Boznia-Herzegovnia, Bulgaria, Belarus, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Former Yugoslav Serbia, Greece, Hungary, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Republic of Moldova, Former Yugoslav Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, Ukraine.
19
Using these resources the information provided is not comprehensive. Both address only a fraction of all European transboundary wetlands. In addition they are restricted to specific geographic areas and wetland types (the van Loon-Steensma & van Oord study) and to areas with a specific protective status (the Ramsar Database analysis). Furthermore, in the case of the Ramsar Database, sites are selected for designation by Contracting Parties on a site by site basis. Therefore they do not represent either all the most important wetlands in a given national territory or a representative cross-section of types. This means the assessment cannot be considered to be representative of all European transboundary wetlands or to be a proportional representation of all the types. However, taking these shortcomings into account, both studies provide a good impression of the characteristics of transboundary wetlands in Europe and the knowledge gaps that need to be filled if one is to optimally include different wetland services and threats into flood risk management strategies. It gives an opportunity to describe the typical values and services provided by European wetlands in transboundary areas and to judge how important they are when considering flood risk management. 3.1.3 Transboundary Ramsar sites Based on the information in the Ramsar database, an analysis has been made of the general characteristics, values and uses, threats and hydrological functioning of European transboundary Ramsar sites. The Ramsar database provides detailed information on a variety of wetland characteristics; the analysis focuses on those considered most relevant to the implementation of the FRMD, i.e. those which are most directly related to or impacted by floods and measures to manage floods (i.e. infrastructure). It is important to bear in mind that these sites are only those that have been chosen by Contracting Parties; most countries will have many other undesignated sites. In addition designation is based on conservation criteria; importance based on other services (such as flood attenuation) is not included and this means that many national or internationally important services do not form the basis for their protection. Details on these groupings as well as information on individual wetlands is presented in Annex 3. 3.1.3.1 Characteristics of transboundary Ramsar wetlands As of October 2006 110 transboundary Ramsar sites are listed in the European region, spread over 32 different countries. 171 different wetland types are represented in these different wetland sites (a wetland can comprise more than one wetland ecosystem type). Most sites (78 in total) are situated in Central, East and South-East Europe. Western and southern Europe are home to 23 sites. Nine transboundary wetlands are situated in Scandinavia. Covering more than 5 million hectares, they together represent most major wetland classes (see Table 2). Different wetland types are distributed more or less equally throughout Europe, marine wetlands being slightly more common in the West (see Annex 3).
20
Wetland type Delta Marine area Marsh Peatland Permanent lake River Subterranean system Temporal lake/flood plain Unknown
Number 16 20 20 26 33 20 3 33 1
Table 2. Wetland types in European transboundary Ramsar sites. Note: the total number of types is larger than the total number of wetlands, as certain sites are dominated by several wetland classes. See Annex 2 for a detailed description of classes. 3.1.3.2 Values and uses European wetlands perform a wide range of services that can benefit people and nature. These can have considerable economic value, in particular to local people. Figure 1 and Annex 3 summarise the importance of values and uses most relevant in the light of the FRMD.
Coll. of materials Traditional cultural Hunting Fishing Recreation Agriculture 0 20 40 60 80 100 Western Europe Eastern Europe Scandinavia
Figure 1. Values and uses of European transboundary Ramsar sites (n = 108). Colours represent relative importance for Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Agriculture is by far the most common use in and around transboundary wetlands. It has been reported as taking place in association with 91% of all the transboundary Ramsar sites. Although more or less equally important throughout Europe (except Scandinavia), the Ramsar database indicates that the various forms of agriculture differ noticeably between regions. In Western Europe agriculture is predominantly large-scale and intensive. In Eastern Europe, more traditional forms of agriculture are performed as well.
21
Extensive grazing for example, has been reported from more than 15% of all sites, in contrast to western Europe where this form of agriculture is not reported. The second most important use of wetlands is recreation. More than 81% of all wetlands have some sort of recreational value. Most wetlands are of value to multiple forms of recreation. Tourism and recreation by local inhabitants are most commonly reported, whereas many protected areas have developed infrastructure for specific forms like birdwatching and education. Wetlands are more or less equally important for recreation throughout different regions in Europe. Fishing and hunting are other major uses of transboundary wetland sites. They are reported in 73 and 49% of all transboundary sites respectively. Fishing takes place throughout Europe. As in agriculture however, extensive practices are more common in Eastern Europe. Approximately 9% of all wetlands in the latter region are of importance for subsistence fisheries. Importance for hunting is strikingly different among regions. Hunting is performed in only 27 % of all sites in Western Europe, compared to 53 and 67 percent in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia respectively. This might be partly explained due to differences in legislation and the fact that people in Eastern Europe are generally more subsistence oriented. It might also be caused by differences in wetland condition; in general, wetlands in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia are often in a more natural state compared to those in Western Europe and as a consequence the former region might have a higher potential for this type of use. Two types of use underlining the historic linkage of societies to wetlands are traditional cultural use and harvest of natural products such as reeds, firewood and honey. Traditional cultural use is common throughout Europe (almost 18% of all sites), but particularly so in Scandinavia. It includes ceremonies, celebrations and religious activities in which wetlands perform an important role. The importance of Ramsar sites for harvest of materials is strikingly different among regions. In Western Europe less than 5% of all sites perform this function. This rate is three to four times higher in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Presumably this is partly explained by differences in culture and land use. People in Eastern Europe often have a greater connectivity to nature related to the larger proportion of the population that lives in rural areas. However it might also reflect differences in environmental quality as potentials for harvest of materials are generally much higher in intact ecosystems. 3.1.3.3 Hydrological functioning Wetlands can have a significant role in flood mitigation and flow regulation. The implementation of the Flood Risk Management Directive can both benefit from and degrade this service. Data from the Ramsar Database strongly support this argument. Flood mitigation and flow regulation are important hydrological services provided by European transboundary wetlands. Flood mitigation is reported for almost 50% of all sites. Approximately 14% of all wetlands perform a role in flow regulation (Figure 2). Ramsar sites in Eastern Europe are generally much more important for flood mitigation and flow regulation, compared to wetlands in Western Europe and Scandinavia. Again this can be attributed to the wetland conditions in Eastern Europe. Many Eastern European wetlands are still relatively intact and as a consequence retained their important role in maintenance, release and distribution of waters. In Western Europe,
22
regulation and management of rivers has generally been more significant, reducing the role of natural wetlands.
Flow regulation Maint. w ater quality Western Europe Sediment trapping Flood mitigation 0 10 20 30 40 50 Eastern Europe Scandinavia
Figure 2. Hydrological functioning of European transboundary Ramsar sites (n = 88). Colours represent relative importance for Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. 3.1.3.4 Threats The functioning of wetlands in relation to flood risk management can in particular be adversely affected by factors that change an areas hydromorphological characteristics. In the context of the Ramsar Datasheets, drainage, pollution and structural modifications are threat categories that are most relevant to expressing this threat. Therefore these have formed the focus of analysis (see Figure 3 and Annex 4).
Str. modifications Drainage Pollution 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Western Europe Eastern Europe Scandinavia
Figure 3. Major threats in European transboundary Ramsar sites (n = 105). Colours represent relative importance for Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Pollution is reported most commonly, with almost 62% of all wetlands threatened by eutrophication or chemical wastes. In Central Europe 68% are subjected to some sort of pollution. Levels are lower in Western Europe and Scandinavia with 52 and 33% respectively. Although many wetlands have the capacity to improve water quality they generally have a limited carrying capacity, which if exceeded can lead to degradation. Where pollution is regarded as a threat to wetlands in the Ramsar Database, it can be assumed that this carrying capacity is in danger of or is being exceeded. Part of the
23
rationale of the Flood Risk Management Directive is that the environment needs to be protected from pollution in association with flooding events that can cause considerable damage. However, the threat of pollution to sites recorded in the Ramsar Database is more commonly observed in connection with long-term pollution events (e.g. nitrate leaching from agricultural land) than extreme events and so little can be read into this data from this perspective. Almost one third of all transboundary Ramsar sites are threatened by drainage. The proportion of sites drained is similar across different regions of Europe. Peatlands and marshes are under particular threat. Under natural circumstances these systems can play an important role in flood mitigation by contributing to the desynchronisation of flood peaks. As such they can play a vital role in reduction of flood risk. Due to disturbance or reclamation these values might be lost, leading to increased vulnerability to floods in downstream regions. Furthermore, drainage in lowland wetlands (floodplains etc) increases the efficiency of water leaving the land and returning to rivers and lakes. In effect this decreases the time between rainfall events and peak discharges thus increasing flood risk. In this respect, wetland drainage is both a threat to wetland functioning and raises the likelihood of catastrophic floods. Structural modifications, like dams, dikes, barrages and reservoirs pose a threat to wetland sites throughout Europe. More than 30% of all Eastern European wetlands are reported to be altered by these measures. This rate is two to three times higher compared to Western Europe and Scandinavian sites. The traditional approach of heavy engineering to river management in Eastern Europe, which now receives less attention in many Western European countries, might be an explanation for these differences. Secondly they might be explained by the fact that many Western European rivers have already been canalized and regulated decades ago, whereas catchments in Eastern Europe remain in a more pristine state providing more opportunity for infrastructure. In this case the impact of additional structural modifications would be comparatively large in Eastern Europe if structural modifications will be an integral part of flood management strategies in the future. 3.1.3.5 Transboundary Wetland Site Management The Ramsar Convention has for many years encouraged Contracting Parties to undertake joint management of transboundary sites. In Europe contracting parties have made the most significant progress in this area. Of the existing designated transboundary Ramsar sites, 20 have been designated on both side of the border. The Convention Secretariat now encourages Parties to jointly designate sites that crossborders; this assists in developing joint management plans and the more sustainable management of the site in the longer term. In Europe 3 such sites have been so designated with more expected to follow (Ramsar 2005). During the last CoP a Draft Resolution was tabled addressing transboundary site designation and management. This has now been deferred to CoP10 in 2008 and so further progress in addressing this issue can be expected in the coming years. 3.1.4 Wetlands in Eastern Europe The study performed by Wetlands International in 1999 (van Loon-Steensma & van Oord unpublished data), assesses the characteristics of 90 small and medium-sized
24
transboundary rivers and a number of accompanying wetlands in 23 Eastern European countries. Questionnaires were used to collect data on morphological characteristics, ecological values, structural modifications, threats and uses. Based on this, information on 84 wetlands has been included in this analysis. Information on wetland use and hydrological functioning was lacking for many sites and therefore these factors have not been incorporated in the analysis. However the study provides an excellent overview of natural values, morphological characteristics, protective status and threats. Most Eastern European countries are included within the survey, although data are limited for some countries due to the political situation at the time (e.g. in the Balkans) or late submission of questionnaire information (Albania, Lithuania and Poland). Information for each individual wetland is provided in Annex 5. 3.1.4.1 Natural values Biodiversity value and the number of ecotopes represented within a wetland, are good indicators of an area's general natural values. Areas with a high biodiversity value (i.e. many species represented in the area) or a large number of different ecotopes, generally have a high natural value. Both factors which are often linked to each other are indicators of an intact river ecosystem which is relatively free from threats such as pollution and structural modifications. Figure 4 summarises the importance of Eastern European wetlands for flora and fauna. More than 40% of all wetlands are reported to be of particular value to biodiversity conservation. More than 50% are considered fairly valuable. Only a small minority of wetlands have few biodiversity values. Similarly most wetlands consist of a large number of different ecotopes (Figure 5). Biodiversity value and the number of ecotopes present within separate subsections of a wetland, might differ considerably throughout a catchment. Differences in policies and river management practices cause significant variation of natural values among regions, particularly in large river systems that span three or even more countries.
Fairly valuable Valuable Some values
Figure 4. Biodiversity value of transboundary rivers and associated wetlands in Eastern Europe (n = 82).
25
Many river and river-linked ecotopes Some river and river-linked ecotopes Few river and river-linked ecotopes
Figure 5. Number of ecotopes of transboundary rivers and associated wetlands in Eastern Europe (n = 50). 3.1.4.2 Naturalness and level of protection Over 66% of all wetlands are reported to be (largely) natural, i.e. not significantly modified by dams, reservoirs, canalisation or other structural measures (Figure 6). An additional 15% are natural in certain sections of the catchment and modified elsewhere. Only 18% of all rivers and associated wetlands have been modified along their entire range. Almost one third of all wetlands are completely protected (Figure 7). An additional 53% are under some sort of protection within parts of its range. A small proportion of wetlands are not protected, although protection initiatives were underway in several sites by 1999. The term protection includes all legal statuses focusing to conserve a site's natural values at international, national or local levels. Not surprisingly, naturalness is strongly related to an area's natural values. As stated before, wetlands that are still intact generally consist of a large number of ecotopes that harbour a variety of species. Such a relationship does not exist with the level of protection. Several intact and highly valuable wetlands are only partly protected or receive no protection at all. This is an important result, illustrating that the consideration of wetland values when implementing the Flood Risk Management Directive must not only focus on protected areas but also on areas that are unprotected but have a high degree of naturalness. This is further underscored by the fact that Ramsar Sites do not include all important sites for conservation / wetland services.
Natural Partly natural Structural modifications
Figure 6. Naturalness of transboundary rivers and associated wetlands in Eastern Europe (n = 81).
26
Partial Full No protection
Figure 7. Level of protection of transboundary rivers and associated wetlands in Eastern Europe (n = 70). 3.1.4.3 Threats The most common threat within wetlands is pollution. More than 73% of all wetlands a rate comparable to that in transboundary Ramsar sites are subjected to some sort of pollution (Figure 8). Canalisation and damming were reported to pose a threat to approximately 50% of all wetlands. Many sites are affected by flood control. Almost 60% of all sites suffer from recent flood control measures or are directly threatened by future activities. Infrastructure might provide a range of social and economic services but it often negatively affect environmental integrity and hydrological functioning, particularly in intact river systems. This has a cost that is often not accounted for. Drainage has similar effects. More than 43% of all wetlands are under threat of drainage, leading to environmental degradation and possibly loss of the potential to store water and mitigate floods.
Drainage Canalisation Damming Flood control Pollution 0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 8. Common threats in transboundary rivers and associated wetlands in Eastern Europe (n = 57).
27
3.1.5 Gaps in knowledge As the review above shows, analysis of the importance of transboundary wetlands and their value in terms of flood risk reduction is hampered by weak information resources. Databases of wetlands are incomplete, descriptions of the functioning and value of transboundary sites are not rarely jointly undertaken by bordering countries and the evidence of their value is more often qualitative and cannot easily be expressed in socioeconomic values that are more meaningful to decision-makers. Information on transboundary wetland sites is far from complete. Many sites are not identified or protected let alone described and assessed for their value in terms of the different services they can provide. This makes it hard evaluate the value of the European wetland resource in terms of its contribution to reduction of flood risk and the potential damage that may be incurred by implementation of the Flood Risk Management Directive in a way that is unsustainable for wetlands. There is a need for more detailed information on the extent and characteristics of transboundary wetlands throughout Europe to compensate for this. Information will have to be updated, as wetland characteristics and particularly their threats and uses might change in the course of years. The review also illustrates the lack of information on the socio-economic value of transboundary or even other wetlands in Europe. Information in these two resources describes wetland services in qualitative or presence / absence terms. There is no way to use these resources to provide the sort of social and economic parameters that can be fed into decision-making. This is critically important when taking these arguments to national and provincial level decision-makers who are tasked with deciding how best to tackle flood risk. For instance, when confronted with decisions on whether to develop a floodplain, planners frequently do not have strong data to compare the costs and benefits of different land management scenarios. 3.1.6 Synthesis and Conclusions The studies on transboundary Ramsar sites and wetlands in Eastern Europe provide an overview of the values, uses and threats of Europe's transboundary wetlands. Where they address the same issues (e.g. the factor threats), both studies are largely in line with each other. Other factors only addressed by one of the studies (e.g. natural values, uses, hydrological importance) provide important complementary information. The general view arising from the analysis is also in line with leading publications on ecosystem functioning such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). This paper describes the same functions, threats and hydrological values as those arising from the studies on Eastern European wetlands and transboundary Ramsar sites. Based on the analysis the following can be concluded: Wetlands generally have a high natural value. They are home to a large number of plants and animals and consist of a large number of unique ecotopes. Wetlands have a high economic value for (extensive) agriculture and as sources of fish, meat, reeds, grasses and other (semi) aquatic products (although this value is rarely ever quantified and therefore rarely considered in policy decisions). They provide many people, particularly in Eastern Europe, with an important source of
28
income that either partially or fully supplements their livelihood. Recreational and traditional cultural uses are important services delivered by wetlands throughout Europe. Many wetlands perform a significant role in flood mitigation, desynchronisation of flood peaks, flow regulation, sediment trapping and maintenance of water quality. Floodplains, marshes and peatlands are of particular importance in this respect. There is insufficient quantification of these services and very little economic data. Despite most of the sites considered being protected, many wetlands are severely threatened by drainage and structural modifications like damming, canalisation and flood control. These factors lead to large scale loss of hydrological functioning, (socio-) economic values and environmental integrity. Wetlands in Eastern Europe are generally more intact compared to western European wetlands. They have higher natural, economic and hydrological values. Structural modifications pose a particularly important threat in this region. Small changes might have far reaching impacts on those intact water systems.
29
4.
CASE STUDIES AND BEST PRACTICES
Purpose of the Section: To provide best practices and lessons learned in sustainable approaches to flood risk management in floodplain areas that enable benefits to nature and ecology to be developed. The cases focus in particular on the approach taken to achieve sustainable flood risk management and on elements that were included to address cross-border issues. Summaries of four different case studies from Western and Eastern Europe provided by partners from the FLAPP Component 4 Partners are presented. They cover sites along rivers in Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. 4.1 Sustainable development of floodplains along the river Rhine.
Information provided by Matthijs Logtenberg, Dienst Landelijk Gebied Regio Oost, The Netherlands. Summary Implementation period: January 2003 - June 2008 Project area: 12 pilot locations along lower reaches of the Rhine in Germany and the Netherlands Budget: 32 million euros More information: www.SDFproject.nl
Organisations involved: Rijkswaterstaat (NL) Dienst Landelijk gebied (NL) Gewasserdirection Nordliche Oberrhein (GE) Deichchau Haffen-Mehr (GE) Nabu-Naturschutzstation (GE) Emmschergenossenschaft (GE) Structur- und Genemigungdirection Sud Rheinland (GE) Flood Risk: Urban and rural: The risk is already to a large extent managed by existing infrastructure. However, if these fail then flooding will be catastrophic; there is an intention to reduce the dependence on these measures to reduce the risk of catastrophic floods. General approach: Development of floodplains and retention areas to reduce impacts of floods, taking into account the values of floodplains for different forms of use. Particular attention is paid to the development of dynamic river-related nature. International cooperation project to improve sustainable flood management, focusing on different, unconnected pilot areas on either side of the Dutch-German border in the Rhine Basin.
30
Practical measures: Relocation of dikes, excavation of soil, construction of water inlets, gullies and canals. Structural modifications to roads and bridges. Restoration of river banks, development of marshes, forests and other floodplain related nature. Development of potential for agriculture and recreation. Cross-border aspects: Transnational working groups to implement practical measures, transfer knowledge, integrate policies and develop long-term common approaches for sustainable flood management Project outcome: In developed landscapes where rivers have been modified, the Room for the River concept offers a means to re-establish some of the natural values whilst maintaining flood risk management and other land-uses. The need for cooperation between different levels in government to achieve sustainable results from floodplain development has been strongly recognised. Working groups to enable exchange of information are useful mechanisms to facilitate exchange and understanding of differences in approach to nature development and practical techniques to achieve them. New concepts to underpin practical approaches (e.g. ecological flooding and ecoaccounting) are essential and need further research
During the last decade, several alarming peak discharges hit the river Rhine. In parts of Germany and the Netherlands, high water levels led to drastic measures such as construction of emergency dams and evacuation of local inhabitants. These events significantly affected flood risk estimates for the Rhine catchment area. New calculations predict a higher incidence of extreme water levels during the next century. To prevent future economic damage from floods, government bodies will have to undertake initiatives that help to mitigate these events. Development of water retention areas and improving drainage at other places are considered suitable measures. However as they are not bound to separate sections of the river, they require intensive transboundary cooperation.
31
The SDF (Sustainable Development of Floodplains) project is such a transboundary initiative. Focusing on mutual respect, understanding and knowledge transfer between different partners. It combines flood mitigation measures with nature development and multiple land use in 12 flood plain sites along the Rhine. Two Dutch and five German partners are involved in the project including public authorities at local, regional and national level and two non-profit organisations. The project is co-financed by the European INTERREG IIIB Programme for Flood Prevention and Water Management. 4.1.1 Area description Originating in the Swiss Alps, the river Rhine passes through France, Germany and the Netherlands before discharging in the North Sea, approximately 1320 kilometres downstream of its source. Covering 185.000 square kilometres, the catchment of the Rhine and its tributaries is home to approximately 50 million inhabitants. The Rhine is fed by a large number of tributaries which originate as far apart as Austria and Luxembourg. Having an average discharge of 2290 cubic metres per second, the river is at its widest near the Dutch-German border. A few kilometres downstream it splits into three distributaries, the Waal, lower Rhine and IJssel branches. Until approximately 1840, the river was largely natural, consisting of extensive floodplains and a wide (2-6km) riverbed. From then onwards, structural modifications completely changed the rivers hydro-morphological characteristics. It took almost a century of embankment, canalisation and dredging to make the river fully navigable. These changes led to intensive environmental degradation. Many river ecotopes were severely affected. More than 85% of all floodplains disappeared or suffered from extreme degradation. Modification of the riverbed, pollution and introduction of alien species also led to disappearance of plant and animal species. In recent years several initiatives have been undertaken to restore the Rhines hydrological and ecological values. The Room for the River concept became increasingly important as a leading mechanism for flood mitigation and ecological restoration. A range of structural modifications were performed to increase water retention capacity and to provide new opportunities for nature development. Due to the catchment's size, a range of different land uses are present along the river. Some regions are urbanised and dominated by industry. Many other areas, particularly (former) floodplains have important values for agriculture. Many small areas along the river are designated for nature conservation. Many of them are protected within Natura 2000 and the EU Bird Directive and EU Habitat directive. The Rhine itself is an important transport artery and ecological corridor. The 12 areas targeted within the SDF project are predominantly used for agriculture. Most of them also have natural and recreational values. They are all active floodplains or have performed this function in the past.
32
4.1.2 Aims and approaches The SDF project aims to contribute to the (re)development of floodplains and retention areas to reduce flooding along the Rhine. It encourages sustainable and multifunctional use of floodplains along the river's lower reaches. Particular attention is paid to the development of a network of nature areas, boosting the importance of the river Rhine as a transnational ecological corridor in Northwest Europe. The importance of floodplains for other uses, like agriculture and recreation are also taken into account. The project adopts a multi-sectoral approach, to meet the interests of different actors and to optimally fulfil the principle of sustainability. Experts on river engineering and navigation focus on technical aspects such as optimising the effectiveness of different measures with regard to flood mitigation. Expertise on nature and environmental development is used to optimally connect these measures to the restoration of riverrelated nature. Social action and communication strengthens the link with local inhabitants; this approach enables smooth provision of information to the public and optimal incorporation of local wishes within the different projects. A radical break is being made from the higher dike philosophy that predominated in the past. The risk of disastrous floods as a result of dike malfunctioning is considered too large. Instead the Room for the River concept has been adopted. It tries to increase the total area of land allocated for water storage, without losing values for other spatial objectives, such as nature conservation, agriculture and recreation. The SDF project targets 12 different pilot areas. Most pilots are implementation projects with a few predominantly focused on public participation processes and design of restoration plans. They focus on the implementation of a variety of practical measures such as: Reconnection of floodplains to the river through relocation of dikes. Improvement of drainage by means of inlet works, gullies and canals. Improvement of water flow through adaptation of structural characteristics of roads and bridges. Creation of retention areas. Excavation of floodplains and development of pumping systems. Nature development including development of marshes and (softwood) forests in floodplains and retention areas and restoration of river banks. Improvement of potential for agricultural use. Development of recreational facilities. The project has also examined concepts thought to be of use in helping to achieve sustainable floodplain management: 1. Eco-accounting as a means of balancing damage arising from infrastructure for flood risk management against benefits that can be created elsewhere has been examined. A national level pool of ecological values is calculated and measures are added / subtracted to ensure a situation of no net loss. 2. Ecological flooding has been experimented with as a means of improving the ecological value of managed floodplains. This is different to flooding to manage high water levels. In interim periods a system of flooding is developed that favours the
33
ecology of the natural or semi-natural areas encouraging greater biodiversity and naturalness to develop. 4.1. 3 Cross-border and cross-institutional elements Interregional and transnational cooperation is considered a necessity for successful implementation of sustainable flood management strategies. This has been facilitated through the creation of three transnational working groups, each consisting of experts from the partner organisations. Besides implementing the practical measures mentioned above, they focus on knowledge transfer, integration of policies and development of long-term common approaches for sustainable flood management. More specifically the different working groups deal with the following: 1. River engineering and navigation working group: Development of innovative solutions for the use and design of floodplains and retention areas; development of a common approach for the implementation of structural measures. 2. Nature and environmental working group: Exchange of know-how on the importance of flooding to river-related ecosystems; assessment of the benefits of different national and international concepts and policy with regard to environmental management; integration of other spatial claims (recreation, afforestation, archaeology and cultural heritage etc.) in floodplain management; development of sustainable solutions for exploitation of sand, gravel and clay and for dealing with contaminated soils.
3. Social action and communication working group: Transfer of knowledge and experience by means of a (long-term) transnational cooperation network; exchange of experience on integration of European policies (e.g. EU Bird and Habitat Directive) in implementation of projects; comparison of benefits of different local communication processes; development of innovative contracts with local actors and development of public-private partnerships. The working groups stimulate smooth cooperation, not only on high rank administrative levels, but also between regional authorities and between individual experts and planners. By jointly developing measures, the SDF project is expected to have considerable follow-up effects in the future. As a result various flood prevention plans will be implemented sooner and more effectively than anticipated before.
34
Transnational activities, such as those conducted through the working groups, also demonstrate that there are a number of different approaches to managing new nature areas. For cross-border cooperation these need to be borne in mind: Land acquisition: In Germany land is more often managed by farmers in return for financial compensation, in The Netherlands the tendency is towards purchase. The Dutch situation increasingly leaves nature to work by itself; in Germany there is more intervention to achieve desired nature goals; The Netherlands more often uses natural grazers (horses, cattle etc) that are not managed; in Germany grazers are more likely to be managed as livestock; Dutch flood management favours minimising vegetation on the floodplain to encourage the fastest possible conveyance of floodwaters; in Germany forest and understorey development are actively encouraged in floodplain nature areas. Transboundary cooperation will also facilitate connection of SDF to goals as formulated within several transnational policy documents. The project connects to the ICPR Action Plan of Flood Defence, the European Water Framework Directive and the European Spatial Development Perspective. In addition it implements five retention measures which had been previously developed under the INTERREG IIC IRMA (Interreg-Rhine Meuse) programme.
35
4.1. 4 Project outcome and lessons learned In developed landscapes where rivers have been modified, the Room for the River concept offers a means to re-establish some of the natural values whilst maintaining flood risk management and other land-uses. The need for cooperation between different levels in government to achieve sustainable results from floodplain development has been strongly recognised. Working groups to enable exchange of information are useful mechanisms to facilitate exchange and understanding of differences in approach to nature development and practical techniques to achieve them. New concepts to underpin practical approaches (e.g. ecological flooding and ecoaccounting) are essential and need further research.
4.2 Sustainable development of the River Niers Valley, TheNetherlands and Germany. Fred van den Brink, Province of Limburg, The Netherlands Summary Implementation period: 1995-1998 (restoration plan) 1998-2006 and further (restoration projects) Project area: Lower courses of the Niers River in Germany fwb.van.den.brink@prvlimburg.nl and the Netherlands projects) Stadniers) Organisations involved: Province of Limburg (NL) Water Board Niers Verband (GE) Limburg Water Board Peel and Meuse Valley (NL) EU Rhine-Waal Regio Environmental Department of North Rhine Westfalia (GE) Flood Risk: Predominantly rural, but also urban in the downstream located city of Gennep (The Netherlands). Flood problems arise from the narrowing of the floodplain and the drainage and normalization works in the river Niers, which lead to flooding of agricultural fields and isolated buildings in the floodplain. Most flood problems in urban areas arise during high river discharges of the river Meuse, when the water of the Niers is driven up by the flood wave of the Meuse. Budget: 250.000,- (restoration plan) unknown More information:
www.niersverband.de (German www.wpm.nl (Dutch project
36
General approach: Ecological and hydrological rehabilitation of the lower courses of the Niers river and accompanying floodplains, in order to improve the river's natural hydrological, morphological, ecological and landscape values, to redevelop flood retention areas and to improve water and environmental quality. International cooperation project to achieve clear sustainable floodplain management goals. Practical measures: Restoration of a meandering river by reconnection of the original meanders which had been cut-off by the canalization works (German reaches), reconnection of a former side channel (Dutch river section), restoration of river(bed) morphology, including fish passages along weirs, improving water conservation and water quality in catchment area. Ecological development of floodplains, creation of transboundary nature reserve, connection of nature areas. More extensive river maintenance, adaptation of mowing and dredging regime. Development of recreational facilities; canoeing, angling, swimming, biking & walking. Cross-border aspects: Interactive plan development: ensured engagement of all stakeholders on both sides of the border in plan development in order to make an integral restoration plan in which spatial planning and the selection of hydrological measures were adjusted cross-border. In this way several problems related to communication, working culture and institutions were overcome. Step-wise plan realization: the project started with two sub-sections of the project area and used this to stimulate enthusiasm and develop best practices that could be applied in other areas on both side of the border in a step-wise manner. Project outcome: Cross-border restoration plan for the lower Niers as a basis for restoration measures; Cross-border (upsteam-downstream) adjustment of ecological and hydrological measures; Pilot projects on river restoration in German and Dutch floodplain sections of the Niers resulted in more space for natural river floods and an increase in ecological and landscape values; Increase in water quality by improving purification plants in upstream catchment section. Increase in tourist attraction of the river valley: cross-border walking/biking tours in the lower catchment area between cities Goch and Gennep, including public information shields; Increase in environmental quality for the inhabitants.
37
Drainage, canalization and normalisation have severely affected the hydrological, morphological .and ecological functioning of the River Niers. In addition, intensive agricultural use and domestic waste water has deteriorated the water quality. This has led to environmental degradation, flood and drought problems and a poor water quality. The Niers river project aims to restore these functions in both German and Dutch parts of the catchment area. Five partners are involved in the project. They include several public bodies at regional levels (two from the Netherlands and two from Germany) and one cross-border public body (see case summary above). The different partners work closely together with a broad group of local stakeholders such as municipalities, the forestry sector, the agricultural sector, nature conservation organisations and federations of angling clubs. The project is co-financed under the European INTERREG II programme.
38
4.2.1 Area description The River Niers has a transboundary catchment area. In The Netherlands it is one of the main tributaries of the River Meuse. Originating in Germany near the city of Mnchengladbach, it flows through the German region of North-Rhine Westphalia and the Dutch province of Limburg before it connects to the Meuse 120 kilometres downstream. Approximately 90 percent of the rivers total length and 95% of the 1350 square kilometre catchment area is situated in Germany. More than 750.000 inhabitats live in the river catchment area. Almost half of this population lives in the cities of Mnchengladbach and Vierssen in the upper part of the catchment. Over the years, the Niers river valley has been subjected to extensive modifications. Historical operations include intensive drainage of the areas marshy peatland landscape, normalisation, canalisation and maintenance works such as dredging of sandbanks and intense mowing of water and bank vegetation. A non-regulated stretch of twelve kilometres remains, of which four kilometres function as a common border between Germany and the Netherlands.
The river's upper course is strongly urbanised and industrialised. As a consequence the water is polluted by domestic and industrial waste water. Ground water levels have been draw down by brown coal mining resulting in extremely low river discharges during the summer period. Therefore weirs have been built to regulate water levels. The region further downstream, along the middle course, is used for intensive agriculture. A few nature areas are present as well. The rivers lower course consists of a mosaic of extensive agricultural (hay) land and nature areas. The river banks of the last 12 km of the lower course have a more or less natural morphology. Natural values are highest here. Typical river species such as the mayfly Baetis vernus, the dragonfly Calopteryx spendens (see photo below), the caddis flies Hydrospyche angustipennis, Athripsodes cinereus and Goera pilosa, and fish species such as Stone loach (Noemacheilus barbatulus), Gudgeon (Gobio gobio) and Bullhead (Cottus gobio) are present in the most natural river stretches. In addition, the brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) inhabits a small tributary and the Bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus) inhabits the stagnant cut off meanders of the Niers. The steep erosive banks of the river mouth provide suitable nesting sites for the Kings fisher (Alcedo atthis). The river is intensively used for recreation, particularly along the more scenic sections of the river.
39
4.2.2 Aims and approaches The project focuses on ecological, hydrological and morphological rehabilitation of the Niers catchment area, in order to improve the river's natural values, to redevelop flood retention areas and to improve water quality. The Niers river valley is part of the European Natura 2000 network. It was considered a particular challenge to further develop the valley as an important ecological connection between the rivers Rhine (in Germany) and Meuse (in the Netherlands). Special emphasis was placed on the development of cross-border recreational facilities (walking, canoeing, angling, biking) parallel to the restoration activities. The cross-border restoration plan includes the following practical measures: Short-term measures (1-5 years): Natural ecological development of floodplains through extensive grazing. Restoration of meandering river stretches through reconnection of cut-off meanders along German reaches; restoration of riverbeds and a former side channel (in Dutch river stretch); construction of fish passages along weirs. Development of a crossborder nature area. Regulation of recreational activities (canoeing, angling, swimming); development of cross-border tourist biking and walking routes, in particular between the cities of Coch and Gennep.
Adaptation of the intensive mowing regime: intensity is maintained in the river axis, more extensive mowing is performed along the river borders.
40
Long-term measures (15-30 years): Spontaneous ecological development of floodplains towards a half-open forest landscape. Restoration of a meandering river by reconnection of the original meanders which had been cut-off by the canalization works (German reaches),; restoration of riverbeds through further removal of bank-protection and weirs. Ecological (re) connection between the river Niers and the forest of the Reichswald. This connection is considered important for reactivation of natural river processes, such as transport and formation of sandbanks and a natural bank morphology. Retention of rainwater in rural areas of the catchment through removal of drainage ditches. Extensive maintenance of river by responsible authorities; Increase of ground-water table in adjacent wetlands. 4.2.3 Cross-border and cross-institutional elements The Niers River project has been developed by a small project team consisting of both German and Dutch actors. They developed a cross-border restoration plan for the lower course of the Niers, in close cooperation with a large group of local stakeholders. The small size of the project team enabled rapid development of ideas and implementation of measures. Cooperation with public and private stakeholders as well as local interest groups provided valuable advice, insight in local needs and support among different parties. Hydrological processes and ecological networks are not restricted by political barriers such as regional or international borders. Cross-border cooperation can help recognise the values of transnational areas and to restore their integrity. In the case of the Niers river valley restoration project such a cross-border natural landscape was developed, incorporating ecological values with recreational purposes. A cross-border cooperative approach in the Niers valley was considered beneficial for a variety of reasons: 1. A similar vision and comparative policy on river management with regard to hydrology, ecology and land uses such as recreation and agriculture greatly stimulates the efficiency of restoration measures.
41
2. A joint approach in project start-up, implementation of measures and communication towards the public significantly increases (cost) efficiency. In this way knowledge on policy, measurements, costs and public information was shared, which resulted in implementation of measures which were not familiar for one of the partners. For instance the German water board was not familiar with the introduction of large herbivores (Galloways) to stimulate extensive grazing in their new nature reserves, a common measure in The Netherlands. The Dutch water board had some concern about the introduction of an extensive river maintenance, which was common use in Germany. 3. Opportunities for co-funding from EU programmes such as LIVE and INTERREG further add to the attractiveness of cross-border projects. The Niers river valley restoration project encountered a number of obstacles to crossborder cooperation: 1. Differences in language posed some problems in the beginning of the project. Although most discussions could be held in English, it took a while before all partners were familiar with the English translation of technical terms. 2. Cultural and institutional differences appeared throughout the project. The Dutch attitude for example, was less formal than the German. The approach of the Dutch partners was to create enthusiasm for the project and to search for possibilities together with other actors. The German approach was more of a legal and instrumental kind. 3. Hierarchical positions of the various public authorities in Germany and the Netherlands. In Germany, a lot of governmental and non-governmental organisations had to be involved in the planning process. Within the Netherlands it was possible for one person to cover several departments. The specific project set-up (small project group and a broad group of stakeholders) avoided meetings with too many representatives. 4. Unfamiliarity with the role of various actors (both authorities and other stakeholders) and differences of various formal policy plans and legal instruments between countries. The project partners introduced two main elements to help overcome obstacles in cooperation, communication and implementation of measures. 1. Interactive plan development to create a joint vision on different steps to be undertaken within the project. Stakeholders that have interest in the project because of their role in policy development or implementation of measures, were invited through the networks of German and Dutch counterparts to participate in stakeholder meetings. Prior to the start of the project they received a letter describing the aims and set-up of the project and the possible role they could play. 2. Implementation of the project through stepwise plan realisation. Land acquisition and voluntary participation of local stakeholders could not take place at the same time throughout the project area, making it impossible to implement measures simultaneously. In addition there was some fear for unforeseen consequences of the measures. Therefore it was decided to divide the area into seven sections. In two sections so-called starting projects were developed. Small flood plain areas in which the grounds were already acquired during the planning process, were selected for this purpose. These starting-projects enable us to gain experience with this new form of river management, creating public support for
42
the implementation of the plan. As such they significantly implementation of measures in other sections of the catchment. 4.2.4 Project outcome and lessons learned Crossborder restoration plan for the lower Niers as a joint basis for the
promote
implementation of restoration measures. In this way cross-border (upsteamdownstream) adjustment of ecological and hydrological measures could take place via exchange of ideas and experience; Pilot projects on river restoration in German and Dutch floodplain sections of the Niers resulted in more space for natural river floods and an increase in ecological and landscape values. Pilot projects were developed and carried out in the period 1998-2006. The idea of such step-wise plan realization is to gain experience with this new form of river management and to create public support for the implementation of the plan. In the normalized and canalized German river stretches the focus was on the restoration of the original meandering river by reconnection and reactivation of the former river channel. In the Dutch stretches the focus was on restoration of a former side channel. In both starting projects the floodplain was transformed from farmlands into nature reserves. The result of this is that the river has got more room for the retaining of natural floods: flood peaks are topped off since the length and the hydraulic roughness of the river and its floodplain have increased. Moreover wetlands habitats have been reactivated, which among others has resulted in the return of several typical river species, such as the Beaver, which has been extinct in the area for many years; Increase in water quality by improvement of purification plants in the upstream catchment sections; Increase in environmental quality and touristic attractiveness of the river valley: cross-border walking/biking tours, including public information shields.
43
4.3
Flood management in the Dijle valley, Belgium
Frederik Vanlerberge and Mieke De Wilde, Province of Flemish Brabant Summary Implementation period: 1984 - 2006 Budget: 4.3 million euros
Project area: More information: Middle course of the River Dijle in Flanders (Belgium) De Dijle in Leuven, een vloek en een zegen (VMM,afdeling Water,2006) Organisations involved: Flemish water administration Flemish nature administration Provincial water administration Local nature organisation Municipality of Leuven Institute for Nature and Forest Flood Risk: Urban: desire to reduce the flood risk to Leuven, a city downstream from the study focal area. General approach: Integrating flood management plans with nature conservation initiatives, in order to restore the natural dynamics of the middle course of the river Dijle and to mitigate flood risk in the city of Leuven. National level sustainable floodplain project (note this project is not cross-border). Practical measures: Restoration of river dynamics and natural values of a floodplain south of Leuven restoring the capacity for water retention using natural floodplain processes. Creation of an emergency water storage area south of Leuven through construction of a sluice and by use of an old railway road. Construction of a sand trap along the Dijle river, downstream of the sluice. Cross-border aspects: The project was not cross-border but lessons were learned from multi-sectoral collaboration and cooperation which are relevant to this. One of the most significant was that a mechanism for meeting and exchange of ideas is essential. Project outcome: Flood risk in Leuven has been reduced; Improved natural values and recreation for the area are expected in the coming years as the system stabilizes following the physical works; A less intensive clearance work for the sediments of erosion An approach to integrating different sectors through the operation of a committee focused on the common interests of different sector groups has provided a model for elsewhere in Belgium.
44
In the early 1980s, plans were developed to create a large artificial retention area in the Dijle valley. The proposed measure intended to mitigate floods that occasionally hit the city centre of Leuven. Following a negative response from nature organisations, the responsible authorities changed their policies to take on a more nature oriented approach. Based on water models, eco-hydrological studies and feedback from environmental organisations, they integrated nature restoration and water retention, acknowledging the values of floods for nature and the potential of (natural) floodplains to mitigate floods. Now, 20 years later a number of regional water administration bodies work together with the nature conservation sector but also with agriculture, recreation and hunters to reach these goals. 4.3.1 Area description Originating in Wallonia, the river Dijle traverses the Brabant silt plateau and flows through Flanders before forming the river Rupel 86 kilometres downstream. As such it is an important part of the Scheldt-river catchment.. The valley of the Dyle upstream of Leuven has a valley which is 40 meters deep in the Brabant Silt Plateau and has a variable width from 1 to 1,5 km, The river and its tributaries have eroded the underlying geological layers, exposing many water sources. These provide the river with a significant proportion of its water. Near the city of Leuven no less than 93 per cent of the flow originates from upward seepage from such sources. This also applies to the main tributaries. The river has a rather natural structure without bank protection or embankments and has never been canalised. The alluvial floodplain has a characteristic riverbank-floodplain mire morphology. Typical are the very high sandy banks and the lower silty backlands. These were historically formed by inundations which deposited the heavy sandy materials first, close to the river. The smaller silt particles were deposited on the more open plain where water velocity decreased. These process resulted in a river with very high banks which now make natural inundations from the river difficult, although this can happen where the banks are abit lower or via the tributaries. The deepest parts of the valley are groundwater-dependent and experience groundwater discharge (1-2mm/day) which is atits strongest in winter. The up-welling water originates predominantly from one aquifer, the Sands of Brussels. Historical drainage courses - the so called "Leigrachten' - were originally naturally formed in the floodplains and were optimized during the Middle Ages to evacuate the groundwater and inundation water from these areas and make them fit for agriculture (mostly pastuale land). These "Leigrachten" end up in the Dyle several km's further downstream. Due to the relatively nutrient rich geological layers and the rich silty cover, this is a rather mesotrophic system with a nutrient rich vegetation (see further). The Dyle has preserved its high structural diversity and continues to meander through the valley in a relatively natural way, its course constantly evolving. As result it is known that the river moves as much as 0.5m per year. The sinuosity is 1,64 which means the mean river length is 1,64 kilometres per kilometre valley length. This is a rather constant value. The last 200 years only three meanders were cut off.
45
Thanks to wastewater purification efforts in recent years, the physico-chemical and biological water quality has reached sufficient values to minimise impact of polluted river water on vegetation in the alluvial plain. The water quality of the river itself has improved enormously, but still depends on the further development of purification in Walloon. High sedimentation rates, resulting from erosion of the further upstream are another problem in terms of water quality and healthy functioning of the river system and its wetlands. Agriculture and forestry are the main forms of land use in the valley. Thirty percent is allocated as a nature reserve of which the private reserve Doode Bemde is the largest (220 hectares). The valley as a whole is designated as a Special Protection Area under the EU Birds Directive and large parts are protected as Special Areas of Conservation under the EU Habitat Directive. The region's half open landscape consists of a mosaic of vegetation types, ranging from alder carr and alluvial forests to reed beds, sedge swamps and fen meadows.
The Dijle valley is home to a range of scarce species such as Spotted Crake (Porzana porzana), Kingfisher (Alcedo athis), Bluethroat (Luscinia svevica), Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosa), Desmoulin`s whorl snail (Vertigo moulinsiana), Banded Demoiselle (Calopteryx splendens), Stone loach (Barbatula barbatulus) and Bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus amarus). Since 1991 Potamogeton pectinatus and later Potamogetum berchtoldii grow in the river because of improvements in water quality. This lead to the appearance of Calopteryx spledens along the river and an increased diversity of fish species. Also butterfly species are monitored and are showing positive devedlopments.
46
Only a small fraction (less than 1%) of the valley to the south of Leuven is urbanised. Nonetheless, many inhabitants are located in the city of Leuven, which is situated in a bottleneck of the Dijle valley. Just before entering the city, the Dyle receives water from two tributaries, the Voer and the Molenbeek. Because the Dyle is a so-called 'sourceriver', water levels can raise from 5m/sec to 25 m/sec very quickly following heavy rainfall or sudden thawing after winter. Heavy flooding of the inner city has always been a problem in the recent history of Leuven. Critical levels have a return period of once every 20 years and heavy flooding once every 100 years, which - for the densely populated city centre - result in great human suffering and major damage. Almost 10.000 inhabitants are directly affected by flooding from the Dyle in the historical city centre. Next to this there is also a major impact on buildings and installations of the Leuven University, InBev Breweries and economic activities in the city centre (e.g. shops, trade, storage, production). The project area is situated in the middle course of the Dijle in the province of Flemish Brabant. It consists of 1200 hectares of river valley, stretching from the Wallonian border to the southern part of Leuven. 4.3.2 Aims and approaches The project in the Dijle valley aims to link flood management plans to nature conservation initiatives in floodplains. As such it tries to reduce the impact of floods on the city centre of Leuven and to restore the natural dynamics of the Dijle river and surrounding floodplains.
Leuven
Bertem Egenhoven Leefdaal Korbeek-Dijle Neerijse Sint-Joris-Weert Sint-Agatha-Rode Nethen Ottenburg Oud-Heverlee Heverlee
Restoration of natural values also intends to provide opportunities for (light) recreation such as birding and walking.
47
Wavre
The city of Leuven must be protected against discharges higher than 25 m/sec. This is a situation that occurs on average every 2 years. Higher peaks are rarer. There is an agreement to protect the city and the university against peak discharges of statistically once per 100 years. In the early 1980s, plans to create a large artificial retention area in the middle of several nature areas generated a negative response from nature organisations. In the 1990s, after years of discussions and constructive cooperation, the responsible authorities changed their policy on water retention, helped by water models, ecohydrological studies and positive feedback from nature organisations. Now, almost 30 years later since the idea to establish a symbiosis between nature restoration and water retention as the basis for a natural system of water management in the Dyle valley it has been initiated. Instead of several large artificial water storage areas, an enormous inundation zone (1200 ha) has been chosen for. In case of inundation, the water height will be low and the flooding won't last very long. Alluvial vegetation is more adapted to this kind of system and two aims are united: protection against inundation and nature development. The project focuses on the following practical measures: Restoration of the natural floodplains south of Leuven The areas hydrology is restored through removal of a culvert that leads to a small drainage canal under the Ijse, a major tributary of the Dijle. Through this measure, the former floodplains are reconnected to the Dijle. Due to the floodplains low elevation, it will be subjected to regular flooding, thus relieving flooding pressure in areas further upstream. Restoration of floodplain dynamics also offers valuable opportunities for nature restoration, particularly in the nature reserve Doode Bemde. Special attention is paid for the preservation of sites with groundwater dependent vegetations.
48
A small part of the downstream part of the Leigracht is redesigned by means of irregular filling. This creates a series of forest pools, preventing the Langerode forest from being drained as a result of the stop of the watercourse upstream.
Creation of an emergency storage area, next to the city of Leuven A sluice constructed in the river bed just upstream of Leuven serves to protect the city against sudden flooding events. It is built beside an old English railway embankment that functions as a semi-natural dyke. The sluice allows passage of a maximum of 19 m3/s, with 6m/s extra from tributaries, the maximum flow of 25 m/s that the city can tolerate. This way a second large inundation area is created and can store in total (with the area in the nature reserve) 2 million m water, at a depth of about 80 cm. Some small areas in this part of the valley were protected by small dykes: groundwater capture infrastructure and an important part of the forest for seed production of Oak. The old part of the Dyle which will not be used by the river anymore will serve as breeding place for fish, plants.
Construction of a sand trap The Dijle river carries along large quantities of sediments, which are deposited in regions of reduced water flow. Although this natural process is beneficial for the areas natural variation, sedimentation might also impede the rivers flow. This significantly increases flood risk in the area. Particularly high rates of sedimentation take place in the city centre of Leuven. Removal of these sediments is difficult and expensive. Construction of a sand trap reduces the frequency of these clearance works. The sand trap is located just downstream the sluice construction and consists of several parts. The first is a type of stilling pond that slows down the velocity of the river water, so that most of the material is deposited. The banks of this sand trap are laid out according with the natural environment, with softly rolling slopes and native plants and bushes such as blackthorns. This first area is dredged every two years by a dredging boat. The sludge that comes out can leach in the second area and shrink. The water sinks through the last area before returning to the Dyle. Approximately 16.000 m of material will be removed every two years.
leakage area effective sand trap
final settlement basin
49
4.3.3 Cross-border elements The Dijle River is not a cross-border water body and as a consequence there was no multi-country involvement in the project. However, the project covers a range of sectoral and institutional borders, as both the water sector and the nature conservation sector were represented in project development and implementation of practical measures. In the early 1980s, different sectors largely restricted their activities to their own working fields. This led to different visions on water management and nature conservation. Two decades of close cooperation, following a change in nature and water management legislation, finally led to a multifunctional and integrated vision on management of Belgium's water courses. The goals, initially set water retention as a method of flood protection, were in the course of the project altered to water retention by regaining space for the river as a method to flood prevention and nature development. To establish a successful integration of policies, the different partners were organised in a committee in which each partner involved had a seat. This committee, chaired by the Flemish water administration enabled the coordination and concerted implementation of activities. Particular care was taken to clearly state objectives and to direct efforts to the goal of the project. Propositions of different partners were taken into account making studies and plans. 4.3.4 Project outcome and lessons learned Two years after implementation of the different measures, it is too early to provide a comprehensive overview of the impact of the changes in hydrology on ecology and flood risk. Nonetheless, the first results of the measures are promising and in line with what were predicted in models and eco-hydrological studies. Restoration of the natural flooding regime strongly simulated development of river bound vegetation types. This shift towards a more natural vegetation provided new opportunities for typical wetland birds and mammals such as the Eurasian Beaver (Castor fiber). The overall improvement of the floodplain's natural values strengthened the valley's status as a nature area. This made it significantly easier to move less sustainable activities out of the floodplain and to accomplish more extensive forms of agriculture that fit the project's nature conservation goals. In addition, diversification and improvement of the valley's landscape boosted the region's potential for nature oriented recreation such as walking, biking and birding. Restoration of the natural floodplain south of Leuven together with the establishment of an emergency storage area and construction of a sand trap have greatly reduced flood risk in the city centre. The project in the Dijle valley is considered a good example of an integrated approach for flood management and nature conservation. Following a similar approach, the Flemish and provincial water administrations have already implemented several smaller projects elsewhere. Initiatives on an even larger scale than the Dijle valley are currently in a study phase (Demer valley). A lot more attention here is made to communication and participation of all kind of users of the valley and the water. As such, the Dijle valley
50
project can be considered as a best practice example, providing guidance and advice to future initiatives that will be implemented in line with the FRMD throughout Europe.
The case shows that a change in policy towards more respect for the natural environment and recognition of the importance of river dynamics to river bound nature leads to an integral vision on water management. This enables allocation of multiple forms of land use (water retention, nature conservation, agriculture, recreation) to a river area. However, plans to integrate flood management with nature conservation need to be based on sound eco-hydrological insights. Chemical and hydrological factors such as water pollution levels and the balance between water from flooding and groundwater (which differ among regions), might strongly affect the impact of different measures. A main success factor was the integration of different administrations into one committee that focused on the common interests of the different parties. The design facilitated formation of an integral vision and made it significantly easier to raise funding for the project.
51
4.4 Towards a fluvial territory in Aragon and Arga rivers (Spain) Josu Elso, Environmental Management of Navarra, Spain Summary Implementation period: Currently in planning phase. Management plan schedules implementation over 6 years Project area: Aragon and Arga rivers (Spain) Budget: Not applicable
More information: www.life-gerve.com; www.interreg-gire.eu; www.gavrn.com
Organisations involved: GAVRN (Gestin Ambiental, Viveros y Repoblaciones de Navarra, S.A.) Department of Environment, Navarra Flood Risk: Damage to highly productive agricultural land along the floodplain of the Aragon river and protection of rural villages. Infrastructure already exists to protect these lands in many areas, but flooding still persists in some areas and when this occurs existing infrastructure magnifies the effect. General approach: Conserving and improving natural values through restoration of river dynamics along Arga and Aragon rivers. Decreasing damage from floods through modified land use in both rivers' catchments. Practical measures: Creation of artificial floods through release of water from headwater reservoirs. Redesign of land-use based on flood risk maps; removal of levees from floodplain areas. Restoration of river-linked habitats such as Oxbow Lakes and forests. Cross-border aspects: This project was not cross-border. Project outcome: The project is to a large extent still in the planning phase, but some preliminary outcomes are already apparent. Zoning the floodplain to prioritise high risk areas for the environment and low risk areas for agriculture are showing promising results. Agricultural investments are now lower risk and increased natural values are becoming apparent. This supports the approach of establishing a fluvial territory in a river basin within which human and natural land-uses are planned and managed alongside one another.
52
The Aragon and Arga rivers, situated in the Spanish region of Navarra, are of extraordinary natural importance. Consisting of a range of different habitats, both rivers and their accompanying floodplains are home to a large number of rare plant and animal species. Structural modifications such as defence works and canalization however, increasingly affect the natural dynamics of these rivers. This has lead to a continuing loss of natural values in the region. GAVRN (Environmental Management of Navarra) works with the Department of Environment of Navarra to restore river dynamics in the area, focusing on restoration of natural values of river linked ecotopes and targeting specific vulnerable plant and animal species. Redesign of land use in the catchment among others aims to reduce damage of floods to agricultural land.
4.4.1
Area description
Originating in the Pyrenees, the Arga and Aragon rivers flow southwards through the province of Aragon and the autonomous region of Navarra. The river Aragon is dammed along its upper course, forming the large Yesa reservoir at the border of both provinces. A few kilometres downstream it receives waters from the river Irati, the Aragon's biggest tributary. Along their lower courses both Arga and Aragon form extensive flood plains. The Aragon River in particular has formed a diverse and dynamic river landscape which is considered to be the best conserved meandering system of Navarra. The Arga River connects with Aragon close to the town of Funes, discharging in the River Ebro a few kilometres downstream. Together, Arga and Aragon represent approximately 48% of the Ebros total discharge. Both Arga and Aragon are subjected to an average of three floods per year. Following a dry period from June to November, water flow increases spectacularly from December onwards, due to heavy autumn rains. Discharge is highest in February as a result of snow-melt in the Pyrenees. Heavy floods occur once a year in the Arga River. Extraordinary floods are less frequent in Aragon River on average once in two years presumably due to the regulatory effect of Yesa reservoir.
53
During the last decades both Arga and Aragon rivers have been facing increasing levels of regulation, leading to alteration of river dynamics. Yesa reservoir, situated along the upper course of Aragon and the canalized lower reaches of river Arga are most influential in this respect. A general decrease in Aragon's sinuosity became evident from 1956 onwards. Alteration of river dynamics caused considerable environmental degradation. It has led to simplification of habitats, decreased formation of oxbow lakes and sandbanks and degradation of floodplain areas. Structural modifications have also lead to increased flood risk in some regions, particularly along the river's lower courses. The most important form of land use along Arga and Aragon River is intensive agriculture. Due to their high productivity many (former) flood plains have been transformed into irrigated croplands. The same applies for many formerly inaccessible marsh areas, which were drained and converted into productive farmland. Poplar plantations are situated in many wet areas, usually in close proximity to the river. Industrial activities are largely restricted to production of hydroelectric energy along the upper courses of both rivers. The region is predominantly rural with the largest towns being Caparosso near Aragon and Funes near Arga, with 2500 and 2000 inhabitants respectively. The whole case study area is a Site of Community Importance (SCI) included in the Natura 2000 network. A total of 11 protected areas are found along the lower reaches of Aragon River. Four sites are situated along Arga's lower reaches. All protected areas are in a reasonably pristine condition, harbouring a range of scarce wildlife species.
54
The region is of particular importance for European mink (Mustela lutreola), with an estimated total of 10% of the Spanish population living in the area. Conservation of typical wetland characteristics (oxbow lakes, riverside ponds etc.) is considered of critical importance for the future survival of the species. Few people live in close proximity of the river and as a result floods don't pose much of a threat to private property and personal safety. Floods however, cause severe damage in the agricultural lands which are situated in the former floodplains of both rivers. Construction of levees protects these areas in normal years, but leads to severe economic damage during extreme floods. Currently Arga and Aragon rivers don't represent a high value for tourism. Locally however, both rivers are used for recreation as well as for cultural purposes such as pilgrimages. 4.4.2 Aims and approaches The main aim of the initiatives along Arga and Aragon rivers are to conserve the species and habitats annexed in the EU Habitats Directive. Connected to environmental management the project is trying to reduce the economic damage of floods and to develop the region's potential for riverassociated recreation. A detailed management plan describing the approach to reach these aims has been developed by the regional government of Navarra and GAVRN has been designated its implementer. A range of local stakeholders, among others associations of farmers, timber producers, the hydroelectric power sector and conservationists are being involved in project implementation. Authorization of restoration works and flow regulations took place through the Ebro Basin Water Authority. The project acknowledges that restoration of river dynamics both along the river's longitudinal axis and in the floodplains perpendicular to the river is crucial for the protection of the region's natural values. Rejuvenated hydro-geomorphological processes stimulated by increased river dynamics are planned to be the driving force behind the formation / restoration of a diverse array of
55
habitats which are home to a large number of rare target species. The following measures, central to the projects approach, focus on re-attaining these dynamics:
Linking flooding regime to nature conservation goals To counter the effects on natural flooding regime and extent of headwater reservoirs and drainage upstream the project is creating artificial floods. Water will be released from the headwater reservoirs at specific intervals. Sound management of water flows from the reservoirs combined with a number of structural measures in agricultural areas, will guarantee the creation of a flooding regime that is beneficial for nature but that doesn't pose a threat to communities or leads to agriculture related economic damage.
Flood risk management Redesign of land use in the region is considered essential to combine nature conservation and flood risk management. Through creation of a flood risk map, insight is being gained in areas that are subjected to regular flooding (at least once in five years) and areas that usually remain out of reach of the flood waters. Based on this map, a new allocation of land uses is being made for the catchments of both Arga and Aragon rivers. The areas closest to the river channel will be designated for natural vegetation. River-associated habitat will be restored in areas that were disturbed by human activities. The next strip of land will be allocated for Poplar plantations and pastures that are compatible to regular floods. Non-irrigated arable lands, tolerant to occasional flooding will be situated further inland. Areas only subjected to irregular
56
flooding (i.e. less than once in five years) will be allocated for intensive agriculture and levees will be constructed to protect these areas from floods. In this way the area of land that could be flooded will be significantly increased, mitigating the risk of floods with deleterious effects on the local economy whilst boosting the potential for development of the river's natural dynamics. 4.4.3 Cross-border and cross-institutional elements There are no cross-border elements to this initiative. 4.4.4 Project outcome and lessons learnt The management plan implemented by GAVRN is a long-term initiative, and therefore many measures still have to be started. The first measures however, have already been undertaken as part of GERVE, a 1.6 million LIFE Nature project. Within this project, river forests and oxbows have been restored and levees were removed from floodplains. It is too early to assess the full scope of the effects of these initiatives, but those on nature look promising and the risk of floods to the towns of Funes and Peralta expectedly is significantly reduced.
Reallocation of land use in a catchment area and active management of flood regimes is considered a sound and commonsense solution to environmental and flood risk-related goals in the Arga and Aragon Rivers. Although rather time consuming and expensive in
57
the first stage, costs for nature development in subsequent stages are very low as renewed hydrogeomorphological processes take over a significant proportion of restoration activities. In addition reshaping nature by means of hydrogeomorphological processes is considered much more effective and natural compared to implementation of mechanical restoration activities. Therefore it can be concluded that restoration of a river's fluvial territory can be attractive from both an environmental and economic perspective. The project also demonstrates that it is possible to retain floods in such a way that they don't cause economic damage, but do fulfil their critical role in the maintenance of river-linked nature. The measures undertaken in Arga and Aragon rivers have a considerable impact on a large number of stakeholders in the region. To gain full support from such a large scale initiative it is necessary to incorporate all stakeholders in different stages of implementation and to inform partners on the importance of river dynamics to nature. Following this strategy it is possible to retain the huge natural values of rivers while minimising the impact of floods.
58
5.
THE NEED FOR A FLUVIAL TERRITORY OR ROOM FOR THE RIVER: LIVING WITH FLOODS BY ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS
Alfredo Ollero, University of Zaragoza, Spain, Josu Elso, Environmental Management of Navarra, Spain Purpose of the section: To provide a summary of the rationale and principles for a new approach to flood risk management that integrates the role of the natural environment. This builds on the previous sections which have shown the importance of wetland conservation, restoration and management to sustainable flood risk management and practices to achieve this.
5.1
Floods as natural processes and their importance for wetlands
Floods are essential episodes for wetland ecosystems, since they energize geomorphological and ecological processes, mobilizing much more sediment than the normal flows. In that way they renovate the substrates, enrich the diversity of habitats, rejuvenate the floodplain and increase the availability of habitats and spawning grounds for the aquatic biota. Therefore, the conservation of these processes is needed is needed if healthy ecosystems and the services associated with them are to be maintained. Without flooding the physical, biological and chemical processes maintaining ecosystem health are changed and this leads to less diverse systems with reduced social and economic value. Floods play a crucial role in the geomorphological dynamics of river systems by transport and redistribution of sediment, formation of sand and gravel banks, changing the channel morphology, the development of new channels and wetlands, rejuvenation of wetland vegetation, replenishment of nutrients and recharging of groundwater. Moreover, floods are essential for the ecological functioning of riverine communities. Floods not only control the population dynamics of the various wetland species and the dynamics of ecological interactions, but also their diversity. Floods also influence the distribution of species in wetlands; during a flood pulse the main river channel is connected with secondary channels and oxbow lakes, allowing an exchange of species and nutrients between the river channel and the floodplain, new sedimentary surfaces are generated and allow colonization by characteristic wetland species. During floods fish, invertebrates and plankton are exchanged between the river and floodplain lakes, fish may enter floodplain wetlands for spawning and foraging and nutrients from the river increases the productivity of wetland vegetation (Junk et al., 1989). It is therefore crucial for many riverine animal and plant communities that flood events occur in a natural frequency and periodicity, since they influence fish reproduction, macroinvertebrate distribution, plankton blooms and riparian vegetation development. If floods are suppressed, the lateral connectivity between the river and its floodplain wetland ecosystems are lost, limiting the input of nutrients to the floodplain and a widespread drawdown of the phreatic water levels may occur, leading to a deterioration of the quality of the ground water.
59
If floods and flow oscillations are completely eliminated, as they are in heavily regulated rivers, the wetland ecosystems grow old and loose their biodiversity. If floods are suppressed or limited through regulation work, the food networks are altered and biodiversity is reduced, dead wood is accumulated and the entrance of species from outside the river ecosystem is favoured. For example, riverside wetland forests in the middle Ebro and the low courses of river Aragon have been transformed considerably since the reservoir of Yesa was put in operation in the 1960s. These groves have matured more quickly than under natural conditions, showing a decrease in surface and vitality of the pioneer and edge vegetation. Today there are clear symptoms of senility in the arboreal stratum by lack of population renewal as a result of reduced river dynamics and reduced flows. This trend can lead in the next decades to a massive deterioration of these forests if the flows are not correctly managed from the reservoir. 5.2. Present problems in European rivers
Rivers systems and their wetlands are among the most damaged and threatened ecosystems of the world (Tockner & Stanford, 2002). Ignorance of the importance of natural dynamics within the river-floodplain area has contributed significantly to this and led to serious environmental consequences over the last decades. Dynesius & Nilsson (1994) show that at least 71% of the European and North American rivers have been drastically affected by reservoirs, transfers or important derivations of water. Infrastructure and works to improve flood defence are a very significant component of this. The major problems that alteration to improve flood defence has had on the hydromorphological and ecological function of many European rivers can be summarised as follows: Flood defence works (such as dikes and embankments), canalization, water deviation and dredging produce radical changes in the channel and bank geomorphology changing the flow conditions. These affect erosion, transport and sedimentation processes, eliminate the natural flood mitigation capacity, destroy wetland habitats and spawning areas. Furthermore the risks of flood defence failure often heighten the damage when floods do occur. Flood storage reservoirs and overflow channels change flow regimes typically reducing flood peaks and augmenting base flows in dry periods; these alter the hydromorphological functioning of rivers. Depending on where they are located and their design they can also negatively affect floodplain water table and groundwater dynamics, degrading wetland habitat even whilst there are no floods. The spiral process of land conversion-defence-speculation-flood-more defencemore speculation has become very normal. Once land conversion begins it often generates demand for further conversion. This further reduces space for natural ecosystems and can contribute to pollution that degrades remaining habitat.
60
In addition to the negative effects of flood defence there are a number of other drivers of wetland degradation that can affect wetland functioning. These can take place independently of flood defence but often the opportunity that this creates can promote these activities: Infrastructures in the riverbed or floodplain such as road bridges, oil pipelines and barrages alter the ecological functioning of the riverside corridor and fragment or isolate it from other habitats. As part of increasing productive use, natural floodplain forests have been replaced by commercial plantations (e.g. poplar) for quick growth and economic benefits. These plantations do not contribute to the hydromorphological functioning of rivers. Their vegetation structure is less dense at the ground level thereby increasing flood flow velocity and thereby increasing flooding. Mining and land excavations alter the longitudinal, vertical and lateral dynamics of the riverbeds and hyporrheic flows and phreatic level. These can negatively affect flood characteristics, increasing risk. Many secondary channels have been transformed into drains for irrigated lands, creating almost permanent flow conditions (whereas under natural conditions this would be ephemeral). These are well maintained and keep clear to improve drainage from fields. In flood conditions this decreases the response time from rainfall to peak river flow, increasing the likelihood of floods. 5.3 Why a fluvial territory or room for the river is needed
There are increasing reasons for a re-evaluation of the way we manage risk from floods and opportunities to implement them. For instance, with climate change, weather patterns are becoming more extreme leading to increased magnitude and frequency of flood events and associated damage. At the same time, consensus in Europe is being reached that in many areas the build them higher philosophy of past years with respect to flood defence is now largely discredited. Increasingly there is recognition that an important component of flood management is to find ways to allow flooding to still occur in part or all of the floodplain whilst planning other land-uses that can tolerate flooding or that are spatially restricted in areas less subject to flooding. In essence the different land-uses in a floodplain must be resilient to flooding and not try to prevent it happening at all. The case studies in this report illustrate this point well. Whilst wetlands are of importance and often of high socio-economic value, it is unrealistic to expect society to vacate or avoid development in floodplain areas altogether. In Europe this is an entirely unimaginable scenario. So many European urban, industrial and agricultural areas have developed in or grown into river floodplains that the emphasis must be on reaching the best solution for competing uses of floodplain land to co-exist. These uses must include use for natural river / wetland processes. This can be characterised as allowing room for the river or providing a fluvial territory for the river. This balances river ecosystems needs for natural processes (including flooding) to take place against the needs of other land users to securely occupy the floodplain. The achievement of that space is the key issue for the future of our rivers, especially for lowland rivers. The Fluvial Territory is a concept that the FLAPP partners consider as central to this. It can be defined as:
61
a space that includes a river channel and a riverside protected corridor or a wetland corridor, together with human uses not defended and therefore compatible with floods and the erosion of river banks. 5.4 Fluvial territory: key objectives and principles for its establishment
In order to preserve or recover the natural dynamics the river should have its own space and this should be as wide and continuous as possible. For the restoration of ecologically sound functioning, it is essential that the fluvial territory allows the following objectives to be fulfilled: a) To accommodate floods in a natural way and contribute to reduced peak flows. By allowing channel overflow inside the Fluvial Territory the flood wave can be reduced in volume and height, risk can be mitigated, defence costs reduced and compensations payments decreased. It is, in fact, a new defence system, a resiliency strategy (Vis et al., 2001) in front of the traditional resistance strategies, such as dikes, dredged and canalizations. b) To achieve multifunctionality inside the floodable territory. In the Fluvial Territory human activities can be developed as long as they are compatible with the flood or are covered by insurance. It is better to combine diverse activities in the same territory that compartmentalise spaces, so that the different land-use pressures are less intense and more easily recoverable. c) To maintain or to restore river hydrogeomorphological dynamics enabling lateral migration of the channel including key erosion, deposition and overflow processes are important to increase ecological diversity. d) To maintain or to restore the hydromorphological and ecological connectivity among the different components of the wetland landscape (i.e. the riverbed, the riverside corridor, the fluvial annexes and floodable areas) allowing transverse interactions in the system. e) To guarantee the ecological function of the river system through the use of wetland ecosystems as natural ecosystem buffers or created / artificial ecosystem buffers between the dynamic channel and the cultivated and humanized floodplain serving to improve water quality, increase the capacity of sedimentary recharge, impede the lineal incision of the flow and maintain high phreatic levels. f) To achieve "ecologically good status (Directive 2000/60/CE). These objectives reflect an ecologically sustainable approach to flood management and floodplain management in general. To achieve this will require that principles for planning and management also reflect this. Planning for a Fluvial Territory should be based on an understanding of the hydrogeomorphological and ecological processes and take note of past river dynamics. This is in marked contract to past approaches to river planning that have tended to be defined by political, economic and water user concerns. Natural processes develop and change over time and so planning should be able to adapt to this reality. The territory should not be considered to have permanent limits, but the option should be there for it to be revised periodically to adapt continually to the realities of fluvial dynamics (Urea and Ollero, 2000).
62
Fluvial Territory establishment has significant implications for existing land-use and flood defences. It will normally demand the elimination of the margin defences in the extensive floodplains of dynamic courses (such as breakwaters that avoid the erosion of the banks and hold the river channel impeding its dynamics) and the re-location of the dikes that protect from the flood in the limits of this Fluvial Territory. New dikes and flood defences may be necessary but these will need to be planned to account for natural river dynamics, wetland ecosystem needs as well as more traditional concerns such as defence of property and safety.
63
6.
POLICY ANALYSIS
Fred van den Brink, Province of Limburg, The Netherlands Purpose of section: To highlight the elements of the draft Flood Risk Management Directive that have relevance to the sustainable use and management of wetlands and related international legislation.
6.1
The role of wetlands in flood risk management: implications for the Flood Risk Management Directive.
6.1.1 Introduction In January 2006 the European Commission adopted its proposal for a Directive on the assessment and management of floods, the so-called Flood Risk Management Directive (FRMD) (COM, 2006). This directive is proposed to be ambitious in its scope but not prescriptive in its tools. In this legal instrument the following obligations for the Member States are proposed: - Preliminary flood risk assessment (FRMD, Chapter 2): areas where potential significant flood risks exist or are reasonably foreseeable in the future should be identified; - Flood risk maps (Chapter 3): flood risks would be mapped for the river basins and sub-basins with significant potential risk of flooding, in order to increase public awareness, support the process of prioritising, justifying and targeting investments and developing sustainable policies and strategies, and to support flood risk management plans, spatial planning and emergency plans. - Flood risk management plans (Chapter 4): based upon the flood risk assessment, flood risk management plans should be developed and implemented at river basin and/or sub-basin level to reduce and manage the flood risk. These plans would include the analysis and assessment of flood risk, the definition of the level of protection, and identification and implementation of sustainable measures applying the principle of solidarity: not passing on problems to upstream or downstream regions and preferably contributing to reduction of flood risks in upstream and downstream regions. - Coordination with Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC), public information and participation (FRMD, Chapter 5): the importance of close links with the WFD is emphasised in order to ensure close coordination in the implementation processes so that maximum synergies can be achieved. The same administrative units are used, which are the river basin districts and the competent authority responsible for the WFD shall also be responsible for the flood risk management actions. The implementation cycles and reporting mechanisms shall be synchronised. Member states can choose to include the flood risk management plans in the river basin management plans required under the WFD.
64
6.1.2 Significance of the FRMD for wetlands The draft FRMD presents a Directive to assist Member States in reducing the risk that floods present to human health, the environment, infrastructure and property. The aim is that this will be implemented alongside the Water Framework Directive which embraces the concepts of sustainability in the use and management of water and associated quality. This latter Directive also places a strong emphasis on maintaining the ecological quality of the environment; it is based on a system of indicators of water quality to a large extent referring to ecological criteria. Furthermore, in its preamble statements referring to the need for wise use of wetlands and the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment based on the precautionary principle are key paragraphs. Therefore it can be assumed that the implementation of the FRMD will need to sustainably reduce the risk from flooding, taking full account of the environment including wetlands. FLAPP partners focusing on ecologically sustainable water management feel that the Directive as it is currently drafted whilst offering opportunities for nature development and sustainable use of existing natural areas could be stronger. Wetlands are not mentioned anywhere within the draft Directive text and references to the environment and sustainability are often not very strong. In fact, in the Explanatory memorandum that precedes the draft Directive, it is stated that Floods can also destroy wetland areas and reduce biodiversity. It is accepted that this statement is made in the context of water quality problems associated with flooding, however it is disappointing that correspondingly positive statements regarding wetlands and their role in flood management / dependency on floods are not made anywhere. In short, the Directive predominantly focuses on floods as a negative phenomenon for people and nature. This is especially surprising when in 1995 the Commission adopted a Communication on Wise use and conservation of wetlands ((COM(95) 189 final) in which wetland importance, their dependency on and role in flood control and the need for sustainable use and management is clearly articulated (EU 1995). This document is also referred to in the preamble of the Water Framework Directive. It can be argued that linkage to the Water Framework Directive and a requirement that the draft FRMD be implemented through the same competent authorities will ensure synchronisation and that key environmental management and sustainability issues will be addressed. However, in reality competent authorities addressing these issues are often divided into large and substantive divisions that focus on water quality and flood management separately. No doubt through the new Directive these barriers will be broken down over time (there are specific Articles that once implemented will lead to this), but it would seem sensible at this stage to highlight these issues in the new Directive as well as in the Water Framework Directive. With these concerns in mind, the FLAPP partners have analysed the draft FRMD. The following section highlights key articles that offer opportunities for sustainable approaches to flood management and where they feel amendments could ensure that issues of sustainability and wetland management are better addressed.
65
6.1.2.1 Preliminary flood risk assessment FRMD, Chapter 2, Preliminary flood risk assessment Article 4 (2) The preliminary flood risk assessment shall include at least the following: . c) a description of flooding processes and their sensitivity to change, including the role of floodplain areas as a natural retention/buffer of floods and flood conveyance routes now or in the future. This is probably the strongest section of the Directive with respect to consideration of wetlands and unfortunately the Directive does not refer further to this role or how to use this information. It is an important notion with relevance for the use of wetlands as natural buffers for temporal storage of excessive water, flood retention and flow regulation (see Section 2.3). Indeed, the zoning of flood prone areas as ecological reserves or protected wetlands is nowadays an element of developing room for the river (Van Stokkom, & Smits, 2002; Van Leussen & Kindler, 2006), a recognized sustainable approach to flood management and nature development (see Section 5.3). Since periods with excessive water are expected to increase as a result of climate change, and since the spatial pressure on wetlands is likely to increase as a result of population growth and economic development, it is absolutely necessary to reserve room for river floods in spatial plans. Despite being generally positive, this sub-paragraph could still be further strengthened. In addition to floodplains, wet forests on hill slopes or peaty flatland areas in the small upstream tributaries of large rivers, thus outside the large floodplains in downstream areas, can play an important role in this with respect to their water storage capacity (Van Leussen et al., 2000). These processes should also be considered in the context of preliminary flood risk assessment when describing flooding processes. 6.1.2.2 Flood risk maps FRMD, Chapter 3, Flood risk maps Article 7. Member States shall at the level of the river basin district, prepare flood maps and indicative flood damage maps.. This Article requires Member States to develop maps of flood risk providing information on flood probability, characteristics and the potential for damage. This is to also include potential damage to the environment. As such this seems a relatively narrow view that adopts the view that the only consequence of flooding is damage. As already outlined above, floods can be integral to wetlands and as a result provide positive benefits to people. Therefore there is a strong argument to include a requirement to map additional information regarding the areas where flooding can be considered beneficial or where flooding contributes to the reduction of risk elsewhere. The following could be added to the type of information that Member States are required to include in maps: Existing wetlands that require regular flooding for their sustainable management and use; Existing wetlands that contribute to the reduction of flood risk in other areas through their retention or detention of floodwaters; Other land-uses that could be converted to or restored to functioning wetland. Existing wetlands are often remains of a former larger wetland area that has been converted to other uses (e.g. agriculture; the Aragon case study above is a good example of this). Therefore where feasible, an extension of these nature reserves by nature
66
development and floodplain restoration (transforming former farmland into nature reserves) may in fact enlarge the flood retention capacity and may help to reduce the effects of floods in downstream areas (e.g. Potter, 1994; Zedler, 2003); Nature areas which are sensitive to flooding with eutrophic or otherwise polluted river water.
The advantage of this more extensive mapping is that an integrated approach is possible, which takes into account both the benefits and the possible damages of floods in relation to all spatial functions. This can help ensure that flood prevention or flood reduction measures for economic or social functions will not have adverse effects on the functions and services of nature areas.
6.1.2.3 Flood risk management plans FRMD, Chapter 4, Flood risk management plans Article 9 (2). Member States shall establish appropriate levels of protection specific to each river basin, sub basin or stretch of coast line, focusing on the reduction of the probability of flooding and of potential consequences of flooding to human health, the environment and economic activity, and taking into account relevant aspects: water management, soil management, spatial planning, land use and nature conservation. Under the FRMD, flood risk management plans should include the analysis and assessment of flood risk, the definition of the levels of flood risk protection as well as the measures to be taken to reach the protection levels, with emphasis on prevention, protection and awareness. The flood risk protection levels and measures should take into account aspects of nature conservation, which means that wetlands may contribute to flood risk management, but the proposed measures should preferably contribute to the ecological functioning of wetlands and should not lead to a loss of nature values (see also the statements under 1.2.2.). Furthermore there is no guidance given concerning what relevant aspects should constitute. It would be useful were some sort of guidance of what the key aspects should be. The section below summarises some of the key international policy and legislation that should be taken into account. However, there will be many elements of this that Member States will need to address.
67
FRMD, Chapter 4, Flood risk management plans Article 9 (3). The flood risk management plans shall include measures that aim at achieving the levels of protection established in accordance with paragraph 2. The recommendations of the FRMD at the operational level on the kind of measures to be taken are rather weak. Although the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity are addressed, a recommendation on source and nature orientated measures would be appropriate and in line with the Water Framework Directive, which demands a good ecological status (or potential) of water bodies and ground water dependent ecosystems. A recommendation that flood prevention and flood reduction measures should be based on the principles of sustainability, taking full account of the ecological component of this term, should be included in the directive, thereby embracing the principles of the WFD. Restoration of the hydromorphology may contribute to both the ecological functioning as well as sustainable flood risk management. FRMD, Chapter 4, Flood risk management plans Article 9 (4). Flood risk management measures taken in one Member State must not increase flood risks in neighbouring countries. The principle of solidarity has to be applied to the implementation of sustainable measures: not passing on problems to upstream or downstream regions and preferably contributing to reduction of flood risks in upstream and downstream regions. The draft Directive could benefit from additional guidance on what this practically means. In the context of wetlands there are a number of issues related to the way that wetlands are dependent on flooding and can contribute to reduction of risk. Measures are only effective when coordinated throughout the entire catchment area. This stresses the importance of cross-border initiatives both in terms of coordinating measures throughout a catchment and in addressing water management issues in transboundary wetlands. Water conservation measures in infiltration areas in upstream reaches are complementary to flood prevention and mitigation measures in downstream parts. The downstream region may benefit from the measures taken upstream and may participate financially in sustainable flood retention measures, such as the ecological development and reactivation of floodplains. For transboundary wetlands it is absolutely necessary to adjust the water management on both sides of the border, a joint flood defence strategy should be based upon a river basin approach. 6.1.2.4 Synergy with WFD FRMD, Chapter 5, Coordination with Directive 2000/60/EC, etc. Article 13 (1). The development of the first flood risk maps and their subsequent reviews as referred to in Article 8 of this Directive, shall be carried out in close co-ordination with and, if considered appropriate, integrated into the reviews provided for in Article 5 (2) of Directive 2000/60/EC. According to the FRMD, the synergy between the FRMD and the WFD should be strengthened. Additional guidance to Member States would be of use in realising this as it is of particular importance for the wise use and conservation of wetlands. Both Directives underline the approaches of river catchments as management units and integrated water management as a guiding principle. The WFD focuses on water quality and the conservation and restoration of the Natura 2000 areas, which includes many wetlands.
68
When the ecological functioning of these wetlands should improve or at least be conserved, it means that ecologically relevant processes, such as flooding are important and should be maintained in function as well. Flood protection measures should take into account the importance of natural flood regimes for the ecological functioning and hence the conservation of biodiversity of riverine wetlands. In the context of the FRMD the role of floods for the ecological functioning of wetlands and the conservation of the biodiversity of wetlands should be addressed as well as their possible role in the improvement of the water quality. 7. NEED, SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FLOOD MANAGEMENT
Purpose of the section: To present a synthesis of the previous sections to provide a vision for sustainable flood management, with particular focus on cross-border areas and a series of policy and practical recommendations
7.1
Introduction
The preceding sections have presented an analysis of the relationship between wetlands and flooding considering wetland values, European wetland importance, current river management practices and current best practice examples of sustainable flood risk management that integrates the ecological dimension. Against this background, the potential implications and areas of concern of the developing EU Flood Risk Management Directive with respect to wetlands has also been considered. In this final section a vision for sustainable flood management is presented that integrates these elements and concerns. Finally a series of recommendations are made. This represents the views of the FLAPP partners involved in Component 4 who were tasked to consider ecologically sustainable water management during the project. 7.2 Need for sustainable flood risk management
In recent years many European countries suffered from floods. Floods are natural, climatologic driven processes and part of the hydrological cycle of rainfall, surface and groundwater flow and storage. Their amplitude, frequency, duration and impact depend on natural characteristics and man-induced changes within the entire catchment area. It is clear that flooding cannot entirely be prevented and will continue in future. Due to climate change a further increase in floods can be expected as a result of extreme weather events and sea level rise. However, under natural circumstances, river basins have an enormous resilience towards the impact of floods, since floodplains and associated wetlands have a natural function for storage and conveyance of floods during high river discharges. This resilience capacity has been reduced considerably in many European rivers (particularly in Western Europe) by human activities and interventions into the natural processes within the river catchment. River regulation, embankments, reduction of the original floodplain areas together with human alteration in the drainage patterns from urbanization, agricultural practices and deforestation have contributed to adverse impacts of flood events on human health and
69
safety, valuable goods and property and the aquatic and terrestrial environment. The ongoing occupation of floodplains has not only increased the opportunity and therefore risk of potential damage, but has also resulted in a loss of ecological, economic and social services of these wetlands. Simultaneously, the increasing investments in safety have lowered peoples awareness of flood risks. As well as the possible negative impacts, floods can be beneficial to society. Floods supply the floodplain with sediment and nutrients, which was part of the reason for early settlement and agricultural development in floodplains. Moreover, floods are essential for the ecological functioning of wetlands, for the connection between the river and its floodplain ecosystems and the rejuvenation of floodplain habitats, thereby contributing to the biodiversity in the entire river ecosystem. Wetlands (including river and lake aquatic ecosystems) are natural systems, protected by international commitments (e.g. Ramsar Convention, EU Habitats and Birds Directives and the Convention on Biodiversity), that provide benefits to nature and to people. Consisting of a large number of habitat types, they are home to an impressive diversity of plants and animals species. They perform important services to people, among others as sources of food (fish, meat), as agricultural land and for harvest of semi-aquatic products (reeds, fibres, wood). The livelihoods of many people (particularly in Eastern Europe) are directly related to these services. In addition, intact wetlands perform highly valued social services (aesthetic value, recreation, education, ceremonies). There are many different types of wetlands that occur in association with rivers and whose presence and functioning is integrally related to the flooding pattern and regime of the river. 7.3 A shift towards sustainable flood management: strategy and possible solutions
Growing environmental concern and the notion that the process of river regulation and dike improvement indeed increases the risk of flood hazards call for a more sustainable approach to flood management. In order to deal with threats posed by climate change and higher environmental standards required by the EU Water Framework Directive, a shift within flood management from the traditional fragmented defence strategy towards an integrated resilience strategy is needed. Sustainable flood management is directed towards the water system in the river basin as a whole, taking into account the various ecological, social and economic functions and uses of the water system, and keeping them in balance, now and in the future. This means that strategy, policy and measures on the prevention, mitigation and protection of floods should be based upon a holistic approach. It requires (inter)national cooperation on the catchment scale, integration of land and water management, spatial planning and integration of the various functions and uses of water. Transboundary cooperation and cross-border initiatives are very important, since strategy, policy and measures are most effective when coordinated throughout the entire catchment area. For example, water retaining measures in infiltration areas in upstream reaches (e.g. in the upstream country) are complementary to flood prevention and mitigation measures in downstream parts. The downstream region may benefit from the measures taken upstream and may participate in sustainable flood retention measures, such as the ecological reactivation of floodplains. In Europe there are many border areas that are
70
characterised by wetlands; historically the presence of the wetland and its associated impenetrability has often formed part of the rationale for the border. Therefore management of cross-border wetlands is a critical part of sustainable flood management in Europe and should be based upon a river basin approach. Integration between water management, land management and spatial planning is extremely important in sustainable flood management, since this forms the basis of the resilience strategy. In order to strengthen the resilience capacity, it is essential to reserve more room for the river in spatial plans, not only in order to mitigate the present floods, but also in order to deal with the consequences of climate change. A possible expansion of the present wetlands by nature development and floodplain restoration (transforming former farmland into nature reserves) may enlarge the flood retention capacity and may help to reduce the effects of floods in urbanized downstream areas. Sustainable flood management can offer opportunities to restore wetlands and this option should be considered whenever possible. There are a number of important principles that should be borne in mind when planning for this. Central to these is that the river should have its own space and this should be as wide and continuous as possible to enable ecological conditions in wetlands to be as natural as possible. This could be defined as a rivers Fluvial Territory and should be defined by natural processes and boundaries as far as possible and not social, political boundaries. In fact, the need for flood management can be seen as a response to land-use pressures. If land use pressures change, such as with declining agricultural profitability, the need for protection may also decline. Sustainable flood management requires integration between the various functions and uses of water. Whenever measures are taken to protect and safeguard one of the functions, this should not lead to a (further) loss of the natural resilience of the river basin. Where rivers are regulated for flood defence or where new or additional flood defence measures are planned in order to protect urban areas, it is essential that the importance of ecological floods for wetlands is taken into account. Failure to do this in Europe has already had a dramatic effect on many of the natural wetland ecosystems associated with rivers and their flooding regimes. In many instances this has had a knock-on effect on the way of life and livelihood of many people. Changes to the flooding regime of a river will often negatively affect the functioning of associated wetlands and therefore the benefits to people and to nature; it is therefore important that any plans to alter the flooding regime of a wetland are considered carefully in relation to the way that the functioning of wetlands is affected. Flood proof building, such as floating houses and offices, in combination with inland dike relocation, floodplain lowering and ecological restoration of floodplains and associated wetlands are good examples of integrating safety with other functions, such as housing, economy (services, recreation, tourism), nature conservation and landscape development.
71
Sustainable water management forms the heart of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), which is now being implemented by the member states. The development of the Flood Risk Management Directive (FRMD), as a daughter directive under the WFD, is an important step forward towards sustainable flood management. However, since the FRMD is not descriptive in its proposed measures, the development of a guidance document on sustainable flood management, with special attention to the role of wetlands in flood management, will be needed in order to fulfil the demands of sustainable flood management. 7.4 Recommendations to achieve sustainable flood management.
The following recommendations are considered necessary to enable sustainable flood risk management in Europe to become a reality. 1. Develop a common framework to enable joint implementation of FRMD and WFD to ensure that issues of ecological sustainability encapsulated in the WFD are taken into account by the FRMD. Such a framework needs to be developed if these two Directives are to be implemented together in a way that takes account of the ecological value of water bodies / wetlands. 2. Develop a guidance document for the implementation of the FRMD that takes into account the importance of wetlands in the regulation of flooding and the importance of flooding for healthy wetlands. One option would be to revise the Horizontal Guidance document for Wetlands that has been developed for the implementation of the WFD. 3. Place nature conservation and management at the heart of flood risk management planning by developing a policy guidance document that explains the principles and approaches to the room for the river or fluvial territory concept for all European countries. 4. Develop European wide standards for the valuation of floodplain wetland ecosystems that enable routine cost / benefit analyses of floodplain development / flood defence measures to routinely take account of wetland value. 5. Develop policy advice to funders of flood risk management initiatives that recommend adopting an integrated basin approach that fully adopts an ecosystem approach. 6. Pilot joint implementation of the FRMD and WFD in demonstration catchments to explore challenges and develop best practices from which European implementing agencies can learn. 7. Develop a European database of wetlands that describes their distribution and potential importance to flood risk management and their vulnerability to change. 8. Develop a toolkit for transboundary water bodies / wetlands that guides riparian countries in the process of joint management for flood risk management and nature objectives.
72
8.
LITERATURE
Aarts, B.G.W., F.W.B. van den Brink & P.H. Nienhuis, 2004. Habitat loss as the main cause of the slow recovery of fish faunas in regulated large rivers in Europe: the transversal floodplain gradient. River Research and Applications 20: 3-23. Allan, J.D. & A.S. Flecker, 1993. Biodiversity conservation in running waters. Bioscience 43: 32-43. Baptist, M.J., M. Haasnoot, P. Cornelissen, J. Icke, G. van der Wedden, H.J. de Vriend & G. Gugic, 2006. Flood detention, nature development and water quality along the lowland river sava, Croatia. Hydrobiologia 565: 243-257. In: Living Rivers: Trends, and challenges in science and management. R.S.E.W. Leuven. A.M.J. Ragas, A.J.M. Smits & G. van der Velde (eds.). Breukel, R.M.A. & J.G. Timmermans, 1996. UN/ECE task force monitoring and assessment volume1: transboundary rivers and international lakes. Ministry of transport, public works and water management, RIZA Institute for land and water management and waste water treatment, Lelystad, the Netherlands. 54 pp. Bullock, A. and Acreman M., 2003. The role of wetlands in the hydrological cycle. Hydrology and earth System Sciences 7(3): 358-389. Crumpton, W., 2001. Using wetlands for water quality improvement in agricultural watersheds: The importance of a watershed scale approach. Water Science and Technology 11: 559-564. Dynesius, M. & Nilsson, C. (1994): Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science, 266: 753-762. Geerling , G.W., A.M.J. Ragas, R.S.E.W. Leuven, J.H. van den Berg, M. Breedveld, D. Liefhebber and A.J.M. Smits, 2006. Succession and rejuvenation in floodplains along the river Allier (France). In: Living Rivers: Trends, and challenges in science and management. R.S.E.W. Leuven. A.M.J. Ragas, A.J.M. Smits & G. van der Velde (eds.). Hydrobiologia 565: 71-86. IPPC, 2001. Third Assessment Report. Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva (CHE)/Cambridge University Press, Port Chester, New York, USA. IUCN, 2006. www.iucn.org./en/news/archive/2006/02/02 Junk, W.J., P.B. Bayley, R.E. Sparks, 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106: 110-127. Junk, W.J. & K.M. Wantzen, 2004. The flood pulse concept: new aspects, approaches and applications an update. Proceeding of the 2nd international symposium of the
73
management of large rivers for fisheries. Vol. II: 117-140. (R.C. Welcomme & T. Petr, eds.) FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. Lamers, L.P.M., R. Lob, A.M. Antheunisse, M. Miletto, E.C.H.E.T. Lucassen, A.W. Boxman, A.J.P. Smolders and J.G.M. Roelofs, 2006. Biogeochemical constrains on the ecological rehabilitation of wetland vegetation in river floodplains. In: Living Rivers: Trends, and challenges in science and management. (R.S.E.W. Leuven. A.M.J. Ragas, A.J.M. Smits & G. van der Velde, eds.). Hydrobiologia 565: 165-186. Loon-Steensma, J.M. van & J.C.M. van Oord, 1999. Biodiversity protection of transboundary rivers and wetlands in Central Europe. Overviews of transboundary rivers and related wetlands of value for biodiversity and of current activities and projects on the management and protection of transboundary rivers and Wetlands. Wetlands International unpublished data, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 179 pp. Malavoi, J.R. (1998): L'espace Determination of I liberated you give cours d'eau. SDAGE Rhne-Mditerrane-corset, 39 p., Lyon. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and water synthesis. World resources Institute, Washington, USA. 68 pp. Poff, N.L, J.D. Allen, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E Sparks and J.E. Stromberg, 1997. The natural flow regime. A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47 (11): 769-784. Potter, K.W., 1994. Estimating potential reduction flood benefits of restored wetlands. Water Resources Update 97: 34-38. Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2005, Regional overview of the implementation of the Convention and its Strategic Plan 2003 - 2008 in Europe. Information Document, 9th Conference of Parties, Uganda (Ramsar COP9 DOC. 11). Sense, M.; Klijn, F. & Buuren, M. they go (Eds., 2001): Living with floods. Resilience strategies for flood risk management and multiple land uses in the lower Rhine River basin. The Netherlands Centers for River Studies (NCR), Delft. Tockner, K. & Stanford, J.A. (2002): Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Environmental Conservation, 29: 308-330. Urea, J.M. and Ollero, A. (2000): Approaches and proposals for the ordination of fluvial areas. City and territory, Territorial Studies, XXXII (126): 689-710. Van den Brink, F.W.B., 1994. Impact of hydrology on foodplain lake ecosystems along the lower Rhine and Meuse. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Van den Brink, F.W.B., G. van der Velde, A.D. Buijse & A.G. Klink, 1996. Biodiversity in the lower Rhine and Meuse river-floodplains: its significance for ecological river management. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology 30: 129-149.
74
Van Leussen, W. & J. Kindler, 2006. Policy making and implementation. In: Floods, from defence to management. In: Symposium Proceedings of the 3rd International symposium on flood defence: pp-pp. (J. Van Alphen, E. Van Beek & M. Taal, eds.) Taylor & Francis Group, London. Van Leussen, W., G. Kater & P.P.M. van Meel, 2000. Muliti-level approach to flood control in the Dutch part of the River Meuse. In: New approaches to river management: 287-305. (A.J.M. Smits, P.H. Nienhuis & R.S.E.W. Leuven, eds.) Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. Van Oorschot, M.M.P., 1996. Effects of the vegetation on carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in English and French riverine grassland. Ph.D. Thesis. University Utrecht, The Netherlands. Van Strokkom, H.T.C. & A.J.M. Smits, 2002. Key note lecture: Flood defence in the Netherlands: a new era, a new approach. In: Symposium Proceedings of the 3rd International symposium on flood defence: 34-47. (Wu et al., eds.) Science Press, New York, USA. Zedler, J., 2003. Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology, vol. I (2): 65-72. Online references: www.iksr.org www.Ramsar.org www.rivernet.org www.wetlands.org/RSDB
75
9.
ANNEXES
9.1
Annex 1. List of FLAPP Component 4 Partners
Partners Irish Central Border Area Network (ICBAN) Irish Central Border Area Network (ICBAN) Dienst Landelijk Gebied / Service for land and water management Roer and Overmaas Waterboard Central Bureau for Flood Protection, Cologne Province of Limburg Province of Limburg Environmental Management, Nurseries and Alforestation of Navarra, PLC North Transdanubian Water Authority North Transdanubian Water Authority North Transdanubian Water Authority The local government of the second district of the city of Budapest Province Vlaams-Brabant Province Vlaams-Brabant Wetlands International
Country UK UK NL NL DE NL NL ES HU HU HU HU BE BE NL
Contact person Gretta McCarron Godfrey McCartney Evert Kloosterboer Harry Tolkamp Yvonne Wieczorrek Fred van den Brink Jan Peter Ruitenberg Josu Elso Istvn Lng Emil Jank Mikls Pannonhalmi Bengedz Elod Varga Mieke De Wilde Frederik Vanlerberghe Chris Baker
76
9.2
Annex 2. Ramsar datasheet: example
Ramsar report for Evros Delta Country: Greece Region: Europe Ramsar Site No.: 54 Wetlands International Site Reference No.: 3GR001
General and Geographical site information: Subregion: Southern Europe Geographical position: Marine & coastal wetlands Designation Date: 21-08-1975 Coordinates of site center (degrees): 4050'N 02604'E Coordinates of site center (decimal lat long):40,83 26,07 Total site area: 9267 hectares Minimum elevation: -1 meters Maximum elevation: 1 meters Transboundary: yes Boundary changes: yes, has decreased Number of separate units: 1 Administrative region: Thraki and Evros
Information on Conservational Issues: Restoration status: Implemented/ing approved site-specific plan/measures, for part(s) of site (P) Management plan status: Implemented/ing approved site-specific plan/measures International conservation designation: EC Special Protection Areas National conservation designation: game refuge Ramsar dates: 01-01-1988: Year that site was covered by a Ramsar Advisory Mission 01-01-1989: Year that site was covered by a Ramsar Advisory Mission 07-04-1990: Previous Montreux record date 18-05-1999: Date of removal from Montreux record Ramsar criteria: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
77
Uses and Threats: Current land use: Within the site's surroundings/catchment: Urban development Non-urbanized settlements Fishing (unspecified) Permanent pastoral agriculture Permanent arable agriculture Within the Ramsar site: Research Education site Birdwatching Hunting (unspecified) Fishing (unspecified) Habitat/nature conservation Aquaculture (unspecified) Irrigation Permanent pastoral agriculture Agriculture (unspecified) Threats: Within the site's surroundings/catchment: Pesticide/herbicide pollution Industrial waste pollution Fertilizer pollution Unspecified agricultural runoff Drainage/reclamation for agriculture Agricultural development impacts Within the Ramsar site: Domestic sewage pollution Over-fishing Overgrazing by domestic livestock Drainage/reclamation for agriculture Agricultural development impacts
Ecological Data: Wetland Category: Man-made wetlands Inland wetlands Marine & coastal wetlands
Wetland Type (dominant type in bold): Canals and drainage channels, ditches (9) Water storage areas; reservoirs/barrages/dams/impoundments; (generally over 8 ha) (6) Aquaculture (e.g. fish/shrimp) ponds (1) Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes/pools on inorganic soil; includes sloughs, potholes, seasonally flooded meadows, sedge marshes (Ts) Permanent freshwater marshes/pools; ponds (below 8 ha), marshes and swamps on inorganic soils; with emergent vegetation water-logged for at least most of the growing season (Tp) Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes floodplain lakes (P) Permanent rivers/streams/creeks; includes waterfalls (M) Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons (K) Coastal brackish/saline lagoons; brackish to saline lagoons with at least one relatively narrow connection to the sea (J) Intertidal marshes; includes salt marshes, salt meadows, saltings, raised salt marshes; includes tidal brackish and freshwater marshes (H) Estuarine waters; permanent water of estuaries and estuarine systems of deltas (F) Permanent shallow marine waters in most cases less than six metres deep at low tide; includes sea bays and straits (A)
78
Excessive hunting of species Habitat loss/destruction/fragmentation Social and cultural values: Current scientific research Livestock grazing Unspecified fishing Conservation education Land tenure/ownership: Site's surroundings: Provincial/region/state Private owner(s) Local authority, municipality, (sub)district, etc Within the Ramsar site: National/federal Ecological Changes: Significant/substantial negative changes are occurring Significant negative changes occurring since designation Physical Data: Salinity: Euhaline/Eusaline Mixohaline (brackish)/Mixosaline Fresh Permanence: Usually seasonal/intermittent Usually permanent
Biological Values: Fauna type: supports rare/endangered bird species waterbird wintering/non-breeding/dry season area staging area for migratory waterbird species breeding area for waterbirds aquatic mammals present important for invertebrates important for fishes
Flora type: supports rare/endangered species
Soil type: Predominantly mineral Hydrological values: Maintenance of water quality (removal of nutrients) Flood storage and desynchronisation of flood peaks
79
9.3
Annex 3. Characteristics, values and threats of transboundary Ramsar sites in Europe1
Ramsar site
Main country2
Dominant wetland type3
Values and uses
Threats Str. modifications Flood mitigation
Hydrological values Sediment trapping S FR M M M S S S Flow regulation FR FR -
Butrint Lake Shkodra and River Buna Neusiedlersee-Seewinkel Donau-March-Auen Stauseen am Unteren Inn Rheindelta Bodensee Waldviertel ponds, peatbogs & floodplains Bayerische Wildalm and Wildalmfilz Olmany Mires Zakaznik Kotra Prostyr Schorren van de Beneden Schelde Zwin
Albania Albania Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Belarus Belarus Belarus Belgium Belgium
Marine water (J) Lake (O), Marine water (A) Lake (Q) Temporal pool/floodplain (Xf) River (M) Delta (L) Lake (1), peatland (U), River (M) Peatland (U) Marsh (Tp) Peatland (Xp), temporal pool/floodplain (Xf), marsh (Tp) Marsh (W), peatland (U) Delta (F) Marine area (G, H)
A A A A A A A A A A A A A
80
F H H F F F F F F H H H H H H F F H
R R R R R R R R R T T T
D D D D D D
P P P P P
S S S
FM FM FM FM FM FM M
D S T D D D P FM FM -
R R
Maint. water quality
Agriculture Harvest of materials Fishing
Recreation Traditional cultural Drainage
Pollution
Hunting
Kalmthoutse Heide Valle de la Haute-Sre Ramsar site
Belgium Belgium Main country2
Peatland (U) Marsh (W) Dominant wetland type3
A A
R R
D P Threats Str. modifications
Values and uses
Hydrological values Sediment trapping S S M M Flood mitigation Flow regulation -
Hutovo Blato Srbarna Belene Islands Complex Ibisha Island Kopacki Rit Lonjsko Polje & Mokro Polje Delta Neretve Sumavsk raseliniste (Sumava peatlands) Mokrady dolnho Podyj (floodplain of lower Dyje River) Krkonosk raseliniste (Krkonose mountains mires) Vadehavet (Wadden Sea) Emajoe Suursoo Mire and Piirissaar Island Nigula Nature Reserve Kainuunkyl Islands
Bosnia & Herzegovina Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria Croatia Croatia Croatia Czech republic Czech republic Czech republic Denmark Estonia Estonia Finland
Temporal pool/floodplain (Ts), Lake (O), River (M) Marsh (Tp) Temporal pool/floodplain (Xf), river (M) Marsh (Tp) Temporal pool/floodplain(Ts) Delta (F) Peatland (U) Lake (6), temporal pool/floodplain (Xf) Peatland (U) Marine water (A) Peatland (Xp, U), temporal pool/floodplain Peatland (Xp, U) Marine water (M),
A A A A A A
H H
F F F F
S S S
FM FM -
D H H R H R D D D P P P
FM S
R R
A A A
F F F
81
H H
R R R R T T
P P P
Maint. water quality M M
Pollution
Hunting
Ltseno-Hietajoki Mires Siikalahti Bay Asevenea Ramsar site
Finland Finland Main country2
temporal pool/floodplain (Ts) Peatland (U), river (M) Lake (O), marsh (Tp) temporal pool/flood plain (W) Dominant wetland type3
A A
H H
R R
T D
P P
FM
Values and uses
Threats Str. modifications Flood mitigation
Hydrological values Sediment trapping S S M Flow regulation -
Basse-Mana Rives du Lac Lman Unteres Odertal, Schwedt Bodensee: Wollmatinger Ried - Giehrenmoos & Mindelsee Wattenmeer, Ostfriesisches Wattenmeer & Dollart Unterer Niederrhein Unterer Inn, Haiming Neuhaus Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea and adjacent areas Lake Mikri Prespa Artificial Lake Kerkini Evros Delta Szaporca Pusztaszer
France France Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Greece Greece Greece Hungary Hungary
Delta (F), marine water (A) Lake (O) Temporal pool/floodplain (Ts) Lake (O) Marine water (G) River (M) Lake (6) Marine water (A, B, G) Lake (O) Lake (6) Delta (F) Lake(O) Lake(1)
A A A A A A A A A A A A
82
F F F
R R
D D -
P P P M -
R R
P P S
FM FM
F F F F F F H H H R R R R R R D D D P P P P P
FM FM FM
Pollution
Hunting
Bda-Karapancsa Biharugra Fishponds Lake Fert Baradla Cave System and related wetlands Ipoly Valley Fels-Tisza (Upper Tisza) Ramsar site
Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Main country2
River (M) Lake (1) Lake (Q) Subterannean system (Zk(b) Marsh (Tp), temporal pool/floodplain (Ts) Temporal pool/floodplain(Ts) Dominant wetland type3
A A A A A A H
F F F
H H
R R R R
P P P P T P P Threats Str. modifications
FM
F F H
R R
FM FM FR
Values and uses
Hydrological values Sediment trapping S S S FR M Flood mitigation Flow regulation FR FR FR
Northern Bogs (Ziemelu purvi) Pape Wetland Complex Cepkeliai Haff Rimech Valle de la Haute-Sre Lake Prespa Lower Prut Lakes Lower Dniester (Nistru de Jos) Unguri-Holosnita Bargerveen Waddenzee (Wadden Sea) Waddeneilanden,
Latvia Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Luxembourg The former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia Moldova Moldova Moldova Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands
Peatland (U) Marine water (A) Peatland (U) Marsh (Tp) Marsh (W) Lake (O) Lake (O) Temporal pool/floodplain (Xf) River (M,N) Peatland (U) Marine area (G) Delta(K), Marine water (A,
A A A A A A A A A A A A
H H
F F
R R R R R
D D
S M
F F
FM
P F F F F
83
FM S S FM -
H H
R R R R
T T
D -
P P P
Pollution
Hunting
Noordzeekustzone, Breebaart Westerschelde en Verdronken Land van Saeftinge Pasvik Nature Reserve Kvisleflet Biebrza National Park Slonsk Reserve Jezioro Siedmiu Wysp Poleski National Park Subalpine peatbogs in Karkonosze Mountains Ramsar site
E) Netherlands Norway Norway Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Main country2 Delta (F) Lake (O), river (M), peatland Peatland (U) River (M) Lake (6) Marsh (Tp) Lake (O, Q) Peatland (U) Dominant wetland type3 A F F H A A A A F F F F H H R H H R R Values and uses R D T P P P P Threats Str. modifications Flood mitigation S S R R P S S FM FM FM -
FM Hydrological values Sediment trapping S S S Flow regulation FR -
Sapais de Castro Marim Danube Delta Mures Floodplain Volga Delta Torey Lakes Khingano-Arkharinskaya Lowland Lake Khanka
Portugal Romania Romania Russian federation Russian federation Russian federation Russian federation
Marine water (H) Delta(F) Temporal pool/floodplain (Xf, 4) Delta (L) Lake (Q), temporal pool/floodplain (R) Marsh (Tp), temporal pool/floodplain (Ts) Lake(O), temporal pool/floodplain (Ts)
A A A A A A A
F F F
H H H
R R R R R
T P T D P P T
S S S
FM FM
F F
F
84
Maint. water quality M M M
Pollution
Hunting
Kurgalski Peninsula Zeya-Bureya plain Pskovsko-Chudskaya Lowland Tobol-Ishim Forest-steppe Skadarsko Jezero Dunajsk luhy (Danube floodplains) Poiplie Ramsar site
Russian federation Russian federation Russian federation Russian federation Serbia and Montenegro Slovak republic Slovak republic Main country
2
Marine water (A), Peatland (U) Temporal pool/floodplain (Ts) Delta(L), Lake(O) Lake(O, Q) Lake (O) Temporal pool/floodplain (Xf) River (M) Dominant wetland type
3
A A A A
F F F F F H H H H R R R R R R
P P P P Threats Str. modifications S
FM FM FM Hydrological values Sediment trapping S S S Flood mitigation Flow regulation M S -
A A
F F
Values and uses
Latorica Tisa River Moravsk luhy (Morava floodplains) Domica Wetlands of the Orava Basin Skocjanske Jame Secoveljske soline (Secovlje salt pans)
Slovak republic Slovak republic Slovak republic Slovak republic Slovak republic Slovenia Slovenia
River (M) Temporal pool/floodplain (P) River (M) Subterannean system (Zk(b) River (M) Subterannean system (Zk(b) Temporal pool/floodplain (5)
A A A A A A
F F
H H H
R R R R R R
P P P P S
FM
FR
FM P S FM -
85
Maint. water quality M M -
Pollution
Hunting
Tjlmejaure - Laisdalen Oldfln-Fln Storklen Le Rhne genevois-Vallons de l'Allondon et de La Laire Klingnauer Stausee Kugurlui Lake Stokhid River Floodplains Prypiat River Floodplains Kryva Bay and Kryva Spit Kartal Lake Northern Part of the Dniester Liman Dniester-Turunchuk Crossrivers Area Ramsar site
Sweden Sweden Sweden Switzerland Switzerland Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Main country2
Delta(L) Lake (O), peatland (U, Xp), Lake (O), peatland (U, Xp), Peatland (Xp), river (M) temporal pool/floodplain (Xf) Lake(1) Lake (O) Marsh (Tp), river(M) Marsh (Tp), peatland (U), river (M) Marine water (A) Delta (K) Delta (K) Delta (L), temporal pool/floodplain (P) Dominant wetland type3
A A
R T D D P P P D T P P P P Threats Str. modifications S S S S
F A A A A A A A A A C F F F F F F F F F
R R R R R R R R R R
FM FM FM
FR FR S
H H H H H H H
FM
Values and uses
Hydrological values Sediment trapping Flood mitigation Flow regulation
Shatsk Lakes Kyliiske Mouth Cuilcagh Mountain Upper Lough Erne Carlingford Lough Lough Foyle
Ukraine Ukraine United kingdom United kingdom United kingdom United kingdom
Lake (O) Delta (L), river(M) Peatland (U) Lake (O) Marine water (E) Marine water (G)
A A A A A A
C C
F F F F F
H H H H H
R R R R R R
D T T D
P P P
FM FM
86
Pollution
Hunting
Pettigoe Plateau United kingdom Peatland (U) A 1. Table lists all transboundary wetlands that were designated as Ramsar sites as of September 2006. 2. Table lists those countries in which the wetland has been designated as a Ramsar site. If a site has been designated by multiple countries, it mentions the country in which the largest part of the wetland is situated. 3. Ramsar wetland types between brackets.
87
Explanation of wetland types: Lake: Temporal lake or floodplain: River: Delta: Peatland: Marsh: Marine water: Includes all permanent natural and artificial pools, ponds and lakes. Includes forested and unforested floodplains and temporal marshes and lakes. Includes both permanent and temporal rivers. Includes coastal and inland deltas and estuaries. Includes both forested and unforested peatlands. Includes both forested and unforested (permanent) marshes. Includes all marine (permanent) waters, tidal flats and coastal shores.
Explanation of values and uses: Agriculture: Harvest of materials: Fishing: Hunting: Recreation: Traditional cultural: Includes arable and pastoral agriculture and grazing. Includes collection of materials such as reeds, grasses, firewood and honey. Includes commercial, subsistence and recreational fishing. Includes, commercial, subsistence and recreational hunting. Includes recreation, tourism and education. Includes traditional cultural and religious use.
Wetlands as specified under the Ramsar convention Only those present in the table are mentioned. See www.ramsar.org for more detailed information Marine/Coastal Wetlands A Permanent shallow marine waters in most cases less than six metres deep at low tide; includes sea bays and straits. B Marine subtidal aquatic beds; includes kelp beds, sea-grass beds, tropical marine meadows. E Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sand bars, spits and sandy islets; includes dune systems and humid dune slacks. F the coup through and Estuarine waters; permanent water of estuaries and estuarine systems of deltas. G Intertidal mud, sand or salt flats. H Intertidal marshes; includes salt marshes, salt meadows, saltings, raised salt marshes; includes tidal brackish and freshwater marshes. K Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons.
88
Inland Wetlands L Permanent inland deltas. M Permanent rivers/streams/creeks; includes waterfalls. N Seasonal/intermittent/irregular rivers/streams/creeks. O Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes large oxbow lakes. P Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes floodplain lakes. Q Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes. R Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes and flats. Tp Permanent freshwater marshes/pools; ponds (below 8 ha), marshes and swamps oninorganic soils; with emergent vegetation water-logged for at least most of the growing season. Ts Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes/pools on inorganic soils; includes sloughs, potholes, seasonally flooded meadows, sedge marshes. U Non-forested peatlands; includes shrub or open bogs, swamps, fens. W Shrub-dominated wetlands; shrub swamps, shrub-dominated freshwater marshes, shrub carr, alder thicket on inorganic soils. Xf Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands; includes freshwater swamp forests, seasonally flooded forests, wooded swamps on inorganic soils. Xp Forested peatlands; peatswamp forests. Zk(b) Karst and other subterranean hydrological systems, inland. Human-made wetlands 1 Aquaculture (e.g., fish/shrimp) ponds 4 Seasonally flooded agricultural land (including intensively managed or grazed wet meadow or pasture). 5 Salt exploitation sites; salt pans, salines, etc. 6 Water storage areas; reservoirs/barrages/dams/impoundments (generally over 8 ha).
89
9.4
Annex 4. Values, uses and threats of transboundary Ramsar sites: summary of data. Total (n = 110) (n = 1081) 91.62 14.8 73.1 49.1 81.5 17.6 (n = 105) 31.4 61.9 25.7 Western Europe (n = 23) (n = 22) 95.4 4.5 68.2 27.2 86.4 13.6 (n = 21) 33.3 52.4 14.3 Eastern Europe (n = 78) (n = 77) 93.6 16.7 74.4 52.5 81.8 16.9 (n = 75) 30.6 68.0 30.7 Scandinavia (n = 9) (n = 9) 55.5 22.2 66.6 66.6 66.6 33.3 (n = 9) 33.3 33.3 11.11 (n = 6) 33.3 0 16.6 0
Values and uses Agriculture Harvest of materials Fishing Hunting Recreation Traditional cultural Threats Drainage Pollution Str. modifications
Hydrological (n = 88) (n = 16) (n = 66) values Flood mitigation 46.6 31.3 51.5 Flow regulation 13.6 6.3 16.7 Maint. water quality 22.7 12.5 25.8 Sediment trapping 23.9 12.5 28.8 1. Total N differs between values and uses, threats and hydrological values due to gaps in the database. 2. Numbers represent percentages. Delineation of regions: Western Europe Eastern Europe Scandinavia
Includes countries in Central, Western and Southwest Europe. Includes countries in South East and Eastern Europe (including Russia). Includes all Scandinavian countries.
See www.ramsar.org for delineation of European countries.
90
9.5
Annex 5. Characteristics and threats of transboundary rivers and associated wetlands in Eastern Europe
Wetlands
Country
Biodiversit y Value
Ecotope s
Naturalness
Protection
Threats Canalization C P C P C P C
Damming D D D
Rivers Bug Crasna (Kraszna) Crisul Alb (Fehr-krs) Crisul Negru (Fekete-krs) Crisul Repede (Sebes-krs) Danube (Dunaj, Dunav, Dunare) Desna Dnister (Dnestr, Nistr) Drava (Drva, Drav) Drina Dunajec Hernd (Hornd) Ipel (Ipoly) Jelen Kalamas river
UA-PL-BY-PL RO-HU RO-HU RO-HU RO-HU DE-AT-SK-HUHR-FYS-RO-BGRO RU-UA UA-MD-UA AT-SI-HR-HU-HR BA-FYS SK-PL SK-HU SK-HU SK-PL GR-AL
+ ++ ++ ++ +++ ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ ++ ++
+ +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +++ +++ ++
Natural Str. modifications Str. modifications Natural Partial natural Partial natural Natural Str. modifications Natural Natural Str. modifications Natural Natural Natural Natural
91
Partial Not protected Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Full Full Not protected Partial Full Full
P C D D F P P P C C C D D D F F F F
P C D
P C D D F P C P C D F D D
Drainage Flood control F F D F F
Pollution
Katra Kupa (Kolpa) Wetland
LT-BY HR-SI Country
++ ++ Biodiversit y Value
+++ +++ Ecotope s
Natural Natural Naturalness
Full Not protected Protection
Threats Canalization -
Damming -
Lake Druksiai and Druksa river Lake Prespa Latorytsya Lielupe (Musa, Memele) Luzicka Nisa (Nysa L, L. Neisse) Maritza (Hevros) Mesta (Nestos) Morava (March) Mura (Mur) Mures (Maros) Mustjgi Narva Nemunas (Neman, Niemen) Neretva Odra (Oder) Olse (Olza) Opava Poprad Pripyat (Prypyat) Prut
LT-BY AL-MK-GR UA-SK LT-LV CZ-PL-DE BG-GR + TR BG-GR CZ-SK-AT AT-SI-HR-HU RO-HU EE-LV EE-RU BY-LT-RU BA-HR CZ-PL-DE-PL PL-CZ-SK CZ-PL SK-PL UA-BY-UA UA-RO-MD
+++ ++ +++ +++ + +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ + + +++ +++ ++ + + ++ ++ +++
+++ +++ +++ + +++ ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ + + ++ ++ +++
Natural Natural Str. modifications Str. modifications Partial natural Partial natural Partial natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Partial natural Str. modifications Str. modifications Natural Natural Str. modifications
92
Not protected Full Full Not protected Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Full Partial Partial Partial Partial
- - - - P C D D - - - - C P C D D P C P C D - - P P P C C C D F D F F D F - -
- - D - - D D F F F F F
P P C P D D - - - P C D
Drainage Flood control -
Pollution
Sava Slan (Saj) Somes (Szamos) Sotla Wetland
SI-HR-BA-HR-FYS SK-HU RO-HU SI-HR Country
++ ++ ++ Biodiversit y Value
++ + +++ ++ Ecotope s
Partial natural Str. modifications Str. modifications Str. modifications Naturalness
Partial Not protected Partial Protection
P C D D F P C D F P P C Threats Canalization
Damming D D -
Struma (Strouma, Strimon(as)) Syan (San) Tara Tisza (Tisa, Theiss) Toundja (Tundja) Tr (Tur) Ublianka (Ubla) Ulicka Una Uzh (Uh) Vepzh Wilija (Neris) Non-river wetlands Danube Floodplains Delta of the Neretva Didovskyj Mits Dniester Delta Buko Field
BG-GR UA-SK-PL BA-AL UA-RO-SK-HUFYS BG-TR RO-HU UA SK-UA HR-BA-HR UA-SK UA-PL BY-LT
+++ ++ +++ +++ ++ + ++ +++ +++ +++ ++ +++
++ ++ +++ +++ +++ + ++ ++ +++ +++ ++ +++
Partial natural Natural Partial natural Natural Str. modifications Natural Natural Natural Str. modifications Natural
Partial Partial Full Partial Partial Partial Partial Full Full Partial -
P D F - - - - P C D F P P F
C F P D P P C D D F P D F -
SK-HU BA-HR UA-HU UA-MD BA-HR
++ ++ ++ +++ ++
Natural Natural Partial natural Natural Natural

93
Full Full Not protected Partial Full
P P
D F D D D D F
Drainage Flood control -
Pollution
Gacko Field Livno Field Podranica Field Floodplains along River Drava Floodplains along River Mura Habursk ras elinisko Bog Wetland
BA-AL BA-HR BA-HR HR-SI-HU HR-SI-HU SK-PL Country
++ ++ ++ +++ +++ +++ Biodiversit y Value
Ecotope s
Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Naturalness
Partial Partial Partial Protection
Threats Canalization -
Damming -
Hranicn Louka Lake Bileca Lake Kerkini Lake Mikri Prespa Moshnov Prutul de Jos, along River Prut Raseliniste Jizery Salinas of Secovlje Sebezh Lakes Shatsky Ponds Skariny Slatiny nad Snakovom Slovak section of Morava Floodplains Soutok (at confluence of Morava-Dyje) Upsk rselina
CZ-PL BA-AL GR-BG GR-AL UA-HU MD-RO CZ-PL SI-IT RU-BY-LV UA-PL CZ-SK SK-PL SK-CZ CZ-SK CZ-PL
++ ++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++ +++ +++
Natural Natural Str. modifications Natural Natural Natural Natural Partial naturalartly Natural Natural Partial natural Natural Natural Natural Natural
94
Full Full Not protected Partial Full Partial Full Partial Partial Full Partial Full
P -
- - - - D D F -
D D F P - P -
Drainage Flood control
Pollution
Vadeni-Mati-Radeanu-Carja Not ++ Natural D D F RO protected wetlands Bardaca Wetland BA-HR ++ Natural Full Hutovo Blato Wetland BA-AL ++ Natural Full P D D Jelen Wetland SK-PL ++ Natural Full Wetlands along River Oder PL-DE +++ Natural Full P D F Table adapted from: Loon-Steensma, J.M. van & J.C.M. van Oord, 1999. Biodiversity protection of transboundary rivers and wetlands in Central Europe. Overviews of transboundary rivers and related wetlands of value for biodiversity and of current activities and projects on the management and protection of transboundary rivers and Wetlands. Wetlands International unpublished data, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 179 pp. Countries: AT = Austria; AL = Albania; BA = Bosnia-Herzegovina; BG = Bulgaria; BY = Belarus; CZ = Czech Republic; DE = Germany; EE = Estonia; FYS = Form. Yug. Serbia; GR = Greece; HU = Hungary; HR = Croatia; LT = Lithuania; LV = Latvia; MD = Rep. of Moldova; MK = Form. Yug. Macedonia; PL = Poland; RO = Romania; RU = Russian Federation; SK = Slovakia; SI = Slovenia; TR = Turkey; UA = Ukraine. Biodiversity value: (+ = some values, ++ = fairly valuable, +++ = valuable). Number of ecotopes: (+ = few river and river-linked ecotopes, ++ = some river and river-linked ecotopes, +++ = many different river and river-linked ecotopes).
95
9.6
Annex 6. Characteristics and threats of transboundary rivers and associated wetlands in Eastern Europe: summary of data
Threats Pollution Canalisation Damming Drainage Flood control Naturalness Natural Partly natural Structural modifications Level of protection Partial Full No protection Natural value Some values Fairly valuable Valuable Ecotopes Few river and river-linked ecotopes Some river and river-linked ecotopes Many river and river-linked ecotopes
Percentage (n = 57) 73.7 49.1 50.9 43.9 59.6 (n = 81) 66.7 18.5 14.8 (n = 70) 52.8 34.8 12.8 (n = 82) 8.5 51.2 40.2 (n = 50) 12.0 32.0 56.0
96

Analysis of Rergional Cross-Border Cooperation On Flood Management in Nature Areas - 5

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Analysis of Rergional Cross-Border Cooperation On Flood Management in Nature Areas - 5

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions

Now working at Wetlands International, Wageningen Office, The Netherlands.

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

5. 5.1 5.2. 5.3 5.4 6. 6.1

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Recommendations for the implementation of the FRMD

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management in Cross-Border Areas

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

SUSTAINABLE FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND WETLANDS

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Role of wetlands in flood risk management

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Role of floods for wetlands

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

CROSS BORDER RIVERS AND WETLANDS IN EUROPE: VALUES AND THREATS

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Str. modifications Drainage Pollution 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Western Europe Eastern Europe Scandinavia

Fairly valuable Valuable Some values

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Natural Partly natural Structural modifications

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Partial Full No protection

Drainage Canalisation Damming Flood control Pollution 0 20 40 60 80 100

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

CASE STUDIES AND BEST PRACTICES

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

www.niersverband.de (German www.wpm.nl (Dutch project

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Flood management in the Dijle valley, Belgium

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

leakage area effective sand trap

final settlement basin

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

More information: www.life-gerve.com; www.interreg-gire.eu; www.gavrn.com

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org

Floods as natural processes and their importance for wetlands

Sustainable Flood Management: Obstacles, challenges and solutions www.flapp.org