Top-down versus bottom-up: Scenario-building and stakeholder s involvement in watershed management

Transcription

1 Top-down versus bottom-up: Scenario-building and stakeholder s involvement in watershed management - A case study from the Havel River Basin - Prof. Dr. Beate Jessel

2 Approach and purpose of the EU WFD Main Purposes of WFD: To prevent the deterioration of the status of all surface and ground water bodies To enhance and to redevelop the ground and surface water bodies To obtain a good status for all water bodies that deviates only slightly from a high status representing the undisturbed or almost undisturbed conditions with only very minor anthropogenic alterations Approach: - Area-wide, related to the respective catchment areas - Environmental objectives setting up a high standard - Integrative (i.e. implementation is only possible in cooperation with other competent authorities) New planning instruments introduced by WFD: - River basin management plans - Programmes of measures River basin districts in Germany (Federal Environmental Agency UBA 2000)

3 Scale Problem? How to get from large scale and often transboundary watersheds to concrete measures on single areas? Quelle: Umweltbundesamt, Februar 2000

4 How to reconcile top-down with bottom-up approach within the implementation of the EU WFD? Reference condition: High status Environmental objective: Good status Necessary working steps Top Down - Analysis of characteristics + significant impacts for each river basin district - Establishment of programmes for monitoring - Elaboration of river basin management plans and of programmes of measures Bottom Up Public information and consultation (Art. 14 WFD) How can real involvement be obtained at local level without challenging the superior aims of WFD?

5 Characteristics of the study region The Havel river Important tributary to the Elbe river; one of the most important lowland rivers in Germany Small slopes (up to only 0,006%, low flow velocities), complicated river network, large number of lakes and wetland areas, high antropogenic influence by various water systems Strong influence on discharge due to different water users Low water quality (due to eutrophic processes in particular)

6

7

8 MQ [m 3 /s] Degradation of Water Resources a trend of declining mean water level % 0.6 Zeuthen, Selchower Flutgraben Mellensee, Schneidegraben Gruenheide, Löcknitz Linear (Gruenheide, Löcknitz) Linear (Zeuthen, Selchower Flutgraben) Linear (Mellensee, Schneidegraben) % %

9 Research Project: Management Options in the Havel River Basin o Main Target: Providing principles for the river basin management according to the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) o Interdisciplinary research project with representatives from scientific institutions, regional authorities and private agencies o Existing knowledge of water and land use management, politically driven land use changes, economic boundary conditions and the role of stakeholders must be combined

10 Scale levels in the project network Study areas of BMBF-Project Large Scale Havel (without Spree) Intermediate Scale Nuthe, Lower Havel, Rhin Focus Areas Hammerfließ, Lower Havel area, Döllnitz, Kleiner Rhin Complete area (w ithout Spree) Focus area Low er Havel/Gülper See Catchment area Low er Havel Focus area Hammerfließ Catchment area Nuthe Focus area Döllnitz/Kleiner Rhin Catchment area Rhin

11

12 Integrative overall concept for landscape units landscapeecological spatial unit (LES) nr. 25 name Grundwasserbestimmte, lehm- oder muddeunterlagerte Torfebene der potenziellen Aue groundwater controlled fen with secondary clay and organic silt inside the potential floodplain 2256 ha (9,8%) targets soil / ground water - preservation of the partially profound bog soil through development of permanent, species-rich grassland with extensive land use through increasing ground water levels of 40 cm below floor in average; prevention of dereliction of land (Handlungshilfe Niedermoorschutz, LUA Brandenburg 1997) - development of a low moor with turf-producing vegetation, that fulfils functions as water and nutrient repository (without land use) through establishment of year-round ground water levels of 20 cm below floor in some areas - Protection of soil against wind erosion through year-round vegetation cover surface water - safeguarding of year-round high water levels in runoff ditches and water courses and of periodical flooding in winter as prerequisite for protection of soils and ground water the development of wetlands (short-term through use of all possibilities for water retention in spring, long-term through natural dynamics) - middle- and long-term increase of the area of periodically flooded zones through connection of the polder "Große Grabenniederung" to the floodplain - Avoidance of input of harmful substances through establishment of edge strips at amelioration ditches species / habitats - conservation and development as a habitat for native breeding birds (Limikolen) and as rasting place and food source for migratory and overwintering bird species through use as extensive grassland: - mowing and grazing schedules adapted to water management (siehe NSG-VO-Entwurf Untere Havel Nord ) - conservation and development of a patchy, relief-adapted mosaic of cane brakes, sedges and marsh areas - conservation and development of near natural grove structures at some selected watercourses (e.g. Großer Graben)

13 Lower Havel area Endangerment of ground water legend catchment area risk for pollution of ground water very high high middle low watercourses

14 Hierarchy of landscape-ecological spatial units on different scales Research areas Large scale (ca. 1: :25.000) FOCUS AREAS Geochorological Approach NANOCHOREN Relevance for WFD: Measure programs Medium scale (ca. 1: :75.000) MIKROCHOREN Relevance for WFD: Measure programs Small scale (ca. 1: : ) WHOLE RESEARCH AREA/ CATCHMENT AREA MESOCHOREN Relevance for WFD: River Basin Management Plan

15 Landscape ecological units on different scale levels Hierarchical approach Possible management options (land use changes) can be related to spatial units to picture different scenarios

16 Involvement of land users and stakeholders - 1 st step - Interviewing relevant stakeholders from agriculture, forestry, water supply and distribution, fishery, nature protection, local tourism, municipal administration Information of the project and preparing contacts by carrying out regional conferences Structured interviews, including questions How the quantitative and qualitative availability of water in the surveyed area was rated, which proposals land-users had to improve the situation, how they estimated possible communication and cooperation between relevant land users and decision makers in the watershed, about their level of awareness about the WFD.

17 Involvement of land users and stakeholders - 1 st step - Identification of key problems, synergisms and conflicts, i.e.: Focus Area Hammerfließ Lower Havel area Döllnitz/Kleiner Rhin Main type of land use Grassland and agriculture (specialised crops) Grassland and nature conservation (many protected areas) Forestry State of the Water Bodies Frequent and long running droughts in summer, high levels of nitrate in the ground water Water bodies with high charges of nutrients, continuous regulation by dams, strong seasonal fluctuation of the water level Many lakes, predominantly with good water quality; ground and sea water levels tend to decline Call for action Significant increase of water detention in the landscape Sustainable land use in flooding polder areas, renaturation of the Havel river Preservation of the water quality, heightening of sea and ground water levels Conflicts All actors mentioned lack of water as one of the main problems, but had different opinions about methods and amounts of water retention; general regulation by dams creates conflicts between nature conservation and agriculture Regulation by dams and planned renaturation of the Havel river evoke conflicts between agriculture and nature conservation and between navigation and use of the river as a waterway Different opinions between agriculture and forestry about the seasonal dynamics of the water level Lowest common denominator no Status quo: Replacement of dams by ground sills; better coordination of water regulation by dams Status quo: Decision of the dam regulation committee is accepted provided that compensation payments will be kept up Status quo: No deterioration of water quality, raising up the water levels in well-wooded areas and areas with many lakes

18 Involvement of land users and stakeholders The results of the interviews Provided boundardy conditions for the development of land use scenarios Helped to develop target systems to evaluate possible developments from different points of view

19 Development of Scenarios according to the aims of WFD All relevant guidelines are put into practice according to the legal requirements (e.g. requirements of good practice in agriculture, legal requirements in protected areas) State-of-the-Art Min All management options together are focused one single aim, the maximal improvement of the water quality Maximal improvement of water quality Status quo The current state is extended into the future, considering predictable changes (e.g. agricultural policy) Max Maximum innovation in different fields of action Maximum utilisation and implementation of all professional requirements in different fields of action (i.e. land use, domestic water services, hydraulic enginieering)

20 Results of the Scenarios Land use and corresponding ground water levels in the focus area Hammerfließ Land use: State-o-the-Art (B 1.1) Contribution of different fields of action land use and resouce management (C 2.1) Maximal improvement of water qualitiy (D) Corresponding ground water levels: State-of-the-Art (B 1.1) Contribution of different fields of action land use and resouce management (C 2.1) Maximal improvement of water quality (D)

21 Scenarios as an important interface within the project Here: Szenario State-of-the-Art Land use scenario State-of-the-Art All relevant guidelines are put into practice according to the legal requirements (e.g. requirement of good practice in agriculture, legal requirements in protected areas) e.g. permanent grasslands on low bogs, ground water levels cm in summer, close to the ground in winter Feedback Effects on Matter imports (concentrations of nitrate and phoshate in surface and ground water) Water resources (ground water recharge, depth of ground water tables, frequency of inundations) Socio-economic situation (losses of income for the farmers, requirements for compensation payment) Interview-guideline: Structured interviews with relevant stakeholders to evaluate the scenarios in regard to their acceptability and feasability Scenario 1 Status quo + Trends Scenario 2 State-ofthe-Art Scenario 3 Fields of action Scenario 4 Maximal improvement - Visualisation of possible changes in land use - comparative illustrations of possible effects Multicriterial Evaluation Scenario Optimised water quality management

22 The integrative function of scenarios TP 6 Involvement of stakeholders, TP 9 1st step Data base on the research areas Field of action Land use Establishment of edge strips at water courses Less intensive land use Changing arable land into grassland Changing coniferous forests into deciduous forests TP 9, TP 11 External impacts Development of settlement areas and traffic areas Regrouping of agrarian subsidies Succession on former military areas Agro-economical aspects TP 9 Field of action Water resources Retention through lashers Deconstruction of amelioration facilities Deconstruction of lashers Relocation of levees Re-connexion of bayous Ground water levels, Flooding conditions TP 3 Natural units Land use Protected areas Water bodies Alternative options External impacts Land use scenarios TP 5 TP 3, TP 4 TP 11 TP 9 Nutrient inputs Water dynamics Socio-economical effects (Nitrogen, Phosphorus) in ground and surface water Recharge of ground water, runoff, retention, possibility of inundation Loss of oncome for farmers, requires subsidies for compensation Acceptability for land and water users

23 Involvement of land users and stakeholders - 2 nd step - Main Target: Evaluation of the scenarions in regard to their acceptability and feasability + getting hints for an optimisation The interview guidelines were differentiated According to the different scales (focus areas stakeholders responsible for the whole river basin) According to the different groups of stakeholders (water management: implementation of Art. 14 WFD?; aspects concerning domestic water services relevant only for local authorities). Structured interviews, including questions If the scenarios were understandable, about the degree of respective concernment of the scenarios; which positive and negative aspects were attributed to each scenario; under which conditions one would agree to the implementation of each scenario; if one felt already sufficiently informed about the implementation of WFD; if one would use a decision support system and what would be the demands on such a system.

24 Involvement of land users and stakeholders - 2 nd step - Results: 1. Getting hints for an optimisation of the scenarios, e.g. concerning - conversion of coniferous into deciduous woodland - amount of land set-aside. 2. Provision for additional aspects in the scenarios, e.g. - future segregation between intensive and extensive land use will probably be more distinct; - need for a new scenario that arbitrates between State-of-the-Art and Fields of action: Maximum contribution of land use and resource management 3. Preparing the information received as a common base for discussion in the focus areas - spatial visualisation of constellations of interests and focuses of conflicts 4. Attempt to develop an optimised scenario which will be presented to and discussed with the stakeholders at another regional conference

25 Involvement of land users and stakeholders - Combination of the results to a common discussion basis in the focus area - Focus area Hammerfließ - Local needs for action - boundary of the watershed Water courses main water courses secondary water courses Focus for action Regulation of water resource Pumping station Dam Water supply Ground sill Low bogs too wet too dry sometimes too wet and sometimes too dry surface with high flood storage capacity Nature conservation area flat profound

26 Creating an optimised scenario Nitrogen load [kt/a] in the Havel River, mean over a peroid of 13 years Phosphorus dload [t/a] in the Havel River, mean over a peroid of 13 years Status quo Business as usual (U) Good practice (G) 347 Optimal scenario 296 Maximum contribution by land use and nature conservation (M) 242 Best water quality (B) Status quo 40 Business as usual (U) 33 Good practice (G) 33 Optimal scenario 30 Maximum contribution by land use and nature conservation (M) 24 Best water quality (B) Results of hydrological modelling: (Habeck & Krysanowa, unpubl.) Optimisation according to - Effects (on water quality) - Acceptance - Costs Optimised scenario, contribution of land use: - Extended scenario Good practice - Restricted land use in flooding areas - Area wide: Buffer zones, 10 m wide at least, on waters - Strict implementation of aims in protected areas

27 Involvement of the stakeholders as an interative procedure

28 Conclusions on stakeholder s involvement and development of scenarios within the implementation process of WFD The superior provisions from WFD are not at disposal, but within this frame margins for implementation can be identified systematically Deficits in communication among the stakeholders and different perceptions often are important reasons for problems of water and land use management Land use scenarios can provide a comprehensible way to demonstrate spatially relevant effects of WFD and to create a common basis for discussion.

29 Thank you! Prof. Dr. Beate Jessel