frame analysis of the strategies used to implement new ... report definitief.pdfltv lange termijn...

FRaME Analysis of the Strategies used to

implement New Land Use and Flood Control in 5 Estuaries

‘Flood Risk Management in Estuaries: Sustainable New Land Use in Flood Control Areas’

FRaME – Analysis of Strategies used to implement FCA and NLU

2

Name FRaME – Analysis of the Strategies used to implement New Land Use and Flood Control in 5 Estuaries

Lead Partner DLG - Government Service for Land and Water Management Soresma nv Black & Veatch

WL Delft Contractant

Authors Christiaan De Schuijmer, Tom Matthewson, Mark van Koningsveld, Marc Leysen, Kristof Van Stichelen

Release Jan Parys Date 6th of February 2004 N° of pages 99 Copyright © All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the lead partner of this project.


3

Contents Glossary and abbreviations ................................................................................ 5 Summary in English ............................................................................................ 7 Samenvatting / Summary in Dutch ..................................................................... 8 1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 9

1.1 Introduction to the strategy analysis ................................................... 9 1.2 Study objectives ................................................................................ 10 1.3 Method............................................................................................... 10 1.4 Report structure................................................................................. 11

2 Strategy for the Scheldt: the SIGMA plan................................................. 13 2.1 General description ........................................................................... 13 2.2 Trigger for flood control strategy....................................................... 14 2.3 Strategy design ................................................................................. 15

2.3.1 Strategic objectives defined ...................................................... 15 2.3.2 Defining the Flood Problem ...................................................... 20

2.4 Option analysis and selection ........................................................... 24 2.4.1 Option analysis.......................................................................... 24 2.4.2 Communication ......................................................................... 29

2.5 Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness ........................................... 32 2.6 Conclusions....................................................................................... 33 2.7 References ........................................................................................ 34

3 Strategy for the Dutch Rhine Branches: Room for the River ................... 37 3.1 General description ........................................................................... 37 3.2 Trigger for flood control strategy....................................................... 38 3.3 Strategy design ................................................................................. 39



3.5 Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness ........................................... 44 3.6 Conclusions....................................................................................... 45 3.7 Acknowledgements ........................................................................... 46 3.8 References ........................................................................................ 46

4 Strategy for the Humber Estuary .............................................................. 48 4.1 General description ........................................................................... 48 4.2 Trigger for flood control strategy....................................................... 49 4.3 Strategy design ................................................................................. 50

4.3.1 Strategic objectives are defined................................................ 50 4.3.2 Defining the Flood Problem ...................................................... 51



5 Strategy for the Baie des Veys ................................................................. 66 5.1 General description ........................................................................... 66


4

5.2 Trigger for flood control strategy....................................................... 70 5.3 Strategy design ................................................................................. 71



5.5 Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness ........................................... 75 5.6 Conclusions....................................................................................... 76 5.7 References ........................................................................................ 77

6 Strategy for the Norfolk Broads................................................................. 78 6.1 General description ........................................................................... 78 6.2 Trigger for flood control strategy....................................................... 79 6.3 Strategy design ................................................................................. 79

6.3.1 Strategic objectives are defined................................................ 79 6.3.2 Defining the Flood Problem ...................................................... 82



7 Evaluation of strategies: main conclusions............................................... 89 7.1 Introduction........................................................................................ 89 7.2 A brief comparison of the case studies............................................. 89 7.3 Some common elements .................................................................. 90 7.4 Individual lessons learned................................................................. 92 7.5 Overall lessons learned..................................................................... 95


5

Glossary and abbreviations Abbreviation Meaning in Dutch Meaning in English AMINAL Administratie Milieu, Natuur,

Land- en Waterbeheer Environment, nature, land- and water management administration

AROHM Administratie Ruimtelijke Ordening, Huisvesting en Monumenten en landschappen

Environmental planning, housing, monuments and landscape administration

AWZ Administratie Waterwegen en Zeewezen

Waterways and marine affairs administration

B België Belgium B.Vl.R. Besluit van de Vlaamse

Regering Implementing order of the Flemish Government

COM communicatie Communication DTM Digitaal terreinmodel Digital terrain model F Frankrijk France FCA Gecontroleerd

overstromingsgebied (GOG)

Flood control area

GEIS Algemene Milieu Impact Studie (AMIS)

General environmental impact study

GGG Gecontroleerd gereduceerd getijdengebied

FCA with reduced tidal influence

GOM Gewestelijke ontwikkelingsmaatschappij

Regional developmental company

IN Instituut voor Natuurbehoud Institute for nature conservation

KPI Essentiële performantieindicator

Key performance indicator

KUL Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Catholic University of Leuven

LTV Lange termijn visie Long term vision MCA multicriteriaanalyse multi criteria analysis NAP Nieuw Amsterdams Peil New Amsterdams level

(reference level for height determination in the Netherlands)

NL Nederland The Netherlands NLU Alternatief landgebruik New land use OMES Onderzoek naar de

milieueffecten van het Sigmaplan

Investigation of the environmental effects of the Sigmaplan

PFCAs Potentiële overstromingsgebieden

Potential Flood Control Area’s

ProSes Projectdirectie Ontwikkelingsschets Scheldeëstuarium

Project Management Developmental plan Scheldt Estuary


6

SCBA maatschappelijke kosten-baten analyse

Societal Cost-Benefit Analysis

SEIA plan-milieueffectrapportering (plan-MER)

strategic environmental impact assessment

SIA Maatschappelijke impact studie (MaIS)

Societal impact assessment

SSB stormvloedkering (SVK) storm surge barrier TAW Tweede algemene

waterpassing Second General Level (reference level for height determination in Belgium)

UK Verenigd Koninkrijk United Kingdom


7

Summary in English The flood risk approach along river and coastal systems did change basically through history. While in the past ad hoc solutions were implemented when flood calamities took place, today scientifically founded methods are searched to limit flood damage. Today the societal and economical impact of flooding in densely populated and industrialized European regions would be catastrophical. Moreover the influence of sea level rising and climate change will be significant in the future. Therefore a strategic long-term approach is imperative. In frame of FRaME various, implemented strategies on flood risk constraints were analysed. The strategic approach of flood limitation and new land use in 5 basins was assessed, namely:

- the Scheldt basin (Sigmaplan) (B) - the Dutch Rhine branches (NL) - the Humber estuary (UK) - the Baie des Veys (F) - the Norfolk Broads (UK)

Using a number of key criteria the different strategies were assessed. Those criteria were:

- strategic objectives - flood problem definition - option analysis - communication - strategy outcome

When evaluating, common as well as different aspects were found. The differences often were a result of the local nature situation and the history of the strategic approach towards flood risk management in the different river basins. Those aspects often determined the strategic objectives. It is important that in a strategic flood risk approach, an assessment of the complete river basin took place. This assessment needs to be founded on a detailed knowledge of the basin aspects (inventories, screenings, models,…). Within the strategic planning process clear feedback mechanisms with regard to economy (cost efficiency), ecology (estimating environmental impact) and society (societal impact assessments) are useful. These feedback elements are crucial to bring the planning process to a good end. Hydraulic modelling often is the basis for the different risk limiting scenarios. In the whole decision process interest groups are often involved on different decision levels to become a socially broadly based plan. Another important element that was result of the assessment, is the need for sufficiently flexible strategic aims, so that can be anticipated on new needs and experiences, changes or risks. The opportunity to adjust the strategy during the process instead of after, makes actions more efficient.


8

Samenvatting / Summary in Dutch De benadering van overstromingsrisico’s langs rivieren kustsystemen heeft doorheen de geschiedenis een fundamentele evolutie ondergaan. Terwijl de mens in het verleden vooral ad hoc oplossingen zocht bij het optreden van calamiteiten, wordt tegenwoordig pro-actief en op een wetenschappelijk gefundeerde manier met overstromingsrisico’s omgesprongen. De socio-economische impact van overstromingen in sommige dichtbevolkte en geïndustrialiseerde Europese regio’s zou immers niet te overzien zijn. Bovendien zullen factoren zoals zeespiegelstijging en klimaatveranderingen in de toekomst een niet onbelangrijke rol spelen. Een strategische, langetermijnbenadering van het overstromingsprobleem dringt zich op. In kader van FRaME wordt getracht een afweging te maken van diverse, toegepaste strategieën inzake beperking van overstromingsrisico’s. Er werd bij de analyse van de strategische aanpak voor een beperkt aantal internationale sites gekozen:

- het Schelde-estuarium (Sigmaplan) (B) - de Nederlandse Rijntakken (NL) - het Humber estuarium (VK) - de Baai van Veys (F) - Norfolk Broads (VK)

De evaluatie van de strategie werd voor elk van de referentiesites aan de hand van een aantal sleutelcriteria onderzocht:

- strategische doelstellingen - omschrijving van het (strategisch) overstromingsprobleem - analyse van de mogelijke preventieve opties - communicatieaspecten - resultaten van de strategische benadering

Uit de evaluatie zijn een aantal gemeenschappelijke elementen en verschillen naar voor gekomen. De verschillen hebben vooral te maken met de natuurlijke aspecten en de historiek van de strategische benadering van overstromingsrisico’s voor de verschillende stroomgebieden. Deze elementen zijn in de meeste gevallen bepalend voor de strategische doelstellingen. Het is echter duidelijk dat een strategische benadering van overstromingsrisico’s een integrale benadering van stroomgebieden vereist, waarbij gesteund wordt op een uitgebreide kennisonderbouwing van het stroomgebied (inventarisaties, screening, modellering,…). Binnen het strategische planningsproces zijn duidelijke terugkoppelingsmechanismen voorzien op het gebied van economie (kostenefficiëntie), ecologie (inschatting milieu-impact) en maatschappij (maatschappelijke impactstudie). Deze feedback-elementen zijn bepalend voor de uitkomst van het planningsproces. De onderbouwing van de verschillende risicobeperkende scenario’s wordt ondersteund vanuit hydraulische modellering. In het beslissingsproces wordt dikwijls getracht belangengroepen op diverse beslissingsniveaus te betrekken om een voldoende maatschappelijk draagvlak te garanderen. Een ander belangrijk element dat uit de analyse naar voren kwam, is het feit dat de strategische doelstellingen voldoende flexibel moeten zijn om te kunnen inspelen op aangepaste noden, nieuwe ervaringen, andere kansen of verhoogde risico’s. Een snelle bijsturing van de strategie tijdens het proces i.p.v. na de eindevaluatie laat toe om efficiënt te handelen.


9

1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction to the strategy analysis The project on “Flood Risk Management in Estuaries: Sustainable New Land Use in Flood Control Areas” (FRaME) is funded under the Interreg III North Sea programme. The project seeks to reduce flood risk in North Sea estuaries by combining Flood Control Areas with alternative sustainable land use. Activities include specific practical action at demonstration sites as well as broad study and evaluation work aiming at advancing and promoting innovative solutions involving sustainable new land uses while safeguarding the Natura 2000 series, and to provide new opportunities for social, economic and environmental benefits. The main preparatory studies performed regard the analysis of experience throughout Europe and North America on three separate issues; Flood Control Areas (FCA), New land use (NLU) and Communication (COM). Starting from a broad quick scan, each of the studies produces in depth main reviews of five specific projects. These core studies are being supported by a number of additional efforts considering a literature review, a strategy review and the drawing up of a method for the production of a best practice manual. This document reports on the study analysing the strategic planning issues of FCA and NLU project initiatives. While the individual thematic reviews will rather focus on operational aspects of actual implementation projects, this study was set up to assess the strategic frame of such projects and it is therefore oriented much more at the policy level. Not only is the social and economic scope much wider from the strategic point of view, a long term time frame will be addressed and the area referred to will be an entire estuary or river basin, rather than a single FCA project. This coincides with the regional and functional scale at which strategic flood control plans need to be conceived. To allow for optimal learning and knowledge development in the FRaME setting, a total of five strategic sites have been chosen to highlight different aspects with regard to flood control, alternative sustainable land use and communication aspects. While there is a slight difference in site selection between the separate thematic studies (table 1), a suitable overlap of strategic and operational study sites was pursued. Strategy FCA NLU Sigma – Scheldt Tielrode Broek Sieperdaschor Dutch Rhine Br. Aakvlaai Aakvlaai Norfolk Broads Norfolk Broads Norfolk Broads Humber Paull Holme Strays Paull Holme Strays Baie des Veys Marais du Cotentin Marais du Cotentin Table 1.1: Survey of the strategy studies


10

1.2 Study objectives The objective of the strategy analysis is primarily to provide information regarding the planning process of flood control and land use solutions at the policy level. Long term solutions integrating a wide range of economic, ecologic and social issues are addressed at the spatial scale of the river basin or estuary. In this respect, a clear distinction is made with the project level objectives and processes as they are treated in the FRaME Main Review reports. At the project level, operational issues regarding water storage (FCA) and land use evolution (NLU) are addressed for individual actions referring to contiguous areas (of relatively small extent) at a restricted time span. The goal of the strategy analysis is to provide the FRaME partners with adequate and relevant information on:

- the identification of strategy elements, - a comparative analysis of different strategies and their outcome, - key elements for use in a best practice manual.

1.3 Method The general approach for the strategy analysis consists of the evaluation of a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) for each of the references sites. The background information on each KPI helps to identify which factors contributed to a successful strategy development. A total of 22 KPI’s were defined to evaluate the five case studies, classified into five key area’s: objectives formulation, flood problem definition, option analysis and selection, communication and strategy outcome. KPI: Strategic objectives are defined

• Strategic objectives are developed • Operational objectives aimed at realising the strategic objectives are

developed KPI: Flood Problem Definition

• Appropriate strategy boundaries are defined • Applicable international and national legislation identified • Current knowledge is reviewed and existing environment described • Previous flood control policy options are reviewed • Significant opportunities and constraints are identified • Potential land uses in flood control areas have been assessed • Linkages to other plans are identified

KPI: Option analysis

• All reasonable and significant flood control options are considered as potential solutions

• Alternative standards of protection considered • Flood control and land use options have been costed • Economic costs and benefits have been evaluated


11

• Environmental and Societal costs and benefits have been evaluated • Costs and benefits that cannot be valued have been considered • Environmental Impact Assessment has been undertaken

KPI: Communication

• Planned communication has been undertaken as an integral part of option development

• Appropriate range of consultees included • Strategy has stakeholder acceptance.

KPI: Strategy outcome

• Preferred strategy is consistent with strategic flood control objectives • Risks have been assessed for preferred strategic approach • Sensitivity analysis of approach undertaken

The selection of the evaluation sites for the strategy analysis is based on the information gathered in the quick scan phase preparing the operational site reviews. An initial long list of potential study sites was reduced to a medium list of approximately 30 sites. After a detailed investigation through interviews with the key contacts for each site, an evaluation of the gathered information per site produced a shortlist of sites. From this shortlist five principle estuaries were selected based on expert judgement: − the Sigma plan (B); − the Dutch Rhine Branches (NL); − Norfolk Broads (UK) − Humber estuary (UK) − Baie des Veys (F) For each of these 5 reference sites, a broad set of documents and data was available from the literature reviews of the FCA and NLU aspects. This information was used for defining the KPI-elements.

1.4 Report structure After this introductory chapter (1), a separate chapter is dedicated to each of the five study estuaries. For each case chapter (2-6), a first part provides a general description of the river estuary or basin, and the historic flooding events that triggered the flood control strategy. In the following parts the strategy design is described starting with the strategic and operational objectives. The flood problem, policy options and the selection process and criteria are extensively revised. The evaluation of the strategy effectiveness is the final crucial step in the assessment process. To this end, the strategy outcome and the effectiveness of the planned elements is revised. The effectiveness is closely related to the measure to which it has been successful in realising the strategy objectives. In the last part of each chapter dedicated to one of the strategic programmes, general conclusions on the strategy approach are drawn. These are


12

synthesised in the final chapter (7) providing an overall evaluation of the strategy analysis performed.


13

2 Strategy for the Scheldt: the SIGMA plan

KPI summary table Objectives definition Objectives clearly defined, but evolving.

Strategic objectives of Sigma I were mainly security oriented. Operational objectives were partly realised, with the desired safety level not attained. Current preparation of Sigma II aims at ensuring a higher safety level and decreasing the risk of damage by flooding events, with respect for a more natural water system.

Flood problem definition Physical, hydrological, environmental, social and legal framework to the flood control strategy is widely studied and documented.

Option analysis An elaborate option weighing mechanism is set up for obtaining an optimised selection of measures to realise the objectives. Interests and impacts are addressed in a stepwise approach.

Communication Interaction with stakeholders for assessing social impact and acceptance is strongly embedded in the process of option appraisal and selection.

Strategy outcome Evaluation of the original Sigma plan combined with evolving social and environmental desirables results in rephrasing the strategic goals. The current second planning round addresses a far wider range of operational options to fulfil the new set of strategic goals.

2.1 General description The river ‘De Scheldt’ rises in the north of France near St.-Quentin at an altitude of about 100 meter (Figure 2.1). More then 350 km downstream from its source, the river flows into the North sea. The river basin comprises an area of about 21.000 km², the most important tributaries being ‘De Leie, de Dender, de Rupel’. The trajectory of the river form its source to Gent is called ‘de Boven-Schelde’ or Upper-Scheldt. Between Gent and the Dutch border it is called ‘de Zeeschelde’ or Sea-Scheldt, and downstream of the Dutch border the Westerscheldt. The estuary of the Scheldt is the stretch downstream of Gent. Characteristic for estuaries are tidal amplitudes and the gradient from freshwater to salt water. The tidal impact can be observed far inland on its tributaries. About 10,5 million people live and work in the entire river basin of the Scheldt. The typical landscape of a lowland river with its curly tide ways, was transformed by the construction of embankments and land reclamation from the late Middle Ages on. Man reclaimed land from the river with variable success until the 20th century. Of the 45.000 ha of the Westerscheldt estuary that existed in 1800, about 15.000 ha was converted into harbour and industrial grounds, farmland and pastures, and nature reserve situated on the landside of the dike. More then 30.000 ha have been preserved until nowadays. The Scheldt estuary remains one of the biggest and most natural


14

estuaries of Europe with a unique freshwater intertidal zone. In the course of the 19th century, the river Scheldt and its estuary were mainly used for transportation. The restricted navigability of the Westerscheldt however was its weakness, and in order to maintain its economical importance, the channel was dredged since the beginning of the 20th century. Nowadays an amount of 10 million m³ muddy sand has to be dredged out each year. In the course of history man has altered the riverine system of the Scheldt from a natural system to a confined system with dikes.

Figure 2.1: Situation map of the Scheldt river basin (source: Resource Analysis, Communication

presentations, Sigmaplan II).

2.2 Trigger for flood control strategy Historical land reclamations have resulted in a decrease of the natural flood area. As a result flooding disasters have occurred several times in history from the Middle Ages on. In the period between 1350 and 1600 several catastrophic flood tides have occurred. Even though most of the land was sparsely populated in these days, several villages such as Saaftinge were permanently destroyed by flood tides. Recent flooding with catastrophic result are usually better remembered. In 1953 a huge flooding occurred, in which several hundreds of people drowned, most of them in Zeeuws Vlaanderen (the Netherlands). As a result the Dutch government decided to implement the Deltaplan. This plan was created to increase the safety margin of the hinterland. This plan constituted of several actions, e.g. the closing of all connections to the sea, except for the Westerscheldt and ‘de Nieuwe waterweg’. All dikes along the Westerscheldt were raised to a height from 8.00 to 11.00 m + N.A.P. which corresponds to >10.00 mTAW to >13.00 mTAW. The Deltaplan should protect the Dutch river delta against future flooding events, and most of the measures were completed by 1990.


15

In Flanders the damage caused by the flood of ’53 was far less than in Holland. No plans for increasing the safety level were designed by the government. In 1976 high water levels in the Scheldt were raised by a northwest storm, and the dikes broke in several places, as a result of which vast areas of polder land and several villages were flooded. As a reaction to this disaster the Sigmaplan was started. From that moment on the Sigmaplan should assure the protection of the basin of the Zeescheldt against storm tides. The basin of the Zeescheldt comprises the tidal part of the estuary downstream of Gent to the Dutch border and its tributary’s. On the Scheldt the tidal influence can be observed up to Gent, on the Durme up to Lokeren, on the entire Rupel, on the Kleine Nete up to Grobbendonk, op de Grote Nete up to Itegem, on the Dijle up to Werchter and on the Zenne up to Eppegem (Zemst) (Figure 2.2). One of the major tasks of the department Zeescheldt of the administration ‘Waterways and Marine affairs’ (AWZ). is the creation and implementation of the Sigmaplan.

2.3 Strategy design 2.3.1 Strategic objectives defined

KPI: Strategic objectives are defined

• Strategic objectives are developed • Operational objectives aimed at realising the strategic objective/s

are developed The first Sigmaplan The first Sigmaplan was started in 1976 after the dramatic flooding. The most important strategic objective of the Sigmaplan was to decrease the risk of future flooding to occur and to guarantee the security of the population in the river delta of the Scheldt. The safety level for which the Sigmaplan was designed is based on the probability of occurrence of a storm flood with a certain water level. Floods rising to 6.70 m TAW (at Antwerp) have a probability of occurring once every two years, levels of 7.70 m are expected once every 100 years. The first Sigmaplan was designed with the level criterion of a tidal flood with an occurrence probability of 1/100 a century or once in 10.000 years, being 8.97 m TAW. This safety margin equals the the safety level for the Westerscheldt and the original Dutch Deltaplan. The plan comprised several safety measures to realize the strategic objective: - the raising of the dikes and the construction of compartmentalizing dikes:

about 512 km of dikes along the Zeescheldt river system were to be improved and raised to Sigma height: +11 mTAW from the Dutch border to Oosterweel; +8,35mTAW from Oosterweel to Temse; +8mTAW from Temse to Schoonaarde and for the rivers Durme, Rupel, Nete (Grote & Kleine), Dijle and Zenne; +7,5mTAW from Schoonaarde to Gentbrugge. Compartmentalizing dikes are built in vast low-lying areas, to prevent massive flooding in case of dike breach.


16

- the construction of FCAs: at first 13 FCAs were foreseen with a total surface area of 1133 ha. In situations of high river tides an FCA can store an amount of water, when the river level rises above the level of the lowered riverside dike of the FCA. The surroundings of an FCA are protected by the construction of ring dikes.

- the construction of a storm surge barrier downstream of Antwerp nearby Oosterweel: this construction could be closed in case of extreme circumstances and protect the entire river basin of the Zeescheldt upstream Antwerp by cutting off the tidal influence.

Figure 2.2: Proposed safety measures of the Sigmaplan (1977): PFCAs are numbered (1-13), dike reinforcements are indicated in red and green, the storm surge barrier was planned at Oosterweel.

The department Zeescheldt of AWZ has certain core tasks to fulfil, taking into account the economical context, the globalisation, the financial support, the desirability of participation and the respect for the environment. The core business of AWZ is about: − the protection of the population and patrimonies against tidal floods. − increasing the mobility of people and inland carrying trade, by

stimulating safe and effective transport facilities − stimulating economy, nature and landscape development, and

recreation, − guarantee a sustainable use of water. Since 1977 the vision on water management in general and on the Zeescheldt in particular have strongly evolved. The original Sigmaplan needed to be revised for several reasons: − the plan was not fully implemented, the risk of flooding remains (too)

high on several places in the Zeescheldt basin,


17

− new insights were developed on dealing with safety measures against flooding,

− the overall hydrologic situation of the Scheldt estuary has changed: the risk of occurrence of extreme high water levels and storm surges has increased, in 1990 the risk for the occurrence of storm flood at Antwerp higher than the reference level has increased to 1/8.000 a year. Not only the occurrence of extreme events, such as storm floods, has changed, also the average tidal amplitudes (i.e. difference between low and high tide) have increased due to calibrations, dredging of the waterways, and dike reinforcements. Future sea level rising has also to be taken into account. Since the start of observation of tidal levels at the North Sea shore, a relative increase of the average sea level of about 25 cm per century has been observed. Different models predict possible sea level rises of 15 to 95cm by the year 2100.

In the course of the past 25 years the wishes and expectations of the society towards the riverine system have changed. Moreover the vision on water management has changed from a primarily safety oriented approach to a multifunctional approach of the river and its adjacent valley. As general conclusions it can be stated that (1) even if the Sigmaplan would be fully realized (with the exception of a storm surge barrier), the required safety level can not be obtained at present; (2) the original objectives are no longer in accordance with the societal vision and expectations on water management in general. These conclusions formed a starting point for the developing of a new vision on the safety-approach and the functionality of the riverine system: towards an updating of the Sigmaplan The estuary of the Scheldt extends on Flemish and Dutch territory. There was an important need for an integrated vision on the Scheldt estuary as a whole. As a result the Flemish and Dutch government have decided to develop a common vision on the riverine system of the Scheldt: the Long term vision for the Scheldt estuary. In this study a target view of the riverine system for the year 2030 is presented. By 2030 the Scheldt estuary is to be a healthy and multifunctional water system, that can be used for human needs in a sustainable way. The three main functions are: safety against flooding, accessibility of the ports and the naturalness of the estuary. The Sigmaplan aims at the realization of one of the target views of the LTV for the Scheldt, namely securing a maximum safety level against flooding within societal acceptable boundaries of risks and financial technical feasibility. Another characteristic of the new vision is integrated water management, setting the goal to integrate several aspects and functions (safety, accessibility of the seaport, ecology, recreation…) for the water system as a whole: developing the optimal use and management of the water system, taking into account the actual and future needs. The integration of NLU-aspects in the management of estuaries and FCAs becomes more important with respect to the different societal functions they might fulfil: as a source of water, for transport, recreational activities, nature preservation, etc. These


18

functionalities should maximally be enjoyed in a sustainable way. In all cases the protection of people and society against the damage of flooding remains the prime concern. Integrated water management tends to integrate as much of these different functions and demands as possible. Important judicial preconditions include the EU bird and habitat directives, and the frame directive water. The two primary principles of the integrated water management approach with respect to the Sigmaplan are “more space for the river” en the “new safety approach” “More space for the river” fits in with the vision of a more natural water system. In the last centuries, man has strongly altered the functionality of the river and its adjacent valley: calibrations, land reclamation, modifying the land use, etc. In this way rivers have lost most of their natural function and space with higher risks of flooding as a result. Raising dikes can only solve this problem to a certain degree. More recently the persuasion has evolved that only by giving back land to the river, a better protection can be created. This can’t be realized in densely populated areas, the risk of flooding has to be inversely proportional to the possible negative impact. The demand for a general protection level for the entire river basin is no longer compulsive. At the same time there is a search for solutions that can guarantee safety without constraining the other functions of the riverine system. Giving space to the river can even create new opportunities with regard nature restoration, recreation, … In the ‘rehabilitation plan for the Zeescheldt’ (Van den Bergh et al., 2000) it is stated that opportunities can be realized by: − expanding the intertidal zone (e.g. by wetland restoration and expansion) − re-establishing the contact between the valley and the river (e.g. make

connections to cut-off meanders) − structural and functional spatial design of FCAs. The “new safety approach” starts from the principle that water control should take into account the damage that floods can cause. In the past the safety measures were mainly based on the main high water levels. Nowadays instead of the chance of flooding, the risk of flooding should be considered. The goal is no longer set on preventing floodings to occur, but to reduce damage as a result of floodings. The risk of flooding can be expressed as the multiplication of the chance of occurrence of a flood and the potential damage it might cause (material and victims). The strategic objective of the updating of the Sigmaplan is to realise a sufficient safety level at any place in the Zeescheldt basin. By sufficient is meant that the expected damage at any place should be less then what is societal acceptable. Moreover the multi-functionality of the Zeescheldt should be guaranteed and promoted. Have operational objectives aiming at realising the strategic objective/s been developed? State of affairs: first Sigmaplan. After almost 25 years, most of the operational objectives have been realized since AWZ started in 1977 with the


19

implementation of the Sigmaplan. About 80% of the planned dike reinforcements have been carried out. No compartmenting dikes have been realised. Of the 13 planned FCAs, 12 were realized with a total surface of 533 ha. The spatial design of the FCA of Kruibeke-Bazel-Rupelmonde is the last (and largest) FCA to be realized in the course of the next years. A part of this FCA will be frequently under a tidal influence, this type of FCA is called a GGG or an FCA with controlled reduced tidal influence. These areas can be flooded partially even under average tidal regimes, this offers special opportunities for nature development. The storm surge barrier at Oosterweel will not be realized, an evaluation assessment of the costs and benefits showed that the profits would not be in proportion to the costs. Moreover there are no win-win situations possible in regard to nature development and recreation. Because of this negative assessment the realization of the Oosterweel was postponed. The Sigmaplan was adjusted after some flooding problems in the basin of the Zeescheldt in 1993-1994. The Flemish Government was in agreement with a fastened implementation of the stated operational objectives. It was already stated in the former chapter that even if the Sigmaplan would be fully realized (with the exception of a storm surge barrier), the required safety level can not be obtained at present. It was calculated that the safety level at the worst protected location of the basin of the Zeescheldt would be not more then about 1/350 (AWZ, 2003a). In april 2001 the study ‘integral assessment of the updating of the Sigmaplan’ was started, comprising a search for suitable locations for FCAs and instruments with regard to integrated water management. The main focus of the updating study remains the protection of the population and patrimonies against flooding, by finding solutions on water control and prevention of calamities. An integral assessment is used, with the objective of assuring a higher safety level, and possible areas for creating room for the river (amongst which a number of FCAs) are being located. The operational objectives for the updating of the Sigmaplan have not been fully set out until now. Possible measures include further dike reinforcements, the realisation of new FCAs or FCAs with reduced tidal influence, giving back (polder)land to the river, and small-scale storm surge barriers at Lier and Mechelen. The realization of new FCAs demands an extensive search and has to take into account economic, societal and environmental aspects. The methodology for updating the Sigmaplan comprises several aspects. The search for suitable locations for FCAs and instruments with regard to integrated water management are included in the ‘integral assessment’. In the notification report of the strategic environmental impact assessment (SEIA) an overview is given of eight possible alternatives for the updating of the Sigmaplan. As stated in this document it is not yet clear which of the proposed alternatives (or variant of) will be acceptable from a societal viewpoint, this will have to become clear during the execution of the SEIA and especially the Societal Cost-Benefit Analysis (SCBA).


20

2.3.2 Defining the Flood Problem KPI: Flood Problem Definition

• Appropriate strategy boundaries are defined • Applicable international and national legislation identified • Current knowledge is reviewed and existing environment

described • Previous flood control policy options are reviewed • Significant opportunities and constraints are identified • Potential land uses in flood control areas have been assessed • Linkages to other plans are identified

How are the appropriate strategy boundaries defined? Forthcoming the strategic objective for the Zeescheldt basin, the strategy boundaries had to be defined. Geographically, the original ‘plan area’ was the whole naturally floodable river valley disregarding the existing protection measures. This plan area was further refined to potential locations for flood control measures (e.g. FCAs), as will be further explained when addressing the KPI: Option analysis. The updating study for the Sigma plan has to meet with certain preconditions with regard to societal acceptance, economic feasibility, legislation and policy, and win-win situations. A maximum societal carrying capacity should ensure that the strategic objectives can be realised with a maximum societal support and a minimal societal impact. The economic feasibility and an optimal cost-benefit ratio have been put first in different stages of the strategy design process. In the selection of the possible plan alternatives the agreement with legislation and policy is aimed for. The vision on integrated water management includes the concept of multi-functionality, looking for win-win situations on different areas (e.g. recreation, nature development, new land use, …). The combination of these elements have a modifying impact on the decision process of the various options. Has applicable international and national legislation been identified? An overview of recent conventions, directives, decrees, resolutions and policy plans, potentially concerning the Zeescheldt and its valley can be obtained from several recent study’s: − the environmental analysis of the updating study of the Sigmaplan (2002-

present), − the notification report of the SEIA for the Sigmaplan (AWZ, 2003), − addendum I in Van den Bergh et al. (1999). The ‘framework analysis’ of the updating of the Sigmaplan presents the most precise and practical description of the applicable legislation for the possible FCAs. Has the current knowledge been reviewed and the existing environment been described? An integral exploration of the study area of the Sigmaplan was used to review existing knowledge and the description of the existing environment. This phase consisted of (1) framework (in Dutch: omgevingsanalyse) and sectorial analysis, and (2) the developing of hydrological and hydraulic models. The


21

current knowledge has been reviewed and the existing environment has been extensively described in the framework analysis and the sectorial analysis by information gathering, interviews of stakeholders, and synthesising spatial information in overview maps. The information gathering phase included a broad spatial and physical description of the river basin of the Scheldt and its tributaries on several aspects including demographic, economic, juridical, policy, environmental, land use, landscape, ecological, historical, topographic, … The interviews of stakeholders provided additional information on opportunities, bottlenecks, threats, relationship with other stakeholders,… Hydrological and hydraulic models have been developed using topographical data and specific measurements. Have previous flood control policy options been reviewed? The measures taken in implementation of the Sigmaplan designed in 1977, have been reviewed at different times. An important aid for gaining an insight in the complex regime of a river was the designing of a computer model for the complete basin of the Zeescheldt. The basis of a good computer model is the input of precise and relevant data of the river basin itself. (topography, digital terrain model (DTM), hydraulic measurements, etc.). After the completion of the model the impact of different tidal regimes and several factors (river capacity, increased precipitation and run-off, decreased infiltration, increasing tidal amplitudes, storm level…) can be simulated. By modelling different scenarios or the implementation of certain flood control measures (such as the use of FCAs), their respective impact can be estimated. These models have shown that a higher safety level should be aimed for. At the moment the preparatory studies have been finalised. In the near future it will be possible to model the impact of the present and future measures on the basin of the Zeescheldt and most important the risk of flooding events to occur. An evaluation of the planned measures of the original Sigmaplan has shown that about 80% of the dikes have been brought at Sigma height. This means about 114 km of dikes still have to be raised and reinforced. The most important FCA (600 ha on a total 1133 ha for the 13 FCAs) is still unrealised, the preparatory works have started in February of 2003. The building of storm surge barrier downstream of Antwerp at Oosterweel was one of the provided measures to assure a high safety level. The original design from 1982 was estimated at a realisation time of 10 years and a cost of 565,2 million EUR at that time. The actual cost is estimated at about 991,6 million EUR. In 1982 a multidisciplinary evaluation study by the Catholic University of Leuven (KUL) concluded the cost-benefit analysis to be very negative. The at that time Minister of Public Works decided to postpone the plan for an indefinite time. In the updating of the Sigmaplan the operational objectives have not yet been set out. Possible measures include further dike reinforcements, the realisation of new FCAs or tidal influenced FCAs, giving back (polder)land to the river,


22

and small-scale storm surge barriers at Lier and Mechelen. In respect to this economic, societal and environmental aspects will be taken into account. What are the significant opportunities and constraints? A broad spatial and physical description of the river basin of the Scheldt and its tributaries, was formulated in the framework analysis and sectorial analysis. In these reports an extensive overview of all relevant aspects (policy, juridical, abiotic environment, nature and landscape, land use, …) is given. The results of these studies have shown the main constraints and opportunities with respect to these different aspects. Some of the general bottlenecks (e.g. water quality, …) cannot be solved, because of their relationship to causes outside the project area. On the other hand resolving local problems is one of the aims of the flood control measures. The representation and participation of the different stakeholders supports an intrinsic platform for taking integrated decisions on complex problems, coordinating different hydrographical and policy (regional, provincial,…) levels. The project also creates the basis for regional and international cooperation (e.g. LTV) for the execution of research, action programmes and developing an integrated vision on the river system. Another opportunity is the possible integration of existing plans and studies in the updating of the Sigma plan. The general option is to select flood control options that result in win-win situations with respect to the different functionalities of the river system (land use, environmental aspects, flood control, recreation…). The MCA approach (see 2.4.1 Option analysis) makes it not fully clear in what way the different functionalities will be affected. One of the major constraints of this approach is how to determine whether or not an alternative results in an net benefit. Benefits in one aspect can result in a negative impact on an other aspect. The interpretation of the different variants is therefore not univocal. The chances with respect to future benefits with respect to nature development, recreation, NLU,… are liable to a certain degree of uncertainty. On the other hand the MCA offers the most objective approach towards these different aspects. In addition to this MCA, extensive studies (SEIA, GEIS) on the environmental impact are executed. The ranking order of the PFCAs on their societal impact will be used as input for the hydrological modelling study. In this way the ‘effectiveness’ of the possible measures can be estimated in function of the required safety level. This strategic approach deals in the best possible way with the stated strategic objectives. Have the potential land uses in flood control areas been assessed? The potential land use of most of the 13 FCAs of the first Sigmaplan has not been assessed before the flood control function has been implemented. In normal conditions most of these area’s are flooded less then a few times a year, which means that the current land use (mostly agricultural or silvicultural) can be continued as well as several other functionalities. In Flanders the execution of certain works with regard to soil hydrology in nature reserves of ecological valuable area’s demands the production of an environmental impact assessment. For a few sites this extensive study has


23

been (e.g. Lippensbroek, Hamme) or has to be made (e.g. Kruibeke-Bazel-Rupelmonde). In this study the reference situation and the expected environmental effects are described. The potential (new) land use or possibilities for nature development are described. In the updating of the Sigmaplan the specification of the PFCAs has to take into account that these area’s should be designed as an FCA in a sustainable and a socially acceptable way. In this regard three aspects are important: the compatibility with legislation and policy; maximal societal benefits and minimal costs; and the cost-effectiveness. In the determination of the PFCAs the current land use -as mentioned on the zoning plan- has been evaluated as a criterion of exclusion. In the framework and sectorial analysis of the updating of the Sigmaplan, a broad spatial and physical description of the PFCAs has been produced including current land use, nature aspects, housing, recreation… Until now the expected potential land use has not been estimated as the future function and design of the FCAs is not established yet. It is however clear that in some of the FCAs, new land use options such as nature development may become an important issue. Are there any linkages to other plans? Within the framework of the Sigmaplan a large number of projects and studies, or policy initiatives have been executed or started. An extensive overview of links to other plans and studies is given in (AWZ, 2003e). Some of the most relevant links to other plans include: => Delta-plan For the Basin of the ZeeScheldt an equivalent safety level was aimed for as for the Dutch Deltaplan. The possibility for the occurrence of a flooding event was calculated as 1/10.000. => SEIA for the updating of the Sigmaplan The SEIA for the updating of the Sigmaplan is forthcoming to EU-legislation for important plans and programs. The purpose of the SEIA is to give support to the decision makers with regard to the upgrading the safety level in the Scheldt estuary. In the SEIA several alternatives for the updating of the Sigmaplan are compared based on their expected environmental impact. Essential elements of the alternatives are reinforcement of the dikes, construction of FCAs, a storm surge barrier, the realisation the “Overscheldt” i.e. a connection between the Western and Eastern Scheldt. The notification report is the first faze in the SEIA procedure. => Social cost-benefit analysis of the Sigmaplan Apart from the SEIA, the societal costs and benefits are estimated in a societal cost- benefit analysis. The cost of the plan alternatives and the financial impact are calculated. The Sigmaplan provides two types of benefits: on the one hand prevention of damage by flooding and the positive impact of the plans on other functions (e.g. mainly ecological and economical) in the river valleyThe comparison of the costs and benefits of the alternative plans,forms the last part. => Inventory studies of the river basin of the Zeescheldt Investigastion of the environmental effects of the Sigmaplan (OMES), sectorial and framework analysis, topography and DTM-studies. => Hydraulical model for the Zeescheldt basin Hydrological and hydraulical modelling tools are being developed.


24

=> Long Term Vision (LTV) for the Scheldt estuary, developmental plan 2010 for the Scheldt estuary The updating of the Sigmaplan concretises one of the characteristics of the Long Term Vision (LTV) 2030 for the Scheldt estuary, namely the realisation of a maximum safety level against flooding, that is social acceptable within the bounds of risk and financial technical feasibility. => Assessment of the Sigma-Natura2000 The estuary of the Scheldt has an important ecological value as an ecosystem on a European scale. An assessment study was performed to study the possible impact of the project in relation to the Natura2000 sites. The assessment was performed to gear the intentions and the policy of the different administrations. 2.4 Option analysis and selection Given the objective and the chosen problem definition this section describes how the strategy initiative went about the development and selection of alternative interventions (for the Scheldt example: strengthening of dikes, flood control areas and storm surge barrier … societal cost benefit analysis for selection) aimed at achieving the mentioned objectives. 2.4.1 Option analysis



• Alternative standards of protection considered • Flood control and land use options have been costed • Economic costs and benefits have been evaluated • Environmental and Societal costs and benefits have been

evaluated • Costs and benefits that cannot be valued have been considered • Environmental Impact Assessment has been undertaken

Have all reasonable and significant flood control options been considered as potential solutions? The initial Sigmaplan was designed for guaranteeing a certain safety level, based on the probability of occurrence of a storm flood with a certain water level. Different flood control options were proposed: dike reinforcements, the implementation of FCAs, the creation of a storm surge barrier and in certain cases giving (polder)land back to the river. Most of the foreseen options have been realised, except for the storm surge barrier which was abandoned because of the negative cost-benefit analysis. It is unclear on what basis the 13 FCAs have been selected in the first Sigmaplan. Probably the juridical preconditions and the societal resistance with respect to the realisation were limited, since most of these FCAs were relatively small. The largest of the 13 FCAs (Kruibeke-Bazel-Rupelmonde) has not been realised until now because of the more extensive procedures, juridicial restrictions (e.g strategic environmental impact assessment) and the limited social acceptance for the project.


25

In this respect there is an essential difference in approach for the updating of the Sigmaplan (AWZ, 2003c). The assessment of the possible flood control options starts from the level of the plan area, which consists of the entire naturally floodable area of the tidal river basin of the Scheldt and its tributaries. At the start of the process no goal was set for the number of FCAs that had to be localised. In order to get an objective overview of all possibilities, an integral exploration of the whole plan area has taken place, with information gathering, interviews of stakeholders, and the making of overview maps. The results of the framework analysis and the sectorial analysis were used for the further refinement of the plan area to search area’s by using exclusion criteria (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3: Schematic overview of the process of defining the PFCAs

These search area’s form an intermediate stage for the localisation of the PFCAs, with the potential interesting area’s for implementation of the flood control. The PFCAs are demarcated based on DTM, topography and hydraulical parameters. The final set of 172 PFCAs was assessed by the implementation of a multi-criteria analysis. The criteria followed from the objective of selecting only these area’s that can be designed in a sustainable and social acceptable way as an FCA. In this respect compatibility with policy and legislation; an optimal societal cost-benefit ratio; and a cost-effective design were most important. A total of 94 FCAs was retained after the application of the exclusion criteria. The results of the MCA depends on the selected criteria, the methods of standardisation and the weights used. A sensibility analysis was performed for different visions (policy, legislation, society, background, costs). With this method the PFCAs could be evaluated on the basis of their societal impact, with a relative ranking of each PFCA. The ranking scores will be used as input for the modelling studies. To a considerable extent the PFCAs with a ‘good’ score, i.e. a low societal impact will be selected in the further modelling. If necessary for assuring the required safety level, PFCAs with lower scores will be taken in the analysis.


26

Apart from the demarcation of the PFCAs some other alternatives for flood controlling have been presented in the notification report for the SEIA for the updating of the Sigmaplan (AWZ, 2003c), these elements will be discussed in the next chapter. Have alternative standards of protection been considered? As a result of hydrological modelling the insight was gained that the standard of protection of the first Sigmaplan was not obtained. The standard of protection for the updating of the Sigmaplan was set at a safety level protecting against events with an occurrence probability of 1/10.000 year. With respect to safety level, no alternative standards are considered. In the notification report of the SEIA an overview is presented of possible alternatives for the updating of the Sigmaplan. For an extended description we refer to the notification report of the SEIA (AWZ, 2003). The provided alternatives include: - the storm surge barrier at Oosterweel: as already stated this option has

been negatively evaluated for its cost-effectiveness, - ‘alternative’ storm surge barriers (SSB) as a protection for the Rupel

basin: one or two smaller SSB’s are proposed, - dike reinforcements and raising of dams, - FCAs: at the moment a total of about 180 areas have been pre-selected

as possible FCA - ‘polder reconversion’: the alteration of polder areas and their land use by

inland dike displacement - the digging of the Overscheldt: hereby is meant the connection between

the Oosterscheldt and the Westerscheldt. One of the purpose of this new waterway, in respect to the Sigmaplan, is to lower the high water level in the eastern part of the Westerscheldt estuary.

In the specifications of the SEIA five basic alternatives for the Sigma plan -combinations of different alternatives- should also be taken into consideration. All alternatives can have more variants. The discussion which alternative (or combination of, or variants) is the ‘most suitable’ one, has to be taken into consideration in relation to the required safety level. Regarding the present knowledge is quite obvious that even the execution of a part of the proposed measures can result in a higher safety level. The question whether or not a certain safety level can be justified is also related to societal, environmental and economical aspects. In the notification report of the SEIA a proposal of 8 possible strategic alternatives is presented. Which of the proposed alternatives will be acceptable from a societal viewpoint will have to become clear during the execution of the SEIA and especially the SCBA. Other alternative standards of protection against flooding are presented in the report of Van den Bergh et al. (1999), including measures with regard to nature restoration.


27

Have the costs for flood control and land use options been assessed? In the first Sigmaplan the building of storm surge barrier downstream of Antwerp at Oosterweel was one of the provided measures to assure a high safety level. The original design from 1982 was estimated at a realisation time of 10 years and a cost of 565,2 million EUR at that time. The actual cost is estimated at about 991,6 million EUR. In 1982 a multidisciplinary evaluation study by the KUL (Catholic University of Leuven) the cost-benefit analysis was very negative. The at that time Minister of Public Works decided to postpone the plan for an indefinite time. In the updating study of the Sigma plan, assessing the cost-efficiency of the design of the FCAs was one of the major objectives. This cost-efficiency has been assessed using different criteria in the MCA. Investment costs include installation costs (e.g. soil sanitation, groundwork, draining capacity, …), maintenance costs, infrastructure and equipment (pipes, power lines, roads, sewage treatment plants,…), operational and personnel costs and costs for compulsorily purchasing of land. The costs for specific (new) land use have not been calculated because the final plans have not been laid down. The cost-effectiveness will also form an important criterion for the evaluation of the different alternatives for flood control. Have the economic costs and benefits been evaluated? The purpose of the Sigmaplan is to guarantee safety against flooding. Based on the large scale of the project, the cost-effectiveness of the new Sigmaplan should be as high as possible: lowering the costs with restricted negative effects for man and the environment. These costs and benefits are assessed at different levels in the strategic procedure. In the SEIA the main stress is placed on the description of the environmental impact and the societal cost-benefit effectiveness. Significant positive and negative economical effects are often difficult to describe. Direct effects include spatial interference with current activities, functional changes of land use or activities. Some secondary positive effects on tourism and recreational activities are mentioned. Apart from the SEIA, the SCBA stresses on the social costs and benefits of these alternatives. There is no specific evaluation of economic costs and benefits in this phase, although some of these costs are economically related. The value of these costs can only be assessed with a range of uncertainty. The most important benefit is avoiding material damage. Have the environmental and societal costs and benefits been evaluated? As safety levels against flooding have increased during the last century, man has developed many socio-economical functions and activities in the estuary of the Scheldt. The lack of a clear spatial planning policy has only increased this evolution. As a consequence a flooding disaster would result in a far more financial damage then before. On the other hand the prevention measures in the updating of the Sigmaplan will have a serious impact on the environment and landscape in the Zeescheldt basin. This environmental impact is estimated in advance by producing environmental studies.


28

Environmental costs can occur as a result of the impact on the physical environment. Apart from the strict impact on the environment itself, A typical characteristic of environmental costs is the lack of direct financial implications, e.g. the financial countervalue of nature destruction or landscape degradation can hardly be assessed. Contrary to this aspect it is possible to make an estimation of these costs. In the assessment of the different FCAs the societal cost-benefit analysis has been included. Besides the assessment of the environmental costs, the societal costs of the different plan alternatives will be assessed by an SCBA. The SCBA process constitutes three different parts: in the first part the costs of the plan alternatives are determined: including cost for investment, maintenance, compulsory purchasing of land, operation, indirect costs (shipping, dredging, etc.). The benefits are calculated in a similar way, with respect to the updating of the Sigmaplan two types of benefits can be mentioned, avoiding damage by flooding disasters, and positive effects of the plans on the other valley functions, in particular on the ecosystem and the economic level. Have the costs and benefits that cannot be valued been considered? The Scheldt estuary is of great economical, societal and environmental importance. The economic importance of the Scheldt estuary in relation to the industrial-economic development of the ports of Vlissingen, Terneuzen, Antwerp and Gent is well documented and can hardly be overestimated. Aside of this economic function, its importance lays in aspects such as water management, nature, fisheries, recreation, culture… There are several costs that can hardly be evaluated, e.g. the restrictions to plans and projects as a consequence of the implementation of the EU-Bird and Habitat directives, the economic cost of a possible flooding event,.. On the other hand the execution of the Sigma plan will result in substantial benefits among which nature development, environmental improvement, increase of tourism and recreation activities (e.g. pleasure cruising, fishing, water sports, biking, hiking…), social benefits. Has an Environmental Impact Assessment been undertaken? The earliest studies on the environmental impact of the Sigmaplan were carried out in 1981. Additionally several ecological studies were performed. The obligation of an Environmental Impact Assessment was introduced (B.Vl.R. 23/3/1989) by implementing order of the Flemish government. From that moment most dike works became subject to EIA-legislation, which resulted in the retarding of many projects. For the first phase of the dike reinforcements of the FCA of Kruibeke-Bazel-Rupelmonde a report was produced in conformity with the EIA-legislation. With a view to quicken the procedure, in consultation with the different administrations a framework was drawn up for determining the need for an EIA. After the flooding problems in 1993-1994 a high priority programme on water control was approved, in the assumption the EIA-procedure for the rest of the Sigmaplan would be finished faster. Following these events the Flemish Government decided a General Environmental Impact Study (GEIS) should be performed for the first part of the Sigmaplan. The GEIS did not quicken the final EIA-procedure, as a result


29

all remaining Sigma projects were submitted to the EIA-procedure. As a consequence of GEIS some important designing principles of the Sigmaplan were adjusted with respect to the general ecological importance of the Scheldt estuary (Van den Bergh et al., 1999). In an attempt to gather more relevant information about the Scheldt estuary, a long term research programme OMES was started on behalf of AWZ. This research was executed by different universities and research centres. In recent years many studies on the Scheldt estuary have been performed. A systematic and thorough assessment of the different technical solutions for realising an increased safety level against flooding has never been confronted with the environmental impact this project might cause. The SEIA for the updating of the Sigmaplan tends to fill this gap. The SEIA legislation was recently imposed by the Decree of the Flemish Government (13/2/2003). The notification report (AWZ, 2003a) forms the first step of the procedure. This document gives an overview of the planned project and how the possible environmental impact will be assessed. One of the primary goals is to look for win-win situations with respect to safety and the environment. The findings of this study can result in adjustments of the planning process. The SEIA compares different alternatives for the updating of the Sigmaplan, on their expected environmental impact. The studied effect groups include the disciplines ‘man’, soil and soil quality, surface and waterbottom quality, fauna and flora, monuments and landscapes, air quality and noise pollution. Basic elements of the different alternatives include dike reinforcements, the construction of FCAs, a storm surge barrier, and the realisation of the ‘Overscheldt’ i.e. the connection between the Wester- and Oosterscheldt. 2.4.2 Communication

KPI: Communication • Planned communication has been undertaken as an integral part

of option development • Appropriate range of consultees included • Strategy has stakeholder acceptance.

Has the planned communication been undertaken as an integral part of option development? As a consequence of the flooding events in 1976, the first Sigmaplan was initiated. As opposed to the current updating study, there was no comparable communication strategy in the first Sigmaplan. Most of the measures were realised on a ad hoc basis. In the updating of the Sigmaplan, the communication aspect forms a key element. The communication strategy in the updating of the Sigmaplan is situated at different levels: An SEIA is carried out to make an assessment of the environmental impact of the project. The publication of a notification report (AWZ, 2003a) forms the first step of the procedure. This document gives an overview of the planned project and how the possible environmental impact will be assessed. A public


30

inquiry of 30 days is foreseen in the procedure of the SEIA. Remarks on the content of the study can be made. A Societal Impact Assessment (SIA) will be performed as an integral part of the updating study of the Sigmaplan. The goal of a SIA is to optimise the organization of the riverine valley, starting form safety and nature development as primary viewpoint, at the same time accounting for the sustainability and the carrying capacity in the social sphere of the chosen solution. It is very important that there is an acceptance for the project with the different sectors and stakeholders. The optimal overall solution for a problem is not necessary the best one regarding safety or the impact on the natural environment individually. The assessment of the impact on the local users should be kept in mind during the entire process. The SIA is carried out along a step-by-step plan (Tabel 2.1). In the first phase of this study all the stakeholders were identified. Participation of stakeholders is necessary on the one hand to draw on their general knowledge of the riverine system, and on the other hand to create the necessary social support for the project. The second step, the stakeholder analysis, was performed by interviews using a questionnaire. In this way the role and vision of the different stakeholders on the riverine system became clear. Opportunities, bottlenecks, wishes, demands and roles of the stakeholders were identified. Consequently the stakeholder analysis provides information about (1) the functional characterisation of the different stakeholders (what is there possible position in the process?); and (2) defining the vision of the different stakeholders on the issue and the possible solution. The stakeholder analysis (sectorial analysis part 1) completes the first phase of the SIA. The results of this phase will be used for the functional and intrinsic analysis of the stakeholders, and for defining the problem and the system description. The formulation of the system description is organised in workshops by using a Rapid Assessment Program. Two or three of these expert meetings have been planned. The purpose of these sessions is to acquire complementary knowledge in relation to the problem and system description. The process of the updating of the Sigmaplan will be accompanied by a broad information campaign. One of the goals is to get the involvement of the public by means of an open and transparent communication. The different stakeholders are involved in the communication process of the SIA. The further process will be supported by a multidisciplinary working group with representatives of the different administrations (AWZ, AMINAL, AROHM, IN, Projectdirectie Ontwikkelingsschets Scheldtestuarium (ProSes)).


31

N° Step N° Action 1 1.1 Sectorial analysis, part 1

1.1.1 Identification of stakeholders

1.1.2 Sectorial interviews 1.1.3 Stakeholder analysis

1.2 Environmental analysis, part 1 1.3 Definition of the organisational structure 1.4 Problem- and system description

Identification of problems and possible solutions

1.5 Synthesis 2 Define the objectives and

criteria

3. 3.1 Environmental analysis, part 2: Framework analysis

3.2 Sectorial analysis part 2 3.3 Analysis premise 3.4 Defining scenario

Determine the premise, autonomic evolution and exogenic factors

3.5 Analysis of departure situation 4. 4.1 Definition of the measures and strategy

Definition and analysis of strategy 4.2 Analysis of strategy

5. 5.1 Primary assessment 5.2 Refinement

Assessment of strategy

5.3 Final report Table 2.1: Societal impact assessment activity sequence .

Has an appropriate range of consultees been included? The process of the updating of the Sigmaplan will be accompanied by a broad information campaign. One of the goals is to get the involvement of the public by means of an open and transparent communication. A whole range of consultees has been included on different levels in the process. The different stakeholders are involved in the communication process of the SIA. In the first phase of the societal impact assessment all the stakeholders were identified. With regard to the updating of the Sigmaplan among the interviewed stakeholders were: − administrations of the Flemish Government and advisory committees with

regard to water management, forestry, nature conservation, spatial planning: AMINAL department Forestry and Wildlife,; AMINAL department Nature, AROHM department Spatial Planning, , ALT;

− Flemish public institutions: VLM; Aquafin, IAP, river basin committees; − scientific institutes or organisations: institute of nature conservation (IN),

‘Projectdirectie Ontwikkelingsschets Scheldtestuarium’ (ProSes); − administrations of the Provincial Government, − the local authorities − interest groups: e.g. GOM, umbrella organisation Water, Chamber of

Commerce, Conservationists, Environmental groups, Farmers’ union, Hunting association, Touristic or recreational groups…

These consultees will be involved in workshops, and some of them will be integrated in a multidisciplinary working group that will further support the process.


32

How was the strategy accepted by the stakeholders? It’s very important to be able to estimate in which way the different stakeholders are involved in the further process. Normally the different stakeholders all have a distinct role, therefore it was checked which role the different stakeholders would/could play in the further planning process. Various functional roles of stakeholders were distinguished (Figure 2.4):

• decision making: stakeholders with a modifying influence on the decision-making of the possible solution alternatives. These stakeholders are strongly involved and can influence the process strongly.

• think along with: stakeholders who can supply suggestions for possible solutions. These stakeholders are strongly involved on the issue, but have limited influence (decision power).

• guiding: some stakeholders have little direct involvement to the problem, but with influence on the final decision making. These participants should be kept informed and in time be involved in the decision making process..

• stay informed: these stakeholders are not directly involved, but nevertheless interested. They will be informed.

Figure 2.4: Stakeholder participation typology.

2.5 Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness This part involves a description of how the plans have been implemented. As such it is of a higher abstraction level than the analysis in the previous sub-section. Is there a clear assessment of the risks that are involved in implementing the strategy?

KPI: Strategy outcome • Preferred strategy is consistent with strategic flood control objectives • Risks have been assessed for preferred strategic approach • Sensitivity analysis of approach undertaken


33

Was the preferred strategy the right one in order to realize the formulated strategic flood control objectives ? At this phase of the process it can be stated that the managed strategy approach is in harmony with the formulated strategy objectives. At this moment it is still unclear how and in what degree the operational objectives will be realised. Have the risks been assessed for the preferred strategic approach? The strategy on the long term is to guarantee a certain safety level and the management of flood risks. These principles have to combine sustainable water management with new land use. The different phases of the flood control strategies In different stages the risks have been assessed on the societal, environmental, economic, technical level. Different plan alternatives have been selected, these will be assessed in the SEIA. Has a sensitivity analysis of approach been undertaken? A sensitivity analysis of the strategy process as a whole has not been undertaken until now. However, sensitivity analysis is built in the strategy development at different levels, where an assessment is made in which ‘steps’ possible strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities are situated (e.g. the sectorial and framework analysis: identification of opportunities, wishes and chances of different stakeholders). The characterisation of these elements in the different stages is not fixed because an opportunity in one phase can form a bottleneck in a next phase. Despite the fact that the general framework of the strategy is fixed, the possibility for adjustment in the different phases of the process is essential to be able to realise the final strategic and operational goals. For instance the flexibility for adjustment is realised by feedback mechanisms and active communication by the hydraulic modelling studies, the societal environmental impact assessment, the evaluation of the strategic environmental impact assessment, the societal cost-benefit analysis. It should however always be kept in mind that the chosen strategy is still in compliance with the strategic objectives. 2.6 Conclusions − The top-down approach, starting with the integral exploration of the entire

river system -with the identification of the main constraints, opportunities and chances as an essential stage in the identification of the specific flood control measures forms a basic element of the strategic analysis of the updating of the Sigma plan. In this way an objective assessment of the PFCAs is ensured, without preliminary restrictions. Feedback-mechanisms include cost-efficiency, hydrologic and hydraulic modelling data. In this way the ‘effectiveness’ of the possible measures can be estimated in function of the required safety level. This strategic approach deals in the best possible way with the stated strategic objectives.

− Creating a broad societal acceptance and support is essential for the

realisation of the strategic goals. The knowledge and participation of the stakeholders should be broader then ‘decision makers’ only.


34

Communication and participation form key elements throughout the whole process from start till realisation, with this respect it can form a weakness. Potential participation moments are foreseen during interviews (stakeholder analysis), public inquiries (SEIA), workshops (SIA); notification report (strategic EIA); spatial implementing plans; EIA for the project execution; construction permit…

− The general option of flood control that result in win-win situations can be

obtained when local problems can be solved, existing plans or action programs be co-executed with the flood protection program and the overall benefits exceed the estimated costs. with respect to the different functionalities of the river system (land use, environmental aspects, flood control, recreation…).

− The strategic process is based on keeping the societal impact as low as

possible, the screening of these results on their environmental impact and the evaluation by hydrological modelling ensures that the final solutions provide a maximum win-win *** The results of these analyses assumes a minimal societal impact

− The strategy approach integrates flexibility without reducing the strategic

safety level, this safety approach departs from sustainable management of flooding risks, reducing the “risk of flooding” rather than the “the chance of flooding”.

− The rather vast structure of the strategy approach is more suitable on the

level of riverine system then on particular case studies. The representation and participation of the different stakeholders supports an intrinsic platform for taking integrated decisions on complex problems, coordinating different hydrographical and policy (regional, provincial,…) levels. The project creates also the basis for regional and international cooperation (e.g. LTV) for the execution of research, action programmes and developing an integrated vision on the river system. The strategy process should be sustained with the most objective approach towards the analysis of results, benefits and impacts,

2.7 References http://www.sigmaplan.be Baten I., E. Van den Bergh, J. Bernaert, (2002). Enquête gemeenten langs de Zeeschelde en bevaarbare zijrivieren. Inventaris van de openbare eigendommen, beleidsmaatregelen, knelpunten en vergunningen. Verslag van het Instituut voor Natuurbehoud 2002.23. Hennissen, J., P. Meire, 1998. Inrichting van het gecontroleerd overstromingsgebied Kruibeke-Bazel-Rupelmonde: berekeningen i.v.m. de


35

toepassing van een gereduceerd getij in de polder van Kruibeke. Rapport van het Instituut voor Natuurbehoud 98.32. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap dep. LIN – AMINAL afdeling Natuur, (1999). Gecontroleerd Overstromingsgebied Kruibeke-Bazel-Rupelmonde; naar een vrij toegankelijk natuurgebied en vergroting van de veiligheid. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap dep. LIN - AWZ afdeling Zeeschelde, (2000). Aanleg van een Gecontroleerd Overstromingsgebied in de polders van Kruibeke, Bazel en Rupelmonde. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Dep. LIN, AWZ afdeling ZeeSchelde, (2003a). Milieueffectrapportage voor het Sigmaplan. Kennisgeving. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Dep. LIN, AWZ afdeling ZeeSchelde, (2003b). Naar een nieuw Sigmaplan. Kennismaking met het bekken van de Zeeschelde. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Dep. LIN, AWZ afdeling ZeeSchelde, (2003c). Deelopdracht 2: Integrale afweging voor de actualisatie van het Sigmaplan. Indentificatie en afweging van overstromingsgebieden. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Dep. LIN, AWZ afdeling ZeeSchelde, (2003d). Bekken van de Zeeschelde: een blik op het verleden. Van ijstijd tot Sigmaplan. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Dep. LIN, AWZ afdeling Zeeschelde, (2003e). Eerste kennisgevingsnota aan Europa met betrekking tot de actualisatie van het Sigmaplan, in functie van de bepalingen van ‘Natura 2000’. Soresma en Resource Analysis in opdracht van AWZ, afd. Zeeschelde. Overmars & Helmer, 1999. Gecontroleerd overstromingsgebied Kruibeke-Bazel-Rupelmonde. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap Afdeling Natuur. Overmars, W., W. Helder, (1999). Gecontroleerd overstromingsgebied Kruibeke-Bazel-Rupelmonde: naar een vrij toegankelijk natuurgebied en vergroting van de veiligheid. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud. Resource Analysis (RA/98-321), 1999. Agenda Langetermijnvisie Schelde-estuarium, Bijlage Werkdocumenten, 1998. Resource Analysis (RA/99-366), 1999. Agenda Langetermijnvisie Schelde-estuarium. Soresma, 2000. Milieueffectrapport: Realisatie van een gecontroleerd gereduceerd getij aan de Zeeschelde L.O. te Hamme. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Dep. LIN, AMINAL, afdeling Natuur.


36

Van den Bergh, E., Meire, P., Hoffmann, M. & Ysebaert, T. 1999. Natuurherstel langs de Zeeschelde: drie mogelijke inrichtingsvarianten. Rapport Instituut voor Natuurbehoud, IN 99/18, Brussel.


37

3 Strategy for the Dutch Rhine Branches: Room for the River

KPI summary table Strategic objective A strategic objective has been defined: ‘To preserve

and, where possible, to expand the discharge capacity of the major rivers as well as minimising flood damage, while at the same time improving the spatial quality of the river area.’

Operational objectives Operational objectives have been defined -keeping water in the catchment area, upstream of The Netherlands -storing of (extra) water along the Rhine Branches -discharging of (extra) water via the Rhine Branches

Flood problem definition Flood problem definition has been carried out. Official documents are available outlining the required safety levels, the governing boundary conditions and the available methods for dike design and construction. With this information as a background, several research projects are and have been conducted that give a clear view of the problem.

Option analysis A careful analysis of options has been undertaken. Local solutions are not always possible (high cost, limited opportunities). E.g. redistribution of flood waters and discharge of excess water via the southern branches (Nieuwe Merwede, Hollandsch Diep/Haringvliet) is recommended

Economic Costs and Benefits analysis

Economic Costs and Benefits have been assessed. The ‘Blokkendoos’ is used as a method for analysis of opportunities. This is a very useful tool that enables decision makers to rapidly assess the consequences of different (combinations of) measures.

Communication Communication is an integral part of the policy process. The Open plan process was applied.

Strategy outcome Although there are still ongoing discussions on elements of the strategy, experts expect the approach as a whole to be successful in achieving its strategic as well as its operational objectives.

3.1 General description The Netherlands forms the Delta area of the rivers Rhine and Meuse. The Rhine water enters the Netherlands at Lobith and flows to the North sea via the Waal and the Merwedes, the Nederrijn-Lek, IJssel and IJsselmeer. The Meuse joins these waters in the Hollandsch Diep (Figure 3.1). More than half of the Netherlands lies in the catchment area of the river Rhine which branches off in the so-called Rhine Branches: the Waal, the Neder-Rijn/Lek, and the IJssel. In these branches the flood levels are fully determined by the Rhine discharge. The area where the tidal effect also plays


38

a role is referred to as the lower river region. In total the low flow channel and the floodplains in the Netherlands cover an area of approximately 500 km2.

Figure 3.1: Orientation on the Netherlands and its rivers. The Rhine Delta comprises an economic rich area that is densely populated. The worlds largest harbour of Rotterdam enables the transfer of goods to the rich hinterland. Feeling safe behind the dikes attracts more people to come to the region with money continuously being invested into the area.

3.2 Trigger for flood control strategy In the past decade, the Dutch river branches have had to cope with two events, in 1993 and 1995 respectively, with particularly high water levels. Particularly in 1995, water levels reached record heights. Because the dikes were not at the required height at many locations, it was not certain that they could withstand these water levels. As a result authorities decided on the evacuation of roughly 250,000 people and large numbers of live stock. This led to enormous economic damage to industry and trade. The emotional damage was also large. The 1993 and 1995 high water events, were the trigger for a new strategy to deal with river floods.


39

3.3 Strategy design 3.3.1 Strategic objectives defined KPI: Strategic objectives are defined

• Strategic objectives are developed • Operational objectives aimed at realising the strategic objective/s

are developed The high water problems did not only occur in the Dutch situation. Other countries also suffered during the 1993 and 1995 high water events. In response the ministers responsible drafted so called ‘high water action plans’ for the Rhine and the Meuse with the purpose to better protect people and property from high water events as well as to improve the eco system. The core of the action plan initiative is the harmonization of flood control activities in different countries. The Action Plan High Waters for the Rhine contains the following actions:

1. Reduction of damage risks from flood events; 2. Lowering of high water levels; 3. Increasing of the high water awareness; 4. Improvement of the high water warning system.

All countries have to contribute to these actions. In Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany), for example, eleven retention areas, including the necessary dike realignments, are being constructed. Retention areas are also constructed along the Oberrhein, along the border of Germany and France. In the Netherlands these agreements have been incorporated into policy in the 4th Memorandum of Water Management, the cabinet positions on ‘Different approaches to Water’ and ‘Room for the River’ and the 5th Spatial Planning Memorandum. These agreements have since been implemented through the adoption of the policy guideline on ‘Room for the River’ and the execution of several river expansion projects. The policy guideline ‘Room for the River’ strives to: ‘preserve and, where possible, to expand the discharge capacity of the major rivers as well as minimising flood damage’(Policy Document ‘Room for the River’, 1996). First and foremost the Room for the River policy is concerned with providing safety. Safety from flooding in the Netherlands has always been provided by raising and strengthening dikes. The Room for the River policy has had two main implications. On the one hand the new policy has introduced a proactive (long term) approach where reactive (short term) approaches were common in the past. On the other hand the new policy entails a shift in the type of measures that is used to achieve increased safety levels, from strictly technical measures aimed at resisting high water levels to the specific inclusion of more sustainable spatial measures aimed at accommodating the water and lowering the high water levels. The spatial character of the intended measures introduces a second concern, namely spatial quality of the river area. Inclusion of this second element was triggered by protests against


40

earlier dike strengthenings that were thought to have too big an impact on the environment and natural character of the river areas. These two elements combined, safety and spatial quality, constitute the strategic objective of the Room for the River policy. 3.3.2 Defining the Flood Problem

KPI: Flood Problem Definition

• Appropriate strategy boundaries are defined • Applicable international and national legislation identified • Current knowledge is reviewed and existing environment

described • Previous flood control policy options are reviewed • Significant opportunities and constraints are identified • Potential land uses in flood control areas have been assessed • Linkages to other plans are identified

Since the 14th century the Netherlands is protected mainly by dikes. Despite their impressive service record they now have become a sort of Achilles’ heel for The Netherlands. The sea level is rising and there is the possible threat of an increase of the river discharges due to climate change, while at the same time the soil is subsiding. This coincides with an increasing population and growing capital investments, due to the perceived security offered by the dikes. Few realise that reinforcing and heightening the dikes, in fact increases the risk since when they fail, more water will cause more damage. It therefore may not be the best solution especially in view of sustainable development. The height, width and slope of the dikes in The Netherlands are designed in such a way that they are able to hold back a water level that has a predetermined probability of occurring. For the most part of the area under consideration this probability is set at once in every 1250 years (in the lower regions some areas have been designated probabilities of 1/2000, 1/4000 and 1/10000, amongst others in response to the larger socio-economic values in the area). This so-called design discharge is derived using statistical analysis of discharge peaks that have occurred in the past. Although there are measurements since 1901, the flood events of 1993 and 1995, in combination with predicted future climate change, have given rise to a reconsideration of this design level and hence an enforcement of the dikes. In the long run changes up to as much as 50 to 90 cm, due to climate change, are thought to be possible. In response to the 1993 and 1995 high water events, a plan was drafted to strengthen the dikes. This Deltaplan for the Large Rivers (Deltaplan Grote Rivieren) facilitated the swift implementation of the necessary floodbank strengthening works. As a result of these works, the majority of which have have already been carried out, a Rhine discharge of 15,000 m3/s at Lobith could safely be carried to the sea. The endiked part of the Meuse is capable of safely handling a discharge of 3,650 m3/s at Borgharen. Separate plan studies have been carried out for the not endiked parts of the Meuse, namely


41

the Grensmaas and the Zandmaas, in order to increase the level of protection from flooding. The Flood Protection Act (in Dutch: Wet op de Waterkering) prescribes a 5 yearly evaluation of the design conditions. As a result of the events in 1993 and 1995, authorities decided to take higher river discharges into account. The current situation is that the Rhine should be able to carry a discharge of 16,000 m3/s at Lobith safely to the sea. Also the discharge that should be carried by the Meuse was increased, viz. to 3,800 m3/s at Borgharen. The floodbank strengthenings that were carried out in the context of the Deltaplan Large Rivers do not comply with the requirements that follow from these new normative discharges. This means that the dikes do not comply with legal standards. Future climate change is expected to give rise to even higher discharges to be accommodated by the river system. Future scenarios take discharges of 18,000 m3/s at Lobith and 4,600 m3/s at Borgharen into account.

3.4 Option analysis and selection 3.4.1 Option analysis



• Alternative standards of protection considered • Flood control and land use options have been costed • Economic costs and benefits have been evaluated • Environmental and Societal costs and benefits have been evaluated • Costs and benefits that cannot be valued have been considered • Environmental Impact Assessment has been undertaken

In the 4th Memorandum of Water Management in 1999 the Dutch government paid extra attention to flood protection. Moreover a series of research studies were executed and an advisory commission was set up for water management in the future: the Commission for Water Management in the 21st Century. Completed investigations include:

1. Room for the Rhine Branches; 2. Integrated Exploration of the Lower Rivers Region; and 3. Water Management in the Lake IJssel region. 4. Integrate Exploration of the Maas (IVM).

As a result of these studies the government took three additional steps: • The commissioning of a ‘Planning Study’ aimed at concrete plan

formation and execution of measures that must be completed on the short term (2015);

• The execution of the so-called ‘Spankracht Study’, which is designed to assist in the formulation of a long-term strategy (2050 and beyond);


42

• The appointment of an ‘Emergency Overflow Areas’ Commission to advise on the use and location of emergency overflow areas.

As stated in 2000 by the Commission for Water Management in the 21st century there are three ways of dealing with the problem of the higher water levels:

A. keeping water in the catchment area, upstream of The Netherlands B. storing of (extra) water along the Rhine Branches C. discharging of (extra) water via the Rhine Branches

These three ways may be considered to be three operational objectives that in coherence aim to achieve the safety from flooding part from the earlier mentioned strategic objective. In that context a combination of measures is considered successful when it achieves the legally determined level of safety; in case of the Rhine this is means by and large that a one in 1250 years discharge is to be carried safely to the sea (as mentioned before some areas in the lower regions some areas have been designated probabilities of 1/2000, 1/4000 and 1/10000). Another option is obviously to adopt a differentiation in safety standards by accepting a higher probability of flooding where possible. This, however, is not part of the ‘room for the river’ policy. Another option is obviously to adopt a differentiation in safety standards by accepting a higher probability of flooding where possible. This, however, is not part of the ‘room for the river’ policy. The first option implies retention in, for example, Germany. It has been concluded that this can provide a limited contribution to the lowering of the discharge levels, but cannot represent a complete alternative to the implementation of measures in the Netherlands. The same is true for reducing the lateral inflow from streams and canals in the Netherlands it self. Based on the above, one can discern the following (spatial and technical) measures to achieve the operational objectives: A. Keeping water in the catchment area B. Storing of (extra) water along the Rhine Branches:

1) Retention (spatial measure): A retention area is part of the river system and is used to store water temporarily in extreme high water events. The stream of water in and out of the area is controlled.

C. Discharging of (extra) water via the Rhine Branches Spatial measures: 1) Lowering the floodplains 2) Increasing volume capacity:

This can be achieved by creating secondary channels. These channels increase the discharge capacity when needed and are useful for nature development projects.

3) Remove hydraulic obstacles from the winterbed 4) Setting back the dikes 5) The Green river:

This is a ‘new river course’ outside the winterbed that is only used with a certain frequency to store and discharge water. It is surrounded by


43

two dikes or higher grounds and is connected to the floodplain of the ‘normal’ rover by constructions.

6) Discharging via the southern branches towards the Zeeland waters.

Technical measures: 7) Adaptation of groynes:

Lower or even remove groynes at places where they slow down the river discharge too much.

8) Deepening of the summerbed 9) Heighten the dikes

In the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure (MER – Milieu Effect Rapportage) several effects have been taken into consideration in the evaluation of alternatives. Most important are, obviously, the effects on safety. Effects on and trends of the river morphology have also been considered. Effects on ‘Soil and Water’ have also been considered; including soil issues, surface water quality and ground water issues. Furthermore, an important part of the Room for the River policy is the link to ‘spatial quality’. Nature development is one of the aspects that is associated with this spatial quality. The ‘Tweede Structuurschema Groene Ruimte’, a policy document concerned with nature, already indicates that where possible the river expansion measures should qualitatively as well as quantitatively contribute to the ecological main structure (Ecologische Hoofdstructuur). European regulations like the Bird and Habitat directive will also be taken into consideration. Other elements that are taken into account in the evaluation of the alternatives are: cultural heritage and archaeology, navigation, agriculture, recreation, socio-economic aspects, sustainability aspects and mitigation and compensation aspects. Some priorities have been assigned to the different measures. The studies have shown that the Nederrijn-Lek and the IJssel are limited in their discharge capacity. On top of that, measures along the Waal and Merwedes have proven to be effective in the long term also; they have been named ‘no regret measures’ or in other words measures that are effective no matter the exact outcome of the planning process. For this reason the cabinet has given priority to measures along the Bovenrijn, Waal and Merwedes. The cabinet indicated that the measures are to be subjected to a so called Societal Cost Benefit analysis (MKBA - Maatschappelijke Kosten Baten Analyse). The MKBA is a method that helps to analyse the societal benefits of infrastructure. Purpose of this analysis is to get a broad prosperity perspective on the costs and benefits of the alternatives and where possible to include a financial valuation. Different scenarios are taken into account in this analysis. As part of the Spankracht study, the ‘Bouwstenen nota’ (2002) provides an overview of where and at what costs the above listed options can be applied. These so called ‘building blocks’ represent options for spatial and technical solutions for a safe discharge of future water volumes coming through the Rhine. For each block it is shown how it works, where it can be applied, what the hydraulic, spatial and economic effects are, and what the impacts are on the landscape, ecology and cultural heritage. All this information is put in a


44

database to form a box of building blocks (‘blokkendoos’). It forms a powerful tool for policymakers that visualizes the consequences of a set of measures of their choice. 3.4.2 Communication

KPI: Communication • Planned communication has been undertaken as an integral part

of option development • Appropriate range of consultees included • Strategy has stakeholder acceptance.

The policy ‘Room for the River’ has been integrated in the 4th Memorandum of Water Management in 1999 of Ministry of Public Affairs. This document has been the result of a participatory planning process. In a number of national and regional meetings more than 3000 people involved in water management gave their input. At the moment a national campaign aimed at making people more aware of the ‘water issue’ is in progress. 3.5 Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness

KPI: Strategy outcome • Preferred strategy is consistent with strategic flood control objectives • Risks have been assessed for preferred strategic approach • Sensitivity analysis of approach undertaken

The first step to implementation of the strategy is taken in the Planning study for the short term (2015). The plans that have been developed in this study will be finalised in a Planologische Kern Beslissing (PKB) (see also Figure 3.2). This is a logical step. The integral approach to dealing with the high water problems involves the entire river area while taking all functions and interests into account. This requires decision making at a supra regional level. The PKB is the appropriate instrument for taking such decisions with a spatial component at a national level. The PKB involves the selection of measures and their locations. It includes a vision on the long term and an outlook into the future including additional steps to be taken to further increase the discharge capacity of the rivers. As such the PKB describes the measures and their effects at a strategic level. Following this first step, procedures have to be followed that result in the more detailed design of the measures. This includes the interior design of the areas that are reserved to increase the Room for the River. Only when these procedures are finalised, the actual implementation can begin. Part one of the PKB procedure is expected to be finished mid 2004. With the deadline for the short term measures established in 2015, a large part of the desired measures is still in the plan-formulation phase. However,


45

several river widening and deepening projects are being prepared and executed. These are so-called no-regret projects since they are always useful, despite the strategy to be followed. They concern the removal of obstacles from the riverbed, the setting back of dikes and the redesign of floodplains. The latter also fits with the desire to give the flood plain area an important place in the Main Ecological Structure of The Netherlands. There has been no formal evaluation of the effectiveness of the strategy. However, the policy of 1996 is fully adopted and integrated in the present day water management as worded in the government document ‘Water policy of the 21st century’. Despite discussions on elements of the strategy, experts expect the approach as a whole to be successful in achieving its strategic as well as its operational objectives concerning safety. The evaluation of spatial quality is more difficult as an objective frame of reference for this subject is not available. 3.6 Conclusions The following outlines lessons learned in establishing the Room for the River strategy: • The shift from resisting towards accommodating the river discharge was a

major shift in dealing with water in the Netherlands. For the first time flood

Explorations

Cabinet decision

PKB-procedure Follow up-procedure

Permits andexemptions

Implementation

Figure 3.2. Different phases in the decision process (Source: Ruimte voor de Rivier - startnotitie )


46

control was not only to be achieved by technical but also by significant spatial measures.

• The committee Luteijn advises to create Flood Control Areas with a

capacity of 200 to 250 M m3 for the Rhine and a capacity of 100 to 150 M m3 for the Meuse. The suggested locations are not in tidal areas.

• Changes in land use, for instance the creation of Flood Control Areas, has

lead to the perception of a significant impact on for instance property value resulting locally in fierce opposition. It is recommended to establish changes in spatial planning documents, regulations for compensation and the planning for implementation as soon as possible to reduce the uncertainty for the residents involved.

• Decisions regarding the designation and actual use of flood control areas

are a national responsibility because the consequences of these decisions exceed the regional boundaries.

• Elements like designation, design and actual use of flood control areas

are insufficiently covered by current legislation. As a result the actual use of flood control areas in the Netherlands requires the development of a new law.

• Establishing dikes and flood control areas are important physical elements

of the Room for the River strategy. Besides these elements, a carefully planned emergency response strategy is also needed: covering elements like preparation, evacuation of residents, inundation, substitute housing for residents, return of residents, de-inundation, repair and care.

• Communication is an important instrument in the long process of

achieving the objectives of the Room for the River strategy. 3.7 Acknowledgements The help of Frans Klijn, Paul Baan and Jos Dijkman of WL | Delft Hydraulics is greatly appreciated. 3.8 References Anders omgaan met Water, Waterbeleid in de 21ste eeuw, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Den Haag, 2000 Bouwstenen Nota., Een overzicht van ruimtelijke en technische mogelijkheden voor veilige verwerking van toekomstige maatgevende Rijnwaterafvoeren, 2002, RIZA, Lelystad Projectsecretariaat Commissie Noodoverloopgebieden, 2002. Gecontroleerd overstromen: Advies van de commissie noodoverloopgebieden. Den Haag 2002


47

Room for the Rhine in the Netherlands, Summary of research results, 2001, Edited by Frans Klijn, Jos Dijkman and Wim Silva, RIZA report 2001.033, Delft Hydraulics report Q2975.22, ISBN 9036953871 Room for the Rhine in the Netherlands, What the research has taught us, 2001, RIZA report 2001.031, Delft Hydraulics report R3294, ISBN 9036953855. Translation of: Silva, W., Klijn, F. & Dijkman J., 2000 Ruimte voor Rijntakken. Wat het onderzoek ons heft geleerd. RIZA and WL| Delft Hydraulics (In Dutch) Waterbeleid voor de 21ste eeuw, Advies van de Commissie Waterbeheer 21ste eeuw, 2000 Waterkader, Vierde Nota waterhuishouding, Regeringsbeslissing, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Den Haag, 1999


48

4 Strategy for the Humber Estuary

KPI summary table Strategic objectives Provide a long-term strategy for the management of

the estuary’s defences that can be sustained as sea levels rise in the future.

Flood Problem Definition

The problem of sea level rise and its consequences are well established.

Option Analysis A limited range of options have been assessed. The recommendation has been to continue defending along the current line with localised managed realignment sites.

Communication To ensure that landowners and interested parties are involved and informed regularly and are supportive of the strategy

Strategy Outcome Currently unable to assess the outcome of the strategy as not yet implemented.

4.1 General description The Humber Estuary lies in the north-east of England, and is one of the largest estuary systems in the UK. The Estuary is surrounded by 235 km of flood defences protecting about 90,000 ha of land. More than 300,000 people are at risk of tidal flooding since they live or work in the estuary’s floodplain, which also contains extensive areas of farmland, the country’s largest port complex and commercial and industrial facilities together worth many millions of pounds. The estuary is designated at a national and international level for its importance to nature conservation, with most of the intertidal being designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI, a UK national designation), Special Protection Area (SPA, designated under the EU Wild Birds Directive), Ramsar site (designated under the Ramsar Convention for Wetlands) or potential SPA/Ramsar site, and a possible Special Area of Conservation (SAC, designated under the EU Habitats Directive). The Estuary and its floodplain also contain a complex array of historic buildings, settlements, landscapes and archaeological sites that are a fundamental component of the regional identity.


49

Figure 4.1. Study boundary indicating flood compartments and Management Units

4.2 Trigger for flood control strategy In 1997 the Environment Agency (EA) began the process of developing a long-term strategy for the Humber Estuary led by the need to provide a comprehensive, cross-estuary approach for defence management. Concerns arose that continuing to develop separate ‘Strategies’ for each of the three Humber sub-regions may result in actions taking place in one part of the estuary that could affect conditions elsewhere. The predicted rise in sea level over the next 50 years was also a fundamental issue. At that time the estuary’s environmental assets were also believed to be under significant threat, not least because it was thought that coastal defence/erosion protection works on the Holderness Coast would reduce the supply of sediment into the estuary system. The aim was therefore to produce a co-ordinated strategy built on a sound understanding of the natural processes taking place in the estuary. An Urgent Works programme was also introduced to run parallel with the Strategy to form an overall approach. The Strategy would deal with the long-term issues and set the framework for longer term upgrading of all the defences when required. Meanwhile, the Urgent Works programme took over a number (but not all) of the works within the three regional programmes to undertake work on the weakest sections of the defences. The current strategy is set out in Phase 1 of the Humber Estuary Shoreline Management Plan (HESMP). This was published in September 2000. This


50

report states that the main aim of the strategy is to maintain a line of defences around the estuary. Maintaining a line of defences around the estuary will lead to coastal squeeze losses as sea levels rise and trigger obligations under the Habitats and Birds Directive to replace these losses. At this stage, it was indicated that managed realignment would be an important supporting tool in the realisation of this aim by providing a more efficient way of providing a given standard of protection than simply raising the defences. For example, by providing flood storage and hence by reducing water levels during an extreme event, or by moving the defence line away from an area where it is under pressure and expensive to maintain. Managed realignment could also provide the replacement habitat required under the Habitats and Birds Directives.

Since September 2000, the Environment Agency has been refining the Plan and will publish a more detailed version (Phase 2) in early 2004 for consultation. 4.3 Strategy design 4.3.1 Strategic objectives are defined KPI: Strategic objectives are defined


developed Strategic objectives are developed The Strategic objective of Phase 2 the HESMP is to provide a long-term strategy for the management of the estuary’s defences that can be sustained as sea levels rise in the future. Operational objectives aimed at realising the strategic objective/s are developed The initial requirement was to demonstrate that the management of the estuary was favourable in comparison to a Do Nothing scenario. To assess the suitability of the Do Nothing option and each of the two Manage options, each option was examined in terms of its environmental, economic, technical and social impacts in each Management Unit (see Figure 4.1) using a ‘Decision Framework’. These impacts are grouped into the following overarching Operational objectives which relate to the individual studies undertaken to enable realisation of the strategic objective:

• develop a long term plan of flood defence works, including the provision of flood storage and the replacement of habitat losses, to be undertaken on the estuary;

• provide a more detailed economic justification for flood management; • assess the long-term geomorphological evolution of the estuary in the

context of flood management; • assess the impacts of flood management on the environment;


51

• confirm the requirement to replace habitat losses associated with the flood defence works;

• identify places in the estuary where managed realignment is appropriate.

4.3.2 Defining the Flood Problem KPI: Flood Problem Definition


Appropriate strategy boundaries are defined The extent of works under consideration are the defences that stretch the extent of the estuary, from its mouth up to Boothferry Bridge in the Ouse and Keadby Bridge in the Trent. These were practical boundaries that were chosen to provide realistic limits for dealing with estuary specific issues. The original justifications for undertaking the Strategy were the problems within the estuary. These limits prevented, as far as possible, the strategy becoming dominated by fluvial issues which are tackled by neighbouring flood management strategies in the lower Ouse and Trent. An appropriate landward boundary for the asset assessment was defined by the extent of tidal flooding under a 1 in 500 year flood event. The boundaries of concurrent studies were also acknowledged to avoid the double-counting of assets protected from flooding, as is required by the UK Government Department responsible (Defra). The overlapping of study boundaries with adjoining studies was therefore avoided. The entire study area has also been divided into flood compartments (grouped into Management Units (see Figure 4.1)), to enable the economic assessment of flood defence on more local scales, and to prevent benefits from one side of the estuary compensating for works on the other. This division method also allows information to be more easily handled. Flood compartments have either been separated from their neighbour by a natural flood boundary or by an arbitrary boundary where no natural boundary presents itself. Applicable international and national legislation identified The UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has overall policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence management in England; and will in certain circumstances help fund new flood and coastal works through the provision of grant aid.


52

The Environment Agency is responsible for managing the flood risk arising from designated ‘main’ rivers and the sea. A key point to note is that flood and coastal defence legislation in England is largely permissive and does not confer any right to protection from flooding or coastal erosion or any right to any particular standard of protection where defences are provided. The flood management strategy has been developed in the context of relevant international, national, regional and local legislation and guidance. It also needs to take into consideration various other plans and programmes that may influence, or be influenced by the Humber Estuary flood management strategy. The scope and direction of the strategy has been primarily governed by the need to provide adequate protection from flooding to people and property. However, in terms of European legislation the impact on sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directive has been considered a key issue. This is because the Environment Agency is charged with providing new land to replace losses due to coastal squeeze of habitat designated under these Directives. Coastal squeeze losses will arise as a direct result of the decision to keep the majority of the flood defences on their present alignment. Maintaining the defences on their present alignment is in many areas the only defence option due to infrastructure directly backing defences where management of the estuary is desired. This has the potential to affect the integrity of the European sites designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives (SPA and SACs respectively) because the inter-tidal areas are not then able to migrate landwards in response to sea level rise. Hence, managed realignment has been identified as useful at a strategic level to compensate for habitat lost due to coastal squeeze resulting from sea level rise, and has been one of the key issues addressed during Phase 2 of the strategy. Controlling development in the flood plain through UK Policy Planning Guidance (PPG25) and the need for Strategic Flood Risk Assessments have also been important issues, and the continuing issue of what is an appropriate standard of protection will also have to be addressed in future estuary studies. All of these will be influenced by current policy and governing legislation. Current knowledge is reviewed and existing environment described The HESMP has undertaken a range of detailed studies to provide information on the estuary currently and how the estuary as a whole is likely to develop in the future.

Flood defence asset assessments – the condition and defence levels of all defences in the estuary are periodically assessed by Environment Agency staff. In addition, a ‘walk round’ survey was undertaken by consultants during Phase 1 of the strategy to update the defence information supplied by the EA.

Land use studies Long-term estuary and coastal development – a range of models and

other techniques have been applied to the physical behaviour of the


53

estuary and the adjacent coast, with the aim of assessing the future development of the estuary and adjoining coast. In particular an assessment has been made of how much inter-tidal habitat is likely to be lost from the different parts of the estuary over the period under different rates of sea level rise.

Water levels during extreme events – a Joint Probability Analysis report which provides water level and wave period conditions for a range of extreme events in the estuary was produced for the first phase of the SMP.

Humber Estuary Environmental Baseline Study (HEEBS), Humber Estuary Historic Environment Baseline Study (HEHEBS) – were undertaken to provide baseline environmental and historic information.

Habitat Migration Study – predicted areas where habitat types would develop. This was used as preliminary screening for managed realignment sites for the Manage options.

Coastal Habitat Management Plan (CHaMP) – this assessed the impact of losing habitat due to coastal squeeze and covers all the sites designated under EU Directives in the estuary and adjacent coast. It draws on the findings of the geomorphology studies and was prepared in partnership with English Nature, Defra, the local authorities and others. The CHaMP suggests that approximately 700 ha of new habitat will be required as habitat compensation (based on the geomorphology study), including a reasonable allowance for uncertainty and taking into account the additional direct losses caused by future flood defence works in the estuary.

Economic Appraisals – an economic assessment to appraise the Do Nothing and two ‘Manage’ options was undertaken. An economic assessment method has also been used to appraise the benefit of each proposed managed realignment site.

Strategic Environmental Assessment - this compares the impact of the ‘Manage’ option (at both high and low standards) with the do-nothing option. It also assesses the impact that individual managed realignment site options will have on the local environment.

Previous flood control policy options are reviewed Phase 1 of the Humber Estuary Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), published in September 2000, sets out the main features of the long-term flood defence strategy for the estuary. It stresses the importance of keeping a continuous system of defences in place and confirms that, generally, the best way of doing this is to leave the defences where they are at present, raising and improving them as necessary. Advancement of the line was not attractive due to the additional contribution to coastal squeeze and possible retreat of the defence line is constrained by infrastructure in many areas. The Phase 1 Humber Estuary Shoreline Management Plan points out, however, that there are places in the estuary where retreating the line will make the whole system (Estuary, defences and area protected) more effective and sustainable. Phase 2 of the Strategy has aimed to demonstrate in more detail that to ‘Manage’ the defences using the method outlined in Phase 1 is preferable to a ‘Do Nothing’ scenario in terms of environmental, economic and social


54

impacts. Within the Manage Option, two standards of defence have been considered. The high and low standard of defences chosen for each area were a reflection of the general type of land use in the hinterland, according to guidance issued by Defra. These provided realistic upper and lower bounds to the works needed, their timing and their cost. This was taken as an intermediate step to provide a consistent approach to establishing a prioritised 50-year programme of works. The next step is to examine the early schemes in more detail, looking for options, for example, flood storage and local realignment that may allow the costs to be reduced. No other more detailed technical methods of providing flood defence have been considered in the SMP. In particular, the review of whether localised realignment is economically cheaper than to continue defence in some rural areas has not been examined at this stage. Such options will be addressed at the next level of planning and compared to the costs of maintaining the existing defence line derived in the Strategy. Significant opportunities and constraints are identified As well as providing habitat compensation, managed realignment may also be useful at a strategic level to provide flood storage to reduce flood levels; thereby reducing flood risk and providing savings by allowing defence works needed because of sea level rise to be postponed. Those potential managed realignment sites that have been given detailed consideration for flood risk reduction or habitat provision purposes are shown in Figure 4.2. Modelling in Phase 1 of the SMP indicated that moving the defences landward in the upper estuary had the advantage of storing some of the water that flows up the estuary during a flood and so lowered peak water levels. Subsequent modelling for the Phase 2 study confirmed that washland sites in the tidal rivers and some potential managed realignment sites in the estuary reduce water levels in certain areas of the estuary. This is a major advantage of undertaking managed realignment and may be incorporated in to the engineering costs to reduce maintenance and the need for bank raising. The appraisal of managed realignment sites has examined their likely reduction in water level and this has been used as an economic benefit with which to prioritise sites. Conversely, reducing water levels by introducing managed realignment sites in the estuary can reduce navigability in shallower parts of the estuary and tidal rivers and this will have to be carefully assessed in future more detailed studies of these sites. A constraint of undertaking managed realignment in estuarial systems is that existing habitats may be affected. Habitat created in the inner estuary may increase siltation further upstream as available water in the system is reduced due to the enlarged inter-tidal area. Managed realignment sites further upstream may also result in the erosion of habitats in the outer estuary due to the increased water requirement of the site upstream. The possibility that sites in the outer estuary may draw in more sediment from the sea and hence have an impact on the coast south of the Humber Estuary also exists. The possible disadvantages arising from the creation of managed realignment


55

sites in any area are currently believed to be considerably outweighed by the benefits. In terms of development of the strategy and operational objectives, the existing infrastructure and developments have been a constraint to defence options. As stated, maintaining the current line of defence has remained the only option in many instances due to infrastructure being located directly landward. Finding suitable sites for managed realignment has also been restricted by the surrounding developments and future plans for the estuary.

Figure 4.2: Managed Realignment sites under consideration

Potential land uses in flood control areas have been assessed The landowners and land types of the proposed managed realignment sites were assessed during Phase 2 of the strategy. Landowner and tenant information for each land parcel within the proposed sites were stored in a database for use during the consultation process. Land use was assessed as an inherent part of the environmental and economic assessments. For the managed realignment sites located on tidal river sections, the land will continue to be used for its present purpose as inundation will be relatively infrequent (on average approximately once every 20 years). The intention of this is to optimise the flood defence benefit obtained from the flood storage by only storing water late in the tidal cycle and thereby not drawing additional water into the estuary. This has the added advantage that, by not flooding the sites on every tide, the estuary morphology will be largely unaffected; and thus an estuary response that would tend to result in the benefit being reduced with time is avoided.


56

These tidal river sites are primarily agricultural. It is understood that financial compensation for damage caused by the extreme events under which the sites are designed to flood will be agreed with the landowners and tenants by the Environment Agency as part of the legal agreement to allow occasional flooding. Elsewhere, inter-tidal stretches of land created by managed realignment sites will provide important wildlife areas. Arable farming and some other activities presently taking place will cease, although some form of livestock farming could continue. Assessment of land use and land owners will have to be made on a site by site basis. The future landowners may be any of the Environment Agency, nature conservation groups and/or the original owners. Where necessary land will be purchased from the owners by agreement wherever possible, but with the option of sung compulsory purchase powers as a last resort. Linkages to other plans are identified It was recognised that the HESMP setting out this strategy should be suitable for adoption by the Local Authorities and should link with other spatial planning documents and processes, which include not only Regional, Structure and Local Plans themselves but also the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments undertaken in support of these plans. The Strategy will also be linked with the coastal Shoreline Management Plans on either side of the estuary, where the issues relate to ‘coast protection’ and erosion as well as tidal flooding. The HESMP will act as a model for UK strategies as a whole. For future studies the reduction in water levels provided by the managed realignment sites in the estuary and washlands in the river sites will have to be taken into account. 4.4 Option analysis and selection 4.4.1 Option analysis KPI: Option analysis



All reasonable and significant flood control options are considered as potential solutions Phase 2 of the HESMP initially aims to determine whether to ‘Manage’ the estuary is more desirable than to ‘Do Nothing’. Within the Manage option a


57

continuation of the current management scheme – repairing and raising the defences on the current line – has been chosen with the inclusion of localised managed realignment sites to allow for coastal squeeze and lower water levels to reduce defence-raising requirements. To assess the suitability of each of the Do Nothing and two Manage options in each Management Unit, each option was examined in terms of its environmental, economic, technical and social impacts using a ‘Decision Framework’. Each aspect of the estuary, whether it was an issue that it was desirable to achieve, or an inherent aspect of the estuary which was not to be harmed, was listed as an ‘Objective’. Each objective was assessed in a qualitative way and compliance tables produced for each option. These tables were presented with the benefit-cost assessments for each Management Unit to provide an overall option assessment. These assessments were, of course, not exhaustive and this had to be considered during option appraisal. Phase 2 of the HESMP also aimed to shortlist managed realignment sites where managed realignment would be a possibility, taking technical, social, environmental and economic issues into account. A short-list of twelve sites were selected (see Figure 4.2) on the basis of a limited multi-criteria analysis, which detailed 25 criteria under 7 headings, supported by local experience and judgement. The Decision Framework objectives were then used to help prioritise the short-listed sites, during which process some were eliminated. Together the twelve sites would provide flood storage for reducing extreme water levels as well as more than twice the area needed to compensate for expected coastal squeeze losses over the next 50 years, after allowing for uncertainty in predictions. This was intentional, giving the flexibility to discard sites or adjust their boundaries if it was found there were good reasons for doing so. The short-list was published in June 2002 and all the landowners and tenants that may be affected were contacted to determine their response. The social impacts, in particular the impacts on landowners and tenants, will be included in a full prioritisation which is yet to be completed. The Decision Framework offered a way to diverge from assessing each option on economic terms alone, as the inclusion in the assessment of the environmental, social and technical aspects is of great importance in such a highly complex system as the Humber. However, the large number of objectives that were developed to achieve this holistic assessment within the decision-making made the process very cumbersome. In future, it is felt that fewer objectives should be defined to avoid possible double-counting and to simplify the overall appraisal process. Alternative standards of protection considered Defra (1999) have provided as an aid to authorities, indicative standards for flood and coastal defence in England and Wales. These aim to help in establishing the range of options to be considered, though they do not constrain the need to consider a full range of alternatives. The level of protection advocated by these indicative standards relates to the housing density and land type of the flood compartment.


58

For each flood compartment therefore a range of standard of protection options are studied at the design stage and these relate to the indicative standard. During this higher level study, two standards of defence – the upper and lower limits of the indicative standard range were examined. This provides an upper and lower bound to the potential future flood defence expenditure in the estuary. Flood control and land use options have been costed The long-term programme for defence works have been prepared for the Manage Option and included in the refined version of the SMP. The cost of works needed to continue protecting the land is currently estimated to cost at least £400 million (c. 600 million Euros) over the next 50 years, with most of the expenditure needed over the next 30 years. The cost of the flood storage sites will be included if they are shown to be economically worthwhile and provided they are neutral on social and environmental grounds. The prioritised habitat replacement sites will be included as necessary to replace habitat losses before they are incurred, as detailed by the CHaMP. Costs include loss of income due to periodic flooding (for the river realignment sites) or land taken out of farming (for the inner estuary realignment sites) and the cost of building new banks, modifying or breaching the existing ones, reinstating land drainage and any other works needed (e.g., to prevent increased erosion elsewhere). Economic costs and benefits have been evaluated To satisfy Defra funding requirements, a benefit-cost assessment was undertaken to enable a comparison of the relative merit between the Do Nothing and two ‘Manage’ options for each Management Unit. Both direct damages (the cost of material damage directly related to the flood event) and indirect damages (additional costs incurred to the nation as a consequence of ‘disruption’ caused by the flood event) were calculated for each option. The benefits or damage avoided, provided by the implementation of an option were derived by comparing the damages incurred under the ‘Manage’ option and the damages incurred under the ‘Do Nothing’ option. An assessment of the costs required to implement each of the options was also undertaken. The benefit-cost ratio for each option was then derived. The benefit/cost ratio (which compares the economic benefits of the scheme with the economic costs) of each of the Do Something options, need to be considerably greater than one, confirming that the benefits outweigh the costs by a good margin. The case for the higher standard of defence may be argued where the incremental benefit-cost ratio is greater than unity (the incremental benefit-cost ratio is the ratio of the additional benefit to the additional cost, when the two Do Something options are compared). An assessment of all the direct and indirect costs and benefits associated with each managed realignment site was also undertaken. Benefits included savings in the cost of maintaining the existing defences or postponing other defence works because flood levels are lowered. Flood storage sites need to


59

meet all the criteria normally used to assess flood defence schemes. Again, the benefit/cost ratio needs to be considerably greater than one. Habitat replacement sites do not need the same detailed justification since they will be fulfilling a legal obligation (under EU Directives). They are therefore compared on the basis of how cost-effective they are at doing this, assessed by dividing the net cost of the scheme (the difference between the overall cost and any savings) by the replacement habitat area to give the unit costs of each hectare of new habitat created. As with the costs, the benefits of protecting to two different standards of defence have been assessed. The unit cost of new habitat is not the only consideration: there is also the impact on landowners and tenants (both within and nearby the sites) to be taken into account. This is currently being assessed. Environmental and Societal costs and benefits have been evaluated As previously stated, unquantifiable environmental and social aspects were identified during the Decision Framework process. Objectives relating to both aspects were developed and then assessed according to whether or not they were fulfilled by the implementation of each option. Compliance tables were produced for each option and each Management Unit. Environmental and social costs or benefits were presented with the benefit-cost ratio results for each option to provide a ‘fuller picture’ of the consequences of each option. The impact on landowners and tenants is also to be taken into account and this is currently being assessed. This process was also followed to appraise the managed realignment sites. The Strategic Environmental Assessment document provided the basis for assessing the environmental and societal aspects of each option and managed realignment site. The entire Decision Framework process was designed to incorporate the economic assessment and SEA in parallel. Costs and benefits that cannot be valued have been considered The purpose of the Decision Framework itself was to incorporate the assessment of any non-quantifiable costs and benefits into the option appraisal process, with the aim of shifting the main motivating factor during strategy appraisal and approval from a purely economic basis to a more holistic basis. No attempt to assign ‘values’ to these attributes was made, but any disadvantages or benefits of implementing each option in terms of environmental, social or technical aspects were presented in parallel with the economic assessment for that option. Beyond the Decision Framework further social and political issues are also being addressed by the Environment Agency in direct consultation with the landowners and tenants of the Humber Estuary and Defra amongst others. The objectives highlighted for use in the Decision Framework are not exhaustive. For example, future development possibilities were not assessed as these are relatively unknown. Consideration to the fact that the Decision Framework was not definitive has been made during option appraisal.


60

Environmental Impact Assessment has been undertaken The HESMP is a high level study and as such, a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) report has been produced. This compares the impact of the ‘Manage’ option (at both high and low standards) with the do-nothing option. It also assesses the impact that individual managed realignment site options will have on the local environment. It is based on the information about the estuary gathered earlier, particularly for the Humber Estuary Environmental Baseline Study (HEEBS) and the Humber Estuary Historic Environment Baseline Study (HEHEBS) supplemented by a ecological site survey carried out in September and October 2002 with desk studies of maps, LIDAR data and aerial photographs. The impact of each option is assessed against a set of objectives, drawn up by the team and reviewed by stakeholders. The impacts are summarised and taken forward to the overall assessment report. 4.4.2 Communication KPI: Communication



Planned communication has been undertaken as an integral part of option development. A Steering Group and Liaison Panel were established at the project outset in 1997. The Steering Group was very useful for developing trust among the stakeholders about the project’s objectives, approach and technical capability. The Liaison Panel have played a crucial role in developing the strategy, as it provided a forum where controversial issues could be discussed freely among people who know and care about the estuary. Both were an essential element of the consultation arrangements. A number of consultation related documents have been produced to disseminate updated strategy information:

• Inception letters to key stakeholders (October 1997) • The first ‘Planning for the Rising Tides’ document (April 1999) • Options Consultation Document (November 1999) • Shoreline Management Plan, full and summary versions (September

2000) • Update on Managed Realignment (July 2003) • 4 Tides News newsletters.

These documents have been issued to interested parties and are also publicly available. To aid consultation, landowner and tenant information is held on a database linked to a mapping system that allows the ownership/tenancy of individual parcels of land to be identified. The owners and tenants within the 12 sites excluding Alkborough have been contacted by post on at least 3 occasions,


61

when the short-list was published (June 2002), when the site survey was being planned (September 2002) and in March 2003. Most of them have also been contacted by local Environment Agency staff at least once, either in meetings or on the phone. Details of the contacts, including notes of meetings and telephone discussions, are also held on the database. The information has been used to assess the issues with owners and tenants that are likely to arise at each site. Consultations for the Alkborough realignment site have been conducted separately, by an Alkborough project team, as it is being progressed in advance of the main implementation of the strategy. A Public Inquiry for the strategy is not currently expected and attempts are currently being made to avoid one in relation to the individual sites because of the cost and delay that will result and the possible bad feeling that may be generated. The responses from these consultations have been fed back into the option development process together with the regular feedback from the Steering Group and Liaison Panel meetings. The comprehensive consultation process has been a great advantage to the completion of the strategy. Discussions with landowners have allowed some managed realignment sites to be enlarged and others to be discounted at early stages. It has also been an invaluable tool in bringing together all interested parties and agreeing to the strategy’s aim, objectives and consequences. However, the intensive consultation process pressurised the programme intensely. This is often a normal occurrence but where the strategy covers such a vast area and with similarly large amounts of information, this often put heavy pressures on resourcing and monetary budgets. Appropriate range of consultees included The consultations directly related to specific sites cannot be isolated, they are merely part of a complex and far-reaching consultation, information exchanging and influencing process related to the strategic management of the estuary’s defences. Key consultees, including the Environment Agency, Defra, nature interest groups, other statutory consultees, and industrial and agricultural interests are represented on the Steering Group. An overview of major stakeholders from around the estuary has been established by the Environment Agency. This is reviewed and updated regularly. Land owners and tenants have been identified from a number of sources including the Internal Drainage Boards and the Land Registry. Strategy has stakeholder acceptance Acceptance of the strategy will be obtained by asking for support from the key stakeholders. Written support has been provided from the Steering Group and the Environment Agency is currently considering whether to ask Local Authorities to adopt it as supplementary planning guidance. General


62

acceptance will be gauged by response to the Strategy document (when published) and at public meetings. As the Strategy has not yet been formally published it is not possible to assess its acceptance at this stage. The indications from the extensive consultations undertaken during its development are that the majority of stakeholders accept the Strategy. However, a few of those who will be directly affected do not agree with the Strategy at this stage. 4.5 Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness KPI: Strategy outcome


Preferred strategy is consistent with strategic flood control objectives It is currently considered that the Strategy fully realises both the Strategy and Operational Objectives. The sustainability of the managed realignment sites will need to be periodically reviewed in the light of sea level rise. This will demonstrate whether a ‘long-term’ strategy has been produced. Risks have been assessed for preferred strategic approach Risk management groups have met regularly to assess social, political, public relations and technical risks. Stakeholders are not present at the risk management groups, but their views are considered via the Steering Group and Liaison Panel meetings. The risk register is updated monthly. It was decided at the beginning of the HESMP that a variety of modelling approaches and techniques would be used to examine current and future estuarial processes. The models agree with each other well at a gross level but there are some discrepancies in detailed predictions. What has been exceptionally good in terms of the modelling has been that once the individual findings had been synthesised; agreement between the modelling sub-contractors has been reached. Each supports the major findings derived by different methods therefore increasing confidence in the predictions. However, to achieve this synthesis has taken a large amount of money and time, but this was required to analyse such a highly volatile system. The total quantity of land needed for habitat compensation has been set based on a worse-case scenario and on the highest water levels predicted from the modelling. The initial aim is to procure as much land as required to allow for coastal squeeze over the next 20-years. At the end of this period, changes in the estuary will be re-examined in the light of sea level rise and adjustments for procuring the next set of land will be made. Two methods have been proposed to secure land that will not be utilised in the next 20 years but that has been earmarked for managed realignment. Land will either be secured through zoning of land in the planning policies of


63

the local planning authorities or through contractual agreements between the Environment Agency and the current landowners and tenants. The first approach has not yet been formally agreed and because of the implications will be discussed at the highest levels of the Environment Agency. A primary risk of the HESMP in particular, is that a site at Alkborough was identified as promising for managed realignment very early on in the studies, driven primarily by its ideal geographical characteristics. The plans for Alkborough have now proceeded ahead of the Strategy. This has become a constraint on the Strategy, having always to consider interactions with the plans of Alkborough. However, this risk appears to have paid-off as the Strategy is consistent with the selection of Alkborough as a realignment site. In a similar manner, the studies looking at the area required to compensate for coastal squeeze and the principles taken to choose sites were undertaken in parallel with the SEA, and should have ideally been prepared in advance. A risk is that the findings of the Strategy in terms of the standard of defence may not be publicly acceptable. More detailed assessment of the economic costs and benefits may subsequently indicate that the justified standard of defence is lower than that currently provided. This would be controversial as it may make it harder for householders to obtain standard home insurance policies. An ‘uncertainty rating’ was assigned to the key constraints highlighted in the Strategic Environmental Assessment. Due to the high level nature of the strategy the detail to which study could be taken was limited. Therefore, certain aspects which are unknown or require further study at the next level have been given a high uncertainty rating. Potential mitigation measures for each Management Unit were also outlined. Sensitivity analysis of approach undertaken The entire approach has been one of looking at the sensitivity of the assessment to changes in the basic assumptions, which is why there has been examination of the effects of high and low standards of protection, varying rates of sea level rise (the present estimated rate (2mm/yr), that suggested by Defra (6mm/yr) and a higher rate (10mm/yr)), etc. There are so many uncertainties as to what will happen in the future that there is no ‘correct’ answer. What has been done, therefore, is to try and identify the general direction in which things were moving and then planned to return at a later date to review how realistic the predictions have turned out to be. This then allows a refined programme for future action to be developed. 4.6 Conclusions The following outlines the lessons learnt during the undertaking of the HESMP.


64

There is a need for flexibility in the definition of a study’s boundaries. In this case the study boundaries were established at the beginning of project for good, pragmatic reasons. It was subsequently necessary to adjust these when it became apparent there was a need to. However, it would not have been possible to predict that need at the beginning of the study.

The establishment of a comprehensive consultation process at the

strategy stage is vital to obtaining the cooperation of communities that will be affected by future works and aids the consultation process at later stages.

Where possible it is advised that the strategy is completed in logical

stages. Pre-empting strategy outcomes or predictions by undertaking lower level studies prior or in parallel to the study may cause problems and creates risks that cannot always be mitigated against. However, where good opportunities present themselves these should be carefully considered irrespective of the stage of the project, as in reality opportunities do not always present themselves in smooth logical order.

Limiting the number of objectives to be assessed when undertaking a

Decision Framework or multi-criteria analysis is crucial to enabling the assessment to be easily presented to other parties and to avoid the double counting of ‘benefits’ or ‘costs’.

A flexible approach is required to enable the requirement for greater

study / work to be dealt with as it arises. Although undertaking strategy level studies does not usually require detailed study it must still be borne in mind that a certain amount of detail is required for the results to have credibility. It will be unknown at the beginning of such an undertaking all the questions that may arise, and the project budget and programme should be able to adapt to address these.

The process of arriving at a strategy that addresses the issues and is

accepted by stakeholders tends to be iterative rather than linear, with options eliminated and solutions refined on each iteration. Nonetheless, a step-by-step approach, with natural break points giving time to reflect on the outcome of each iteration, what still needs to be done and how the project can be re-focussed to achieve it, is very effective.

4.7 Acknowledgements The advice of Richard Young (HESMP2 Project Manager) in the preparation of this review is gratefully acknowledged.


65

4.8 References Defra, 1999. Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance. Economic Appraisal. Environment Agency, 2000. Planning for the Rising Tides: the Humber Estuary Shoreline Management Plan.


66

5 Strategy for the Baie des Veys

KPI summary table Objectives definition Providing a water level management system

optimising the balance between the requirements from the different user communities.

Flood problem definition The flood problem is hardly pressing due to the presence of storm surge barriers.

Option analysis The options to be addressed consist of solutions to balancing the conflicting needs with respect to water level management of economical, ecological and recreational land use forms.

Communication The governing organisation is installed as an interface between public administration and stakeholders. Wide participation and public acceptance is observed, awareness campaigns are running.

Strategy outcome The upgraded water management scheme resulting from the strategy is serving the user needs in an improved way. The governing Charter is extended in time and more communities have joined.

5.1 General description General presentation The inclusion of the “Baie de Veys” case in the FRaME review was motivated by elements from different angles. The site does not comprise FCA projects in the strict sense, it does however fulfil an important estuarine flood control function which is being maintained, and its land use is being managed and adapted in that respect. This makes the site functionally strongly comparable to the FRaME demonstration site in the IJzer valley (Be) where a similar system of water management and land use solutions is being implemented (be it at a significantly different scale). A system of sluice gates on the four rivers forming the estuary, prevents salt water from flowing inland. This does not imply the exclusion of tidal impact since the outflow is blocked as well. The result is a regime of fresh water flooding under (indirect) tidal influence. This hydrological regime was inherited from two centuries of management and water control. This situation implies that there is no threatening flooding problem in the Baie des Veys area. The vast area of marshland serves as an extended semi-natural buffer basin for the high tide excess water. In 1995, a high tide occurred attaining the 1/30 years return frequency level, causing flooding in about 200 of the 393 communities concerned, without however causing real damages to goods or people. This observation demonstrates the operational success of protecting the population in the estuary from flooding problems. It also implies that the Baie des Veys case represents a rather peculiar case in the FRaME context. Whereas most other cases refer to a situation where the chain of strategic to operational objectives onwards to implementation measures is aiming at changing (and improving) the situation, in this case the


67

goal is safeguarding the situation and consolidating it. The overall Flood Control and Land Use is generally maintained at its actual status, whilst integration measures are conceived in order to provide for improved coexistence of the economic and ecologic values of the estuary. Another peculiarity of the Baie des Veys case is that the prime topic under consideration is the land use development. The maintained or modified operation of the water management infrastructure is studied in support of the land use issue. In most other cases, the flood control measures will be of prime impact, and land use will have to be adapted or optimised in consequence. Geography The marshland area of the “Marais du Cotentin et du Bessin” is situated 250 km west of Paris in the Manche (Cotentin peninsula) and Calvados departments, in the Basse-Normandie region. The two departments meet in the Baie des Veys. The marshes of the Marais du Cotentin et du Bessin cover the four river valleys of the Taute, Douve, Aure and Vire. This uninterrupted stretch of marsh opens out into the sea at the Baie des Veys. The site is subject to a very marked oceanic climate with typically slight temperature differences, prevailing westerly winds and frequent rainfall. The marshes are subject to regular winter flooding. The regional natural park covers a total of 145.000 ha of which 25.000 ha wetland prairies and 16.000 ha peat bogs. It stretches over the territories of 144 municipalities hosting 65.400 inhabitants. Ecology The Marais represent an exceptional wetland in terms of size and ecological diversity, hosting a mosaic of biotopes. It is the largest flatland area of peat in France. It hosts a good representative example of a western European coastal wetland, with its wet meadows along the coast. The site is a particularly favourable wetland for waterfowl because the bay and marsh complement each other: birds can feed in the marshes by day and roost in the bay at night. These wetlands are well suited for breeding bird species because of the lack of disturbance during the breeding season and the mosaic of biotopes. For migratory birds, the Marais du Cotentin play a prime role due to their position on the migration routes. Hydrology & Soil Due to their small gradient, the rivers have low evacuation capacity with respect to the amount of water captured in the catchment. A system of sluice gates downstream prevents salt water from flowing upwards to the marshes. This does not imply the exclusion of tidal impact since the outflow is blocked as well. The result is a regime of fresh water flooding under (indirect) tidal influence. This hydrological regime inherited from two centuries of management and water control has led to alternating flooding in winter and drying out in spring and summer. Peat is still the major soil component, although it can be concealed under surface mineral strata. Peat strata play a decisive role in the changes in height of ground water tables.


68

Figure 5.1: Cartographic overview of the water management implementation projects in the Baie des Veys

tributary basins. Land Use Nearly the entire domain of wetland prairies is used for extensive cattle stock raising (on average 1,4 Large Cattle Equivalents per ha), either by direct grazing or by cultivating grass for hay. In the sixties, several projects for land reclamation or drainage have been studied, in order to upgrade the area for more intensive agricultural activities. Due to the anticipated high costs and the problems the presence of peat would raise, they were abandoned. In the eighties the discussion between agricultural production and environmental protection rises again, but the overall agreement reigning currently is that sustainable development will have to be based upon the integration of both values. Environmental Protection Several parts of the site are in some way protected. There are six hunting reserves, one nature reserve, one public riverine reserve and one protected biotope reserve. All of the Cotentin and Aure marshes are classified as Natural Zone of Ecological, Floristic and Faunistic Interest (ZNIEFF), and a large part of the site is included in a Special Protection Area under EU regulations. The most important regional initiative however was developed in the late eighties, consisting of the creation of the Regional Natural Park “Marais du Cotentin et du Bessin”. The park covers a total of 145.000 ha of which 25.000 ha wetland prairies and 16.000 ha peat bogs.


69

The principal aim of the Regional Natural Park is to maintain extensive agricultural practices, but without the use of fertilisers or additional drainage, that could in turn also cause problems to the site. This type of management is considered to be the only way of assuring that the marshes have a lasting future. The purpose of the Regional Natural Park would also be to improve water quality, to manage watercourses and to develop fish stocks.

Figure 5.2: Map of the different nature protection measures in the Baie des Veys Estuary. The Regional Natural Park contains some conservation sites recognised as such in the European networks. European legislation therefore provides for additional support to the conservation issues in the strategy planning. ° the « Marais du Cotentin et du Bessin, Baie des Veys » site was

designated a Ramsar wetland in 1991, code France 7FR004 (surface 32.500 ha)

° two Natura 2000 sites intersect in the area: ° FR2510046 Basses Vallées du Cotentin et Baie des Veys, 1990

(15.465 ha) ° FR2500088 Marais du Cotentin et du Bessin – Baie des Veys, 1999

(29.270 ha)


70

Governance By creating the Regional Natural Park, the intention was to combine nature and landscape conservation with economic development of the region. The park is a syndicate with representatives of the two regional departments and the local communities. The working of the park is financed by the French state and the local communities contribute an annual fee per inhabitant. There are 5 workgroups in the park reflecting the different topics and projects in the park. The main topics are: environment and water, spatial planning, local development and valorisation of the inheritance. The park is also guided by a scientific advisory committee. This committee provides know-how to solve the local management problems. The working of the Park is regulated in a Charter document, signed by all communities involved. The measures addressed concern both water management issues and land use considerations. 5.2 Trigger for flood control strategy The historic flood control development is not under evaluation here. It is clear that the installation of storm surge barriers on all four rivers discharging in the Baie des Veys was inspired by the necessity to block high tide sea water to flow upstream and flood the land. The trigger here was both the protection of the population as the development of the agricultural practices in the estuary. Several triggers having lead to the actual management strategy of the Baie des Veys estuaries can be discerned. In concordance with the peculiar situation in this study case, the triggers steering the strategy development are mostly not flood control related. Other concerns with respect to the natural and economic development have determined the strategic end operational elements of the management schemes put in place. The land use management issues have however initiated purposive modifications of the water management in the entire basin. In that respect, the developed integrated strategy does have an impact on the flood control and water level regulation system. Shellfish cultivation The Baie des Veys itself hosts an important cultivation area of mussels and oysters in the off-shore waters and on the vast tidal flats. In the past decades, this important economic activity has suffered some set back due to silting up of the banks and pollutant contamination of the water. Measures to reduce the silting up of the cultivation banks are currently being studied and in a future phase, different scenarios will be evaluated in order to formulate adequate management measures in the total bay area. These may have an impact on the desired management scheme of the sluices on the rivers feeding the bay, and therefore on the total hydrological and ecological situation in the estuary. This issue is being studied in detail and the outcome will have to be incorporated with the needs and possibilities of all other conservation and development issues in the site.


71

Agricultural practice The Baie des Veys estuary has since long largely been used for extensive livestock raising, either by direct grazing or hay production. Initiatives to intensify the agricultural activity by draining measures were strongly moderated by the appearance of the European issue of reduction of milk product reduction. This supports the maintenance and promotion of extensive livestock farming activities, by providing subsidies to relevant initiatives. Nature conservation The latter observation would then combine with the insight that maintaining and promoting the traditional livestock farming practice is the best way to guarantee the preservation of the so valuable ecological system. Abandoning the extensive grazing or haying would cause the marshes to be in danger of becoming completely abandoned, leading to progressive overgrowth by rank vegetation, scrub and, ultimately, woodland. This would in turn lead to the disappearance of the flora and fauna that are presently of great conservation significance. These combined insights led to the integration of the formerly opposed objectives of agriculture and environmental protection in the land and water management strategy. 5.3 Strategy design 5.3.1 Strategic objectives defined KPI: Strategic objectives are defined


developed Clear objectives have been defined for both fields of action, being the land use development and the supporting water management and both levels of objectives definition, being strategic and operational. The FRaME study case presented in the Baie des Veys is peculiar in the sense that it is essentially a strategic project. In the other cases, a differentiation at the geographical and spatial level can mostly be made between the strategic objectives, addressing overall safety and land use options at the scale of a river basin or estuary, and the operational objectives addressing the desired results of measures implemented in individual projects. The issue at stake in the Baie des Veys specifically addresses integration issues at a large scale. The projects discussed can be seen as “strategic projects” rather than a strategic programme divided in a series of operational projects (such as FCAs along a river course).


72

In this line-up, the splitting up of strategic and operational objectives becomes rather artificial. The goals set by the Park’s syndicate for their initiatives are coordinating and integrating with respect to stakeholders and their requirements regarding land use and water management as applied to the entire set of estuaries discharging in the Baie des Veys. The Charter regulating the creation of the Regional Natural Park “Marais du Cotentin et du Bessin” (14 May 1991) was accepted by all 144 involved municipalities. It was elaborated in consultation amongst all involved; policy makers, local authorities and associations. The Charter formalises the project envisaging “the preservation and valorisation of the natural and cultural patrimony, while promoting the economical, cultural and social development in connection with its inhabitants”. 5.3.2 Defining the Flood Problem KPI: Flood Problem Definition


The strategy boundaries are set by the range of different stakeholders use the marshes. Some uses are historic such as agriculture and hunting and some are quite recent, such as tourism and nature preservation. Water management and especially the water level play a crucial role in the conservation of the marshes. Every stakeholder has his own desired water level. The overall (strategic + operational) objective of the Natural Regional Park is to find a suitable management of the water level for all users of the marshes such as farmers, fishermen, hunters, conservationists and tourists. This water level management should assure the sustainable conservation of the marshes and permit a balanced development of the different land use types such as farming, fishery, hunting, navigation and tourism. A clear strategic objective is therefore set and it has been officially installed in the Park’s Charter, a legal document laying out the basis, setting the wider scope and drawing the strategic limitations for concrete action. The construction of a Regional Natural Park is in France the most suited official procedure to develop an action programme integrating “nature and landscape protection” and “economical development”. This legislative instrument has been exploited in all respects in the installation of the Regional Natural Park of the “Marais du Cotentin et du Bessin”. National legislation has therefore provided with the necessary frame deploy an integrated initiative at such a regional scale. In addition, The Regional Natural Park contains some conservation sites recognised as such in the European networks. European


73

legislation therefore provides for additional support to the conservation issues in the land use strategy planning. In order to establish the initiative on a sound knowledge base, a number of descriptive and analytic studies have been commissioned. The reviewing of the current knowledge is particularly illustrated in the assembly of the “Atlas de La Baie des Veys et ses basins versants” (Atlas of the Baie des Veys and its tributary basins). Also modelling studies of the sedimentation in the bay and of the water regime in the marshland were undertaken. Given the peculiar situation in the Baie des Veys case, the overall flood control policy is to be taken as a settled issue. The impact of modifying the sluices operational regime on agricultural and ecological values is however reviewed in preparation of the optimisation issue aiming at the balancing between the stake holder interests. The same line of thinking applies to the potential land use and opportunities and constraints topics. The issue at stake is to harmonise the water management in such a manner that a workable balance is produced serving the different users’ needs in an optimal way. 5.4 Option analysis and selection 5.4.1 Option analysis KPI: Option analysis



As indicated under the ‘problem definition’ section, the option analysis in the Baie de Veys case essentially comes to establishing a water regime that optimally accommodates the needs and requirements of the different users and stakeholders. Since the safety measures are not modified, there is no such concept in this case of alternative flood control options or standards of protection. Since there are no direct infrastructure works or land use modifications, the costs and benefits as well are to be reviewed at an indirect level, considering the impact of modified water levels on the different fields of agricultural production, ecological values and tourist activity. Whereas the economic benefit of intensified livestock breeding can be calculated, the actual value of maintaining landscape and ecological values needs to be


74

established in a more subjective frame of appreciation. Environmental impact assessment is in this respect the instrument to be applied to reveal the effects and their relative importance of different management options. It is used extensively in order to provide with a frame of comparison regarding the ecological objectives in the area at stake. It is in this process of balancing the interests of the different stakeholders, that the institution of the Regional Natural Park is instrumental. The actual water level management optimisation is performed through consultation and deliberation. An overall agreement regarding the water level regime to be adopted was distilled from the (often conflicting, see table 5.1) needs of the stakeholder groups. It consists of an adapted regime assuring winter inundation and maintaining a minimum summer water level. The adopted solution actively serves the benefits in the fields of the marshland ecological development and of navigation possibilities, without significantly harming the potential for agricultural land use.

Table 5.1: Stakeholder requirements regarding water levels throughout the seasonal cycle.

5.4.2 Communication KPI: Communication



75


The installed Regional Natural Park and especially its Charter base document is the result of a consultation process between local and regional authorities. It was accepted by all 144 municipalities involved. It was elaborated in consultation amongst all involved; policy makers, local authorities and associations and can as such be seen as an indisputable instrument for balanced implementation of a land use strategy affecting a large area covering the jurisdiction of many independent authorities. The functional instruments to translate strategic options and decision into operational objectives consist of the deliberation processes between the stakeholders as they are regulated in the Park Charter. Important bodies in this process are the Mixed Syndicate and the Technical Support team. The central process of deliberation at each of the strategic, operational and practical levels can as such be seen as societal participation. One of the five core strategic objectives of the Park Charter is “to raise public awareness”. Public awareness campaigns are permanently running. The wide stakeholder acceptance is demonstrated in the fact that the RNP « Marais du Cotentin et du Bessin » was installed in 1991 and the original Charter was revised, adapted and extended for another 10 years in 1997. At the same occasion, a number of additional municipalities subscribed to the Charter and thus joined the Park and its strategic land use and water management planning.

5.5 Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness KPI: Strategy outcome


The management strategy for the complex of estuaries discharging to the Baie des Veys addresses the regulation of the water levels to accommodate for an optimised balance between the requirements by the different prevailing land use forms. While doing so, the modification of the safety standard with respect to tidal flooding is not at stake. Therefore the strategic flood control objectives are inherently respected in the strategy developed. The selection of the strategic line to be developed and translated into concrete action was based on two main pillars: broad and iterative consultation with the stakeholders, and the evaluation of costs and benefits for the land use communities. The resulting strategic water management goal came out of this optimisation process as the one representing the best solution integrating the different needs. The opportunities and risks taken into


76

account in the selection process do not address safety issues since the standard operation in that field is maintained. At the level of agricultural land use and ecological value maintenance and development, the sensitivity of each of the parameters to modified water regimes formed the basis of the decision frame. The combination of the resulting requirements with respect to the water regime has led to the formulation of a set of rules determining an optimised water discharge and water level management. The balancing effort evidently aimed at minimising adverse effects or risks to the individual land use groups. As such it can be stated that the strategy developed has met its objectives to a large extent: ° A water level management scheme is worked out integrating the needs

from ecological and recreational angles without harming the agricultural practices.

° The anticipated loss of the traditional landscape and ecological values of the marsh and wetland area has been countered to large extend.

° This was realised according to the original strategic objectives set, by maintaining and promoting the traditional land use practice of extensive livestock agriculture.

° European level impulses were successfully integrated in both the deliberation process and the support to the actual measures.

5.6 Conclusions Within the set of cases studied in the FRaME programme, the Baie des Veys stands out in a number of respects.

The estuary is protected from direct tidal influence by storm surge gates, and therefore represents a fresh water wetland area under indirect tidal influence.

The estuary is not subject to changes in flood protection standards or

practices. No FCAs are being installed, but the historic vast marsh plain functioning as such is being maintained and developed.

The strategic objective is strongly focused on safeguarding an

historically developed land use practice, rather than adapting the land use to a modifying environment.

The experience to be gained from the Baie des Veys case with respect to the handling of a strategic water management approach is however of clear value. The success of the strategy deployment with respect to both the water and land use management can be attributed to a number of assets brought forward in the process:

Providing for sound conceptual and strategic planning, translating in a stepwise manner into operational level objectives (local as well as thematic) and further on into practical measures.


77

Taking advantages of economical evolutions and the impulse they can provide to the integration of apparently opposed interests (e.g. EU regulations regarding milk quota).

Providing for broadly accessible and lasting deliberation platforms.

Interests change over time, and so will the balance between them.

Providing for wide public and official acceptance and involvement, in this case regrouping a large number of communities, higher authorities and organisations.

5.7 References http://www.parc-cotentin-bessin.fr/ http://www.parcs-naturels-regionaux.tm.fr/lesparcs/cobea.html http://www.info.unicaen.fr/dess-napi/NAPI98-99/promo9899/jmlecarp/reportage/som.html http://www.conservatoire-du-littoral.fr/front/process/Content.asp?rub=8&rubec=233 http://natura2000.environnement.gouv.fr/sites/FR2500088.html http://www.wetlands.org/RDB/Ramsar_Dir/France/FR004D02.htm Agence de l’eau Seine-Normandie / Direction Régionale de l’Environnement Basse-Normandie, 2000, La Baie des Veys et ses bassins versants – Atlas. Agence de l’eau Seine-Normandie / Université de Caen, 2002, Suivi de la qualité des eaux superficielles arrivant dans le baie des Veys, Agence de l’eau Seine-Normandie, 2000, Baie des Veys : étude hydro-sédimentaire et amélioration des conditions de salubrité. Agence de l’eau Seine-Normandie, 1996, Les Institutions interdépartemen-tales face aux inondations : des partenaires priviligiés pour une gestion globale. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique – Jean-Luc Redaud, Reconquérir les zones humides, de nouveaux outils pour de nouveaux enjeux. Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement Durable, Entre Eau et Terre, agir pour les zones humides.


78

6 Strategy for the Norfolk Broads

KPI summary table Strategic objectives are defined Strategic objective is developed.

Implementation of sustainable flood defence improvements in Broadland aiming to ensure that navigation, recreational and wildlife interests are all also fully protected. Secondary objectives are contained in the method of working i.e. environmentally sound practices which will lead to an increase in nature areas or at least compensation of nature areas lost.

Flood Problem Definition The problems of river management and sea level rise and its consequences are well established.

Option Analysis A limited range of options have been assessed. It was agreed that the current system of flood defences would be renewed and strengthened to sustain the level established in 1995. An option is kept open to use alternative and additional measures for washland construction.

Communication To ensure that landowners and interested parties are involved and informed regularly and are supportive of the strategy, public consultation procedures were established. The long duration project will provide yearly progress reports.

Strategy Outcome Strategy development is still young but seems to have been striking the right chords with the local and regional stakeholders.

6.1 General description The Norfolk Broads (or Norfolk Broadland) is a coastal area in which some smaller river systems are situated (see Figure 6.1). The river network that drowned over the course of the last thousands of years was intensively managed and altered by man in historical times. The landscape is a previously glaciated area, during which a succession of glacial tills and melt water deposits were formed. The Norfolk coastline is one of relatively low cliffs formed in layered deposits that are easily erodable. The coastline is still erosional despite many measures being Figure 6.1: Overview Broadland


79

taken by Man. Much of the sediment provided by the eroding cliffs was/is being reworked into spits and river mouth bars, and some filling in of river mouth areas has occurred. During the glacial periods the rivers were incised, and not enough sediment was available to fill them. Hence along these rivers, wide areas drowned and peat formation started as these areas were well protected from the tidal influence and enough freshwater was available. In historical time, the peat was excavated to be used as fuel, and large areas became shallow lakes. With sea-level rising more and more, the area is now in need of protection against flooding.

6.2 Trigger for flood control strategy Until the current project, no integrated flood defence system had been put in place in the area. However, with time progressing large-scale maintenance of the area’s flood defences was considered to be necessary. The existing flood defences were lacking consistency and many of them had deteriorated over time through settlement (due to the irreversible compaction of the river banks as they consist of silty clay) and/or wave- and current erosion (wind, boats, river flows and tides). Occasional tidal flooding occurred, but this seems to have had only a minor impact. Anticipated rise in sea-level caused further concern. Hence a project was initiated to provide sustainable and cost-effective flood defences for a period of 20 years through a public-private partnership (effectively a privatised form of defence procurement). As such the project is a first of its kind in the United Kingdom.

6.3 Strategy design 6.3.1 Strategic objectives are defined KPI: Strategic objectives are defined


developed The area has a long history of local floods, most of these being triggered by tidal surges. Landowners have done their share through the course of time to prevent further flooding, resulting in a somewhat haphazard collection of flood defences and erosion control works, which was nevertheless providing a degree of flood protection. Over the last few decades however, increasingly it was felt that a coherent flood defence system needed to be in place. In the 1990’s the Environment Agency last considered the following flood defence strategies:

• Do nothing • Substantially raising existing defences • Building river mouth barriers • Constructing formal washlands


80

However, these strategies were not considered any further because they did not meet standards of sustainability or the cost-benefit criteria for flood defence, and were not locally supported. The current strategy of sustaining the standard of flood protection by sustaining and renewing the condition of the existing defences through floodbank strengthening and erosion protection was put in place - but without raising the long-term level of protection provided by the defences. The Environment Agency agreed to this programme after careful consideration in 1995. In the background, a general line of thought had been developed in the Environment Agency that its strategy could be delivered by a public-private partnership programme. In 1995, a new assessment concluded that it was best to aim at a programme of work that would renew and strengthen the current system of flood defences. The aim is further to raise floodbank levels only to a level that redresses the previous settlement and compensates for sea-level rise in future. The potential of washland formation could still be incorporated if found viable during the project. In hindsight it is noted that with the acceptance of the above-mentioned programme the target was to be a set of integrated and sustainable flood defences, with the standard of flood protection set at a lower level than might otherwise have been the case. Secondly, it may be noted that with the trend towards privatization in the country, the best form to tackle the problems in the Broadland area was thought to be a public-private partnership under the prevailing investment conditions. In May 2001 BESL (Broadland Environmental Services Limited), a consortium of two private companies: Edmund Nuttall Ltd. and Halcrow Group Ltd, was therefore awarded a 20-year contract by the Environment Agency to improve and maintain flood defences in Broadland: the Broadland Flood Alleviation Project. An extensive round of public consultation was necessary in order to plan the execution of the many measures that were to be taken. Early on in the process, it was decided to arrange for a so-called Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The word “environment” is used in the widest sense and includes human activity (economic, social etc.). The SEA is carried out as an open process and depends on meaningful public participation. The draft SEA was produced in 1997. BESL along with others as the Environment Agency have updated the SEA in consultation with the public in an early stage of the project (Halcrow, May 2003). The background is that although a SEA is not a part of the legal process it may well become to be so in the near future (2004) for this type of project, as a consequence of the EU SEA Directive. Therefore it can be said that the BESL project is a pilot with a view towards future development of the processes involved in this type of project.


81

The project is aiming to work with stakeholders. The public participation is carried out within certain boundaries: the legal framework that determines the work of the Environment Agency (and thus of the BESL) defines the level of public participation. The public was invited to react to the extensive information provided to the public through an integrated set of leaflets outlining various important issues under the project. Questionnaires were distributed along with the leaflets, with clear instructions on filling the questionnaires. A wide audience was reached, with 600 different stakeholders approached as well as 500 landowners. Provisions were also set in place to receive comments of those who were accidentally left out from the first mailing. A second round of interaction is foreseen by invitation of certain stakeholders to so-called ‘fora’ for discussion of selected issues distilled from the public responses to the leaflets in the form of mixed- and single interest fora. The project budget allows for some five groups to be active. Detailed, local schemes will be discussed with the local communities by a so-called ‘rolling programme’ of detailed consultations before implementation. The public was also invited to suggest ways of communication to keep itself up-to-date with project developments. It can be concluded that the project tries to be as open as possible to public participation. The process is facilitated by a separate sub-consultant, to ensure maximum possible effectiveness. The legal framework under which the project has started its life span is determining to a large extent its (future) success. The Private-Public Partnership (PPP) approach created the possibility for the EA to keep a close relationship with the project, and enabled it impose a number of what the EA considers best practices in handling such a project. To attain this goal, EA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Broadland Authority (National Parc status) which contains a number of decisions which would have far reaching consequences for the eventual project organization (which would be BESL from 2001). A set of Environmental Objectives and Policies (later united in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Halcrow 2003) would have to be designed under which the actual work items were required to be carried out. EA has thus ensured proper environmental management. Within the above mentioned legal framework, and supported by the SEA procedure, a phased programme was implemented containing the following elements: • Strengthening the existing floodbanks, while restoring them to agreed

levels where settlement had occurred. • Renewing dilapidated erosion control works and where needed replacing

them by environmentally more appropriate measures • Providing new erosion control measures where needed and protecting

previously undefended river bank communities.


82

BESL will need to carry out this programme under development of a strategy that is: • Cost effective • Environmentally sound • Technically feasible and • Socially acceptable. The strategic aim is to allow sustainable land use through providing an appropriate level of protection against flooding. 6.3.2 Defining the Flood Problem KPI: Flood Problem Definition


The area has currently some 240 km of flood defences in place to protect approximately 21,000 ha of Broadland. Within this area, approximately 1,000 residential properties need to be protected along with a further 700 non-residential properties (farmlands, small industrial sites, inland harbour areas etc.). Many of the currently available flood defences are old and have deteriorated considerably over time. A thorough overhaul was considered necessary, a conclusion reached in 1995. At the same time, studies (amongst others IPCC) had suggested that sea-level could be anticipated to rise over the next Century due to climate change, adding a further threat to the already weak flood defence system. Amongst the owners within, and the users of, the area, a deeply founded sense of continuation of traditional use of the area (farming, recreational navigation and all that goes with it) was available for maintenance of the economy of the area. Sustainable management was to be the guiding principle. At the same time, heightening the old defences over and above the previously agreed levels would endanger the nature values in the area to such extent that the environment would suffer from it, mostly in terms of creating even steeper bank gradients than already existing. This would eventually lead to a deterioration of the environmental quality and attractiveness of the area for water recreation and nature lovers. The strategic objective was formulated, underpinned by a host of secondary (strategic) objectives. The operational objectives are discussed in the following paragraph, seemingly narrowed down to physical flooding only


83

(which will actually not be the case due to the application of the wide range of secondary strategic objectives). Solutions are to be found that are compatible with the national and international legislation. The national status of the area concerned is that of a National Parc. EIA’s with Environmental Statement will have to be made for all improvement works (Halcrow, May 2003b). The international status of the area is high, being designated an SAC under the Habitats Directive; SPA under the Birds Directive and Ramsar sites under the Ramsar convention. The so-called ‘Appropriate Assessment’ (AA) is additional to the EIA required under national legislation and examines specifically the impacts of works on these designated sites. It will have to be carried out by the Broads Authority, the Environment Authority and DEFRA, advised by English Nature. The AA panel is constituted of the various authorities mentioned here and will carry out the AA procedure. Flood defence works can be approved in principle without the need for an AA if they are directly necessary for the management of the designated site. The project will use collected information from previous projects and schemes. It will collect new data throughout the project (current and future project survey data, data explicitly advised to be used by stakeholders, etc). In 1995 current knowledge had been reviewed, and a deliberate choice was made not to upgrade knowledge once again in 2001 at the start of the project to determine strategy. However, an adaptive approach is used. Previous flood control policy options were evaluated and significant opportunities and constrains are identified. Potential land uses in flood control areas have been assessed and linkages to other plans are identified 6.4 Option analysis and selection 6.4.1 Option analysis KPI: Option analysis



For reasons of nature conservation and recreation it was decided not to completely close the river mouths, but to apply a complex range of local measures to keep the area more or less in its present shape.


84

Under the contract of BESL, the number of options had already been constrained to the upgrading and improvement of existing flood defence works. Making the inventory and performing the selection process had been carried out earlier, in 1995. It is assumed that available data is sufficient. Some more data will be collected through the project’s life span and during the monitoring period. There is an open-minded attitude towards the use of additional data: it should be possible to adjust strategy to advancement of knowledge. The following tasks (=operational objectives) are listed under the option analysis carried out under BESL: • Improve and maintain the existing flood defence works according to the

1995 assessment • Defend previously undefended riverside communities • Reduce risk of flood defences being breached during tidal surges • Provide 24 Hrs emergency flood response. The following methods are identified: 1. Flood bank strengthening by heightening with about 30-40 cm 2. Flood bank setback where sufficient land is available and the owners are

comfortable with the solution 3. Flood bank erosion protection with materials appropriate to the local

conditions, but as environmentally friendly as possible. 4. Protection works for so-called undefended communities 5. Testing out various other options such as wash lands. Choices are made in accordance with local conditions and in consultation with local stakeholders. A detailed proposal is then formulated and submitted for approval to the Broadlands Authority Planning Committee. Stakeholders can formulate their specific remarks if any, and they will be incorporated into the design if found relevant. All reasonable and significant flood control options are considered as potential solutions, and alternative options can be considered in a restricted manner, but aternative standards of protection are not considered Environmental Impact Assessment has not been undertaken but sufficient restraints are in place The project is cost-limited. All work items identified will have to be executed within the 1,00M GBP budget. It means that all tasks need to be carried within their specified budget, and that if cost overruns are occurring in one task, the shortfall will have to be met from other task. Furthermore, all planned program items are expected to be carried out. It is expected that the public consultation process will help to clarify that each part of the project is a.o.: • Cost-effective and value for money • Positively contributing to local communities while identifying possible

impacts • Environmentally sound, by indicating environmental gains and minimising

potential negative impacts.


85

All elements are expected to contribute to the overall sustainability of the project. The expected benefits are: • Improvement of security of the area against (tidal) flooding • Significant reduction of damage to the Broadland environment. Flood control and land use options have been costed (fixed amount), and economic costs and benefits have been evaluated. Environmental and Societal costs and benefits have been evaluated, even costs and benefits that cannot be valued have been considered 6.4.2 Communication KPI: Communication



The BESL intends to involve stakeholders to help update and develop the project’s Strategic Environmental Assessment. The intention is to involve as many stakeholders as possible and to reach broad agreement on project implementation. Different forms of public involvement will be part of the project so that public participation is made possible (within certain constraints). The project has widely distributed an extensive array of integrated information packs providing a considerable level of detail on the project implementation, taking care to inform the public at large. In these packs the actual way of working is briefly explained and the legal context of the BESL work is given; i.e. the project has received clear instructions from the Environment Agency on how to work, and the legal framework to be adopted. In order to optimally reach out to the public, the communication towards the public has focused on: • Cost-effectiveness of measures to be taken, including the value for money

aspects • The social acceptability of the measures in terms of possible impacts

and/or gains for local communities • The environmentally sensitive approach was explained in terms of gains

and/or losses and/or compensations. Local people, organizations and other stakeholders and landowners were actively approached and asked to raise their concerns, if any, by replying verbally, and by filling in questionnaires. A limited number of five groups (stakeholder fora) will then be convened in order to discuss the various wider areas of interests identified and the SEA.


86

So it is clear that planned communication has been undertaken as an integral part of the option development procedure. A wide range of (potential) stakeholders was consulted including the general public. The strategy received stakeholder acceptance.

6.5 Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness KPI: Strategy outcome


As the project has just started its active life span, it is very early, if not too early, to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy employed in the project. However, a preliminary evaluation may be made. Reference is made to Section 1.3 where it was explained that strategy had been chosen for the project. Other strategies were abandoned in favour of the one chosen for this project. At the beginning of the project public consultation has generated an appropriate response, necessary to firm up the plans developed for the first few areas to be improved. A particularly important issue is that the project has been initiated and is expected to remain active “in the area” for almost three decades. This would “automatically” create the correct level of awareness to help make it possible that strategic targets are reached and that strategy effectiveness will be optimal. Much depends on the amount of energy put into the process by the contractor. Feedback loops on perceived risks will have to be created. During the long period during which this project will be active, wide-ranging monitoring and reporting will take place on a yearly basis. The monitoring and reporting obviously will be used to review the efficacy of the project in terms of targets achieved and for evaluation. Strategy implementation started in 2001 by the appointment of the organization Broadland Environmental Services Limited (BESL - a joint venture of two private enterprises). The work of the BESL is initiated and coordinated by the Environment Agency (EA) in UK. In the first 12 years all measures must be carried out and in the following 8 years the area will be monitored for change and effects-and allow for corrections to be taking place. The project benefits to the area are expected to last for 7 years after the twenty year project period has ended. For the implementation of the project a “hydraulic model” of the area was developed to act as a data collection and analysis tool, and prepare planning and execution of the project. The hydraulic model is also fed with the data on expected sea-level rise.


87

The following strategy elements are implemented: Improve and maintain the existing flood defence works according to the 1995 assessment. Strengthening by widening and adding soil to the existing floodbanks will take place at the same time as replacing the existing dilapidated erosion control works where needed. Obviously, in one particular area a mosaic of measures is needed. Various measures are to be taken to control erosion along the river banks as currently available structures are variable quality-wise. Defend previously undefended riverside communities Until the current project, river side communities were not defended in the Broadland. The reasons for attending to this issue are to: • Reduce the existing social and economic disruption caused by flooding • Counteract the effects of sea-level rise (SLR) • Ensure that improvements elsewhere do not affect the undefended

communities. The protection will be custom built, but in general will be designed to prevent overtopping by an event occurring at a frequency of 1 in 20 years or less, and will include an allowance for SLR and a 150 mm zone of boat wash/wave occurrence. If river parts adjacent to these communities are to be restructured as well, the communities will be subject to improvements first before the adjacent river branches are improved. Reduce risk of flood defences being breached during (tidal) flood surges This strategy element will fall into place as soon as the majority of the previous two elements are executed. The long duration of the project allows for maintenance of the flood defences, and making corrections and readjustments over time. Provide 24 Hrs emergency flood response The emergency flood response is not evident in the currently available information. It is assumed that the project by its very presence will provide the required flood response. It is further assumed that the importance of the flood response operations will diminish over time as more and more measures come into place. 6.6 Conclusions The following outlines lessons learned in the Broadland strategy: • The pre-study worked out by the EA prior to the start of the project has

proven to be a valuable exercise. It caused the current project to focus immediately on the core issues.

• The focus on the pre-defined operational objectives has been supported

by putting these objectives in a framework of secondary operational objectives. The pre-defined operational objectives can easily be explained to the stakeholders amongst which the general public. This practise seems recommendable.


88

• The SEA procedure dictating the secondary objectives has proven to work

well in this project; it could well be applied to other project in future as per EU Directive.

• A wide round of public consultation early on in the project, with a focussed

follow-up in a smaller format works well and is a recommendable investment. Consequentially, an adaptive approach needs to be followed.

• The public consultation process recommended sustainable management

to be the guiding principle for the project. Interestingly, it caused the standard of flood defences be lower than would had been done otherwise.

• The openness of the project organisation for suggestions and second

thoughts is a recommendable working method. • The chosen form of the project, a public private partnership, may be a

viable form of providing a privatized form of flood defence in other areas in future. The PPP provides the financing agency EA in this case with enough influence to administer and steer the project.

6.7 Acknowledgements Mr Paul Rao (BESL, environmental manager) has provided very useful information. The Broadlands Authority has been cooperative in providing necessary information materials.

6.8 References Environment Agency, 2001, Broadland Environmental Services Ltd, Environment Agency, Broadland Flood Alleviation Project (BFAP) – Main leaflet, Leaflets 1-7. Halcrow Group Ltd, Broadland Flood Alleviation Project, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Environmental Objectives and Policies, May 2003a. Halcrow Group Ltd, Broadland Flood Alleviation Project, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Environmental policy notes, May 2003b. Halcrow Group Ltd, DEFRA Science and Research, Managed Realignment Research, Implementing managed retreat as a strategic flood and coastal defence option. (FD2008), August 2002

7 Evaluation of strategies: main conclusions 7.1 Introduction The strategy review resulted in a very interesting overview of how in different situations the problem of developing a flood control strategy in estuaries has been approached. Different physical, socio-economical and cultural circumstances as well as different triggers for action have resulted in a variety of experiences. It is clear from the previous chapters that particular aspects of the natural environment and the historic development of each of the estuaries call for a case-specific approach to flood control management. Every case deserves and calls for its own specific chain of strategic and operational goals leading to measures for implementation. The strategy approaches are therefore not readily interchangeable between the various cases studied. Nevertheless we have identified a good number of common elements based on a cross-analysis of the cases, which have allowed us to develop some overall conclusions in this chapter. We conclude with some lessons that may be learnt from these experiences. 7.2 A brief comparison of the case studies The five strategy cases that were reviewed are briefly summarized as follows, showing elements of diversity and of unity. − The Scheldt basin (Sigmaplan) (B)- this case study shows the high value attributed by stakeholders to timely and correct communication, with feedback loops implemented in order to smooth the process of implementation. Flexibility in the implementation phase proved to be very important. Refinement of the design process with increased levels of certainty and quality were applied, which meant a major change in strategy. The long duration of the first phase caused it to outlive its value hence a second phase. − The Dutch Rhine branches (NL)- complex strategic objectives were formulated: expanding discharge capacity; reducing flooding and improving spatial quality of the area. Problems were identified and options analysed. The “Blokkendoos” toolkit was developed to assist transparent decision making. Communication was an integral part of the open plan process. − The Humber estuary, NE England (UK)- this relatively straight forward case of anticipated sea-level rise gave rise to a review of sea defences and the consequences of responding to that sea-level rise. Local managed retreat was suggested. Proper communication ensured that the stakeholders were informed. The plan has not yet been implemented. − Baie des Veys, Normandy (F)- A plan was developed for the management of the regional water levels which optimised water levels to meet the needs of all the users. A joint management body has been set up including the authorities and the users to implement the plan. The plan was widely communicated and discussed, and therefore has achieved broad acceptance among all stakeholders, who happily participate. More communities are still joining the scheme emphasizing its success. − The Norfolk Broads, Norfolk (UK)- In view of anticipated sea-level rise, the government has assigned to a private company a project to overhaul the current flood protection system under well-defined design conditions. The pre-defined


90

operational objectives were explained to the public in hearings. A Strategic Environmental Assessment was used. Public consultation proved very valuable during strategy development, and also for the follow-up phases. The open plan procedure received wide appreciation, along with the possibility of using feedback loops. The management form of a public-private partnership (ppp) proved to be more than useful. 7.3 Some common elements Based on the analysis of the different cases described in the previous chapters, some common elements have been identified: - The strategic approach to flood risk management mostly includes an integrated

approach of the entire riverine system, taking into account all current and future functions, measures and interests. This implies that a sound knowledge base is required, comprising a general understanding of the physical, societal and ecological characteristics, as well as the notion on how planning and future development might take place.

- Feedback-mechanisms have been built into the decision making framework of

several strategy approaches, including the assessment of the environmental impact (EIA), of the societal impact (SCBA/SIA) and of economic effects and technical impacts (Humber). This assessment, based on multicriteria analysis is carried out to define the most appropriate options. The strategic scenarios mostly include evaluation procedures to enable anticipatory measures to be taken, especially in the case of expected adverse developments (e.g. sea level rise, or poor condition of the existing system).

- If the emphasis shifts from a short term (reactive) approach to a long term

(proactive) approach, the implementation of the strategic process changes. In some cases it has been possible to combine short and long term planning in the same strategic study, as some short term planned measures provide beneficial effects in support of the long term strategy (e.g.: the urgent work program for the Dutch Rhine Branches and the Humber).

- In all 5 cases the strategic approach offers the opportunity to incorporate

fundamental principles such as multi-functionality, sustainable (spatial) development (e.g.: room for the river approach, possibility for nature development, habitat loss compensation).

- Integration of a comprehensive consultation round in the planning process has

usually been undertaken to obtain the cooperation of communities and local stakeholders, for generation of the necessary societal sustainability and for the benefit of the consultation process at later stages.

- There are some obvious differences in the strategy process design related to

the ‘spatial’ level. The strategic approach is more integrated on a ‘higher’ spatial level (local regional supraregional level: e.g. Humber or Norfolk Broads Baie des Veys Scheldt or Dutch Rhine Branches). The complexity and extent of the plan area, with the related large number of stakeholders in


91

supraregional studies have been addressed by a well structured and predefined objective decision making procedure and process scheme.

- In some cases earlier and/or parallel projects/studies constrained the general

strategy process, as the interactions between the project/study results and the general strategy had to be refined, however the general view is that opportunities should be taken into account when they occur.

- In all 5 cases the existing situation is a determining factor in the possibilities for

strategic planning. Both the present situation in terms of infrastructure and habitation as well as the present flood defence infrastructure impose practical limits, while setting the boundaries to optimise the accommodation of tidal surge water.

- The strategic aim of the 5 studies differs from mainly public safety-oriented

aspects (e.g.: Dutch Rhine Branches, Scheldt), to those with greater bias towards ecology (Norfolk Broads, Humber). European legislation can set important preconditions in dealing with impacts on sites designated by Habitat and Bird Directives.

- In all cases, the strategy outcome is reported to be positive. Stakeholders,

decision makers and contractors are using considerable effort in preparing sound strategic plans and will therefore strongly support the adopted strategy, improving the chances of success.

Apart from these common elements, the level of detail and the plan’s duration differ significantly between the case studies, sometimes making comparisons difficult. Most initiatives are relatively recent developments. Consequently assessment of weak and strong points is yet to develop. Lack of actual comparison between objectives, plans, measures and results in some ways hampers the strategy outcome evaluation. In other cases, the evaluation of earlier or intermediate results has led to adaptation of the strategic (or operational) objectives of follow-up projects.

7.4 Individual lessons learned Intercomparison of the different strategy cases, and drawing specific characteristics of each case studied Key Area Scheldt (Sigmaplan) Dutch Rhine branches Humber estuary Baie des Veys Norfolk Broads

OB

JEC

TIVE

S D

EFIN

ITIO

N

It can be important to be able to adjust the strategic objectives when the desired safety level is not attained. Opportunities, constraints and new threats should be taken into account. It can ease the step-by-step plan when a higher safety level is ensured with respect for a more natural water system. It is best to determine the broad strategy boundaries in advance and refine these boundaries during the process. It’s important that an appropriate standard of protection has been incorporated in the planning process.

The multifunctionality of the objectives embedded in the ‘room for the river approach’ was very useful to find public support. The operational objectives could only be attained with cooperation on an international level. It is best to determine the broad strategy boundaries in advance and refine these boundaries during the process.

It is useful to draw a long term strategy, in which is provided the possibility to reckon with future uncertainties and threats. An appropriate standard of protection should be integrated in the strategy process.

In contrast to the other cases the strategic objective is not flood control related, the major goal is to safeguard and consolidate the current situation with respect of land use and water management . In this case is rather dealt with strategic projects than a strategic programme.

Stakeholders can play a role in the determination of the boundaries of the strategic objectives without undermining general strategic scope. One must realize that multiple strategic objectives can coincide.


93

Key Area Scheldt (Sigmaplan) Dutch Rhine branches Humber estuary Baie des Veys Norfolk Broads

FLO

OD

PR

OB

LEM

DEF

INIT

ION

It’s important that the strategy design is well-founded with extensive knowledge on the physical, hydrological, environmental, social and legal framework to the flood control strategy. (the required safety level was not attained in Sigma I; therefore Sigma II was established).

It’s important that the strategy design is well-founded with extensive knowledge on the physical, hydrological, environmental, social and legal framework to the flood control strategy.

It is important to establish the problem of sea level rise and its consequences very clearly.

It can be very useful to find solutions for the conflicting needs with respect to water level management of economical, ecological and recreational land use forms.

It is useful to assess a limited range of options. It was agreed that the current system of flood defences would be renewed and strengthened to sustain the level established in 1995. It was found advisable to keep an option open to use alternative and additional measures for washland construction.

OPT

ION

AN

ALY

SIS

It is important to employ an elaborate option weighing mechanism, set up for obtaining an optimised selection of measures to realise the objectives. Interests and impacts are addressed in a stepwise approach.

It is important to employ an elaborate option weighing mechanism, set up for obtaining an optimised selection of measures to realise the objectives. Interests and impacts are addressed in a stepwise approach. Option selection determine whether local solutions remain possible (high cost, limited opportunities).

The recommendation has been to continue defending along the current line with localised managed realignment sites. Only a limited number of objectives has been assessed in the decision framework using different criteria.

The option analysis is not with regard to flood problems.

It is important that the local stakeholders become involved with the option analysis.


94

STR

ATE

GY

OU

TCO

ME

Evaluation of the original Sigma plan combined with evolving social and environmental desirables results in rephrasing the strategic goals. The current second planning round addresses a far wider range of operational options to fulfil the new set of strategic goals.

Although there are still ongoing discussions on elements of the strategy, experts expect the approach as a whole to be successful in achieving its strategic as well as its operational objectives.

Currently unable to assess the outcome of the strategy as not yet implemented in the field.

The upgraded water management scheme resulting from the strategy is serving the user needs in an improved way. The governing Charter is extended in time and more communities have joined.

Key Area Scheldt (Sigmaplan) Dutch Rhine branches Humber estuary Baie des Veys Norfolk Broads

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

It is essential that the interaction with the stakeholders for assessing the social impact and acceptance is strongly embedded in the process of option appraisal and selection. It’s important to define a clear communication process that ensures a maximum stakeholder acceptance and participation in the strategy process. The communication process demands different structures (project group, steering group, stakeholder meetings, workshops,…).

It is important to integrate communication as an integral part of the policy process. Application of an open plan process can provide benefits . It’s important to define a clear communication process that ensures a maximum stakeholder acceptance and participation in the strategy process.

The importance of linking the decision makers with the local stakeholders can not be underestimated. Informing landowners and interested parties on a regularly bases is essential.

It can be possible that the governing organisation is installed as an interface between public administration and stakeholders. It is advisable that participation and public acceptance is observed, and awareness campaigns are running. The communication process can be based on a broad and iterative consultation of stakeholders.

It is advisable that the communication process can be based on a broad and iterative consultation of stakeholders.The link between decision makers with local stakeholders is based on a rather voluntary public participation.

7.5 Overall lessons learned Reviewing the observations made in this report and the individual lessons of the different strategy cases, some conclusions on the strategy approach can now be drawn. These conclusions concern essential elements of the strategic planning process. The common elements in the strategy cases studied provide an acceptable starting point for the set-up of a model method for drafting flood control strategy plans in future. It is considered that the joint expertise involved in the conception, initiation, implementation and evaluation of the 5 cases studied under this project is a reliable knowledge base for establishing the foundations of a best practice manual. Lesson 1: A clear and coherent set of management objectives is a crucial precondition for the establishment of an effective flood control strategy. Drafting a flood control strategy requires a process aimed at well-informed definition of strategic objectives as well as operational goals aimed at realising these strategic objectives.

Strategic objectives need to set the long-term targets in relation to the full range of issues at stake in a flood protection plan dealing with an estuary or river basin. The objectives need to address each of the interest spheres (e.g. the physical, economical, ecological, social and legal situations) in an integrated fashion. It is best if the formulation of strategic objectives maintains a sufficiently high level of abstraction so that flexibility is available in the optimisation process when addressing actions taken to realise the actual goals. Equally, the strategic objectives should be quantifiable at their chosen level of application, so that a focussed frame of reference is provided on what is to be assured in terms of functionality and social and environmental protection. Boundary conditions should be given for the development of the operational objectives related to individual projects within a strategy domain. In the end the realisation of the projects’ operational goals should provide justification at the strategic level.

Lesson 2: A key element in an effective strategy is the clear definition (and communication) of the decision making framework as well as the strategic planning structure

One of the most essential steps in the strategy process is the determination of the decision making framework. Key elements of such a framework are: the structure of the strategic planning process, the various phases in the process, flow-schemes, decision points, definition of parameters, when, how and how often evaluation will take place,


96

the various stakeholders, how alternative scenarios should be evaluated.

A clear and objective set-up of the procedures and criteria within the decision making framework which would lead to a strategy, should provide a transparent decision making process. The criteria should be developed carefully in order to provide the most objective way of defining the appropriate options, taking into account the societal, economical, ecological and technical impacts. The larger the plan area and the higher the planning level, the more important a well defined decision making framework becomes. Absence of these elements can make the process complex hampering the generation of public support. The establishment of a decision-framework allows the evaluation of alternative scenarios in order to arrive at an optimal decision.

Lesson 3: Feedback-mechanisms must be established to enable flexible strategy planning

The incorporation of feedback-mechanisms in the decision making framework of a strategy was found to be essential in dealing with unexpected opportunities or potentially adverse situations. In some case study situations a stepwise manner of planning and implementation allowed for more adequate and faster incorporation of lessons learned during the process. Valuable time was gained with the insertion of fresh experience during the process instead of implementation after evaluation of a full strategy cycle.

Lesson 4: Communication should be promoted as a binding element of a strategy

A platform for interaction and consultation that reaches all relevant stakeholders was shown to be a crucial element in all the strategy studies. Defining the various stakeholders and identifying when communication would be most effective within the process was found to be essential. Communication acts as an overall binding element between the level of strategic decision making and the local stakeholders, and also generates the necessary societal sustainability in later stages. In this way the understanding of the local situation, whilst still retaining the necessary implementation power and the evaluation of interactions (cost/benefit, environmental and social impacts) between interest spheres, have become integrated within the strategic planning process.

Lesson 5: New organisation forms may be considered depending on the nature of the flood protection project

In one of the study cases, a new organisation form: the public-private partnership was tested and found to operate successfully. The application of a different approach in this particular case, rather


97

than the organisation form itself, provides an interesting inspiration to other projects in other areas.

Lesson 6: It is important to think ahead regarding the strategy outcome and how success or otherwise could be monitored and/or predicted.

The case reviews have shown that the strategy outcomes are expected or reported to be positive. This, however, is strongly dependent on the main strategic orientation. In the public safety-oriented cases the foreseen scenarios can be checked with some confidence by modelling, indicating the efficiency of the recommended measures. When considering ecological impact, success or failure is much harder to predict, for example with respect to E.U.-legislation. It is noted that some of the initiatives are too recent to be assessed on the level of general strategy outcome. Assigning quantitative indicators to the strategic and operational objectives can assist the future assessment of success or failure.


98

For more information on the FRaME project contact the Project Manager Frank van Holst +31 70 3371 219 or Henkjan Faber +31 70 3371 242 or visit the FRaME website at http://www.frameproject.org

Lead Partner: DLG Government Service for Land and Water Management Burgemeester Feithplein 2 P.O. Box 3010 2270 JB Voorburg The Netherlands

FRaME is co-financed by the European Union Community Initiative Programme Interreg IIIBNorth Sea Region

frame analysis of the strategies used to implement new ... report definitief.pdfltv lange termijn...

Documents