1 / 37

Management plans in the Schelde estuary Harmonised?

Management plans in the Schelde estuary Harmonised?. Erika Van den Bergh Estuaries and Coastal zones working group Brussels 8/10/2008. Schelde-estuary. Schelde River Basin district (SRBD). Very densely populated Dense transport network Port of Antwerp Intensive agriculture

jacie
Download Presentation

Management plans in the Schelde estuary Harmonised?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Management plans in the Schelde estuaryHarmonised? Erika Van den Bergh Estuaries and Coastal zones working group Brussels 8/10/2008

  2. Schelde-estuary Schelde River Basin district (SRBD) Very densely populated Dense transport network Port of Antwerp Intensive agriculture Few nature conservation areas

  3. Western Scheldt Durme Rupel Sea Scheldt The Schelde estuary

  4. Management plans • International River basin district management (ISC-Scaldit) • National Riverbasin management plans • Integrated Coastal zone management • Strategic planning for the Antwerp Harbour • Long term Vision for the Schelde (LTVS) • Updated Sigmaplan • Natura 2000 management plan

  5. ICZM Scaldit LTVS SPAH SIGMA Natura 2000 Scales in Management plans: spatial

  6. Scales in management plans: issues • Strategicplanning:optimal multifunctional spatial planning in the harbour area • Long term vision: integrated managementof the estuary: accessibility, safety, ecosystem health • Updated Sigmaplan: Safety against floods • Scaldit:WFD River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) Natura 2000 management plans: ecological network, habitats and species

  7. Scales in Management plans: time frame • Strategic planning: 1998-2000-2004 • Long term vision: 1999-2001-2004-2010 • Updated Sigmaplan: 2002-2005-2010-2015 • Scaldit:2001-2008 • Natura 2000 management plans: 2007-

  8. Scales in Management plans: initiative • Strategic planning: Flemish administration & Port authorities • Long term Vision: Dutch-Flemisch government (TSC) • Updated Sigmaplan: administration of waterways • Scaldit: (ISC-EA) • Natura 2000 management plans: administration for nature and forest

  9. Riverbasin district Estuary Natura 2000 network Individual spa- sac Hierarchical integration of management goals & plans Ecosystem level Environmental quality (WFD) Estuarine processes(LTVS) Habitat network (BHD) quantity/connectivity Habitat quality/type/species (local conservation goals)

  10. Ramsar 1976 Bird Directive 1988 Habitat Directive 1996 Strategic planning for Antwerp Harbour

  11. Strategic planning for Antwerp Harbour • Start 1998 • Issues: multifunctional spatial planning • optimal space utilisation • phased port development • participation of stakeholders • maintenance of a functional ecological network • Implementation of BHD • working groups with representation of all stakeholders: Province, communities, NGOs, administration, port authorities,……

  12. Strategic planning for Antwerp Harbour • Updated principles 2004 • Submitted to Spatial EIA, ongoing • Harmonisation: conservation goals • Integrated for SPA and SAC • Habitat and species • Ranked and quantified • Parts of SPA & SAC • Regional conservation goals and goals for complete SPA and SAC area in estuary not finalised • Ecosystem goals not finalised

  13. Vlissingen GB Dutch-Belgian border Schelde NL North Sea B Accessibility Terneuzen LTVS 2030 Antwerpen Kleine Nete Ecosystem health Nete Lokeren Grote Nete Rupel Durme Safety Gent Dijle Zenne Long term Vision For the Schelde LTVS) Het Schelde estuarium • Dutch-Belgian managerial project (1999-2001) • Quality targets for 2030

  14. Long term Vision For the Schelde (LTVS) 1999-2001: Definition of vision 2030 “To develop a healthy, multifunctional watersystem, supporting human needs in a sustainable way” • Preservation of physical system characteristics • Safety against floods • Optimal accessibility for the ports • Healthy and dynamic estuarine ecosystem • Flemish-Dutch administrative-political cooperation

  15. LTVS Harmonisation: Conservation goals

  16. Current velocity Long term Vision: problem analysis • Water- and habitat quality • Habitat area and sustainability • Foodweb under pressure Turbidity Phytoplankton Zoöplankton Benthos

  17. 06 TmDem 09 ZeDNe 07 DemGt 08 Durme 05 BurTm 03 HanGr 01 VlRaa 02 VlHan 04 GrBur 10 strSc Goal 0 0 0 0 + + ++ ++ ++ ++ Buffer discharge + ++ ++ ++ ++ + + + + 0 tidal energy dissipation Multiple channelsystem 0 ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 Optimise natural habitat processes minimise turbidity 0 + + ++ ++ ++ + ++ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ Optimise C cycle Optimise N cycle 0 0 + + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Optimise O cycle 0 0 0 + ++ ++ + ++ + ++ Optimise Pcycle 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + ++ Optimise Si cycle + ++ ++ ++ 0 0 + + ++ ++ ++ + ++ + 0 Optimise primary production Optimise conditions for zooplankton 0 + + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 Optimise conditions for zoobenthos + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 Optimise fishmigration 0 + + + + + ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 Shallow low dynamic water + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 mudflats Lower flats dynamics 0 ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tidal marshes + ++ + + ++ + ++ + ++ 0 Set back tidal marsh succession + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 Non-tidal wetland 0 0 0 + + + ++ + ++ 0 LTVS Conservation goals: problem analysis

  18. LTVS Harmonisation: measures

  19. Long term Vision for the Schelde (LTVS) 2002-2004: 2010 Development Outline (ProSes-TSC) • Accessibility: • Deepening and widening of the shipping lane to Antwerp • Mitigation through adapted dumping & dredging strategy • Flood control: • Space for the river where possible (FCA) • Dike elevation where necessary • Integration with ecological restoration • Ecosystem health: • Tidal wetland creation • Inland wetland creation • Improvement for fish migration • Definition of specific and quantified conservation goals • SAC designation under the HD • Cooperation: • Joint monitoring program to assess of the evolution of the estuary and effect of measures to allow adaptive management

  20. Long term Vision For the Schelde (LTVS) 2005 – 2010: • Schelde treaties for bilateral cooperation • EIA and CBA for each project • Implementation of measures • MONEOS: joint monitoring program • Integrated for accessibility-safety-ecology • Ecosystem monitoring • Project monitoring • Incorporates EU and national legislation needs

  21. Updated Sigmaplan Long term Vision for the Schelde (LTVS) 2002-2004: 2010 Development Outline (ProSes-TSC) • Accessibility: • Deepening and widening of the shipping lane to Antwerp • Mitigation through adapted dumping & dredging strategy • Flood control: • Space for the river where possible (FCA) • Dike elevation where necessary • Integration with ecological restoration • Ecosystem health: • Tidal wetland creation • Inland wetland creation • Improvement for fish migration • Definition of specific and quantified conservation goals • SAC designation under the HD • Cooperation: • Joint monitoring program to assess of the evolution of the estuary and effect of measures to allow adaptive management

  22. Conservation goals: Ecosystem functioning • Minimum oxygen conditions for good biodiversity (benthos-fish) (J.Maes) • Summer: 5mg/l • Winter: 6mg/l • Primary production under ‘good water quality conditions’ and under ‘pristine’ conditions* (Billen & Garnier; Cox & Maris) • Benthic invertebrate production/m² under these primary production conditions* (Van Damme & Ysebaert) • Habitat for benthos (mudflats) needed to support fish and bird populations* (Van Damme et al)

  23. Conservation goals: Ecosystem functioning • Tidal marsh needed to prevent Si limitation under present water quality conditions* (Struyff) • Geometrical requirements along the estuary for* sustainable tidal marshes/mudflats (Brys & Van den Bergh)

  24. Conservation goals: habitats • Habitats of special interest (as habitat and for species of special interest) were ranked according to their relative importance • European: fresh water tidal, 91E0 • Regional: Brackish tidal, 3150,6430,6510,7140 • Local:2310, 2330,4030, 6410, 9120, 9160, 9190 • Qualitative and quantitative goals were set for each habitat type according to the flemish method (Heutz et al; 2005). • Environmental indicators for favourable conditions • Structural indicators for favourable conditions.

  25. Conservation goals: species • Species of special interest were ranked according to their relative importance: • European • Regional • Local • Goals were specified for mammals, breeding birds, amfibians and reptiles, fish and migrating birds

  26. Conservation goals Optimal Ecologic Restoration plan Optimal Flood control plan Importance of selected space for agriculture Synthesis flood control and ecology: 3 scenario’s Ecology check Flood control Agriculture check Most desirable scen ario for Updated Sigmaplan Updated Sigmaplan: selection of measures

  27. The Updated Sigmaplan: measures • Flood control: • Space for the river where possible (FCA) • Dike elevation where necessary • Integration with ecological restoration • Ecosystem health: • Tidal wetland creation • Inland wetland creation • Improvement for fish migration • Definition of specific and quantified conservation goals

  28. Flood control Dike fortification Flood control area (FCA) Habitat creation Tidal wetlands realignment FCA-CRT Inland habitat wetland FCA-Wetland Updated Sigmaplan: Measures

  29. Updated Sigmaplan: Harmonisation • Conservation goals: • 3 levels • Ecosystem functioning • habitat needs • Species • quantified • Integration of legislation on all levels • Measures • Integration of different societal aspects (win-win) • Ranked • Timing • Monitoring • Nested in MONEOS

  30. Scaldit: River Basin management • Scaldit I: • Test Common Implementation guidances • Scaldit II: • Cooperate for the RBMP • Compare quality status, reference conditions, classification systems • Compare national RBMP • Joint report

  31. Scaldit II

  32. PA3: Coastal and transitional waters • Harmonisation • Common typology for Coastal and Transitional waters • Harmonisation of classification system NL-BE • Harmonisation of monitoring NL-BE • Comparison of ecological status • Compilation of measures

  33. Schelde-estuary Daughter directive Environmental quality standards River River Transitional waters NL BE FL FR Scaldit II

  34. Natura 2000 estuaries

  35. CG Schelde: 2005 CG PORT:2003 (23) (40) Natura 2000 Management plans CG Flanders: 2008

  36. Natura 2000 Management plans • SPPA: Meadowbirds • LTVS: tidal wetland • SIGMA: harmonisation

  37. Conclusions • In an ideal world harmonised management would be nested in space, time, issues, ………… • Different sectors would share delimitations of management units • But: • different issues prevail • Some areas are more important than others • Not all sectors share the same ranking • Time frames are political rather than practical • Priorities are often political rather than logical • New issues come up during the process…………. • However, we’ve come al long way along the road of harmonisation

More Related