Management plans in the Schelde estuary

Harmonised?

Erika Van den BerghEstuaries and Coastal zones working groupBrussels 8/10/2008

Schelde River Basin district (SRBD)

Schelde-estuary

Very densely populatedDense transport networkPort of AntwerpIntensive agricultureFew nature conservation areas

The Schelde estuary

                     

                  

Western Scheldt

Sea Scheldt

RupelDurme

Management plans

• International River basin district management (ISC-Scaldit)

• National Riverbasin management plans• Integrated Coastal zone management• Strategic planning for the Antwerp

Harbour• Long term Vision for the Schelde (LTVS)• Updated Sigmaplan• Natura 2000 management plan

Scales in Management plans: spatial

Scaldit

Natura 2000SIGMA

SPAH

LTVS

ICZM

Scales in management plans: issues

• Strategic planning:optimal multifunctional spatial planning in the harbour area

• Long term vision: integrated managementof the estuary: accessibility, safety, ecosystem health

• Updated Sigmaplan: Safety against floods

• Scaldit:WFD River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) Natura 2000 management plans: ecological network, habitats and species

Scales in Management plans: time frame

• Strategic planning: 1998-2000-2004

• Long term vision: 1999-2001-2004-2010

• Updated Sigmaplan: 2002-2005-2010-2015

• Scaldit:2001-2008• Natura 2000 management plans:

2007-

Scales in Management plans: initiative

• Strategic planning: Flemish administration & Port authorities

• Long term Vision: Dutch-Flemisch government (TSC)

• Updated Sigmaplan: administration of waterways

• Scaldit: (ISC-EA)• Natura 2000 management plans:

administration for nature and forest

Hierarchical integration of management goals & plans

Environmental quality (WFD)

Estuarine processes(LTVS)

Habitat network (BHD)quantity/connectivity

Habitat quality/type/species(local conservation goals)

• Riverbasin district

• Estuary

• Natura 2000 network

• Individual spa- sac

Ecosystem level

5 0 5 10 Ki l ometers

N

EW

S

Ramsar1976

Bird Directive1988

Habitat Directive1996

Strategic planning for Antwerp Harbour

• Start 1998• Issues: multifunctional spatial planning

• optimal space utilisation • phased port development • participation of stakeholders • maintenance of a functional ecological network• Implementation of BHD

• working groups with representation of all stakeholders: Province, communities, NGOs, administration, port authorities,……

Strategic planning for Antwerp Harbour

Strategic planning for Antwerp Harbour

• Updated principles 2004• Submitted to Spatial EIA, ongoing• Harmonisation: conservation goals

– Integrated for SPA and SAC– Habitat and species– Ranked and quantified

– Parts of SPA & SAC– Regional conservation goals and goals for

complete SPA and SAC area in estuary not finalised

– Ecosystem goals not finalised

Antwerpen

Gent

Vlissingen

Terneuzen

DurmeLokeren Rupel

Zenne

Dijle

Nete

Kleine Nete

Grote Nete

Dutch-Belgian border

Nor

th S

ea

Schelde

B

NL

GB

Het Schelde estuarium

LTVS 2030

Accessibility

Safety

Ecosystem health

Long term Vision For the Schelde LTVS)

• Dutch-Belgian managerial project (1999-2001)• Quality targets for 2030

1999-2001: Definition of vision 2030

“To develop a healthy, multifunctional watersystem, supporting human needs in a sustainable way”

1. Preservation of physical system characteristics2. Safety against floods3. Optimal accessibility for the ports4. Healthy and dynamic estuarine ecosystem5. Flemish-Dutch administrative-political

cooperation

Long term Vision For the Schelde (LTVS)

LTVS Harmonisation: Conservation goals

Current velocity

• Water- and habitat quality• Habitat area and sustainability• Foodweb under pressure

Phytoplankton

Zoöplankton

Benthos

Turbidity

Long term Vision: problem analysis

LTVS Conservation goals: problem analysis

Goal 01 V

lRaa

02 V

lHan

03 H

anG

r

04 G

rBur

05 B

urTm

06 T

mDe

m

07 D

emG

t

08 D

urm

e

09 Z

eDNe

10 s

trSc

Buffer discharge 0 0 0 0 + + ++ ++ ++ ++tidal energy dissipation + ++ ++ ++ ++ + + + + 0Multiple channelsystem 0 ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Optimise natural habitat processes ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0minimise turbidity 0 + + ++ ++ ++ + ++ + 0Optimise C cycle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++Optimise N cycle 0 0 + + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++Optimise O cycle 0 0 0 + ++ ++ + ++ + ++Optimise Pcycle 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + ++Optimise Si cycle + ++ ++ ++ 0Optimise primary production 0 + + ++ ++ ++ + ++ + 0Optimise conditions for zooplankton 0 + + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0Optimise conditions for zoobenthos + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0Optimise fishmigration 0 + + + + + ++ ++ ++ ++Shallow low dynamic water + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0mudflats + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0Lower flats dynamics 0 ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tidal marshes + ++ + + ++ + ++ + ++ 0Set back tidal marsh succession + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0Non-tidal wetland 0 0 0 + + + ++ + ++ 0

Code

Maatr

egel

buff

_afv

dis

p_E

turb

C N O2

P Si

prim

_pro

d

zoöpl

benth

os

vis

vogel

habitat

ond_H

2O

slik

schor

wetland

schor_

j

intg

et_

hd

intg

et_

ld

Grens - BurchtM2.1 Ontpolderen: doorlaatmiddel 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 0 1M2.2 Ontpolderen: dijk verwijderen 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 0 2M2.3 Ontpolderen: afgraven 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2M2.4 Sluisbeheer: permanent 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 1M2.5 Sluisbeheer: occasioneel 1 2 2 2M4.1 Binnendijks natuurontwikkeling 1 1 ? 2 1 1

Burcht - TemseM1.09Schorfixatie: constructie 2 2 1 2 2M2.1 Ontpolderen: doorlaatmiddel 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 2M2.2 Ontpolderen: dijk verwijderen 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 2M2.3 Ontpolderen: afgraven 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2M2.4 Sluisbeheer: permanent 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 2M2.5 Sluisbeheer: occasioneel 2 2 2 ? 2M4.1 Binnendijks natuurontwikkeling 1 1 ? 2 1 2M4.2 Binnendijks beheer 1 1 1

Temse - DendermondeM1.09Schorfixatie: constructie 2 2 1 2 2M2.1 Ontpolderen: doorlaatmiddel 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2M2.2 Ontpolderen: dijk verwijderen 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2M2.3 Ontpolderen: afgraven 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2M2.4 Sluisbeheer: permanent 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 2M2.5 Sluisbeheer: occasioneel 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 0M3.1Natuurlijke overgang: herstel lateraal 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 1M3.4 Dijkverdediging met terrassen 2 2 1 2 2M3.5 Dijkbekleding natuurvriendelijk 2 2 1 2 2M4.1 Binnendijks natuurontwikkeling 1 1 1 ? 2 1 2M4.2 Binnendijks beheer 1 1 1

Dendermonde - GentM1.09Schorfixatie: constructie 2 2 1 2 2M2.1 Ontpolderen: doorlaatmiddel 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2M2.2 Ontpolderen: dijk verwijderen 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2M2.3 Ontpolderen: afgraven 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2M2.4 Sluisbeheer: permanent 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 2M2.5 Sluisbeheer: occasioneel 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 0M3.1Natuurlijke overgang: herstel lateraal 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 1M3.2Natuurlijke overgang: herstel longitudinaal 2M3.4 Dijkverdediging met terrassen 2 2 1 2 2M3.5 Dijkbekleding natuurvriendelijk 2 2 1 2 2M4.1 Binnendijks natuurontwikkeling 2 1 1 ? 2 1 2M4.2 Binnendijks beheer 1 1 1M5.4 Vismigratie 2

LTVS Harmonisation: measures

Long term Vision for the Schelde (LTVS)

2002-2004: 2010 Development Outline (ProSes-TSC)

• Accessibility:– Deepening and widening of the shipping lane to Antwerp– Mitigation through adapted dumping & dredging strategy

• Flood control: – Space for the river where possible (FCA)– Dike elevation where necessary– Integration with ecological restoration

• Ecosystem health:– Tidal wetland creation – Inland wetland creation– Improvement for fish migration– Definition of specific and quantified conservation goals– SAC designation under the HD

• Cooperation:– Joint monitoring program to assess of the evolution of the estuary and effect of

measures to allow adaptive management

2005 – 2010:

- Schelde treaties for bilateral cooperation- EIA and CBA for each project- Implementation of measures - MONEOS: joint monitoring program

- Integrated for accessibility-safety-ecology - Ecosystem monitoring- Project monitoring- Incorporates EU and national legislation needs

Long term Vision For the Schelde (LTVS)

Long term Vision for the Schelde (LTVS)

2002-2004: 2010 Development Outline (ProSes-TSC)

• Accessibility:– Deepening and widening of the shipping lane to Antwerp– Mitigation through adapted dumping & dredging strategy

• Flood control: – Space for the river where possible (FCA)– Dike elevation where necessary– Integration with ecological restoration

• Ecosystem health:– Tidal wetland creation – Inland wetland creation– Improvement for fish migration– Definition of specific and quantified conservation goals– SAC designation under the HD

• Cooperation:– Joint monitoring program to assess of the evolution of the estuary and effect of

measures to allow adaptive management

Updated Sigmaplan

Conservation goals: Ecosystem functioning

• Minimum oxygen conditions for good biodiversity (benthos-fish) (J.Maes)– Summer: 5mg/l– Winter: 6mg/l

• Primary production under ‘good water quality conditions’ and under ‘pristine’ conditions* (Billen & Garnier; Cox & Maris)

• Benthic invertebrate production/m² under these primary production conditions* (Van Damme & Ysebaert)

• Habitat for benthos (mudflats) needed to support fish and bird populations* (Van Damme et al)

• Tidal marsh needed to prevent Si limitation under present water quality conditions* (Struyff)

• Geometrical requirements along the estuary for* sustainable tidal marshes/mudflats (Brys & Van den Bergh)

Conservation goals: Ecosystem functioning

Conservation goals: habitats

• Habitats of special interest (as habitat and for species of special interest) were ranked according to their relative importance– European: fresh water tidal, 91E0– Regional: Brackish tidal, 3150,6430,6510,7140– Local:2310, 2330,4030, 6410, 9120, 9160, 9190

• Qualitative and quantitative goals were set for each habitat type according to the flemish method (Heutz et al; 2005). – Environmental indicators for favourable conditions– Structural indicators for favourable conditions.

Conservation goals: species

• Species of special interest were ranked according to their relative importance:– European– Regional– Local

• Goals were specified for mammals, breeding birds, amfibians and reptiles, fish and migrating birds

Updated Sigmaplan: selection of measures

OptimalFlood control

plan

OptimalEcologic

Restoration plan

Importance of selected space for agriculture

Synthesis flood control and ecology: 3 scenario’s

Flood control Agriculture check Ecology check

Most desirable scenario for Updated Sigmaplan

Conservation goals

The Updated Sigmaplan: measures

• Flood control: – Space for the river where possible (FCA)– Dike elevation where necessary– Integration with ecological restoration

• Ecosystem health:– Tidal wetland creation – Inland wetland creation– Improvement for fish migration– Definition of specific and quantified conservation

goals

Flood control• Dike fortification

• Flood control area (FCA)

Updated Sigmaplan: Measures

Habitat creation• Tidal wetlands

– realignment

– FCA-CRT

• Inland habitat– wetland

– FCA-Wetland

Updated Sigmaplan: Harmonisation

• Conservation goals:– 3 levels

• Ecosystem functioning• habitat needs• Species

– quantified– Integration of legislation on all levels

• Measures– Integration of different societal aspects

(win-win)– Ranked– Timing

• Monitoring– Nested in MONEOS

Scaldit: River Basin management

• Scaldit I:– Test Common Implementation

guidances

• Scaldit II: – Cooperate for the RBMP– Compare quality status, reference

conditions, classification systems– Compare national RBMP– Joint report

Scaldit II

International Schelde Commission PA1Communicatie (Vlaams Gewest)

PA2 Cartografie (Waals Gewest)

PA3 Coastal and transitional waters

PA4 Fresh surface water bodies (Brussels hoofdstedelijk Gewest) Monitoring (Vlaams Gewest) Homogeen meetnet (Frankrijk)

PA5 Groundwater (Waals Gewest)

PA6 Kosteneffectiviteitsanalyse (Nederland)

PA7 Overstromingen - Droogten PA7a Waterkwantiteitsbeheer

(Frankrijk) PA7b Veiligheid & overstroming

(Vlaams Gewest)

PA3: Coastal and transitional waters

• Harmonisation– Common typology for Coastal and

Transitional waters– Harmonisation of classification

system NL-BE– Harmonisation of monitoring NL-BE– Comparison of ecological status– Compilation of measures

Schelde-estuary

Transitional waters

NLBEFLFR

River River

Daughter directiveEnvironmental quality standards

Scaldit II

Natura 2000 estuaries

Bird directiveHabitat directive

(23)

(40)

Natura 2000 Management plans

CG Schelde: 2005

CG PORT:2003

CG Flanders: 2008

• SPPA: Meadowbirds

• LTVS: tidal wetland

• SIGMA: harmonisation

Natura 2000 Management plans

Conclusions

• In an ideal world harmonised management would be nested in space, time, issues, …………

• Different sectors would share delimitations of management units

• But: – different issues prevail – Some areas are more important than others– Not all sectors share the same ranking– Time frames are political rather than practical– Priorities are often political rather than logical– New issues come up during the process………….

• However, we’ve come al long way along the road of harmonisation