top-down versus bottom-up: scenario-building and stakeholder‘s · · 2014-07-29top-down versus...
TRANSCRIPT
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Prof. Dr. Beate Jessel
•
Top-down versus bottom-up:
Scenario-building and stakeholder‘s
involvement in watershed management
- A case study from the Havel River Basin -
Approach and purpose of the EU WFD
River basin districts in Germany
(Federal Environmental Agency UBA 2000)
Main Purposes of WFD: To prevent the deterioration of the status of all
surface and ground water bodies To enhance and to redevelop the ground and surface
water bodies To obtain a „good status“ for all water bodies
that deviates only slightly from a „high status“
representing the undisturbed or almost undis-
turbed conditions with only very minor
anthropogenic alterations
Approach: - Area-wide, related to the respective catchment areas - Environmental objectives setting up a high standard - Integrative (i.e. implementation is only possible in
cooperation with other competent authorities)
New planning instruments introduced by WFD: - River basin management plans - Programmes of measures
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
„Scale Problem“
How to get from large scale and often transboundary watersheds
to concrete measures on single
areas?
Quelle: Umweltbundesamt, Februar 2000
?
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Reference condition: „High status“
Environmental objective: „Good status“
Necessary working steps
- Analysis of characteristics +
significant impacts
for each river basin district
- Establishment of programmes for
monitoring
- Elaboration of river basin management
plans and of programmes of measures
Public information and consultation (Art. 14 WFD)
„Top Down“ „Bottom Up“
How can real involvement
be obtained at local level
without challenging the
superior aims of WFD?
How to reconcile top-down with bottom-up approach
within the implementation of the EU WFD?
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Characteristics of the study region
The Havel river
Important tributary to the Elbe river; one of the most important lowland
rivers in Germany
Small slopes (up to only 0,006%, low flow velocities), complicated river
network, large number of lakes and wetland areas, high antropogenic
influence by various water systems
Strong influence on discharge due to different water users
Low water quality (due to eutrophic processes in particular)
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
MQ
[m
3/s
]
Zeuthen, Selchower Flutgraben
Mellensee, Schneidegraben
Gruenheide, Löcknitz
Linear (Gruenheide, Löcknitz)
Linear (Zeuthen, Selchower Flutgraben)
Linear (Mellensee, Schneidegraben)
- 35%
- 55%
+- 0%
Degradation of Water Resources –
a trend of declining mean water level
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
www.havelmanagement.de
o Main Target: Providing principles for
the river basin management according
to the European Water Framework
Directive (WFD)
o Interdisciplinary research project with
representatives from scientific
institutions, regional authorities and
private agencies
o Existing knowledge of water and land
use management, politically driven
land use changes, economic
boundary conditions and the role of
stakeholders must be combined
Research Project:
Management Options in the Havel River Basin
Large Scale
Havel (without Spree)
Intermediate Scale
Nuthe, Lower Havel, Rhin
Focus Areas
Hammerfließ,
Lower Havel area,
Döllnitz, Kleiner Rhin
Scale levels in the project network
Complete area (w ithout Spree)
Focus area Low er Havel/Gülper See
Catchment area Low er Havel
Focus area Hammerfließ
Catchment area Nuthe
Focus area Döllnitz/Kleiner Rhin
Catchment area Rhin
Study areas of
BMBF-Project
Integrative overall concept for landscape units
- conservation and development as
a habitat for native breeding birds (Limikolen) and as rasting place
and food source for migratory and
overwintering bird species through use as extensive
grassland:
- mowing and grazing schedules
adapted to water management (siehe NSG-VO-Entwurf „Untere
Havel Nord“)
- conservation and development of
a patchy, relief-adapted mosaic of cane brakes, sedges and marsh
areas
- conservation and development of
near natural grove structures at some selected watercourses (e.g.
Großer Graben)
- safeguarding of year-round
high water levels in runoff ditches and water courses
and of periodical flooding in
winter as prerequisite for protection of soils and ground
water the development of wetlands (short-term through
use of all possibilities for
water retention in spring, long-term through natural
dynamics)
- middle- and long-term
increase of the area of periodically flooded zones
through connection of the polder "Große Graben-
niederung" to the floodplain
- Avoidance of input of
harmful substances through
establishment of edge strips
at amelioration ditches
- preservation of the partially
profound bog soil through development of permanent,
species-rich grassland with
extensive land use through increasing ground water levels of
40 cm below floor in average; prevention of dereliction of land
(Handlungshilfe Niedermoor-
schutz, LUA Brandenburg 1997)
- development of a low moor with turf-producing vegetation, that
fulfils functions as water and
nutrient repository (without land use) through establishment of
year-round ground water levels of 20 cm below floor in some areas
- Protection of soil against wind erosion through year-round
vegetation cover
Grundwasser-
bestimmte, lehm- oder
muddeunterla-
gerte Torfebene der potenziellen
Aue
groundwater
controlled fen with
secondary clay and organic silt
inside the
potential floodplain
2256 ha (9,8%)
25
species / habitats surface water soil / ground water name nr.
targets
landscape-
ecological
spatial unit
(LES)
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
„ Lower Havel area“
Endangerment of ground water
legend
risk for pollution of
ground water
catchment area
very high
high
middle
low
watercourses
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Research areas
Large scale
(ca. 1:10.000 - 1:25.000)
FOCUS AREAS
„Geochorological
„Approach
„NANOCHOREN“
Relevance for WFD:
Measure programs
Medium scale
(ca. 1:50.000 - 1:75.000)
Small scale
(ca. 1:200.000 - 1:300.000)
WHOLE RESEARCH
AREA/
CATCHMENT AREA
„MIKROCHOREN“
Relevance for WFD:
Measure programs
„MESOCHOREN“
Relevance for WFD:
River Basin Management
Plan
Hierarchy of landscape-ecological spatial units on different scales
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Landscape ecological units on different scale levels
Hierarchical approach
Possible management options (land use changes) can be related to
spatial units to picture different scenarios
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Involvement of land users and stakeholders
- 1st step -
Interviewing relevant stakeholders from agriculture, forestry,
water supply and distribution, fishery, nature protection, local
tourism, municipal administration
Structured interviews, including questions
How the quantitative and qualitative availability of water in the
surveyed area was rated,
which proposals land-users had to improve the situation,
how they estimated possible communication and cooperation
between relevant land users and decision makers in the watershed,
about their level of awareness about the WFD.
Information of the project and preparing contacts by carrying out
„regional conferences“
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Involvement of land users and stakeholders
- 1st step -
Identification of key problems, synergisms and conflicts, i.e.:
Focus Area Hammerfließ Lower Havel area Döllnitz/Kleiner Rhin
Main type of
land use
Grassland and agriculture (specialised crops)
Grassland and nature conser-vation (many protected areas)
Forestry
State of the
Water Bodies
Frequent and long running droughts in summer, high levels of nitrate in the ground water
Water bodies with high charges of nutrients, continuous regulation by dams, strong seasonal fluctuation of the water level
Many lakes, predominantly with good water quality; ground and sea water levels tend to decline
Call for
action
Significant increase of water detention in the landscape
Sustainable land use in flooding polder areas, renaturation of the Havel river
Preservation of the water quality, heightening of sea and ground water levels
Conflicts
All actors mentioned lack of water as one of the main problems, but had different opinions about methods and amounts of water re-tention; general regulation by dams creates conflicts between nature conserva-tion and agriculture
Regulation by dams and planned renaturation of the Havel river evoke conflicts between agriculture and nature conservation and between navigation and use of the river as a waterway
Different opinions between agriculture and forestry about the seasonal dynamics of the water level
„Lowest
common de-nominator“
no Status quo: Replacement of dams by ground sills; better coordination of water regulation by dams
Status quo: Decision of the dam regulation committee is accepted provided that compensation payments will be kept up
Status quo: No deterioration of water quality, raising up the water levels in well-wooded areas and areas with many lakes
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Involvement of land users and stakeholders
The results of the interviews
Provided boundardy conditions for the development of land use scenarios
Helped to develop target systems to evaluate possible develop- ments from different points of view
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
§
€
Min
Max
„Maximum innova-
tion in different fields of action“
„State-of-the-Art“
„Status quo“
„Maximal improvement of
water quality“
All relevant guidelines are put
into practice according to the
legal requirements (e.g. require-
ments of „good practice in agri-
culture, legal requirements in
protected areas)
Development of Scenarios
according to the aims of WFD
All management options
together are focused one
single aim, the maximal
improvement of the water
quality
Maximum utilisation and implemen-
tation of all professional require-
ments in different fields of action
(i.e. land use, domestic water
services, hydraulic enginieering)
The current state is exten-
ded into the future, conside-
ring predictable changes
(e.g. agricultural policy)
Results of the Scenarios
Land use and corresponding ground water levels in the focus area „Hammerfließ“
„State-o-the-Art (B 1.1)“ „Contribution of different fields of action –
land use and resouce management (C 2.1)“
„Maximal improvement of water qualitiy (D)“
Land use:
Corresponding ground water levels:
„State-of-the-Art (B 1.1)“ „Maximal improvement of water quality (D)“ „Contribution of different fields of action –
land use and resouce management (C 2.1)“
Land use scenario
„State-of-the-Art“
All relevant guidelines are put into practice
according to the legal requirements (e.g.
requirement of „good practice“ in agricul-
ture, legal requirements in protected areas)
Socio-economic
situation
(losses of income for the
farmers, requirements for
compensation payment)
Water resources
(ground water recharge,
depth of ground water
tables, frequency of
inundations)
Matter imports
(concentrations of nitrate
and phoshate in surface
and ground water) Effects on
Structured interviews with
relevant stakeholders to
evaluate the scenarios in regard
to their acceptability and
feasability
Scenario
2
„State-of- the-Art“
Scenario
1
„Status quo +
Trends“
Scenario
3
„Fields of action“
Interview-guideline:
- Visualisation of
possible changes in
land use
- comparative illustra-
tions of possible
effects
e.g.
permanent grasslands on
low bogs,
ground water levels 40-60
cm in summer, close to
the ground in winter
Scenarios as an important interface within the project Here: Szenario „State-of-the-Art“
Feedback
Scenario
„Optimised water quality management“
Scenario
4
„Maximal improve- ment“
Multicriterial Evaluation
Socio-economical effects
Loss of oncome for farmers,
requires subsidies for
compensation Acceptability for
land and water users
Water dynamics
Recharge of ground water,
runoff, retention,
possibility of inundation
Nutrient inputs
(Nitrogen, Phosphorus)
in ground and surface
water
Establishment of edge strips at
water courses
Less intensive land use
Changing arable land into grassland
Changing coniferous forests
into deciduous forests
Retention through lashers
Deconstruction of amelioration
facilities
Deconstruction of lashers
Relocation of levees
Re-connexion of bayous
Field of action
„Land use“
Development of settlement
areas and traffic areas
Regrouping of agrarian subsidies
Succession on former
military areas
Field of action
„Water resources“ External impacts
TP 11 TP 9
TP 3,
TP 4
TP 5
The integrative function of scenarios
Involvement of
stakeholders,
1st step
Data base on
the research
areas
• Natural units
• Land use
• Protected areas
• Water bodies
TP 9
TP 6
Agro-economical aspects
Ground water levels,
Flooding conditions
Land use scenarios
TP 9,
TP 11
TP 3
TP 9
Alternative options External impacts
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Involvement of land users and stakeholders
- 2nd step -
Structured interviews, including questions
If the scenarios were understandable,
about the degree of respective concernment of the scenarios;
which positive and negative aspects were attributed to each scenario;
under which conditions one would agree to the implementation of each
scenario;
if one felt already sufficiently informed about the implementation of WFD;
if one would use a decision support system and what would be the
demands on such a system.
The interview guidelines were differentiated
• According to the different scales (focus areas – stakeholders respon-
sible for the whole river basin)
• According to the different groups of stakeholders (water management:
implementation of Art. 14 WFD?; aspects concerning domestic water
services relevant only for local authorities).
Main Target: Evaluation of the scenarions in regard to their accepta-
bility and feasability + getting hints for an optimisation
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Results:
1. Getting hints for an optimisation of the scenarios, e.g.
concerning
- conversion of coniferous into deciduous woodland
- amount of land set-aside.
Involvement of land users and stakeholders
- 2nd step -
2. Provision for additional aspects in the scenarios, e.g.
- future segregation between intensive and extensive land use will
probably be more distinct;
- need for a new scenario that arbitrates between „State-of-the-Art“ and
„Fields of action: Maximum contribution of land use and resource
management“
3. Preparing the information received as a common base for
discussion in the focus areas
- spatial visualisation of constellations of interests and focuses of conflicts
4. Attempt to develop an optimised scenario
which will be presented to and discussed with the stakeholders at another
regional conference
Involvement of land users and stakeholders - Combination of the results to a common discussion basis in the focus area -
boundary of the watershed
Water courses main water courses
secondary water courses
Focus for action
Pumping station
Dam
Ground sill
too wet
too dry
surface with high flood storage capacity
sometimes too wet and sometimes too dry
Water supply
Regulation of water resource
Nature conservation area
flat
profound
Low bogs
Focus area „Hammerfließ“
- Local needs for action -
Creating an optimised scenario
Results of hydrological modelling: (Habeck & Krysanowa, unpubl.)
Optimisation according to - Effects (on water quality)
- Acceptance
- Costs
Optimised scenario, contribution of land use:
- Extended scenario „Good practice“
- Restricted land use in flooding areas
- Area wide: Buffer zones, 10 m wide at least, on waters
- Strict implementation of aims in protected areas
Nitrogen load [kt/a] in the Havel River,
mean over a peroid of 13 years
372351 352
296
242
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Status quo Business as
usual (U)
Good practice
(G)
Maximum
contribution by
land use and
nature
conservation (M)
Best water
quality (B)
Phosphorus dload [t/a] in the Havel River,
mean over a peroid of 13 years
51
40
3330
24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Status quo Business as
usual (U)
Good practice (G) Maximum
contribution by
land use and
nature
conservation (M)
Best water
quality (B)
33
Optimal
scenario
347
Optimal
scenario
Involvement of the stakeholders as an interative procedure
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Conclusions on stakeholder‘s involvement and
development of scenarios within the
implementation process of WFD
The superior provisions from WFD are not at disposal,
but within this frame margins for implementation
can be identified systematically
Deficits in communication among the stakeholders
and different perceptions often are important reasons
for problems of water and land use management
Land use scenarios can provide a comprehensible
way to demonstrate spatially relevant effects of WFD
and to create a common basis for discussion.
Chair for Landscape
Planning
Potsdam University
Prof. Dr. Beate Jessel
•
Thank you!