good practices and policy recommendations_final version

Good Practices and Policy Recommendations on Theme 1

Good Practices & Policy Recommendations / 2011

2

Contents

0. Introduction................................................................................................................................3 1. Description of the situation in the Tagus Estuary......................................................................4

1.1. Situation in the Tagus Estuary............................................................................................5 1.1.1. Main physical and human features ...........................................................................5 1.1.2. Institutional framework ..........................................................................................12 1.1.3. Identification and brief description of the Estuary Integrated Management Plan..27 1.1.4. Identification of protected and particularly sensitive areas ....................................30

1.2. Good Practices in the Tagus Estuary ................................................................................38 1.3. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................40

2. Description of the situation in the Elbe Estuary ......................................................................41 2.1. Situation in the Elbe Estuary ............................................................................................41

2.1.1. Main physical and human features .........................................................................41 2.1.2. Institutional framework ..........................................................................................45 2.1.3. Identification and brief description of the Estuary Integrated Management Plan..45 2.1.4. Identification of protected and particularly sensitive areas ....................................46 2.1.5. Identification of the main problematic issues.........................................................48

2.2. Good Practices in the Elbe Estuary ..................................................................................48 2.3. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................49

3. Description of the situation in the Severn Estuary ..................................................................51 3.1. Situation in the Severn Estuary.........................................................................................51

3.1.1. Main physical and human features .........................................................................51 3.1.2. Institutional framework ..........................................................................................51 3.1.3. Integrated Management Plan ..................................................................................55 3.1.4. Identification of protected and particularly sensitive areas ....................................56 3.1.5. Identification of the main problematic issues.........................................................59

3.2. Good Practices in the Severn Estuary...............................................................................61 3.3. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................63

4. Situation in the Rhine-Scheeldt Meuse Delta ..........................................................................65 4.1. Description of the situation in the Rhine-Scheldt Meuse Delta .......................................65

4.1.1. Main physical and human features .........................................................................65 4.1.2. Institutional framework ..........................................................................................66 4.1.3. Identification and brief description of the Estuary Integrated Management Plan..67 4.1.4. Identification of protected and particularly sensitive areas ....................................71 4.1.5. Identification of the main problematic issues.........................................................73

4.2. Good Practices in Rhine-Scheldt Meuse Delta.................................................................75 4.3. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................78

5. Dealing with the topic “Integrated Delta Approach” ..............................................................80 5.1. Joint problems and issues .................................................................................................80 5.2. Lessons, Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................81

Literature Cited.............................................................................................................................83


3

0. Introduction

The delta and estuary regions in Europe encounter similar characteristics, problems and

opportunities, as they have to deal with a very dynamic development of urbanisation, economic

activities, infrastructure and natural and technological risks.

The high spatial and economic demands are threatening the sustainable development and

maintenance of the special character of Delta regions. These areas are often characterized by

both very important ecological values (river basin and coastal zone), and concentrations of

urban and economic activities.

Regional policy measures are often inefficient and ineffective as an integrated and sustainable

approach is often absent. That is why some Delta areas throughout Europe decided to start a

cooperation to exchange experiences and improve their regional policy instruments, methods

and approaches.

Taking into account this problematic issue, this report is focused on the identification of good

practices for a “Better Integrated Delta Approach” (Theme 1), based on the experience of the

Tagus Estuary, Elbe Estuary, Severn Estuary and Rhine-Scheldt Meuse Delta (Figure 1).

For each estuary or delta, a brief description of their situation is presented (main physical and

human features, institutional framework, identification and brief description of the estuary

management plan, identification of protected and particularly sensitive areas and identification

of the main problematic issues). Good practices concerning estuary management are also

analysed.

Supported by the experience of these estuaries and deltas, the report includes a reflection about

the joint problems and presents lessons, conclusions and recommendations for a “Better

Integrated Delta Approach”.


4

Figure 1. Network of Estuaries and Deltas on Theme 1

(“Better Integrated Delta Approach”)

Source: Own elaboration.


5

1. Description of the situation in the Tagus Estuary

1.1. Situation in the Tagus Estuary

1.1.1. Main physical and human features

Physical features

The Tagus Estuary (Figure 2) is one of the largest estuaries in Europe occupying an area of 320

km2 (from the estuary’s mouth to Vila Franca de Xira, the upstream limit of saline water

intrusion under normal hydrological conditions).

Figure 2. The Tagus Estuary location



6

The North bank has a more accentuated orography and the South bank alluvial floodplains

resulting from river erosion and deposition. The estuary presents an unusual morphology

characterized by an extensive and shallow interior region with widths that can reach 15 km, and

then follows a NNE-SSW direction into a narrow and deep channel with a minimum width of

1.8 km towards ENE-WSW (Cf. FREIRE, TABORDA & ANDRADE, 2006: 2-3) – Figure 3.

Figure 3. The Tagus Estuary

Source: Administration of the Port of Lisbon, S.A.

According to FREIRE, TABORDA & ANDRADE (2006: 3), the internal estuary is characterised by

longitudinal sediment furrows, cut by tidal channels and extensive zones of tidal flats, mainly

adjacent to the left bank, supporting the development of important areas of salt marshes.

The Tagus Estuary has several alluvial flats as a result of river erosion, transport, deposition and

accumulation of matter transported by the river. “The estuary is subjected to constant silting,

requiring occasional dredging to maintain the navigational channels (…) the estuary is navigable

Fotografia: João Ferrand


7

in all of its extension for vessels with draught to 2.5 m, and 20 m of mast, because of the

bridges” (GOMES, 2008: 10).

According to GOMES (2008: 29-31), the estuary presents five distinct zones (Figure 4):

• Zone 1 – The Upper Estuary: between Muge and Vila Franca de Xira, it is sailable

(cruising navigation) in any tide up to Cais da Palhota, three miles from Muge, needing

afterwards the help of the tide upstream;

• Zone 2 – The Middle Upper Estuary: between Vila Franca de Xira and the Vasco da

Gama Bridge, characterized by the widening of the estuary, with the appearance of bars

or mouchões (alluvial islands), salt marshes, and extensive areas of ebb, and included

almost in total in the Natural Reserve of the Tagus Estuary, with an average depth of 2

m;

• Zone 3 – The Middle Lower Estuary: between the Vasco da Gama Bridge and the line

between Lisbon and Almada (better known as Mar da Palha/Palha Sea), with an average

depth of 7 m.

• Zone 4 – The Lower Inner Estuary: between Lisbon/Almada and the Line-Between-

Towers (Linha-Entre-Torres) downstream, comprises a narrow and deep channel, with

shallows near Bugio.

• Zone 5 – The Lower Outer Estuary: this zone comprises the ebb stream of imprecise

limits until Cascais and the waiting buoy; includes the entrance channels to the Lisbon

port.


8

Figure 4. The Tagus Estuary Zones

Source: Own elaboration, based in GOMES, 2008.

The main physical characteristics of the estuary are presented in the following table:

Table 1. Main physical characteristics of the Tagus Estuary (under average hydrological conditions)

Physical Characteristics Values Upstream limit of tidal action 80 km (Muge)

Upstream limit of salt water intrusion 50 km (Vila Franca de Xira)

Total area 320 km2 (Vila Franca de Xira)

Intertidal area 130 km2

Maximum width 15 km

Average width 4 km

Maximum depth 46 m

Average depth 10.6 m

Average total volume 1800 x 106 m

3

Source: FREIRE, TABORDA & ANDRADE, 2006.


9

The tide is an important factor in the Tagus Estuary given that the average tidal volume (600 x

106 m3) is significant in relation to the water volume below the low-tide level (1900 x 106 m3).

This estuary corresponds to a “positive type” estuary, also being characterised as a partially

stratified estuary (Cf. ICN, 2002: 5).

The tidal range observed and the geomorphological characteristics at its mouth, both at the

upper and lower estuary, allow for the inclusion of the Tagus Estuary in the class of meso-tidal

estuaries, subject to a tide with a semi-diurnal period and with the rising tide taking longer than

the ebb tide (Cf. ICN, 2002: 5-6).

Human features

The resident population of the 12 municipalities1 that make up the margins of the Tagus Estuary

is 1.762 million inhabitants. It is on the North bank that the greatest population concentration

occurs (1.180 million inhabitants – 67.0% of the total), with particular concentration in the city

of Lisbon, with 479 thousand inhabitants (40.7% of the resident population on the North bank of

the estuary). In its turn, on the South bank of the Tagus Estuary, the greatest concentration

occurs in the Almada-Seixal-Barreiro area with 421 thousand inhabitants (72.4% of the resident

population of this bank of the estuary).

Table 2. Resident population per municipality (2001 and 2009)

Resident population (inhabitants) Municipality

2001 2009 Alcochete 13 010 18 113 Almada 160 825 165 991 Barreiro 79 012 77 529 Benavente 23 257 28 890 Cascais 170 683 189 606 Lisboa 564 657 479 884 Loures 199 059 193 630 Moita 67 449 71 844 Montijo 39 168 41 623 Oeiras 162 128 172 609 Seixal 150 271 178 332 Vila Franca de Xira 122 908 144 123

Total 1 752 427 1 762 174

Source: INE, XIV Recenseamento Geral da População, 2001 and INE,

Anuário Estatístico da Região de Lisboa – 2009, 2010

1 North bank of the Tagus Estuary: Cascais, Oeiras, Lisbon, Loures and Vila Franca de Xira; South bank of the Tagus Estuary: Almada, Seixal, Barreiro, Moita, Montijo, Alcochete and Benavente.


10

Compared to 2001, the resident population of Tagus Estuary region increased by 9,747

inhabitants, which represents a population change of +0.6%. This overall change hides two

different realities: the Northern bank losing -3.2% while the Southern bank grew by +9.3%.

Figure 5. Resident population per municipality (2001)

Source (Statistical): INE, XIV Recenseamento Geral da População, 2001.

Source (Map): Own elaboration.


11

Figure 6. Resident population per municipality (2009)

Source (Statistical): INE, Anuário Estatístico da Região de Lisboa – 2009, 2010.

Source (Map): Own elaboration.

On the other hand, the Tagus Estuary region occupies a strategic location (in the centre of the

Lisbon Metropolitan Area) which allied to its natural characteristics has allowed it to become,

through time, an important catalyst in the development of various economic activities related to

the diversity of uses of the estuary (water plan) and adjacent areas. Among these, the following

stand out: agricultural activities, fishing and aquaculture, forestry, recreation and leisure

activities, shipping, naval construction, industrial uses and transportation (Figure 7).


12

Figure 7. Economic activities developed in the Tagus Estuary

Source: Own elaboration based in MONIZ, 2009 and APL, 2007.

1.1.2. Institutional framework

There are several entities, which are directly and indirectly involved in the planning and

management of the Tagus Estuary (estuarine fringes and water plan) as well as in the planning

and management of the activities, which occur in the latter. Among these entities are: the

Regional Coordination and Development Committee Lisboa and Vale do Tejo, the Tagus River

Basin District Administration, the Institute for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity, the

Administration of the Port of Lisbon and Town Councils.


13

In what concerns to the Regional Coordination and Development Committee Lisboa and Vale

do Tejo, the Regional Plan of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area2 (Resolution of the Council of

Ministers no. 68/2002, of 4 April) is currently under revision (in public discussion until 31

January 2011). The Regional Plan of Oeste and Vale do Tejo was approved in 2009 (Resolution

of the Council of Ministers no. 64-A/2009).

The territorial strategy defined in Regional Plan of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area (plan under

revision) centres itself on 4 objectives:

• To re-centralise the Metropolitan Area on the Tagus Estuary, preserving the natural

values and protected areas;

• To develop the Grande Lisboa, a city of two banks, anchored in the city of Lisbon;

• To develop a more polycentric regional urban system;

• To value the territorial diversity, by correcting existing unbalances. (Cf. FONSECA

FERREIRA & VARA, 2002: 30).

In this way, one of the fundamental vectors to promote the Plan strategy is the presence of the

water, which “should be valued as a resource with environmental and aesthetic value, and the

Tagus Estuary as a space of territorial differentiation” (FONSECA FERREIRA & VARA, 2002: 32).

The Tagus Estuary is here interpreted as a territorial unit of “strategic importance at a

metropolitan and national level. Its natural values stem from its size, diversity, richness of the

flora and fauna and, from an overall perspective, the variety of ecosystems found here”

(FONSECA FERREIRA & VARA, 2002: 42).

In regards to the General Rules of Regional Plan of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, these

prioritize:

• Preserving and restoring the natural values of great biodiversity and ecological richness

which make up the Tagus Estuary, a central and shaping element of the Lisbon

Metropolitan Area, creating the opportunity for its use in tourism, recreation and leisure,

in harmony with the development of urban riverside centers and existing natural values; 2 According to Law no. 48/1998, of 11 August, the regional plans for land use planning “establish the guidelines for the planning of the regional territory and define regional networks of infrastructure and transports, providing a frame of reference for the development of local spatial planning plans”.


14

• Renew riverside urban spaces and the margins of the estuary by promoting a functional

integration with the landscape;

• Requalification of areas/spaces and functional units that encompass large disused, or

falling in disuse, industrial complexes which must be integrated in projects aimed at

redeveloping riverside areas, namely the riverfront between Lisbon and Vila Franca de

Xira and the riverfront of the Almada-Seixal-Barreiro area. (Cf. FONSECA FERREIRA &

VARA, 2002: 95)

In its turn, the Proposal to Revise the Regional Plan of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area3 argues

that the territorial unit “Tagus Estuary” has remained unaltered or almost so in relation to the

scenario proposed in 2002, with the following aspects being singled out as most important for

this unit:

• Strategic importance for the conservation of nature and biodiversity;

• Importance of the diverse economic activities;

• Conflicts and threats occurring due to the existence of several uses and functions;

• Urban renewal of some areas on the South bank of the estuary;

• Lack of a Management Plan for the Tagus Estuary;

• Susceptibility to seismic activity and flooding by tsunamis. (ALMEIDA, SANTANA &

FONSECA FERREIRA, 2010: 47)

The proposal to revise the Regional Plan of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area defines the following

strategic options for the territorial unit “Tagus Estuary”:

• To ensure that decisions regarding the localization of infrastructure and establishments,

essential to the economic activities sustained by the estuary, are taken with the principle

of conservation and sustainability;

3 The revision of the “Regional Plan of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area” was determined by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 92/2008, of 5 June. This revision is largely justified by the need to adapt this instrument for territorial management (i) to current changes in the decisions regarding the localization of large infrastructure in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, (ii) to the proposals stipulated in the National Programme for Spatial Planning Policy and (iii) to the strategic options defined in the National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013 and the Regional Strategy Lisboa 2020.


15

• To value the economic and cultural aspect of fishing communities in the land use

planning processes;

• To ensure the realisation of the strategic objectives of the project “Arco Ribeirinho Sul”,

namely urban renewal interventions;

• To preserve the natural habitat of the estuary margins, bays and creeks, especially salt

marshes and other wetlands;

• To promote a spatial planning of the estuary margins that is adapted to the seismic

activity and susceptibility to flooding by tsunamis. (ALMEIDA, SANTANA & FONSECA

FERREIRA, 2010: 48)

Lastly, in the Regional Plan of Oeste and Vale do Tejo4, the Natural Reserve of the Tagus

Estuary is composed of the territorial units “Lezíria do Tejo” and “Charneca Ribatejana”.

According to Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 64-A/2009, of 6 August, the former is

thought to “play a fundamental ecological and economic role due to the soil’s potential for

agriculture”. The latter contains “a great number of species to be preserved and conserved”.

Another Instrument for Territorial Management in effect in the Tagus Estuary region is the

River Basin Management Plan5 (Sectoral Plan), whose preparation was framed by the following

strategic objectives:

• Recuperation and prevention of the loss of quality of surface and underground waters,

protection of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems and promotion of a good water quality;

• Promotion of the sustainable use of water, in a balanced and long-lasting manner,

ensuring the provision of water in the sufficient quantity and quality to satisfy the human

consumption and other socioeconomic activities,

• Prevention and mitigation of the effects of floods and droughts, as well as the effects of

serious pollution incidents;

• Planning of the occupation and uses of the watershed and floodable areas (Instituto da

Água, 2000a: 6-7).

4 Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 64-A/2009, of 6 August. 5 Approved by the Regulatory Decree no. 18/2001, of 7 December.


16

In this document, the importance of the Tagus Estuary is revealed, at both an ecological level

and the economic and social functions it carries out. It is highlighted, however, that the estuary

is a target of “intense aggression on behalf of large urban and industrial developments and of

vast areas of irrigated land surrounding it, as well as the significant pollution associated with

some watercourses that flow into the estuary” (Instituto da Água, 2000b: 16). As such, these

problematic issues are analysed in this Plan.

More recently, the new Water Law6 introduced and determined the creation of Special Plans for

Land Use Planning with a principle objective of protection and valuing of the water resources

encompassed in Management Plans for estuaries.

In agreement with Article 22 of the Law no. 58/2005, of 29 December, these plans “aim to

protect the waters, beds and margins and the ecosystems which are found in them, as well as

social, economic and environmental valuing of the surrounding terrestrial areas and, namely:

a) To assure the integrated management of transition waters with interior and adjacent

coastal waters, as well as the respective sediments;

b) To preserve and restore protected or endangered aquatic and freshwater species and their

habitats;

c) To plan the occupation of coastal areas and preserve places of special urban, recreational,

tourist and aesthetic interest;

d) To indicate the permitted uses and constraints for the industrial and transport activities

located in the estuary”.

Taking into account the new Water Law, the Decree-Law no. 129/2008, of 21 June, established

the regime of estuaries management plans. The development of the Tagus Estuary Management

Plan is a responsibility of the Tagus River Basin District Administration (see chapter 2.1.3).

Another strategic institutional player in the Tagus Estuary is the Institute for the Conservation of

Nature and Biodiversity. Among the duties of this public institute, established in Article 3 of the

Decree-Law no. 136/2007, of 27 April, is to “assure the preservation and conservation of nature

6 Law no. 58/2005, of 29 December, transposes into national legislation the Council Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 23 October, and establishes the basis and institutional framework for the sustainable management of the waters.


17

and biodiversity and the sustainable management of native wild flora and fauna species and

habitats, promoting the development and implementation of plans, programs and actions,

namely in the areas of inventory, monitoring, supervision and information systems”.

Within its duties this institute is responsible for the management of the Natural Reserve of the

Tagus Estuary7 having coordinated the development of the Management Plan for the Natural

Reserve of the Tagus Estuary8. The Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 44/2001, of 10

May, which determines the development of this plan, recognizes that the correct territorial

management of this Natural Reserve requires a spatial plan that ensures the achievement of the

objectives which lead to its classification as a protected area and, as such, contributes in an

effective way to the realization of the nature conservation policy”.

It is a Special Plan for land use planning that acts upon this area of the Reserve. The protection

rules for the estuary area as defined in the Management Plan for the Natural Reserve of the

Tagus Estuary, state that:

• Complete Protection – the areas of the Natural Reserve of the Tagus Estuary under total

protection encompass the salt marshes of Pancas and the intertidal zone associated with

this system along a 1000 m section of the estuary. These areas are natural zones where

biological and/or ecological values are exceptional from the point of view of nature

conservation and are characterised by their heightened environmental sensitivity. These

areas are to experience minimum disturbance to ensure the continuation of natural

processes whose development is to be left entirely to nature with no human interference.

They are therefore areas not necessary to Man and whose intervention is not necessary

Figure (ICNB, 2007: 14) – Figure 8.

• Partial Protection Type I – areas of partial protection type I encompass the remaining salt

marshes areas of the Natural Reserve of the Tagus Estuary and margin reedbeds of the

intertidal zone. These are areas with natural and landscape values which have a moderate

ecological sensitivity. They contribute to the maintenance of the natural and landscape

characteristics. (Cf. ICNB, 2007: 14-15)

7 Created under the Decree-Law no. 565/76, of 19 June, covering a total area of 14,416.14 ha (corresponding to most of the estuary waters). 8 Resolution of the Council of Ministers n.º 44/2001, which determines the creation of the Special Plan of the Natural Reserve of the Tagus Estuary, committing to it the Institute for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity.


18

• Partial Protection Type II – the partial reserve type II encompasses the salt production

fields, the lake of the Mouchão do Lombo do Tejo and the remaining inter-tidal zones.

They are areas which contain natural and landscape values of moderate sensitivity,

including areas which make up the transition to areas with higher protection status.

These areas contribute to the maintenance and value of the natural and landscape

characteristics, and the uses and activities associated with them. (ICNB, 2007: 15)

Figure 8. Natural Reserve of the Tagus Estuary

Source: ICNB, 2007.


19

The Management Plan for the Natural Reserve of the Tagus Estuary also plans to balance

economic actions and activities that take place inside this protected area with nature

conservation and the preservation of natural values. These activities include: fishing and

commercial catch; recreation fishing; aquaculture; buildings and infrastructures; nature tourism;

scientific research and monitoring; military exercises.

Another Instrument for Territorial Management focused upon the area of the Tagus Estuary,

coordinated by the Institute for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity, is the Sectoral Plan

of Natura 20009. This plan “aims to preserve and value the Sites and Zones of Special Protection

on continental territory, as well as the maintenance of species and habitats at a favorable

conservation status. In its essence, it is an instrument for biodiversity management (...) and sets

the strategic guidelines for land use management of these areas taking into account the natural

values which can here be found here” (ICNB, 2007).

For the Site “Tagus Estuary” (PTCON0009) – Figure 9 –, this document identifies the following

threat factors: industrial, domestic and agricultural pollution or even from dredging, ballast

water and ship tank washing; harmful fishing techniques; agro-forestry-pastoral management

practices and other activities detrimental to the conservation of protected species; tourist and

urban pressures; hunting (ICNB, 2008a: 6).

The following main management guidelines have been established:

• The management of this Site should pay particular attention to the preservation of the

diverse habitats associated with the estuarine ecosystem as well as the conservation or

restoration of terrestrial freshwater areas, namely by promoting the maintenance of

riparian native vegetation and limiting interventions on the margins and bed of

watercourses, fundamental to the conservation of many faunal species;

• The management of this Site implies the appropriate planning, namely of urban-touristic

constructions and infrastructure and the promotion of the sustainable use of the existing

resources, ensuring the economic and social competitiveness of the activities;

• The detrimental fishing practices must be avoided or corrected;

9 Approved by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 115-A/2008, of 21 June.


20

• The natural regeneration of protected forest habitats must be encouraged and the

sustainability of economic activities associated with them increased to serve the purpose

of conservation. (ICNB, 2008a: 6).

Figure 9. Site “Tagus Estuary”


In its turn, for the Special Protection Zone “Tagus Estuary” (PTZPE0010) – Figure 10 – its

proximity to urban and industrial areas under expansion is considered to “raise a series of

problems related to buildings and communications as well as tourist and urban pressure”,

highlighting the undergoing threats of “industrial, domestic and agricultural pollution or from

dredging, ballast water and washing ship tanks; harmful fishing techniques; agro-forestry-


21

pastoral management practices and other activities detrimental to the conservation of protected

species; tourist and urban pressures; hunting” (ICNB, 2008a: 6).

Figure 10. Special Protection Zone “Tagus Estuary”


In relation to the guidelines for the management of this Special Protection Zone, it has been

established that:

• The management guidelines for this zone are mainly directed at water fowl, certain

species of raptors, migratory woodland passerines and migrating riparian reedbed

passerines;


22

• Within this approach the maintenance of activity in aquatic habitats is fundamental.

Complementary to this, the retention of natural and semi-natural habitat patches in

agricultural and forestry activities must be ensured as must the promotion of the

sustainable use of existing resources to guarantee economic and social competitiveness

of the activities and raising awareness concerning the value of the Special Protection

Zone;

• Special attention must be given to the food availability of target species encouraging

measures that limit significant changes to the fish and benthic invertebrate communities.

(ICNB, 2008b: 6).

Another institutional actor that intervenes in the Tagus Estuary is the Administration of the Port

of Lisbon. The area under the jurisdiction of the port10 encompasses a significant part of the

estuarine territory, including 11 municipalities (Oeiras, Lisboa, Loures, Vila Franca de Xira,

Benavente, Alcochete, Moita, Montijo, Barreiro, Seixal and Almada – 110 km of riverfront) and

32,500 ha of marine area (see Figure 11).

In regards to the duties of the Administration of the Port of Lisbon, the regime established by

the Law no. 58/2005, of 29 December, determines, in the Article 13, that “in marine areas of

public domain under port administration, the duties of the Administration of the Port of Lisbon

concerning licensing and supervision of the use of water resources, are delegated to the port

administration”.

The guidelines for the development of the Port of Lisbon’s activities are defined in the Strategic

Plan for the Development of the Port of Lisbon. This Plan prioritizes the organization of port

activity into three areas of business: containers; foodstuffs; tourism, recreation and leisure.

10 Defined by the Decree-Law no. 336/98, of 3 November.


23

Figure 11. Jurisdiction Area of the Port of Lisbon


The spatial model for the development of the Port of Lisbon is based on the following spatial

planning principles:

• The Tagus Estuary will become an area of integration of the various port activities,

through the development of fluvial transportation of cargo (containers and bulk cargo)

and passengers;

• Container terminals must be connected with a set of regional logistic platforms,

preferentially through rail and fluvial transportation and, in this way, priority should be

given to logistic platforms connected by these modes of transport;

• The use of existing port infrastructures must be optimized;


24

• Projects to integrate port uses and urban uses must be created, bearing in mind the

balance needed between the uses without compromising the efficiency and economic

profitability of strategic port activities. (Cf. APL, 2007: 21)

To achieve the realization of the defined strategy, and subsequently the development of the Port

of Lisbon, the following actions are considered central:

• Reorganisation of the Alcântara Container Terminal (Figure 12): the objective is, with a

minimum of public investment, to gradually increase the handling capacity of containers

from the current 350,000 TEU to 700,000 TEU and 1,000,000 TEU.

• Expansion of the Santa Apolónia Cruise Terminal and explore new markets: the

objective is to concentrate and increase the area of tourist cruises in the centre of Lisbon,

making the offer more appealing and the service more efficient.

• Redirecting the management of recreational nautical activities: the objective is to take

advantage of the potential of the estuary, considering two lines of development- “river-

system” and “Atlantic-system”.

• A system of fluvial transportation of cargo and logistics (containers and bulk foodstuff):

the objective is to use the estuary and river as a mean of connecting the areas of port

operation with logistic platforms reducing the traffic on urban road infrastructures and

the subsequent environmental effects.

• Implementing the connections of the Port of Lisbon and promote its integration with

logistic areas: the objective is to integrate the Port of Lisbon with logistic areas

connected (currently, or in the future) by river and/or rail transport.

• Territorial management of the jurisdiction area: the objective is to undertake an

integrated and sustainable management policy, in economic and planning terms, of the

whole area, including margins without port activities. (APL, 2007: 22-25)


25

Figure 12. Alcântara Container Terminal

Source: Administration of the Port of Lisbon, S.A

For the development and correct planning and management of recreational nautical activities in

the Tagus Estuary, the Administration of the Port of Lisbon has under development the Tagus

Estuary Integrated Plan of Supporting Infrastructures for Nautical Recreation (Figure 13).

This document holds as a general objective the creation of an integrated network of

infrastructures:

• Adequate to the territory characteristics;

• Adequate to the demand;

• Complemented by an offer of activities and good support services;

• Based on environmental and social sustainability criteria. (Cabral, 2010: 5)



26

Figure 13. Tagus Estuary Integrated Plan of Supporting Infrastructures for Nautical Recreation – Territorial Model

Source: Own elaboration based in CABRAL, 2010.

Finally, the riverfront municipalities make up an important set of institutional actors within the

Tagus Estuary. The Municipal Master Plans are determinant factors in the organization, use and

occupation of the surrounding areas concerning the estuary water plan (Figure 14).


27

Figure 14. Municipal Master Plans in Tagus Estuary Region

Source: Own made.

1.1.3. Identification and brief description of the Estuary Integrated Management Plan

As mentioned previously, the Tagus Estuary Management Plan is a Special Plan for Land Use

Planning (as defined in the legal regime of Instruments for Territorial Management), under the

responsibility of the Tagus River Basin District Administration.

This instrument bridges an important gap left in coastal management, which results from the

non-inclusion of port areas in the Coastal Zone Management Plans. The Tagus Estuary

Management Plan, by giving prevalence to the integrated land use planning and management of

the estuary, must also contribute to the balance of economic activities – port activities and


28

industrial activities –, urban land use, nature protection and recreational and leisure activities

that take place in the estuary and along the estuarine margins.

Encompassing transition waters, river beds and estuarine margin, and also an estuarine fringe

with a maximum width of 500 m (Figure 15), the Tagus Estuary Management Plan places itself

as a tool to promote change, with the objective of balancing the planning of hard spaces (land

uses and occupation) with soft spaces (coordination, collaboration and institutional mediation

spaces).

Figure 15. Tagus Estuary – Estuarine fringe


The general objectives of the Plan are, essentially, the following:


29

• To protect and value the environmental characteristics, assuring the sustainable use of

water resources, as well as the natural values associated with these;

• To assure the integrated management of transition waters with interior and adjacent

coastal waters, as well the respective sediments;

• To assure the sustainable functioning of estuarine ecosystems;

• To preserve and restore protected or endangered aquatic and riparian species and their

respective habitats;

• To guarantee the integration with the Instruments for Territorial Management, plans and

programs of local, regional and national interest, applicable to the area encompassed by

the Tagus Estuary Management Plan. (MONIZ, 2009: 23)

The specific objectives of this Plan are, in essence, five:

• To define utilisation rules of the estuary, by identifying the protection and valorisation

measures of water resources;

• To define rules and safeguarding measures for the use of the estuarine fringe taking into

account the available Instruments for Territorial Management, which allow a sustained

management of the associated ecosystems;

• To define complementary measures and different levels of protection, that are

fundamental for nature and biodiversity conservation, in areas not under a legal

protection status;

• To establish preferred, conditional or prohibitive uses to preserve areas of local urban,

recreational, touristic, landscape, environmental and cultural interest;

• To guarantee the conditions for the development of port activity and the associated

maritime transport and land transport accessibilities. (SILVA & MONIZ, 2010: 11)

The Tagus Estuary Management Plan should be a supplementary instrument in regards to the

subject matter and approach, and must generate flexible and adaptive management models. This

Plan must also ensure the articulation with other Instruments for Territorial Management.

The opportunities and challenges of the Plan are the following:


30

• Correct identification of the land uses and activities that interfere with the good status of

the water bodies and regulations and measures to implement to redress this issue;

• Involving the key actors in the development of a Plan for the Tagus Estuary with an aim

to promote the conciliation of interests, in order to create consensus and bring about a

shared responsibility of the land use planning and management;

• Adequate articulation of the economic activities – port activities, industrial activities,

tourism and fishing activities – with the function of protecting natural values and with

recreation and leisure activities;

• Inter-municipal cooperation in the articulation of projects bringing value to riverfront

areas;

• Identification of partnerships associated with specific actions in the management of the

estuary’s water resources. (MONIZ, 2009: 25)

It is important to emphasize that the constant involvement of local stakeholders whose activities

are centred on the estuary is fundamental to the dynamic, efficient and innovative character of

the planning stage and consequently the successful completion of the Plan objectives. It is

precisely with this objective that the Decision no. 21020/2009, of 10 September, of the Ministry

of Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development states that “the development of a

Tagus Estuary Management Plan will be an important source of discussion – between the actors

that utilise and act upon it – of the planning and management options about an estuary of

international importance in order to achieve an integrated and sustainable approach for water

management and uses”.

1.1.4. Identification of protected and particularly sensitive areas

The Tagus Estuary is an important strategic area for nature conservation with an important

biological potential, and it is a central environmental element in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area.

It is widely accepted that “its natural values stem, particularly, from its size and functional

diversity, from the richness of the fauna and flora and, in a general way, from the diversity of

ecosystems that can be found within it”. (FONSECA FERREIRA & VARA, 2002: 42)


31

In fact, it is a region denoted by an extraordinary diversity of landscapes as well as high

biodiversity (both flora and fauna). This natural heritage richness is highly susceptible and

vulnerable and therefore it is imperative to know and characterize the areas under a legal

protection status.

The following middle and upper estuary areas have been classified with a national, European

and international conservation status:

Natural Reserve of the Tagus Estuary

The Natural Reserve of the Tagus Estuary, created by the Decree-Law no. 565/76, of 19 July, is

located in the furthermost upstream section of the estuary, with an area of 14,192 ha. This area

includes a large surface of estuarine waters, alluvial deposits, mouchões (alluvial islands), salt

production fields, salt marshes and marshlands (lezírias) – Figure 16.

Figure 16. Tagus marshlands

Source: Administration of the Port of Lisbon, S.A.

The central part of the estuary is permanently submerged and is an important area for coastal

fish populations’ survival (e.g. European seabass Dicentrarchus labrax, Soles Solea solea and

Solea senegalensis, European anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus). It also functions as a transition

zone for diadromous fishes such as Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus, River Lamprey



32

Lampetra fluviatilis, Allis Shad Alosa alosa, Twaite Shad Alosa fallax and the European eel

Anguilla anguilla.

The alluvial deposits are large expanses of mud under the influence of tidal action and created

through the deposition of very fine suspension particles carried by the water. These are

frequently colonised by various benthic macroinvertebrates the most common being the

Ragworms Nereis diversicolor, the Peppery furrow shell Scrobicularia plana, the gastropod

Laver spire shell Hydrobia ulvae and the isopode Cyathura carinata.

The salt marshes have an equally important role as nurseries for various fish species as in the

case of the Sole, European Seabass, Blackeye Goby and Shrimp (sedentary species) and the

Lamprey, Twaite shad and Eel (migratory fish). The salt production fields are a choice location

for some fish species, shrimp Palaemonetes varians, insect larvae, small coleopterans and small

crustaceans such as brine shrimp Artemia sp.

The marshlands correspond to flat land surfaces that have become part of the estuary bed. They

are home to the steppe bird Little Bustard Tetrax tetrax, as well as the Black-winged Kite

Elanus caeruleus and the Common Goose Anser anser.

Altogether the Natural Reserve of the Tagus Estuary has a wintering bird population of over

10,000 anatids and 50,000 waders, making it the most important wetland in Portugal and one of

the most important in Europe.

Within the Natural Reserve of the Tagus Estuary there are the reserves of Mouchão do Lombo

do Tejo and Pancas which are under the Protection of the Management Plan for the Natural

Reserve of the Tagus Estuary.

Site of the National List of Sites – Natura 2000 – Habitat Directive

The Habitat Directive is the name given to the Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992,

on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. It was transposed to the

Portuguese legal system by Decree-Law no. 140/99, of 24 April, and after that through Decree-

Law no. 49/2005, of 24 February.

Within the Tagus Estuary, an area of 44,609 ha contains 25 natural habitats of Community

interest (Annex B-I of the Decree-Law no. 49/2005, of 24 February), 5 of which are priority


33

habitats. Adding to these, there are 12 animal and 3 plant species from the Directive (Annex B-

II, IV and V).

Site of the National List of Sites – Natura 2000 – Birds Directive

The Birds Directive corresponds to the Directive 79/409/EEC which has as its objective the

coordination of measures conducive to the protection of wild populations of several bird species

on European Union territories. In the Tagus Estuary an area of 44,772 ha comes under this

directive. This area is classified as a Zone of Special Protection, meaning that it is of crucial

importance to those species.

Ramsar Site

Taking into account the importance that the Natural Reserve of the Tagus Estuary has in terms

of habitat for water fowl, this area has been classified on the list of Wetlands of International

Importance – Ramsar Convention11.

Important Bird Area – Tagus Estuary

This is an area of 45,071 ha in the Tagus Estuary and due to its natural characteristics presents

itself as an advantageous area for the conservation of birds at a global scale, namely birds with a

threatened conservation status.

To summarize, the classification of the Tagus Estuary as an exceptional natural heritage site, is

based on the role it plays in being home to a variety of rich and interrelated ecosystems, mainly

in regard to birds but also fish and plant species.

The recognition of the Estuary’s environmental value makes it essential that within strategic

options of land use planning the necessity to “preserve the natural habitats of the estuary´s

margins, bays and adjacent creeks, particularly salt marshes and other wetland areas” (ALMEIDA,

SANTANA & FONSECA FERREIRA, 2010: 48), is taken into account in order to assure the

sustainability of the Tagus Estuary.

11 Ratified by Decree no. 101/80, of 9 October.


34

1.1.5. Identification of the main problematic issues

There still remain conflicts and threats in the Tagus Estuary upon which it is important to act.

The following aspects are noted:

• Existence of conflict between uses, which is largely caused by the multifunctional land

use of the Tagus Estuary. The existence of underused port areas on the riverfronts of the

Tagus Estuary and the reclaiming of these areas to urban uses (urban renewal and leisure

and recreational uses of the riverfront) is an example of this conflict. However, the

Administration of the Port of Lisbon, acknowledging the existence of areas for which no

port activity is planned, recently began establishing agreements for transferral of these

areas to Town Councils (the first of these occurred in June 2010 with the Town Council

of Lisbon). Another example of a conflict situation resulted from the Proposal to Revise

the Regional Plan of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, specifically with a proposal that

could eventually allow for Trafaria (Figure 17) to be used as an option in the expansion

of the Port of Lisbon. This proposal constitutes a conflict with the development options

of Trafaria as defined by the Town Council of Almada and other local entities, which

include urban renewal, and valorisation of the area’s environment.

• Existence of conflict between activities, which stem from the diversity of activities

present on the Tagus Estuary, the negative externalities that some of these activities

generate and the incompatibility between some of these. As an example of this, it is

important to note the effect that industrial residue and contaminant deposition (namely

produced by the large industrial complexes present in this estuary during the second half

of the last century) and agricultural runoff in the estuary have on the environmental

quality and even on the development of primary activities (e.g. oyster farming).


35

Figure 17. Trafaria and the Tagus Estuary


• Existence of areas occupied by disused and/or abandoned facilities along the margins as

a result of the decline in the industrial activity of the Tagus Estuary region (mainly in the

decade of 1980), particularly occurring on the South bank. With the collapse of industrial

activity these important land areas were freed up for new activities. To this end, the Arco

Ribeirinho Sul Strategic Plan was approved in 200912 in which it is stated that “the

renewal of the old industrial complexes of Margueira, Siderurgia Nacional and

CUF/QUIMIGAL presents itself as an opportunity to support the development of the

South bank in the context of the Lisbon Metropolitan area” (Figure 18). However, the

environmental problems and soil contamination, as a consequence of industrial activities

that occurred in these areas, is a delicate problem to solve.

12 Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 65/2009, of 7 August.


36

Figure 18. Old industrial complexes in the Tagus Estuary


• The existence of a high number of Instruments for Territorial Management focussed on

the Tagus Estuary region as well as a high number of qualified institutions (e.g.

licensing, spatial planning, maritime safety) in this area.

• The existence of urban pressure on the margins of the Tagus Estuary and adjacent areas,

upon which there were 1,762 million people in 2009 (16.6% of Portugal’s resident

population). With planned large-scale investment in transport infrastructure and logistics

(namely the New Lisbon Airport, the third bridge over the Tagus Estuary, the Poceirão

Logistic Plataform and the Castanheira do Ribatejo Logistic Plataform – Figure 19),

these pressures will increase.


37

Figure 19. Planned investments in transport and logistics infrastructures


• The existence of point sources of water pollution, particularly of urban, industrial and

agricultural origin, both on the margins of the Tagus Estuary and its tributaries. It should

be noted that only in 2011 all sewage water of domestic origin will cease to be

discharged as raw sewage into the Tagus Estuary.

• The existence of erosion problems on the estuary margins and beds, brought about by the

decrease in sediments carried by the Tagus river, the extraction of sand and also due to

wave action caused by shipping in the Estuary. The erosion problems experienced in

Alburrica and Ponta do Mexilhoeiro (Barreiro) are an example of this problem. This

situation it is a result of waves generated by catamarans (used in passenger transport)

that navigate in the estuary (Figure 20). These waves introduce a new factor of sediment

transport, increasing the erosion process at these areas and putting at risk both the

environmental and man-made heritage.


38

Figure 20. Catamarans in Tagus Estuary

Source: Transtejo, S.A.

1.2. Good Practices in the Tagus Estuary

The Tagus Estuary Management Plan is proposed as good practice and it is an instrument that

aims to:

• To protect and value the environmental characteristics, assuring the sustainable use of

water resources, as well as the natural values associated with these;

• To assure the integrated management of transition waters with interior and adjacent

coastal waters, as well the respective sediments;

• To assure the sustainable functioning of estuarine ecosystems;

• To preserve and restore protected or endangered aquatic and riparian species and their

respective habitats;

• To guarantee the integration with the Instruments for Territorial Management, plans and

programs of local, regional and national interest, applicable to the area encompassed by

the Tagus Estuary Management Plan. (MONIZ, 2009: 23)


39

In addition to the integrated and systematic approach which is envisaged for the document, in

itself constituting good practice for planning and integrated management of the estuary, it is

important to note the participatory approach with which this document has been created.

The entity responsible for its development (the Tagus River Basin District Administration)

highlights that “all citizens and interested entities have the right and duty to actively participate

in the production of the plan” and currently “under development is a collaborative program to

support the dissemination of works regarding the development of the plan and collecting

people’s contributions for it” (ARHT, 2010).

The following table presents the public debate sessions and workshops (Figure 21) held in 2009

and 2010 in the context of this plan’s development:

Table 3. Public Participation Sessions and Workshops held in the context of the development of the Tagus Estuary Management Plan

Theme Date

1st Debate Session 2009-06-23

2nd Debate Session 2009-11-20

1st Public Participation Workshop 2010-10-27

Source: ARHT, 2010.

Figure 21. First Public Participation Workshop on Tagus Estuary Management Plan (2010)


40

Source: ÁLVARES & LACERDA, 2010.

1.3. Conclusions and Recommendations

The Tagus Estuary plays an important role at a metropolitan and national level, due to two main

aspects. On the one hand, it is a central environmental element in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area,

which arises from its biological potential, and its natural and unique heritage richness. On the

other hand, concentrates several uses - tourism, recreation, leisure - and economic and social

functions, which need to be in balance with development.

The variety and high quality of the ecosystems and the multifunctional land use of the Tagus

Estuary, led to three main problems that have to be solved: the conflict between uses and

activities; the disused and/or abandoned facilities; and the existence of urban pressure, which is

one of the several point sources of water pollution. The solution for these weaknesses can be

achieved by the development of an integrated estuary management plan (in course – Tagus

Estuary Management Plan).

To promote a balanced approach in the planning and management of the Tagus Estuary in order

to promote the development of a sustainable, competitive and integrated area. It is necessary to

address two main issues: ensure an integrated land use planning and management of the estuary

and create a balance of economic activities – port activities and industrial activities –, urban land

use, nature protection including biodiversity and nature conservation resources, and recreational

and leisure activities that take place in the estuary and along the estuarine margins.

An important challenge lies in the creation of projects to integrate port uses and urban uses,

bearing in mind the balance needed between the uses without compromising the efficiency and

economic profitability of strategic port activities.

The participation of all citizens and interested entities, as well as the riverfront municipalities in

the production of the solutions is crucial to ensure that the proposal presented succeeds.

A vision for an integrated estuarine development should integrate a realistic solution to the

problems not only ensuring the sustainable functioning of estuarine ecosystems, but also the

integration and applicability of the Instruments for Territorial Management, plans and programs

of local, regional and national interest.

More information:


41

www.arhtejo.pt http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007-AP-EstuarioTejo

2. Description of the situation in the Elbe Estuary

2.1. Situation in the Elbe Estuary


The Estuary of the Elbe River is situated mainly in low lying northern German marshland but its

extensive catchment area reaches through the former German Democratic Republic up into the

Czech Republic hosting a great variety of old abandoned industrial sites that still contribute

contaminated sediments, which, after their journey downstream, concentrate in the Hamburg

Port Area. There, in the situation of a natural inland delta, extended by the building of the port,

the flow velocities reduce and the sediments settle.

From seawards more, but cleaner, sediments are travelling upstream into the same area. This

upstream transport results from strong flood currents and relatively weaker ebb currents, an

effect called tidal pumping that has increased especially over the past decade. Thus, it is

obvious, that sediment management in order to ensure safe water depths for the large vessels

calling at Hamburg is of special concern. A sediment management concept has been set up by

the HPA and the WSV and is approved by the responsible ministries of the Lander.

A weir at Geesthacht upstream of Hamburg today limits the Tidal influence. The tidal range in

Hamburg is 3.6 meters; it has increased from about one meter over the last fifty years due to

various hydro morphological changes. The brackish influence reaches up to Wedel, about 10 km

inland. This is also roughly the peak of the turbidity zone and, in summer, often biologically

limited by low oxygen saturation.

Despite massive human induced changes over the past centuries – e.g. over 90% of the former

tidally influenced marshland area has been embanked as well as the shipping channel has been

modified – the Elbe Estuary is still a precious natural habitat and therefore - in addition to the

already existing national protected sites - was designated as part of the European network

Natura 2000 with over 90% of its area.

The Estuary is home to a great variety and number of species, some even endemic like oenanthe

coneoides. Many fish species have returned or recovered after the water quality has improved

after the break-up of the iron curtain such as the twaite shad, salmon or the asp. The extensive


42

mudflats and the surrounding grasslands are habitat to many migratory and breeding birds such

as barnacle geese, shelduck, teal or the northern shoveler. In the wide mouth with its sand banks

seals are common residents.

Figure 22. The Tidal Elbe and the administrative responsibilities

Source: HPA.

Figure 23. The mouth of the Tidal Elbe


43

Source: HPA.

Figure 24. The Tidal Elbe at Brunsbüttel with Kiel Canal

Source: HPA.


44

Figure 25. The Tidal Elbe downstream of Hamburg with islands and channels

Source: HPA.

Figure 26. The City and Port of Hamburg

Source: HPA.


45


The Elbe Estuary is situated at the German North Sea coast reaching inland from the Waddensea

roughly 120 km up to the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg with its Port, the third largest in

Europe. The Estuary is administratively divided between the federal states Schleswig-Holstein

(north shore), Lower Saxony (south shore) and Hamburg (upstream end). The Federal

Administration for Waterways and Navigation (WSV) governs its waters, with one of the

world’s most frequented shipping lane – only the Hamburg part is delegated to the City

respectively the Hamburg Port Authority (HPA). Other important cities are Stade, Cuxhaven

and Brunsbüttel. In Brunsbüttel the famous Kiel Canal connects the Elbe with the Baltic Sea.

The region is also called metropolitan region of Hamburg and home to some four million

inhabitants.


To harmonise the obligatory implementation of the European Birds and Habitats Directives with

the extensive ongoing human activities a Natura 2000 steering group was set up in 2004

consisting of high ranking representatives of the nature and economy ministries of the Lander,

the WSV and the HPA.

As a first activity a frame concept of the conservation objectives has been worked out, taking

into account, that the Elbe estuary is a cultural landscape and that many of its today ecological

values are due to the activities of men. This study was finished in 2005 and reported to the EU.

In 2007 the partners signed a contract, which obliged them to set up an integrated management

plan. This plan, binding to the partners, will be accomplished by autumn 2011. However a major

part of the plan is already drawn, including over hundred potential measures. The set up of the

plan went along with an extensive stakeholder involvement so that the outcomes of the plan are

in principal of mutual agreement. Nevertheless, when it comes to the actual implementation of

measures, the usual planning procedures have to be thoroughly conducted.

Stakeholders were also asked to contribute to the plan by describing their activities and their

relations to the Natura 2000 objectives. One of the most important contributions is the input on

waterways and navigation by the WSV and HPA. There especially the sediment management


46

and the maintenance activities are described with a special focus on the current and potential

synergies with the Natura 2000 objectives including plans for a scientific monitoring.


The Elbe Estuary, from its weir at Geesthacht to its mouth into the Waddensea national park is

almost completely designated as Natura 2000 sites, including the shipping channel. Only the

Hamburg port area and some industrialized spots at Stade and Brunsbüttel are excluded. But still

over 90% are part of the network. The predominant habitat type is 1130 estuaries. Many sites,

such as the Mühlenberger Loch in Hamburg are also protected RAMSAR sites. In addition

many sites are protected under national law.

According to its wide range of habitats the Elbe estuary hosts a broad diversity of species. Its

extensive mudflats provide fodder to a great variety of waders, geese and ducks such as the

shoveler or the teal. Geese and other birds of the open grasslands can be found on the

agricultural marshland as well as on the dyke foreland, e.g. the barnacle goose or terns. The

alluvial forests and reed beds in turn are nesting zones for many songbirds as bluethroat or birds

of prey such as the sea eagle.

Under water a great variety of fish returned and recovered after the fall of the iron curtain and

many environmental improvements in the Elbe catchment. So, for example, the upper part of the

estuary is an important spawning ground for the twaite shad. Also the asp is quite typical, the

salmon returned and some efforts are even made to re-establish the sturgeon. Also lamprey can

be found in significant numbers. In total 223 species are currently counted in the tidal and the

outer Elbe, twelve of these from Annex II of the Habitats Directive.

Looking at the flora, most valuable are probably the freshwater tidal alluvial forests. There even

the endemic Oenanthe coneoides can be found, a herb that is very specialised with its needs.

Another endemic, Deschampsia wibeliana, is more widely spread and can even be found on

embankments.

Due to the hydro morphological developments some habitats are more endangered than others.

So, alluvial forests or the shallow water areas are decreasing, especially in the upper part of the

estuary. In contrast, mudflats and reed beds are advancing fast. This is the result of natural

succession and of strong siltation. For the mudflats, due to increased flow velocities, there is


47

also in many places a development towards a more coarse grain size which often is of lower

ecological value. Especially the tidally influenced brackish and freshwater parts of the estuary

are ecologically rating high as worldwide these very special environments are on the loose.

Figure 27. Characteristics of the Elbe estuary and key aspects of spatial development

Twait Shad, Mudflats

Gate to Waddensea

Hot Spot of Flora Diversity

Grassland

Reed and Alluvial Forest

Connectivity

Grassland Habitats

Birds

Reed and Alluvial Forest

Grassland: Breeding- and Resting Birds

PORT

Industry

City

PORT

Connectivity

Source: Kieler Institut für Landschaftsökologie, 2010; HPA.


48


As in most delta regions and estuaries, also at the Elbe human activities and nature are often

direct competitors in space. Constrained by the often narrow dykelines, the characteristic tidal

habitats have been displaced and cut off over the centuries. In addition, the use as an important

shipping lane has required many deepenings and other river engineering. Through these

modifications profound changes in the hydro-dynamic system occurred. Symptomatically the

tidal range in Hamburg has increased more than a meter within the last fifty years, which, by the

way, is the result of many changing factors. This in turn has led to an increased upstream

transport of fine sediments that congest valuable shallow water habitats as well as navigation

channels or port basins. On top, the sediments originating from upstream are gradually

contaminated as many abandoned industrial sites in the catchment area are still contributing

contaminants – a special and international challenge for the sediment management.

But also from the nature protection perspective alone, target conflicts are quite common in such

an ever changing environment. The development of suitable habitats for some species is often

detrimental to others. A demonstrative example are mudflats, precious habitats for birds like the

shoveler. But where these develop, shallow water areas – important for oxygen production, fish

and the hydro dynamics – often decrease at the same time. A general problem of nature

protection is the natural succession. Many protected habitats and species disappear as nature

develops. Thus continuous maintenance is often required as well as clear conservation

objectives for certain areas. These aspects are of highest importance in extremely dynamic

landscapes like estuaries and might need further guidance from the legal side.

All these demanding challenges are especially tricky, when many different authorities are

responsible. So the Elbe estuary is governed by three different states, federal agencies and also

dependant on the regulations of the EU. And responsibilities never really follow natural spatial

borders but are historically administrative. Working together thus is crucial as is the proper

understanding of such a dynamic system as a whole. Then, as at the Elbe, win-win solutions can

be identified and achieved.

2.2. Good Practices in the Elbe Estuary

The setting up of the integrated management plan for the Elbe estuary can contribute with a

couple of good practises:


49

• The integrated approach of the organisational framework: not only nature but also

economic representatives are equally and actively involved from the beginning. Actually

the initiative for the steering committee was for a major part taken by the Hamburg Port

Authority.

• The integrated approach, historically: It is of mutual agreement by the partners, that the

estuary is a cultural landscape. Human activities have shaped the region and todays

precious habitats. So, back to wilderness is not the aim.

• The integrated approach, technically: The aims and measures of the management plan

always take all the relevant aspects into account and are designed to achieve many

synergies. For example, a lot of common objectives were identified between the

sediment management mandatory to maintain the water depths and Natura 2000

objectives.

• The integrated approach, regionally: It is common understanding of the plan, that the

Elbe estuary can only be managed as one system. Even though the administrative

responsibilities are widely divided, the plan ensures that the regional impacts are

considered before local activities are begun. The (eco)systematic approach is a guideline

to both economic and ecological activities.

• The integrated approach in communication: Though of extremely complex geographical

and administrative structures, the process of setting up the plan has benefitted a lot to the

mutual understanding. The open discussion of the plan with all the stakeholders from

scratch on has contributed a lot to a greater confidence in the region that allow conflicts

to be debated more openly.


From the experiences at the Elbe estuary it can be concluded, that the integrated approach has

the greatest beneficial potential, especially to find sustainable solutions. The integrated

management plan will be the general basis for the future implementation of local plans and

activities. Especially the very early and open involvement of the stakeholders has contributed a

lot to the mutual confidence. The identification of potential synergies is an important

prerequisite for intelligent measures of both sides: economy and nature conservation. Shifting


50

from sectoral thinking and planning towards a more generic approach can be in general

recommended for all delta regions.

More information can be found here:

• www.natura2000-unterelbe.de

• www.tideelbe.de

• www.portal-tideelbe.de


51

3. Description of the situation in the Severn Estuary

3.1. Situation in the Severn Estuary


The Severn Estuary is situated in the Bristol Channel in the south west of the British Isles. The

estuary, which has the highest tidal range in Europe, is surrounded by extensive low-lying areas

much of which are at potential risk from flooding, particularly in the context of sea level rise

predictions. Supported by excellent land and sea communications, including significant links to

Britain’s major motorway network and the Atlantic, major cities, industrial and port areas

flourish on the estuary’s shores. Deep-water navigation channels, plentiful cooling water, cheap

waste disposal and offshore aggregates (for construction) constitute the estuary’s natural

‘resources’ to support these activities. The estuary’s nature conservation and archaeological sites

are, however, also very important, as detailed below along with significant agricultural, tourism

and recreational use. The potential for offshore renewable, particularly tidal, energy generation,

periodically also receives considerable interest from UK Government.


The Severn Estuary is administratively complex. Not only does it include several port

authorities, but also numerous local authorities including seventeen local planning authorities

which plan for the land areas down to the low water mark. It is also a cross border estuary,

spanning the shores of England and Wales, which, in the context of recent devolution in the

United Kingdom, provides a challenge for holistic, integrated estuary management. Much of the

management of activities is also sectorally based, reflecting the development of sectoral

legislation within the British system over the last century (see Figure 28).


52

Figure 28. Relevant Authorities’ Areas of Jurisdiction

Source: Severn Estuary Partnership, 2003.

Interest in a collaborative, estuary-wide approach dates back to the 1980s when local authorities

around the Severn became concerned about the potential implications of a proposed Severn

Estuary Barrage. Realising the value of collaborative working, the Standing Conference of

Severnside Local Authorities (SCOSLA) was established to provide a forum for discussing local

authority concerns. The Severn Estuary Strategy (SES), as it was then known (now the Severn

Estuary Partnership – see below) was established alongside the development of a considerable

number of other coastal and estuarine partnerships in England. These were part of English

Nature’s Estuaries Initiative, designed to promote co-operative approaches to sustainable

estuary management.

The Severn Estuary Partnership

In the context of this institutional and administrative complexity, a voluntary, estuary-wide

initiative was initiated to attempt to provide a strategic framework, including key policies, to


53

help guide policy development for the area in the mid 1990s. After several years of public and

stakeholder involvement and consultation, the Severn Estuary Strategy document was finally

published in 2001 to fulfil this role. The Severn Estuary Partnership (SEP) was then established

to help implement the Strategy. This independent, non-statutory, partnership includes local

authorities and statutory agencies as well as a wide variety of other organisations and

individuals who have declared their interest in caring for the estuary and want to encourage a

more co-ordinated approach to estuary planning and management. Its main area of interest isa

the nearly 400 square kilometres of the estuary between Hurlstone Point, near Minehead, on the

English coast, Nash Point on the Welsh Coast and the limit of tidal influence above Gloucester.

Figure 29. The Structure of the Severn Estuary Partnership

Forum Joint Advisory Committee

Management Group

Staff


The Partnership aims to facilitate the co-ordination of key estuary sectors and, through its Joint

Advisory Committee (JAC), annual Severn Estuary Forum, monthly e-news and periodic

newsletter Severn Tidings, provides a valuable platform for communication and information

dissemination amongst a wide range of stakeholders, including statutory bodies and estuary-user

groups. Through its JAC, the Partnership promotes a strategic estuary-wide perspective as well

as periodically reviewing progress under the SES. The work of the partnership is assisted and

guided by partnership staff and a Management Group of key stakeholders. Over the last few

years SEP has developed its secretariat services for various other estuary-wide initiatives,


54

including the Severn Estuary Coastal Group and Associated of Severn Estuary Relevant

Authorities, both of which are summarised below. In addition to its role in facilitating effective

communication and attempting to provide coordination between other organisations, the

partnership also aims to:

• Establish and embed a set of ‘common principles’ for sustainable estuary use that are

delivered locally through individual strategies, policies and action plans;

• Promote and publicise the estuary;

• Add value and fill gaps in effective estuary management.

As part of its role the Partnership has been actively involved in a number of European projects

and initiatives, where it has not only been able to learn from the experiences of other European

estuaries and coastal areas, but has also been able to show case some of its own achievements as

well as trialling new approaches to Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Of particular note has

been the Partnership’s involvement with the Les Estuariales network and the INTERREG

COASTATLANTIC, COREPOINT (IIIb) and IMCORE (IVb) projects.

The Association of Severn Estuary Relevant Authorities

The designation of the Severn Estuary as a European marine site imposes an obligation on the

Relevant Authorities of the estuary to operate within compliance of the EC Habitats Directive.

The Association of the Severn Estuary Relevant Authorities (ASERA13) was established as the

co-ordinated inter-agency organisation to oversee the development and implementation of the

Management Scheme for this marine site. It includes a wide range of bodies, including statutory

conservation agencies, local authorities, port authorities and water companies.

The Severn Estuary Coastal Group

13 Website: http://www.severnestuary.net/asera/asera.html


55

Alongside the formation of coastal defence groups for the regional coastal sediment cells of

England and Wales in the early 1990s, the Severn Estuary Coastal Group (SECG) was

established in 1993 to oversee the development and operation of the first generation shoreline

management plan (SMP) for the Estuary. The Group includes Coastal Defence Authorities and

operating authorities which have a major responsibility with regards to protection from coastal

erosion and flooding. These include both English and Welsh local authorities, drainage boards,

conservation agencies, the Environment Agency and representatives of central government. The

establishment of these types of regional, coastal groups has been important for the delivery of a

more sustainable and co-ordinated approach to coastal defence. In particular, they have

facilitated discussion and cooperation between those responsible for coast protection with those

with responsibilities for sea defence.

3.1.3. Integrated Management Plan

There is no single, estuary integrated management plan for the Severn. However, the Severn

Estuary Strategy document, referred to above, was an early attempt to provide a non-statutory

framework to inform ‘integrated’ policy and management actions. An ambitious document, the

Strategy covered thirteen sectoral areas, identified and addressed 95 issues and contained over

350 proposals for action.

To bring together all those involved in the development, management and use of the Estuary

within a framework which encourages the integration of their interests and responsibilities

to achieve common objectives.

The aim of the Strategy for the Severn (2001)

Whilst there has not been a complete revision of the Strategy document, there has been partial

reviews of the delivery of actions as part of SEP business and action plans. Preparations for the

current Severn Estuary Business Plan (2011) have involved the most thorough review of the

Strategy document. Drawing on a number of consultations during the latter part of 2009,

including two workshops at Joint Advisory Committee meetings, the document sets out a clear

direction for the organisation over the next five years and, thus, may be considered to be an

important tool for harnessing íntegrated estuary management and policy in the Severn Estuary.

It includes proposals for action in the previous Strategy which had not been delivered, but were


56

still relevant. The document also restates the role of the Partnership and explains how this

relates to the aspirations of other interested organisations within the area. The plan includes

over fifty actions which are grouped under the following headings

• Membership and Involvement

• Organisational Status

• Key roles – encouragement of the delivery of principles

• Key roles – promoting and publicising the estuary

• Key roles – adding value and filling gaps

• Key roles – ensuring effective communication

• Selling the service

• Key roles – resources and operations

The plan highlights the need for the collective deliver of its key outcomes which it suggests will

require the engagement and support of not only the organisations currently actively involved in

the Partnership, but also a wide range of other bodies.


The Estuary is internationally recognised for nature conservation, having the status of Special

Protection Area (SPA) under the EC Conservation of Wild Birds Directive and is a RAMSAR

site. A significantly large area of the Estuary, including the subtidal zone, is a possible Special

Area of Conservation (pSAC) under the European Habitats Directive. The area is of national and

local conservation status with a variety of national and local conservation designations.

The Estuary is an important migratory route for salmon and internationally rare fish species such

as Shad. It supports commercial elver fisheries and is a habitat for a range of other species. It is

also well known for the wealth of archaeological and historic interest features, as well as the

high quality of its historic landscape. Having a high tidal range, the Severn Estuary presents a

challenging and dynamic environment for coastal defence.


57

This estuary has the largest tidal range in Europe and it is an internationally important area for

fish and bird populations (waders, wildfowl and terns), saltmarsh, intertidal and subtidal benthic

communities. Its rich feeding grounds on mud make up over 10,860 ha. It has nationally

important intertidal communities, such as Honeycomb reef worm Sabellaria alveolata,

Tubularia indivisa and piddock biotopes, not only in soft rock with fucoids - outcrops of Mercia

mudstone (Triassic), and in south of Penarth, but also in clay, soft red clay near Penarth and on

ledges on the north side of the estuary.

Figure 30. Tubularia indivisa on bedrock Flatholm

Source: BRAZIER & WYN, 2007.

Figure 31. Polydora and piddock holes

Source: BRAZIER & WYN, 2007.

The Severn Estuary has a wide range of special features: coastal sand dunes; sand beaches; sand

dune pastures; salt marshes; salt pastures; salt steppes; tidal rivers; estuaries; mud flats; sand

flats; and lagoons (including saltwork basins).


58

Concerning the Designated Ecological Features, the Severn Estuary has remarkable importance:

International Level

RAMSAR Wetlands of International Importance – The Convention on Wetlands of International

Importance, called the RAMSAR Convention, is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the

framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of

wetlands and their resources. The Convention establishes that “wetlands should be selected for

the List on account of their international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology,

limnology or hydrology”.

European Level

SPA Special Protection Area (Birds and their Habitats) – Areas which have been identified as

being of international importance for the breeding, feeding, wintering or migration of rare and

vulnerable species of birds found within European Union countries. They are European

designated sites, classified under the ‘Birds Directive 1979’ which provides enhanced protection

given by the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a status all SPAs also hold.

SAC Special Area of Conservation (Habitats and Species – other than birds. E.g. Fish) –

Designated in 2007, this designation includes: estuaries; Atlantic salt meadow; mudflats and

sandflats (not covered by sea water at low tide); reefs; sandbanks (slightly covered by sea water

all the time) and species – lampreys, twaite shad.

National UK Level

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest (Habitats, Species, Geology) – Designated in 1976 and

revised in 1989, this designation includes: whole estuary; saltmarsh and brackish standing

water; shad, salmon, trout and lampreys; breeding bird assemblages (lowland and sand dune);

marine habitats, rare and scarce marine invertebrates and marine eelgrass habitat and species.


59


There have been various attempts to identify and categorise coastal issues by the Severn Estuary

Partnership. These include those listed within the Strategy document (2001), a further issue

prioritisation process by the Severn Estuary Partnership Joint Advisory Committee (2005) and a

more recent issue identification exercise as part of the INTERREG IVB IMCORE project. The

following list highlights those issues of most concern:

• The future of coastal defences alongside the impact of climate change and rising sea

level on coastal squeeze (of habitats) and existing coastal development;

• Pressures from urbanisation and development on estuarine habitats, landscape and

seascape, flood plain capacity, rural areas and areas of natural, cultural, archaeological or

scientific interest;

• Effects of increasing traffic and planned transport facilities and infrastructure on the

estuary;

• Impacts of development on the historic landscape of the Severn Levels and the

inadequate information and awareness of the Severn’s archaeology and historic features;

• Fisheries management and the decline of fish stocks, including eels, elvers and salmon;

• Degradation of internationally important habitats and migratory bird populations through

increasing development, land and marine-based pollution and fisheries decline;

• Biological disturbance through selective extraction of species from activities including.

bait digging, wildfowling, commercial and recreational fishing;

• Management of wildlife habitats and areas of geological value and the impacts of nature

conservation designations on other users;

• Effects of agricultural sources of pollution including the impacts of intensive farming

practices in conservation areas;

• Environmental impacts of aggregate dredging on fisheries, coastal sediment transport

and wildlife along with issues of mineral extraction regulation;


60

• The impacts of increasing tourism and recreation including issues associated with coastal

access and water use particularly navigational safety issues with untrained recreational

users;

• Impacts of pollution on human health, wildlife and visual amenity and the

implementation of pollution management through waste reduction initiatives;

• Impacts of increasing coastal litter and fly tipping through development, urbanisation

and the growing tourism and recreation industries;

• Concerns over compliance with various EU water quality standards including those

under the Bathing Waters Directive;

• Managing demands on water resources and balancing the need of abstractors with other

users;

• Renewable energy concerns regarding proposals and ideas related to offshore tidal

energy regeneration;

• Concern over inadequate and variable policy and planning guidance;

• Marine spatial planning and reduction of conflict between recreation, ports, industry and

conservation;

• Need for coordinated information and sound scientific data for effective estuary

management;

• Issue of wider public participation in estuary management planning.

In addition there are a number of concerns relating to SEP and its capacity to provide an

integrated approach. These include:

• Inadequate and short-term resourcing including lack of financial support from national

level;

• A policy vacuum on land-sea integration;

• Integrated coastal/estuary approaches are not sufficiently embedded within the current

governance system;

• Vulnerable to changing local government and agency priorities;


61

• Limited involvement of industry/business.

• Over-reliance on EC projects.

3.2. Good Practices in the Severn Estuary

The good practices in the Severn Estuary include the approach of the Severn Estuary Partnership

in fostering a coordinated estuary-wide view amongst multiple stakeholders.

The Severn Estuary Partnership

This neutral body attempts to provide integration amongst the many, statutory and other bodies

with an interest in the estuary. Good practice by SEP includes its communication activities,

event design and management, fostering of science-policy integration and its role providing a

secretariat for various other estuary-wide groups.

SEP communication activities:

• Easy to read website (http://www.severnestuary.net) which include a web-based ‘who

does what’guide (see Figure 32);

• Severn Tidings – the SEP newsletter with topical coverage of Severn issues;

• Information leaflets on a variety of estuary topics;

• e-news – a monthly online newsletter with topical updates available to 2000 people;

• Extensive contact database of several hundred stakeholders, categorised into various

types.


62

Figure 32. The Severn Estuary Gateway website

Source: Severn Estuary Partnership, 2009.

SEP Events

These include:

• The Severn Estuary Forum (an annual event since 05) which draws in a wide audience of

practitioners, policy makers and users of the estuary

• Severn Wonders Festival (06) – a celebration of the diversity of the estuary – a

conference and series of events for various stakeholder groups

• Workshops & conferences – on a range of themes, including specific conferences

targeted at planning professionals

SEP secretariat services

SEP provides a secretariat for various estuary-wide sectoral groups and in so doing, promotes a

better understanding of each group’s purpose and liaison amongst groups as well as providing a

cost-effective and well informed service. Groups, which SEP provides a secretariat for, include:


63

• ASERA – related to the estuary Natura 2000 site;

• SECG – related to shoreline management (coastal flood & erosion risk management);

Science-policy integration

Through SEP’s involvement with the INTERREG IIIB COREPOINT and the INTERREG IVB

IMCORE projects, it has fostered integration of science and policy with particular reference to

climate change impacts and adaptation. This has involved:

• The translation of scientific knowledge on climate change into non-technical summaries

for policy and general audiences;

• The establishment and running of the Severn Estuary Climate Change Research

Advisory Group.


The above discussion points to the continued need to promote a balanced approach to planning

and management on the Severn Estuary in order to promote the development of a sustainable,

competitive and integrated region. Additionally, SEP, whilst providing a vital impetus for an

integrated estuary-wide view requires further support and a number of other measures, as noted

below.

Promoting a balanced, estuary-wide view

This should attempt to:

• protect and enhance:

o conservation including biodiversity and nature conservation resources

o the countryside and undeveloped coastline

o open space including the river valleys and green corridors

• ensure that new development:

o addresses both mitigation and adaptation aspects of climate change including reducing carbon emissions

o responds to increased flood risk;

o makes efficient use of energy and water and renewable energy

o makes provision for new sustainable waste management methods


64

o employs high quality, locally distinctive and sustainable design

• regenerate

o deprived communities

o district and local city centres

Needs of the Severn Estuary Partnership

Longer-term resourcing is needed to secure the Partnership’s future and its role in promoting

further cooperation amongst the plethora of estuary users and policy makers. This could be

facilitated by better recognition of its value as a key proponent and deliverer of an Integrated

Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) process. Considerable effort also needs to be made to

engage with industry and business as well as with the emerging marine planning process for

offshore to ensure not only integration across the estuary, but across the land-sea divide as well.


65

4. Situation in the Rhine-Scheldt Meuse Delta

4.1. Description of the situation in the Rhine-Scheldt Meuse Delta


The Rhine-Scheldt Meuse Delta is a cross-border area extending over parts of Flanders

(Belgium) and The Netherlands. It is a densely populated area in North-West Europe. The river

Scheldt has a length of 355 km from source to mouth (the line Vlissingen-Breskens). The source

is situated in the north of France (St. Quentin) about 110 m above sea level and the estuary

becomes much wider beyond Vlissingen (The Netherlands), where the mouth of the estuary

gradually flows into the North Sea. The total catchment area is approximately 21,863 km².

About 10 million people (477 inhabitants/ km) live in the river basin. The Scheldt is a typical

rain-fed lowland river.

The longitudinal salinity profile of the Scheldt estuary is primarily determined by the magnitude

of the river discharge, with the transition between fresh and salt water being particularly

variable. The estuary is well mixed (except during peak discharges), which means that vertical

salinity gradients are small or negligible.

Major changes in the morphology of the estuary occurred during the last centuries. Still in the

20th century about 16 % of the total surface was lost due to industrial, agricultural and urban

developments.

Due to dike enforcement, many of the marshes in front of the seawalls have disappeared which

has disrupted the connectivity of marshes along the salinity gradient.

Bad water quality severely impacted benthic invertebrates and fish resulting in the freshwater

part of the estuary harbouring less species than normally expected (Remane’s curve). Despite

the geomorphological changes in the lower estuary and the bad water quality in the upper

estuary, the Scheldt estuary is one of the most important estuaries along the NW-European

migration route for water birds, where maximum numbers reach up to 230,000 individuals. For

21 water bird species, the Scheldt has international importance.

The delta area is characterized by open countryside surrounded by urban areas.


66

Gradual transitions of sea and land broaden the coastal defense zone, providing opportunities for

the development of various other functions like nature, recreation, housing, harbours, marinas

and agriculture. Agglomerations, cities and industries are historically developed close to the

riverbanks of the Zeeschelde.


The Rhine-Scheldt Delta Co-operative Organisation is an example of cross-border co-operation

between the Flemish and Dutch governments (Benelux, central government, provincial and city

authorities), Chambres of Commerce, the seaports authorities, the private sector and

environmental organisations in developing the land and waterways in the delta area of the rivers

Rhine, Maas and Scheldt. The organisation was established in 1999.

This co-operation is mainly aimed at the economic, ecological and multi-modal development of

the Delta area. Co-operation takes place as a result of jointly harmonising policies and

developing planning viewpoints, schemes and projects.

Co-operation in this region is very important because the geographical area covered by the delta

exhibits a high degree of cohesion, ecologically as well as economically. Within this delta area

is a resident population of about 6,5 million as well as 8 major seaports, including the ports of

Rotterdam and Antwerp. It is important that there is a cross-border agreement on harmonisation

and an integrated outlook on planning with regard to urbanisation, economic policy, mobility,

nature and water management.

The ambition of the organisation is to work towards realising symbiotic harmonization, shared

choices and a joint vision for the entire delta area. The execution of activities is project-

orientated and results-based being manifested in concrete plans and activities. The organisation

and its representatives support the results through an active network. An important part of the

objective of the co-operation in relation to the Rhine-Scheldt Delta area is to keep each other

well informed, of developments and resolutions, by establishing and maintaining good lines of

reciprocal communication from an early stage. The communication must provide a clear insight

into cohesive information on the entire Delta area and the broad external dissemination of such

information.


67


To guarantee sustainable development in the future, a target for 2030 was already set and

subscribed by the Dutch and Flemish governments in 2001 (the Longterm Vision Scheldt

estuary).

It focuses on five objectives:

1. preservation of the geomorphology;

2. safety against floods;

3. optimal accessibility of the ports;

4. a healthy dynamic ecosystem;

5. transboundary cooperation.

However, the target of 2001 does not propose elaborated projects. To define more precise

projects, ProSes (Scheldt Estuary Development Project) was established in March 2002. ProSes’

main task was to make a solid, broadly supported development plan, so that a step towards the

target for 2030 will be achieved.

The project management was focussed on being an intermediary between the various interests

and ambitions, aiming to present proposals that can count on both political and social support

and understanding.

The approach in preparing the development plan was two-pronged: research and advisory

consultation. Both routes, research and advisory consultation, have resulted in political decisions

on the Scheldt Estuary development plan by the Flemish and Dutch governments in 2005.

Hereafter, the development plan formed the basis for further decision making on the

implementation and realization of the chosen measures and projects.

The development plan 2010 for the Scheldt estuary

The governments of the Netherlands and Flanders recently approved the ‘Scheldt Estuary

Development Outline 2010’, which contains dozens of resolutions regarding how the two

governments intend to improve the safety, accessibility and natural environment of the estuary.


68

The basic principal for both governments is to maintain and improve the dynamic characteristics

of the Scheldt estuary. Here ‘dynamic’ means a constantly changing pattern of channels and

intertidal flats, regular variation in salinity, and the formation of new salt marshes and mud flats

while old ones disappear. Safety, navigability, and the natural environment all benefit from

maintaining the dynamic vitality of this system. The Development Outline does not deal with all

of the problems in the Scheldt estuary.

Resolutions

Safety against flooding

• Increasing dyke heights and establishing flooding areas along the Zeeschelde

The regional and national authorities have decided to increase safety along the Zeeschelde by

establishing controlled flooding areas no later than 2030. Where space for flooding areas is

lacking, such as in urban areas and industrial areas, the heights of the dykes will be increased.

Flanders aims to establish 280 hectares of controlled flooding areas by 2010. Of this, more than

200 hectares will be configured as estuarine environment areas. The Flemish government will

specify the specific locations of the controlled flooding areas, the configuration of the estuarine

environment areas, and the increases in dyke heights.

Accessibility

• Deepening and widening the shipping channel

Flanders and the Netherlands have decided that ships with a draught of 13.1 metres must be able

to sail as far as the port of Antwerp regardless of the tide. For this purpose, the authorities will

lower the level of the sills in the channel by 1.4 metres. In the vicinity of the Deurganck Dock,

the Zeeschelde will be widened from 250 metres to 370 metres over a length of 5 kilometres.

• Flexible dumping locations

To achieve optimum conditions in the Scheldt estuary, it is important to maintain the vitality of

the estuary and its network of multiple channels. Changing the way the shipping channel is

maintained can help achieve this objective. Regular dredging is constantly necessary to maintain

the sills at the desired depth.


69

Silting-up of side channels and erosion of salt marshes and mud flats can be avoided by a careful

selection of dumping locations. The authorities will make the selection of dumping locations

more flexible in order to allow dumping to take place where it is most favourable for the vitality

of the estuary. All maintenance dredgings will be dumped back into the estuary. To protect the

side channels, a larger proportion of the dredgings will be dumped in the main channel in the

future. In addition, more dredgings will be dumped in the eastern part of the Westerschelde and

fewer in the mouth region.

• Monitoring

So far studies have shown that deepening the channel will have little effect on the vitality and

natural environment of the Scheldt estuary, under the condition that the dumping strategy is

modified and ecological development takes place. However, this conclusion cannot be stated

with absolute certainty. For this reason, the governments will establish a measurement

programme for monitoring developments in the Scheldt estuary during and after the deepening

of the channel. The governments are still investigating whether measures can be devised in

advance of the deepening so that any undesirable effects that may occur can be quickly

countered. The party responsible for causing the undesirable effects will pay the costs of the

measures. If the responsible party is not known, Flanders and the Netherlands will share the

costs.

In deciding whether the measures are actually necessary, the authorities will also take into

account the requirements of the EC Birds and Habitat directives. These European directives

oblige countries to maintain existing environmental values.

• Acceptable risks

The Netherlands and Flanders desire to maintain safety in the Scheldt estuary at an acceptable

level. They will request lower-level governments to always assess the effects on external safety

when generating new spatial plans. The governments will improve the provision of information

regarding safety policy to lower-level governments and the general public. They also wish to see

improvements in the options for disaster prevention and relief, and they will request the

responsible governmental organisations in Flanders and the Netherlands to take action to

achieve this objective.


70

Natural environment

Flanders and the Netherlands will create more space for estuarine environments. At minimum,

they will execute cross-border projects, projects in the Netherlands and projects in Flanders in

the period up to 2010. In total, at least 1000 hectares of new estuarine environment will be

added to the Scheldt.

• Increased vitality

In combination with activities for improving safety against flooding, accessibility and the

natural environment, the governments will also take measures to restore natural vitality where

possible. Some examples of such measures are using alternative dredging and dumping

strategies, constructing or removing breakwaters, excavating old salt marshes, and increasing or

decreasing the depths of channels. Specific plans for such activities will be made during the

implementation phase.

• Multifunctional environment

Flanders and the Netherlands wish to make the new natural environment areas usable for other

purposes where possible. They foresee possibilities for combining natural environments with

other objectives such as safety, agriculture, marine aquaculture, recreation, and

residential/employment initiatives.

Actors in the management of the Scheldt estuary

The governments have signed a Memorandum of Agreement (in March 2005) in which (among

other things) they specify the financing of the resolutions. They have also anchored the most

significant resolutions in the Development Outline in a treaty. In addition, the authorities have

formulated a treaty regarding how they will further proceed to attain the target situation in 2030.

These treaties were signed in December 2005.

The governments have again established a joint project organisation in order to ensure a

coordinated approach during the subsequent stage (ProSes2010). The task of ProSes2010 is to

coordinate the various measures and procedures and clearly communicate information. New

websites for this purpose are available: www.proses2010.be and www.proses2010.nl. Specific

implementation of the individual projects is carried out in the regions in question in cooperation


71

with the directly involved and affected parties.


Coastal zones are diverse and dynamic areas in which several functions come together and

unique values can be found. The transition from (tidal) water to land offers unique ecological

values. The sea provides important economic opportunities (for example fishery and recreation)

and the coastal region gives local populations an attractive living environment.

Flanders and the Netherlands will create more space for estuarine environments. At minimum,

they will execute the following projects in the period up to 2010:

Cross-border

• Designation of the Vlakte van de Raan as a ‘marine reserve’. The 'Vlakte van de Raan' is

a shallow sand bank at the mouth of the Westerscheldt. This sand bank is partly on

Belgian territory and partly on Netherlands territory. It is an important nursery area for

fish, and it harbours a rich variety of seabed life. This makes the sand bank an important

feeding aera for the sandwich tern, which is a protected bird species;

• Enlarging the Zwin by at least 120 hectares, and possibly 240 hectares;

• Developing a 465-hectare intertidal area in the Hertogin Hedwigepolder and the northern

part of the Prosperpolder.

In Flanders:

• Restoring the conditions necessary to allow fish migration in the Zeeschelde;

• Reconfiguring the Durme and its valley;

• Developing 125 hectares of estuarine environment in existing controlled flooding areas;

• Establishing 600 hectares of wetland in the Kalkense Meersen;

• Developing 210 hectares of estuarine environment in locations still to be chosen, in

combination with establishing flooding areas.

In the Netherlands:


72

• Developing approximately another 300 hectares of estuarine environment in locations

still to be chosen.

In total, at least 1000 hectares of new estuarine environment will be added to the Scheldt.

Increased vitality

In combination with activities for improving safety against flooding, accessibility and the

natural environment, the governments will also take measures to restore natural vitality where

possible. Some examples of such measures are using alternative dredging and dumping

strategies, constructing or removing breakwaters, excavating old salt marshes, and increasing or

decreasing the depths of channels. Specific plans for such activities will be made during the

implementation phase.

Multifunctional environment

Flanders and the Netherlands wish to make the new natural environment areas usable for other

purposes where possible. They foresee possibilities for combining natural environments with

other objectives such as safety, agriculture, marine aquaculture, recreation and

residential/employment initiatives.

Figure 33. Indicative map of the land use and occupation of the Rhine-Scheldt Delta


73

Source: http://www.vnsc.eu/


The main problematic issues that need to be managed are:

Safety

• Inadequate long-term safety flood protection in Westerschelde due to climate change and

rising sea levels;

• Inadequate flood protection in Zeeschelde. Safety has been improved by establishing the

Kruibeke-Bazel-Rupelmonde controlled flooding area, but is still inadequate, and during


74

the coming century it will decline in effectiveness due to climate change and rising sea

levels;

• Strong dependence of the flood risk management on technical measures and

interventions, such as barriers and dikes. A more resilient way of flood management

takes natural processes and their uncertainties (like climate change) into account and will

be more economical on the long run.

Accessibility

• Antwerp port: seagoing vessels with a draught of up to 11.85 metres can now sail as far

as Antwerp regardless of the tide. Ships with deeper draughts must wait for a favourable

tide so they can sail over the various bars in the shipping channel. In the future, shipping

lines will shift to relatively larger container ships and will also operate using tighter

schedules in order to reduce costs. Long waiting times make Antwerp Harbour

unattractive, which is undesirable since a flourishing harbour is important for prosperity

in the Scheldt estuary;

• Risks from transport of hazardous materials: transport of hazardous materials over the

Scheldt creates risks for the surrounding area. In the Netherlands, the risks comply with

the standards for ‘external safety’. No standards have been set in Flanders. The

governments have agreed that in the future, the risk must remain at the 2000 level.

Natural environment

• Strong decrease in the area of salt marshes, mud flats and shallow water during the last

century. The estuary has too little space and too much tidal energy to allow such areas to

develop or allow existing areas to be maintained. This causes a decline in the

environmental diversity of the Scheldt estuary;

• Depletion of the living requirements for a wide variety of species such as feeding areas,

breeding areas, and rest areas, when such shore regions are lost. As a result, important

links in the food chain are threatened;

• Incapacity of the natural environment of the Scheldt estuary to absorb the impact of

human interventions. All of the remaining salt marshes, mud flats, shallow water and


75

gullies in the Scheldt estuary fall under the protection of the European Habitat Directive

and the Ramsar Convention;

• Bad water quality severely impacted benthic invertebrates and fish;

• Loss of about 16% of the total surface due to industrial, agriculture and urban

developments. As mainly mature marshes are embanked, the relative contribution of

intertidal areas decreases in the same period from 27 to 17 % (excl. sand flats).

4.2. Good Practices in Rhine-Scheldt Meuse Delta

Long-term objectives for the Rhine-Scheldt Delta

Flanders and the Netherlands have three long-term objectives for the Rhine-Scheldt Delta:

• safety: maximum protection against flooding in the region

• accessibility: optimum accessibility to the harbours on the Scheldt estuary

• natural environment: a dynamic, healthy natural environment

Figure 34. Delta Ambition

Source: COOSEN, 2010.

A coordinated approach is necessary to achieve an ideal situation in this region, which extends

from Ghent to the mouth of the estuary on the North Sea. Since ancient times, the Scheldt


76

estuary has been a vital artery for Flanders and Zeeland. The entire region developed around the

estuary. The tides, the economy, and the natural environment pay scant regard to the national

border. The only way to properly consider all the various interests in this region is to regard it as

a whole.

The basic principal for both governments is that the Scheldt estuary must remain a dynamic

estuary. Here ‘dynamic’ means a constantly changing pattern of channels and intertidal flats,

regular variation in salinity, and the formation of new salt marshes and mud flats while old ones

disappear. Safety, navigability, and the natural environment all benefit from maintaining the

dynamic vitality of this system. But is the ecosystem of the Scheldt in good shape at the moment

or do we have to create new intertidal areas?

The port of Antwerp, the second largest port in the northwest European region with great

national importance not only for the Belgian economy as such but also for direct and indirect

employment, faces its greatest challenges ever. The facts are clear: larger ships, growing

transport of containers and growing concern about the environment. The port and political

authorities are conscious of the importance the port presents and have to work hard to maintain

and enhance Antwerp's position. But how can the port meet the growing needs of economy and

industry when the rules and environmental regulations are getting more severe?

The Development Outline does not deal with all of the problems in the Scheldt estuary. For

instance, it does not address the issue of improving water quality. This issue is already being

dealt with jointly by Flanders and the Netherlands, along with the other Belgian regions and

France, in the International Commission for the Protection of the Scheldt.

The involved governments, official bodies and interested parties joined together to form the

Overleg Adviserende Partijen (‘Consultative Committee of Advisory Parties’). On significant

occasions, the OAP issued independent advice on individual topics before decisions were taken.

The OAP also issued a unanimous recommendation in favour of the draft Development Outline.

A new master plan for the Soutwestern Delta of the Netherlands


77

(ADRIAANSE Leo and HOEKSTRA Jandirk (2009): The international review of landscape

architecture and urban design TOPOS – Water – Resource and threat – "Designing a safe and

sustainable Rijn-Maas-Schelde Delta"

For thousands of years, people had little choice but to adapt themselves to the forces of nature.

Over the last millennium people have progressively learned how to adapt such regions to their

own needs, without realizing that, in so doing, they were interfering in the long-term processes

involved in the very formation of such areas. The disturbance of natural processes by these civil

engineering works has caused ecological and water quality problems that must be solved. Also

climate change is forcing the Rhine-Scheldt Meuse Delta region to prepare for even higher sea

levels, erratic river water levels, and saltwater intrusion.

In 1953 a heavy northwest storm forced seawater into the funnel-shaped distributaries of the

delta. The dikes burst at hundreds of separate locations. This was the mostly devastated

catastrophe in the history of the Netherlands.

The Netherlands were ready for the creation of an enormous engineering plan; the Delta Project.

The Delta Project consisted of raising and strengthening the dikes and dunes and shortening the

coastline by over 700 kilometres, thereby reducing the risk of collapses through a series of

dams.

Before the construction of the Delta Project, the Southwestern Netherland was an estuarine

region. As a result of the Delta Project, the original estuary was transformed into a series of

water basins physically separated from each other. Fresh water and salt water were kept

separated, and the influence of the river was no longer felt in most of the delta. In 1960s the

social beliefs and attitudes changed. This had an impact on the Delta Project. A new type of

storm surge barrier in the Oosterschelde was built leaving that area not completely closed or

completely open, but something in between.

It became clear that the elimination of the dynamic processes characteristic of an estuary had

ecological drawbacks. Each of the delta water basins suffers from problems that can be traced to

the reduced flow of sediment- and nutrient – laden water through the basins. A lot of negative

effects occurred due to the Delta Project.

In the Fourth Memorandum on Water Management of 1998, a policy goal for the delta is

described that involves restoration and strengthening of the natural processes, emphasizing a


78

greater degree of exchange and gradual transitions between the various separate water systems.

On top of the ecological problems, the Rhine-Scheldt Meuse Delta will have to deal with the

consequences of climate change.

Time for a new Delta Plan

The new plan has to provide benefits in terms of safety, ecology, economy, and quality of life.

The great challenge is to implement the safety measures that are necessary due to climate

change in a way that eliminates water quality problems and improves opportunities for

agriculture, fishing and tourism. With this new plan the Dutch government wants to encourage

humans to adapt to the dynamics and ecological processes that have formed the delta over time,

to make better use of the water systems instead of fighting against them. The plan wants to make

use of natural forces to restore the water systems to a healthier state. These natural forces can

also be used to provide extra flood protection by encouraging sedimentation wherever possible,

thereby encouraging the development of salt marshes, which (in combination with dikes) can

provide coastal protection. Since 2008, the delta region has been preparing a comprehensive

regional Delta programme that strives to reach a climate-proof, safe, ecologically resilient and

socio-economically vital delta area in the Southwest Netherlands.

There are still many challenges. The new programme must maintain safety against sea and river

water, while restoring estuarine dynamics for better water quality, natural productivity and

natural values. It must also accommodate shipping, agriculture, improve conditions for fisheries

and shellfish cultivation, improve recreation and tourism opportunities. If the programme

succeeds, the delta will experience a substantial increase in quality as a diverse ecological

system and an attractive area for living, working and recreation.


Communication and involving actors in the development area is important in the process.

Participants should start interacting, by exchanging information, discussing and negotiating.

These interactions should be based not only on reflectivity, reciprocity and respect, but also on

the goals themselves and on their relations. The respect of diversity is also very important


79

because it implies that participants need to acknowledge that the other participants may have

different interests, views and information.

For the implementation of the LVT, local and regional authorities will play an important role.

The support and involvement of relevant administrative bodies at national, regional and local

level is crucial.

An important challenge lies in managing the process to lead to an integrated development of a

multifunctional coastal zone, which is sustainable and safe.

In the diverse and dynamic coastal zone of Europe, it is often not possible to hold on to a

‘mono-function’ approach. When the coastal zone is viewed in an integrated manner, successful

developments can be created more easily.

A vision for an integrated coastal zone development should integrate a realistic solution to the

problems at hand in a wider and long-term oriented idea on the development of the coastal zone.

In the vision, all values, functions and interests of the coastal zone are taken into account.

Adaptive management asks for robust designs of flood management measures. This means

taking trends and future situations – physical as well as socio-economic – into account, for

example by making a design that anticipates necessary adjustments. This way, more long-term

sustainable measures can be taken.

More information:

www.proses2010.nl

www.vnsc.eu

www.zwdelta.nl


80

5. Dealing with the topic “Integrated Delta Approach”

5.1. Joint problems and issues

The analysis undertaken within the specific context of the various estuaries and deltas brought to

light a diverse set of problems, some of which have a local specificity (e.g. strong dependence of

the flood risk management on technical measures and interventions, such as barriers and dikes,

in the case of Rhine-Scheldt Meuse Delta). Other impacts upon the sustainability of the estuary

and delta, which is context-specific, and as such are not so influential in other estuaries and

deltas.

However, it is possible to identify a set of problems common to all estuaries and deltas upon

which the present report is focused. In the following points, the main common problems within

the “Integrated Delta Approach” theme/project:

• Competition between the important economic activities and the specific ecological

values of the estuary and delta areas. These issues (economy and ecology) are competing

and often result in an unbalanced estuary and delta development. The impacts of

increasing tourism and recreation in ecological sensitive areas are a good example of this

problem.

• Institutional organisation of estuaries and deltas: regarding this issue, the main problem

is related with the large number of entities that, in some cases, are directly and indirectly

involved in the planning and management of estuarine fringes and water plan. This is the

case of the Tagus Estuary, where the existence of a high number of Plans focussed on the

Tagus Estuary region, as well as a high number of institutions with sectorial

administrative responsibilities, are prejudicial to an integrated approach and to the

development of synergies.

• Inadequate long-term safety flood protection due to climate change and rising sea levels.

• Existence of urban pressure on estuarine fringes and estuarine sensitive areas is another

problematic issue. For example, in the Severn Estuary, one of the issues of greater

concern is related with the pressures from urbanisation and development on estuarine

habitats, landscape and seascape, flood plain capacity, rural areas and areas of natural,

cultural, archaeological or scientific interest.


81

• Water pollution problems due to urban, industrial and agricultural sources, with effects

in conservation areas. In the case of the Rhine-Scheldt Meuse Delta, bad water quality

severely impacted benthic invertebrates and fish.

• Need for improvements in the coordination issue, namely concerning greater institutional

coordination, a need for coordinated information and scientific data.

• Wider public participation in estuary and delta management planning (and on a regular

basis) and better communication processes.

5.2. Lessons, Conclusions and Recommendations

The main lesson learnt concerns the importance of developing an integrated approach to the

planning and management of estuaries and deltas. Only by developing an integrated approach is

it possible to deal with the very dynamic development of urbanization, economic activities,

infrastructure, natural and technological risks faced by deltas and estuaries regions in Europe.

This integrated and coordinated approach is already being developed in the various estuaries and

deltas of this network.

As such it is important to highlight that the integrated approach must be viewed from a

multidimensional perspective. This perspective, which is a good practice to adopt by the various

estuaries and deltas, is being developed in the Integrated Management Plan for Elbe Estuary:

• The integrated approach of the organisational framework: not only nature but also

economic representatives are equally and actively involved from the beginning.

• The integrated approach, historically: an estuary is a cultural landscape. Human activities

have shaped the region and the precious habitats.

• The integrated approach, technically: the aims and measures of the management plan

always take all the relevant aspects into account and are designed to achieve many

synergies.

• The integrated approach, regionally: it is a common understanding of the plan that the

estuary can only be managed as one system. Even though the administrative

responsibilities are widely divided, the plan ensures that the regional impacts are


82

considered before local activities are begun. The (eco)systematic approach is a guideline

to both economic and ecological activities;

• The integrated approach in communication: through extremely complex geographical

structures, the process of setting up the plan has benefited a lot to the mutual

understanding. The open discussion of the plan with all the stakeholders from the start

has contributed a lot to a greater confidence in the region that allows conflicts to be

debated more openly.

Regarding this last topic, another good practice and recommendation includes the approach of

the Severn Estuary Partnership in fostering a coordinated estuary-wide view among multiple

stakeholders.

Good practices by the Severn Estuary Partnership include its communication activities, event

design and management, fostering of science-policy integration and its role in providing a

secretariat for other various estuary-wide groups.

The lessons learnt from the Elbe Estuary (Integrated Management Plan for Elbe Estuary) and

from the Severn Estuary (Severn Estuary Partnership) have also important similarities that

should be drawn out, namely:

• Both promote an holistic prospective;

• Both promote a system’s view (of the estuaries’ ecosystem, physical and socio-economic

systems);

• Both promote an open and wide communication between stakeholders.


83

Literature Cited

Tagus Estuary

ALMEIDA, Teresa; SANTANA, Paula; FONSECA FERREIRA, António (Coordenação Geral)

(2010), “Proposta Técnica Final do Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Território da Área

Metropolitana de Lisboa”. Lisboa: Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento

Regional de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, 368 p.

APL – Administração do Porto de Lisboa (2007), “Plano Estratégico de Desenvolvimento do

Porto de Lisboa – Sumário Executivo”. Lisboa: Administração do Porto de Lisboa, 25 p.

CABRAL, Natércia (2010), “Plano Integrado da Rede de Infra-estruturas de Apoio à Náutica de

Recreio no Estuário do Tejo”, in IV Seminário Internacional de Náutica de Recreio e

Desenvolvimento Local. Seixal: Câmara Municipal do Seixal, 27 p.

FONSECA FERREIRA, António; VARA, Fernanda (Coordenação Geral) (2002), “Plano

Regional de Ordenamento do Território da Área Metropolitana de Lisboa”, Volume I.

Lisboa: Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo,

134 p.

FREIRE, Paula; TABORDA, Rui; ANDRADE, César (2006), “Caracterização das praias

estuarinas do Tejo”, in Actas do 8.º Congresso da Água. Figueira da Foz: Associação

Portuguesa dos Recursos Hídricos, 12 p.

FREIRE, Paula (2000), “Evolução morfo-sedimentar de margens estuarinas (Estuário do Tejo,

Portugal)”, in Boletim Informativo da Associação Portuguesa dos Recursos Hídricos (n.º

108). Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa dos Recursos Hídricos, pp. 7-8

GOMES, José (2008), “Tagus Estuary Pilot – Routes & Destinations”. Linda-a-Velha: DG

Edições, 196 p.

ICN – Instituto de Conservação da Natureza (2002), “Reserva Natural do Estuário do Tejo –

Turismo de Natureza – Enquadramento Estratégico”. Alcochete: Instituto de Conservação

da Natureza, 33 p.

ICNB – Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (2008a), “Plano Sectorial da

Rede Natura 2000 – Ficha do Sítio Estuário do Tejo”. Lisboa: Instituto de Conservação da

Natureza e da Biodiversidade, 10 p.


84

ICNB – Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (2008b), “Plano Sectorial da

Rede Natura 2000 – Ficha da Zona de Protecção Especial Estuário do Tejo”. Lisboa:

Instituto de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade, 10 p.

ICNB – Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (2007), “Plano de

Ordenamento e Gestão para a Reserva Natural do Estuário do Tejo”. Lisboa: Instituto de

Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade, Hidroprojecto, 49 p.

INE – Instituto Nacional de Estatística (2010), “Anuário Estatístico da Região de Lisboa –

2009”. Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Estatística, 372 p.

INE – Instituto Nacional de Estatística (2001), “XIV Recenseamento Geral da População”.

Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Estatística.

Instituto da Água – Ministério do Ambiente (2000a), “Plano de Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio

Tejo”, Volume II. Lisboa: Instituto da Água – Ministério do Ambiente, 54 p.

Instituto da Água – Ministério do Ambiente (2000b), “Plano de Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Tejo

– Estratégias, Medidas e Acções”. Lisboa: Instituto da Água – Ministério do Ambiente, 98

p.

MONIZ, Gabriela (2009), “O Ordenamento do Estuário do Tejo”, in III Seminário Internacional

de Náutica de Recreio e Desenvolvimento Local. Seixal: Câmara Municipal do Seixal, 30

p.

SILVA, Margarida Cardoso da; MONIZ, Gabriela (2010), “Plano de Ordenamento do Estuário

do Tejo”, in 10.º Congresso da Água. Alvor: Associação Portuguesa dos Recursos

Hídricos, 17 p.

European Union Law

- Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of wild natural habitats and

of wild fauna and flora

- Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds

Portuguese Law

- Decision no. 21020/2009. D.R. 2.ª Série 182 (2009-09-18) 38135-38136


85

- Decree no. 101/80. D.R. I Série 234 (80-10-09) 3255-3265

- Decree-Law no. 129/2008. D.R. 1.ª Série 139 (2008-07-21) 4507-4510

- Decree-Law no. 136/2007. D.R. 1.ª Série 82 (2007-04-27) 2671-2675

- Decree-Law no. 49/2005. D.R. I Série-A 39 (2005-02-24) 1670-1707



- Decree-Law no. 565/76. D.R. I Série 167 (79-07-19) 1582-1584

- Law no. 58/2005. D.R. I Série-A (2005-12-29) 7280-7310

- Law no. 48/98. D.R. I Série-A 184 (98-08-11) 3869-3875

- Rectification Declaration no. 61/2009 1.ª Série 159 (2009-08-18) 5361-5378

- Regulatory Decree no. 18/2001. D.R. I Série-B 283 (2001-12-07) 7939-8009

- Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 65/2009. DR. 1.ª Série 152 (2009-08-07) 5121-5123

- Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 64-A/2009. DR. 1.ª Série 151 (2009-08-06) 5118-

(2)-5118(157)

- Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 177/2008. DR. 1.ª Série 228 (2008-11-24) 8332-

8347

- Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 115-A/2008. DR. 1.ª Série 139 (2008-06-21) 4536-

(2)-4536(451)

- Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 92/2008. DR. 1.ª Série 108 (2008-06-05) 3199-3201

- Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 68/2002. DR. I Série-B 82 (2002-04-08) 3287-3328

- Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 44/2001. DR. I Série-B 108 (2001-05-10) 2746

Internet Sources

ARHT – Administração da Região Hidrográfica do Tejo (2010), www.arhtejo.pt (accessed 21

January 2011)


86

ICNB – Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (2007), www.icnb.pt

(accessed 18 January 2011)

Transtejo (2011), www.transtejo.pt (accessed 18 January 2011)

Elbe Estuary

DÜCKER, Hans Peter; GLINDEMANN, Heinz; WITTE, Heinrich; THODE, Karsten (2006),

“Concept for a sustainable development of the Tidal Elbe River as an artery of the

metropolitan region Hamburg and beyond”. Hamburg: Hamburg Port Authority / Wasser-

und Schifffahrtsdirektion Nord, 20 p.

Kieler Institut für Landschaftsökologie (2010), “Integrierter Bewirtschaftungsplan für das

Elbeästuar”

KLOCKE, Elisabeth (2009), “Natura 2000 – Management-Planning for the Elbe Estuary”, in 6th

International SedNet Conference. Hamburg: Hamburg Port Authority, 18 p.

MEINE, Manfred (2009), “The Elbe Estuary – Needs and Chances for a Sustainable

Development”. Preparational TIDE – partner meeting Hamburg, 18 p.

Severn Estuary

BALLINGER, R.C.; STOJANOVIC, T. S. (2010), “Policy development and the estuary

environment: a Severn Estuary case study”, in Marine Pollution Bulletin “The Severn

Estuary and Bristol Channel: a 25 year Critical Review, 50 (8), pp. 866-874.

BRAZIER, Paul; WYN, Gabrielle (2007), “When the tide goes out – the biodiversity and

conservation of the shores of Wales; Severn Estuary”. Bangor: Countryside Council for

Wales, 29 p.

KNOWLES, S.; MYATT-BELL, L. (2001), “The Severn Estuary Strategy: A consensus

Approach to Estuary Management”, in Ocean and Coastal Management, 44, pp. 135-159.

OWEN, Gwilym (2010), “Balancing Economic Activity and Ecological Sustainability on the

Severn Estuary”, in Workshop - Balancing Economic Activity and Ecological


87

Sustainability on Deltas (DeltaNet Project – Interreg IVC). Lisbon: Lisbon Metropolitan

Area, 25 p.

Severn Estuary Partnership (2009), www.servernestuary.net (accessed 4th February 2011)

Severn Estuary Partnership (2003), “Information provided by members of ASERA –

Association of Severn Estuary Relevant Authorities”, Cardiff: Severn Estuary Partnership.

STOJANOVIC, T.S.; BALLINGER, R.C. (2009), “Integrated Coastal Management: a

comparative analysis of four UK initiatives”, in Applied Geography, 29 (1), pp. 49-62.

STOJANOVIC, T.S.; BALL, I.; BALLINGER, R.C; LYMBERY, G.; DODDS, W. (2009),

“The role of research networks for science-policy collaboration in coastal areas”, in

Marine Policy, 33 (60), pp. 901-911.

Rhine-Shedlt Delta

ADRIAANSE Leo and HOEKSTRA Jandirk (2009) “The international review of landscape

architecture and urban design TOPOS – Water – Resource and threat – «Designing a safe and

sustainable Rijn-Maas-Schelde Delta»”.

COOSEN, Jon (2010), “The Rhine-Sheldt Meuse Delta: where nature, safety and economy meet”, in International Conference Integrated Delta Approach (DeltaNet Project – Interreg IVC). Lisbon: Lisbon Metropolitan Area, 59 p.

COOSEN, Jon; VERHEIJEN, Sofie (2010), "The Scheldt Estuary".

good practices and policy recommendations_final version

Documents