Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper 2015-01 Integrating flood risk reduction, river basin and resilience management in planning: A case study of Kristianstad, Sweden Åse Johannessen Stockholm Environment Institute Linnégatan 87D 104 51 Stockholm Sweden Tel: +46 8 674 7070 Fax: +46 8 674 7020 Web: www.sei-international.org Author contact: Åse Johannessen [email protected] Director of Communications: Robert Watt Editors: Marion Davis, Elaine Beebe and Tom Gill Cover photo: Biking and walking on a bridge to the Naturum, in Kristianstad, a flood- proof building on stilts that embodies the concept of living with the water. © Kristianstads kommun/Claes Sandén This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educa- tional or non-profit purposes, without special permission from the copyright holder(s) provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purpose, without the written permission of the copyright holder(s). About SEI Working Papers: The SEI working paper series aims to expand and accelerate the availability of our research, stimulate discussion, and elicit feedback. SEI working papers are work in progress and typically contain preliminary research, analysis, findings, and recom- mendations. Many SEI working papers are drafts that will be subsequently revised for a refereed journal or book. Other papers share timely and innovative knowledge that we consider valuable and policy-relevant, but which may not be intended for later publication. Acknowledgements The author is grateful for the support of the Swedish Board of Agriculture (SJV), which provided funding for this report and associated workshop. Thanks as well for all con- tributions by interviewees who have volunteered their time and effort. Many thanks also to Anuschka Heeb from the Swedish Board of Agriculture; Kim Andersson and Maria Osbeck of from the Stockholm Environment Institute; Kati Berninger, independ- ent consultant; and Professor Waldemar Mioduszewski, Institute of Technology and Natural Sciences (ITP), Poland for their valuable comments on the manuscript. Many thanks also to editors Marion Davis, Elaine Beebe and Tom Gill. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB, grant number 211-946) kindly funded the editing. Copyright © February 2015 by Stockholm Environment Institute Part-financed by the European Union (Europe- an Regional Development Fund and European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument) STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE WORKING PAPER NO. 2015-01 Integrating flood risk reduction, river basin and resilience management in planning: A case study of Kristianstad, Sweden Åse Johannessen Stockholm Environment Institute – Stockholm Centre ABSTRACT This case study, part of Baltic COMPASS, a project that aimed to improve environmental and agricultural policies and management practices across the Baltic Sea Region, examines flood risk and river basin management in Kristianstad, Sweden, in terms of progress towards and barriers to adaptive river management. Through interviews with 15 key stakeholders, a focus group discussion and a regional workshop, the case study examined flood risk management, river basin management and resilience management at both the national and local levels. The results indicate that flood risk management remains too narrowly focused, on flood control in the city, neglecting aspects such as flood abatement in the river basin or flood alleviation downstream. Underlying this situation is a lack of cross-sectoral integration and synergy between the different sectors and communities of practice, e.g. in forestry, agriculture, environmental and urban planning, that could supplement flood protection strategies. Integration is further hindered by the fact that the municipality’s mandate reaches only to the municipal border, and there is no river basin-wide governance structure focusing on water flows or floods, only on quality. This means that there is no governance or management framework for activities which increase flows downstream, and no active coordinated investment in flood retaining activities, such as rehabilitating the catchment and compensation to farmers’ land use to dampen flood peaks. At the same time, the legal instruments for water flows, i.e. centred on the joint property societies who operate them, are very inflexible and outdated. There are potential synergies between the future implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the EU Flood Directive, but currently it is unclear how plans for integration will be implemented in practice. However, there is increasing alignment between risk managers and urban planners in Kristianstad, emerging from local dialogue and learning. Extending the lessons from Kristianstad to all of Sweden will require an active political process that recognizes growing risks due to climate change and highlights the value of ecosystem services. INTEGRATING FLOOD RISK REDUCTION, RIVER BASIN AND RESILIENCE MANAGEMENT IN PLANNING SEI-WP-2015-01 CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Policy context .............................................................................................................. 4 The EU Floods Directive ................................................................................................ 4 The EU Water Framework Directive ............................................................................... 5 2. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Data-gathering ........................................................................................................... 5 2.2 The analytical framework ............................................................................................ 6 River basin management .............................................................................................. 7 Flood risk management ................................................................................................ 7 Resilience management ................................................................................................ 8 3. Kristianstad in context ................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Spatial planning in Sweden ......................................................................................... 8 3.2 Kristianstad ................................................................................................................. 8 Historical background ................................................................................................ 10 The development of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in Kristianstad ................................ 12 4. Flood and nutrient risks in Kristianstad .................................................................... 13 4.1 Flood risks ................................................................................................................ 13 Urban flood risk – embankments and pumps ............................................................... 13 Urban planning .......................................................................................................... 15 Urban stormwater ...................................................................................................... 16 Agriculture and the wet grasslands for haymaking and grazing .................................... 16 Water retention upstream in the forest ecosystem ........................................................ 18 4.2 Water quality risks .................................................................................................... 20 Baltic Sea and Hanö Bay ............................................................................................ 20 The Helge River .......................................................................................................... 21 Urban nutrient risks – wastewater ............................................................................... 23 Urban stormwater ...................................................................................................... 23 Groundwater ............................................................................................................. 23 Agriculture ................................................................................................................. 24 Loss of buffer capacity in the agricultural landscape .................................................... 25 Forestry and brownification ........................................................................................ 28 5. Closing gaps in flood risk and river basin management ......................................... 29 5.1 Risk reduction needs to go beyond flood control to protect the city ............................. 29 5.2 Risk management does not incorporate resilience thinking ......................................... 29 5.3 Urban planning needs to be more aligned with risk management .............................. 30 5.4 Risk management is not aligned with river basin management................................... 30 5.5 Traditional paradigms need to change to enable resilience management................... 32 6. Towards adaptive river management ....................................................................... 33 6.1 How to make