Top-down versus bottom-up: Scenario-building and stakeholder‘s involvement in watershed management - A case study from the Havel River Basin -

Prof. Dr. Beate Jessel •

Chair for Landscape Planning Potsdam University Approach and purpose of the EU WFD

Main Purposes of WFD:

To prevent the deterioration of the status of all surface and ground water bodies

To enhance and to redevelop the ground and surface water bodies

To obtain a „good status“ for all water bodies that deviates only slightly from a „high status“ representing the undisturbed or almost 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)

River basin districts in Germany New planning instruments introduced by WFD: (Federal Environmental Agency UBA 2000) - River basin management plans

- Programmes of measures

„Scale Problem“

?

How to get from large scale and often transboundary watersheds to concrete measures on single areas?

Chair for Landscape Planning Quelle: Umweltbundesamt, Februar 2000 Potsdam University How to reconcile top-down with bottom-up approach within the implementation of the EU WFD?

Reference condition: „High status“ Environmental objective: „Good status“

Necessary working steps - Analysis of characteristics + significant impacts for each river basin district „Top Down“ „Bottom Up“ - Establishment of programmes for monitoring - Elaboration of river basin management plans and of programmes of measures

Public information and consultation (Art. 14 WFD)

How can real involvement be obtained at local level without challenging the Chair for Landscape superior aims of WFD? 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 Chair for Landscape Planning Potsdam University Degradation of Water Resources – a trend of declining mean water level

1.2

1.0

- 35% 0.8

Zeuthen, Selchower Flutgraben

Mellensee, Schneidegraben /s] 3 Gruenheide, Löcknitz 0.6 Linear (Gruenheide, Löcknitz)

MQ MQ [m Linear (Zeuthen, Selchower Flutgraben) Linear (Mellensee, Schneidegraben)

0.4

0.2 - 55%

0.0 +- 0% 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Research Project: Management Options in the Havel River Basin

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 Chair for Landscape land use changes, economic Planning boundary conditions and the role of Potsdam University stakeholders must be combined Study areas of Scale levels in the BMBF-Project project network

Large Scale Havel (without Spree)  Intermediate Scale Nuthe, Lower Havel, Rhin  Focus Areas Hammerfließ, Lower Havel area,

Complete area (w ithout Spree) Döllnitz, Kleiner Rhin 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

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

legend

catchment area risk for pollution of ground water very high

high

middle

low watercourses

Chair for Landscape Planning Potsdam University Hierarchy of landscape-ecological spatial units on different scales

Research areas „Geochorological „Approach Large scale

(ca. 1:10.000 - 1:25.000) „NANOCHOREN“

FOCUS AREAS Relevance for WFD: Measure programs

Medium scale „MIKROCHOREN“

(ca. 1:50.000 - 1:75.000) Relevance for WFD: Measure programs

Small scale „MESOCHOREN“

(ca. 1:200.000 - 1:300.000) Relevance for WFD: River Basin Management WHOLE RESEARCH Plan Chair for Landscape AREA/ Planning CATCHMENT AREA Potsdam University Landscape ecological units on different scale levels

 Hierarchical approach Chair for Landscape Planning  Possible management options (land use changes) can be related to Potsdam University spatial units to picture different scenarios 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

Information of the project and preparing contacts by carrying out „regional conferences“

Structured interviews, including questions

 How the quantitative and qualitative availability of water in the surveyed area was rated,  which proposals land-users had to improve the situation,  how they estimated possible communication and cooperation between relevant land users and decision makers in the watershed,  about their level of awareness about the WFD.

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 Grassland and agriculture Grassland and nature conser- Forestry land use (specialised crops) vation (many protected areas) Water bodies with high Frequent and long running charges of nutrients, Many lakes, predominantly with State of the droughts in summer, high continuous regulation by good water quality; ground and levels of nitrate in the Water Bodies dams, strong seasonal sea water levels tend to decline ground water fluctuation of the water level

Call for Significant increase of Sustainable land use in Preservation of the water water detention in the flooding polder areas, quality, heightening of sea and action landscape renaturation of the Havel river ground water levels All actors mentioned lack of water as one of the main Regulation by dams and problems, but had different planned renaturation of the Different opinions between opinions about methods Havel river evoke conflicts agriculture and forestry about and amounts of water re- between agriculture and Conflicts the seasonal dynamics of the tention; general regulation nature conservation and water level by dams creates conflicts between navigation and use between nature conserva- of the river as a waterway tion and agriculture no Status quo: Status quo: Decision of the Status quo: No deterioration of „Lowest Replacement of dams by dam regulation committee is water quality, raising up the ground sills; better accepted provided that common de- water levels in well-wooded coordination of water compensation payments will nominator“ areas and areas with many lakes regulation by dams be kept up

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 Development of Scenarios according to the aims of WFD

All relevant guidelines are put into practice according to the All management options legal requirements (e.g. require- together are focused one ments of „good practice in agri- single aim, the maximal culture, legal requirements in improvement of the water protected areas) quality „State-of-the-Art“ „Maximal improvement of water quality“

§ Min

 Max € „Maximum innova- „Status quo“ tion in different fields of action“

The current state is exten- Maximum utilisation and implemen- ded into the future, conside- tation of all professional require- Chair for Landscape ring predictable changes ments in different fields of action Planning (e.g. agricultural policy) (i.e. land use, domestic water Potsdam University services, hydraulic enginieering) Results of the Scenarios Land use and corresponding ground water levels in the focus area „Hammerfließ“

Land use:

„State-o-the-Art (B 1.1)“ „Contribution of different fields of action – „Maximal improvement of water qualitiy (D)“ land use and resouce management (C 2.1)“

Corresponding ground water levels:

„State-of-the-Art (B 1.1)“ „Contribution of different fields of action – „Maximal improvement of water quality (D)“ land use and resouce management (C 2.1)“ Scenarios as an important interface within the project Here: Szenario „State-of-the-Art“

Land use scenario e.g. „State-of-the-Art“  permanent grasslands on low bogs, All relevant guidelines are put into practice ground water levels 40-60 according to the legal requirements (e.g. cm in summer, close to requirement of „good practice“ in agricul- the ground in winter ture, legal requirements in protected areas)

Socio-economic Matter imports Water resources Feedback (ground water recharge, situation (concentrations of nitrate depth of ground water and phoshate in surface (losses of income for the Effects on tables, frequency of and ground water) farmers, requirements for inundations) compensation payment)

Interview-guideline: Structured interviews with Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario - Visualisation of relevant stakeholders to 1 2 3 4 possible changes in evaluate the scenarios in regard „Status „State-of- „Fields „Maximal land use to their acceptability and quo + the-Art“ of action“ improve- - comparative illustra- feasability Trends“ ment“ tions of possible effects

Multicriterial Evaluation Scenario „Optimised water quality management“ The integrative function of scenarios

Field of action Field of action External impacts „Land use“ „Water resources“ TP 6  Development of settlement areas and traffic areas  Retention through lashers  Establishment of edge strips at  Deconstruction of amelioration water courses  Regrouping of agrarian subsidies facilities  Less intensive land use  Succession on former  Deconstruction of lashers Involvement of  Changing arable land into military areas  Relocation of levees stakeholders, grassland  Re-connexion of bayous 1st step  Changing coniferous forests into deciduous forests TP 9 TP 9 Ground water levels, Flooding conditions Agro-economical aspects TP 3 Data base on the research TP 9, areas TP 11 • Natural units • Land use • Protected areas Alternative options External impacts • Water bodies Land use scenarios TP 5 TP 3, TP 11 TP 4 TP 9

Nutrient inputs Water dynamics Socio-economical effects (Nitrogen, Phosphorus) Recharge of ground water, Loss of oncome for farmers, in ground and surface runoff, retention, requires subsidies for water possibility of inundation compensation Acceptability for land and water users Involvement of land users and stakeholders - 2nd step -

Main Target: Evaluation of the scenarions in regard to their accepta- bility and feasability + getting hints for an optimisation

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).

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 Chair for Landscape Planning demands on such a system. Potsdam University

Involvement of land users and stakeholders - 2nd step -

Results: 1. Getting hints for an optimisation of the scenarios, e.g. concerning - conversion of coniferous into deciduous woodland - amount of land set-aside. 2. Provision for additional aspects in the scenarios, e.g. - future segregation between intensive and extensive land use will probably be more distinct; - need for a new scenario that arbitrates between „State-of-the-Art“ and „Fields of action: Maximum contribution of land use and resource management“

3. Preparing the information received as a common base for discussion in the focus areas - spatial visualisation of constellations of interests and focuses of conflicts

4. Attempt to develop an optimised scenario Chair for Landscape which will be presented to and discussed with the stakeholders at another Planning Potsdam University regional conference Involvement of land users and stakeholders - Combination of the results to a common discussion basis in the focus area -

Focus area „Hammerfließ“

- Local needs for action -

boundary of the watershed Water courses main water courses secondary water courses

Focus for action Regulation of water resource Pumping station

Dam

Ground sill Water supply

too wet

too dry sometimes too wet and sometimes too dry surface with high flood storage capacity Nature conservation area Low bogs

flat

profound Creating an optimised scenario

Nitrogen load [kt/a] in the Havel River, Phosphorus dload [t/a] in the Havel River, mean over a peroid of 13 years mean over a peroid of 13 years

372 400 351 352 347 60 350 51 296 50 300 242 40 250 40 33 33 30 200 30 24 150 20 100 50 10 0 0 Status quo Business as Good practice Optimal Maximum Best water Status quo Business as Good practice (G) Optimal Maximum Best water usual (U) (G) scenario contribution by quality (B) usual (U) scenario contribution by quality (B) land use and land use and nature nature conservation (M) conservation (M)

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 Involvement of the stakeholders as an interative procedure 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 Thank you!

Prof. Dr. Beate Jessel •

Chair for Landscape Planning Potsdam University