Communication and publicinvolvement212 2

Communication and publicinvolvement213 Communication and publicinvolvement214

respecttothe partner’sself-image. Awide range of instruments and toolswerepractised and tested and arepresented in the next sub-chapters.The objectiveistoshareexperiences gained from the activitiesand tointroduceamixtureofpossibilitiesforadditional participation.

Figure4.1: Publicperception in Germanyand the Netherlands regarding waterissues

Levelsof participation Participation: allowing influenceonthe outcome of plansand working processes Information: Lowest level of participation providing access toinformation and disseminating information actively(often legallyrequired, basisof involvement)

by:brochuresand newsletters,information meetings, exhibitions,websites,excursions

Consultation: publiccanreacttogovernmentproposals.Itisoften legally required topublishdrafts and toallowthe publictocomment

by:objections/hearingsin regionalplanning and planning approvalprocedures,advisory workgroups,bilateralmeetings

Activeinvolvement/ cooperation: publichasarealvoiceand anopportunity tochange and plan actively by:projectgroup, politics,press,workshops,committeesof representativesof affected interest groups,municipalities, science, round table, working groupswiththe authority to decide, polderadvisory committee

Publicparticipation consists of differentmechanismsforaction. Participation can take placeinthe following ways: beforeauthoritiesmake decisions

by:giving advice, participating in consultations,and promoting projects afterdecisionsaremade

by:acting in the implementation of suchdecisionsorby controlling theirimplementation

Communication and publicinvolvement216 4

Figure4.2:Ladderof participation Box4.1: Levelsof participation

Participation canbedifferentiated bythe people addressed (stakeholders orgeneralpublic) orbyinvolvementthrough formaloradditionalinformalinstruments.Publicparticipation by informalinstruments isexplained in detail in chapter4.1 while the othercharacters are described in the following paragraphs.

Participation of stakeholders Stakeholders areimportantpersons,agroupofpersons,institutionalised organisationsor spokespersonswho areorcanbeaffected bythe activitiesin the projectorhaveaninterest in the projectorprojectarea.Asalreadystated, itisof greatimportancetoinvolvethese personsorgroupsactivelyin the projectprocessesbeyond the level of just providing information.

While planning and implementing the localproject,the SDF Partners applied several instruments and gained experiencesin the participation process.Advisory and projectgroups (mostlyconsisting of stakeholders)wereinstalled asaccompanying projectcouncils.Tosolve certain difficulttasks,itproved wisetodiscuss matters bilaterallyin ordertoreach stakeholders on amorepersonallevel. Thisallows adeep insightand betterunderstanding of the projectplanscompared toinstruments suchasfield visits orworkshops.

Participation of the generalpublic Generalpublicisdefined asincluding all non-governmentalstakeholders.Indensely populated countrieslike the NetherlandsorGermany,propercommunication withthe generalpublicisanessentialprecondition forcarrying out aproject.Aplancanbe sustainable and cancontributetoimproving the quality of life in anareaonlyif itisaccepted and supported bylocalpeople who arevery well informed withtransparentinformation.

Communication and publicinvolvement217 Inthe past,therehavebeen bothsuccessesand failureswithprojects in which communication withlocalpeople played acrucialrole. Effectivecommunication starts by developing good and if possible long-termcontacts (continuity). Therefore, the communication should notfocus solelyon the period uptoand including implementation but alsothe post-implementation period. Itisnecessary togain publicconfidenceand nevertodamage it.Thisiseasiersaid than done, and unexpected events cancausepublicopinion toturnagainst aproject.Itis necessary toadoptapublic-friendlyapproachthatalsoensuresthe required continuity in publicconfidence. Decisionsmust always beexplained in aclearand transparentmanner, although some information isconfidentialand cannotbemade public.One problem isthe working method: the necessary deploymentof fundsand manpower,continuity asregards contactpersons,and the ability tocope withchanges.Howcanthe best possible servicebe provided?

Publicinvolvementin formalprocedures The legalpermitproceduresin bothcountriesimposethe requirements of public participation atdifferentstagesof the legalprocedure. The Dutchand Germanplanning systemsaredifferent.Differenceseven exist between the Germanfederalstates,e.g. dueto the responsibilitiesforflood prevention orspatialplanning levels.

BothcountrieshavesimilarcriteriaforEnvironmentalImpactAssessments (EIA)(e.g. list of measuresbased on EU ruleswhereEIAsareobligatory). The differencesareinthe procedure itself, the time-line (whatstep comesbeforeand after)and howthe publicisinvolved in the procedure(e.g. in the Netherlandsanybodymayprovide input,inGermanyonlyorganised public (TÖB) and directlyaffected residents).

The main differenceseemstobethatin Germany,the Planfeststellungsverfahren sumsupall potentialimpacts and relevantrights/rules,leading toadecision bythe competentauthority (Bündelungswirkung).Inthe Netherlandsfollowing the EIA procedure, the permission process starts withagreatmanyproceduresrelating toimpacton privaterights,excavations procedures,lawon surfacewatercontamination and manymore. Setting upapermission managementsystem isimportanttokeep aneyeonthe process and tostart procedures simultaneouslyand toworkmoreefficiently.Forfurtherand detailed information on public participation in permitproceduresin Germanyand the Netherlands,pleaserefertosee Annex2.

4.1 Publiccommunication byinformalinstruments The formalparticipation process isdefined byplanning legislation and allows onlya temporarilylimited and restricted influenceinthe permitprocedure. Realinfluencebythe broaderpublicon the developmentand implementation of the projectislimited in most cases,asdecisionsarestill taken on the basisof technological(often hydraulic)reasonsand participation issupplementary.Foramoredemocraticand reliable publicinvolvement, projectplanners seek additionalsupport byimplementing furtherinformalparticipation tools.Through aguided process of transparentknowledge transferand practical involvement,the voiceofresidents should beenlarged. Awell thought-out participation process from the beginning of aprojectphasewill leadtoanincreased publiccommitment and createsawin-win-situation. Furthermore, measuresin floodplainscannotbe implemented successfullyif theydo notmeetwithbroadpublicacceptanceand if theyare notsupported bykeystakeholdergroups.Therefore, publicparticipation in decision making about futuredevelopmentisfundamentalinachieving lasting solutions.

Communication and publicinvolvement218 4

Participation impliesadynamicinteractiveprocess.Thisrelieson building trust and confidencethatthe publicwill haverealinfluence. The importantrequirementforsuccessful participation of residents isthe access totransparentinformation thatcaneasilybe understood, withgradualupdatesthatreflectongoing work. Inanycase, providing information isanimportantpreparatory step forthe planning process.Ingeneral, the stable involvementof the identified stakeholders during the planning and implementation period bygiving clearrulesof participation from the beginning isadvisable. The useofinstruments and theirtargetgroupshould beworked out in acommunication plan. Inthe caseofHondsbroeksche Pleij, forexample, acommunication planwasdeveloped whichindicated the broadoutlinesof howcommunication should take place. Duetothe fact thatthe projectisalong termproject,adecision wastaken touseadynamicdocumentthat could becontinuallyupdated. The main message of the Hondsbroeksche Pleij projectwas emphasising generalfamiliarity withthe name and objectiveofthe projectand getting people tounderstand thatprotection against flooding isnotjust aforegone conclusion. The attitude adopted forcommunication focuseson improved, cost-conscious,and predictable services.Accountwastaken of the needsand wishesof users of the main watersystem. Products and serviceswill onlybepromised if theycanactuallybedelivered. The various stakeholders havebeen considered and efforts havebeen made toensurethe cooperation of various groupsrepresenting the public.Targeted publicinformation programmesin the Westervoort areaduring planning and preparation of the projecthavemade localpeople moreawareofthe river.Theyhavebecome increasinglyawareofthe need forproper discharge distribution and room forthe rivers.

Informalinstruments areused in the SDF activitiestoboost additionalsocialaction and participation processestorespond tothe increased demand forinvolvementof localpeople in theirownenvironment.Duetodifferentdemandsof land useand conflicts of interests between the various stakeholders,delays often occur,whichalters the planning and implementation of ameasure. The delaycanresultin aloss of confidenceand trust with regardtoachieving results within areasonable time frame. The SDF projectagreed thata projectleadermust haveand demonstrateacooperativeattitude. Forthe residents and the authorities,heorshe hastohavegreatpersonalcredibility.Itisimportantforthe process to beopen tounexpected results,aswell asapoliticalwill toacceptunexpected changes. Nevertheless,atime limitforthe participation process hastobeset,otherwiseitdragson for fartoo long and the stakeholders looseinterest.

Without claiming tobecomplete, the objectiveofthischapteristopass on experiencesand toolsforasuitable and effectiveinformalparticipation process,bydescribing experiences and lessonslearned from the viewpointof planners and engineers working on floodplain projects.Inthe following sub-chapters,the measurestaken areintroduced and various selected exampleswill behighlighted toprovide aninsightintothe benefitgained bythe SDF partners while using extracommunication tools.The following table providesanoverview of the communication toolswhichwereadditionallyembedded bythe SDF partners and outlinesthe casesthatareexamined morecloselyin the following sub-chapters.

Communication and publicinvolvement219 Chapter4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 projectgroup informativeinvolvement workshops bilateral politicsand press and advisory of the public meetingsand group field visits Tool v i s t

Project P r oje c t g r o u p A d v i s o ry g r o u p I nfo r m a t ion mee t ing N e ws le tt r W e b s i t E x hi b i t ion W o r k s hop B il a t e r l F ield P oli t i c s P r e ss Kirschgartshausen ●● ● ●●●● Ingelheim ●● ● ●●●● Emscher ●●● ●●● ● ●● EmmericherWard ●●●● ●● Bislich-Vahnum ● ● ●●● ●●● Lohrwardt ●●●●●●● ●●● Rijnwaarden ● ●● ●●● BemmelseWaard ● ● ●●●● ● Fortmond ●●● ●●●●●● Hondsbroeksche ● ●●● ●● ●●●● Pleij Lexkesveer ● ●●●●● ● ●●● Heesseltsche ●●●●●●● ● Uiterwaarden ● measureimplemented ● explained in detail in the following chapters

Table 4.1: Applied informaland additionalinstruments in the SDF projectand targetgroups 4.1.1 Projectgroupand advisory group

Inaddition tothe projectteamwhichundertakesthe project,the most effectivewayto integrateauthoritiesand organisationsistoimplementaprojectgroup. Projectgroups accompanyaplanning process foralongerperiod oratvarious planning stages.The initiativehastobetaken bythe responsible authority,wherethe projectleader–in coordination withotherdecision-makers –analysesthe associated authorities,whichshould beinvited. The meetingstake placewhen requested byone of the parties,e.g. when first planning stepsarecompleteorwhen the results of astudyareavailable.

The overall objectiveforestablishing projectgroupistodevelop commitmentand facilitate decision-making. The participating partiesensurethatthe policyof theirownorganisation is successfullyembedded in the project.The very positiveeffectof aprojectgroupisthe broad politicalcommitmentafterdiscussing importantplanning stepsand results of the project, whichleadstoaharmonised and balanced project.All participating bodiesspeakwithone voice. Sincethe assigned organisationsarethe responsible bodiesforimplementing the project,the projectgrouphasagreatdealofresponsibility fordecision making, in whichthe authority undertaking the projecthasthe lead.

Afterastakeholderanalysis,the projectgrouporthe implementing bodymaydecide to offer/inviteanadvisory group, whichwill contributeits specialist knowledge. The objective of engaging anadvisory groupistomake and remain in contactwithstakeholders and to

Communication and publicinvolvement220 4

identifypossible difficultiesand conflicts of interests while the projectisbeing implemented. The overall aim isthe provision of asmoothprojectprocess without surpriseobstacles.The advisory groupisregularlyinformed about the process of the project.The findingsof the advisory grouparediscussed in the projectgroupwheredecisionsarepossible. Consequently,the advisory grouphasinfluence, e.g. byproviding expertiseorby contributing newpoints regarding the process,but ithasno decision-making authority.

The advisory groupsmayaccompanyaplanning process foralongerperiod orduring various planning steps.Thistype of groupoften comprisesagriculturalorganisationsand land owners,natureconservation and environmentalinitiativetakers and/ororganisations, culturalheritage organisations,privatecompaniesand manyothers.Additional representativesof the aboveprojectgroupsmaybeinvolved.

Byactivelyinvolving theseorganisationsorstakeholders in the project,theirinterests canbe taken intoaccountrightfrom the start of the projectand its planning. Thismeansthatitis relativelyeasy toreachalarge groupofthe publicwithin the area.Anadvisory groupisseen asafeedbackpanel in whichnotonlyinformation about the projectisprovided, italso receivesinformation from manypeople and ensuresthatimportantissuesremain the focus of attention. Thisbenefits the projectprocess and the developmentof alternatives,finally leading toabettercommitment.Asaresultof thisintegrated approach, the conflicting interests inside the advisory groupcanbediscussed and taken intoaccount.The members of suchagroupmayalsoactasambassadors forthe projectcontent.

Motivesforimplementing aprojectgroupmayvary.At Emscher ,the decision toimplement aprojectgroupwastaken on the basisof the factthatone of the twoplanned floodplainsis located on the borders of twocitiesand involved one sub-regionaldistrict,tworegional authoritiesand twostateenvironmentaldepartments.Consequently,the working platform wascreated atthe start of the planning phase, whererepresentativesfrom the responsible authoritiesregularlymetwiththe Emschergenossenschafttodiscuss interim results and to giveadvice. Anagreed decision of the projectgroupwasthatthe Bezirksregierung Arnsberg regionalauthority should beresponsible forthe entirepermission-granting process.

The Bezirksregierung Arnsberg wascontinuouslyinformed about the publicinvolvement process (initiated informallybythe Emschergenossenschaft), making the localdiscussions and problemstransparentand ensuring thatall planning stepsresponded tothe people’s demandsatavery earlystage of the project.The entireprocess led toanew,closeand reliable formofcooperation between the Emschergenossenschaftand the competent authorities.

The projectgroupmetin four thematicworking groups:Flood Protection, Hydraulicsand Hydrology,Planning forwaterbodiesand Design. Theymetseveraltimesbetween December2003 and November2004. Personshaving overall responsibility from the five bodiesinvolved metatthe invitation of the Emschergenossenschaft.

The motivation of the projectgroup at Lexkesveer wastoconclude anagreementon the developmentof the projectareabetween the participating bodies,whichincluded representativesof three municipalities,twowaterboards,the GovernmentServiceforLand and WaterManagement (Dienst Landelijk Gebied),the provinceand Rijkswaterstaat .Inthe end, the groupwasforced toconclude anagreement.The grouphandled policyand legislation relating tothisproject.Atthe end of the process,the groupmembers hadto communicateorreport the results totheirownorganisation and facilitatedecision-making bypoliticiansand directors.Anoverall commitmentwastargeted.

Inothercases,anadvisory groupwasproposed bythe projectgroup. While atEmscher, participants indicated during afirst information meetingthattheywerenotinterested in workshopson naturedevelopment,publicinvolvementortechnicalplanning aspects,but

Communication and publicinvolvement221 moreincontinuous publicinformation about the ongoing project.Inotherpilotprojects the proposalwaswillinglyaccepted and anadvisory groupwasimplemented.

The planning process of the project Bislich-Vahnum ,forinstance, wasaccompanied byan advisory group thatconsisted of: • The localculturalheritage club (Heimatverein). • Fishing commissioners (Kreisfischereibeauftragte). • Dike administration (Deichverband). • Aprivategravel company (Kiesabbauunternehmen). • The responsible authority forecology (LÖBF) . • Natureconservation organisations (Naturschutzverbände). • And landowners.

The groupmetin advanceofimportantplanning decisionsasrepresentativesof local stakeholders and initiativestosupport the projectmanagers withlocalidentification and acceptanceapproaches.The advisory groupalsomade sitevisits (e.g. tothe Netherlands).

At Hondsbroeksche Pleij,the process wasaccompanied byanadvisory groupfrom the very start of the planning phase. Boththe authoritiesand stakeholderassociations (e.g. Westervoort HistoricalSociety,the Westervoort EnvironmentalGroup, the various neighbourhood councils,the localbusiness association, etc.) and privateindividualswere invited toparticipate. The advisory groupwasable tohaveits sayand make recommendationsin the context of the planning process.Thisapproachmade itpossible to take explicitaccountof the wishesand needsof users of the main watersystem. Onceall the planswereadopted viathe relevantpublicconsultation procedures–whichwent smoothly–aliaison groupwassetupinrespectof actualimplementation, whichconsists of users of the main watersystem, including numerous ex-members of the advisory group. The liaison groupreceivesregularinformation on the progress of the projectand isthen asked forits views.Thismakesitpossible tokeep constanttrackofthe arrangements made and take accountof localresidents.Thismethod hasincreased publicsatisfaction.

4.1.2Informativeinvolvementof the public

Ordinary citizens,stakeholders and entrepreneurs wanttobeinformed in detail before (political) decisionsthataffectthem aretaken. Thisdemand forinformation canbe accommodated bythe projectresponsible authority byproviding information atinformation events,newsletters orbrochures,websitesorexhibitions.All thesemeasureshavein common thattheyaim atinforming the generalpublic,while notproviding anyactive possibility forparticipation. The aim of involving the publicinformativelyistomake plansor decisionsknownand comprehensible toawide publicand therebypromotethe projectand increaseits acceptance. Thisinformation canleadtoastrong respectfulpartnership between the involved groupsand individuals.

Information events cantake placeatevery stage during the developmentof aproject,either asauniqueoraregularevent.Openness and balanced discussionsareimportant,and the useofaneutraland accepted chairperson maybehelpful. Thereshould beapossibility for additionaldiscussionsin smallergroupsand anexchange withexperts.

Figure4.3:Impressions–opening ceremony,Emscher

Communication and publicinvolvement222 4

Figure4.4: Information eventatthe Emscherproject

Information meetingswereconducted at Rijnwaarden, BemmelseWaard, Fortmond and Hondsbroeksche Pleij.During the information meeting in BemmelseWaard, various issues could besolved withparticipants,whereasanappointmentwasmade withotherparticipants todiscuss problemsbilaterally.

Inthe Living Rhine NABU project,the completion of the first 600 mofnear-natural riverbank on the LowerRhine wascelebrated byabeachparty involving localpeople. Asa resultof thiseventon 17Julythe projectsimultaneouslyparticipated in the Big Jump, the EuropeanRiverSwimming Day.Abeachcafé, information standsand gamesserved asan invitation toexperiencethe Rhine withits newnear-naturalriverbank, and tosee the river's potentialfornatureand people in anurbansetting. Radio and localtelevision stationswere present.

Figure4.5: Big Jump atRheinhausen, 17July2005

Communication and publicinvolvement223 Inaddition topersonalcontact,information about the projectmaybeprovided bymeansof printed matter.Consequently,brochuresand newsletterwereused toconveyinformation to the publicin severalprojects.Experiencesof projectmanagers showthatpeople consider printed mattertobemorereliable thanspoken wordsin officialpresentations.Onthe other hand, the published information of, forinstance, interim results needstobehandled very carefully.Ifthe message ‘basisdiscussion’or‘interim result’ isintended tobeconveyed, printed mattersometimesgivesthe impression of ready-made solutions.Asaresult, newsletters/ brochuresareinterpreted hereasinterim information toaccompanythe planning process.Itisadvisable toavoid printing aglossy folder,but rathertousecoloured copiestounderline the working process.People should beawarethatthe information is simple astatementof workinprogress and notafinalpresentation.

Within the Emscher project,three eight-page brochures(of about 800 copieseachplus a digitalPDF version) wereprinted and distributed toinformpoliticalbodiesand later,the widerpublic,ofthe interim results.Within the Rijnwaarden project,newsletters wereused in combination withinformation meetingsin the village of Pannerden toprovide information about milestones(e.g. forthe start of the EIA). Twelvehundred prints weredistributed to localresidents and partiesinvolved.

Generationenprojekt Emscher-Umgestaltung Die Hochwasserrückhaltung an der Emscher

Bau der Hochwasserrückhaltebecken Rund um diePlanung in Dortmund-Ellinghausen und derHochwasserrückhaltebecken Dortmund-Mengede/Castrop-Rauxel-Ickern in Dortmund-Ellinghausenund Dortmund-Mengede/Castrop-Rauxel-Ickern Anhang zur Vorlage in den politischen Gremien der Stadt Dortmund im April 2005

Begleitende Information der Projektpräsentationen in Dortmund &Castrop-Rauxel im Januar 2006

Die Hochwasserrückhaltung an der Emscher

Rund um die Planung derHochwasserrückhaltebecken in Dortmund-Ellinghausenund Dortmund-Mengede/Castrop-Rauxel-Ickern

Begleitende Information zur Ausstellung im AGARDNaturschutzhaus Dortmund Sachstand Herbst 2007

Figure4.6:BrochuresEmscher: Transgenerationalproject-reshaping the Emscher,flood retention along Emschergenossenschaft Kronprinzenstraße24in45128 Essenwww.emschergenossenschaft.de the Emscher [email protected] Tel. 0201-104 2571

Communication and publicinvolvement224 4

Anothertool toinformthe publicisawebsite. Thismaybeauniqueprojectwebsiteor information on the homepage of the responsible bodies.Internetpresentationsareeasy to access and use, theyprovide free and extensiveinformation, aswell asadditionallinksto support the themes.Adisadvantage ismainlythe cost factor.Torunand develop awebsite istime consuming, and thereforeexpensive. Furtherinformation tobeplaced on asitehas tobeseen byvarious personsbeforeitappears on the projectwebsite. Anopen source system of websitesoffers the possibility toplaceup-to-dateinformation on the sitedirectly from everywhereinthe world. The Hondsbroeksche Pleij projectwebsiteisshownbelowas anexample.

Figure4.7:Hondsbroeksche Pleij website

Plans,models,surveys orposters canbepresented tothe publicin the formofanexhibition. Exhibitionscanbeorganised within differentframeworksand here, too, itisimportantfor the projectmanagertoplacethe message correctly.Workplans,sketches,simple report documents givethe impression of being part of aprocess,while glossy posters and expensivemodelscreatethe impression of finalised plans.

Anold estatewithabeergarden issituated closetothe floodplain location at Kirschgartshausen, whereinformation panelsand asmall brochurewithdataand project contentaredisplayed.

Asafollow-upofthe architecturecompetition forthe outletbuilding atEmscher(see chapter4.1.3), the winning model and plansweredisplayed in anexhibition in the local library (Figure4.8).

Communication and publicinvolvement225 Figure4.8: Exhibition of model and plansin the locallibrary (Emscher)

Communication and publicinvolvement226 4

Het Dijkmagazijn,anatureinformation and education centreislocated in Bemmel. This centrepresents information about the riverlandscape, especiallythe BemmelseWaard. It aimstoinformschool children, inhabitants of Bemmel and interested tourists.The Dienst Landelijk Gebied hasbeen given the opportunity topresentthe progress of the masterplan here. From time totime, thispresentation isbroughtuptodate. Anotherexhibition took placeatHondsbroeksche Pleij asshowninFigure4.9 below.

Figure4.9: Exhibition at Hondsbroeksche Pleij

4.1.3Workshops

While information meetingsfocus on the information flowfrom the competentauthority to the generalpublic,the implementation of topic-related workshopsfocuseson aninteraction, i.e. activecommunication withstakeholders.Inthe caseofthistopic,participants ata workshop mighthaveacertain level of decision making. Thiswasthe caseataworkshop at the Emscherproject,wherestakeholders decided on the design of the project.Inthis context,itisvery crucialtodefine acleargoalforthe projectand tocommunicatethe level of influenceofthe workshop results.

The initiators of aworkshop should thereforeestablishclearmessagesregarding targets, structureand schedule topreventparticipantfrustration duetowrong and ortoo high expectations.Transparentmanagementstructuresand continuous reporting areimportant forthe reliability and seriousness of the workshopsinitiator.

The ‘region in consultation’projectatPolderIngelheim providesanexample of successful workshops.Aspart of the regionalplanning proceduresince1995, residents wereable to raiseobjectionstovarious polderlocationsin Rhineland-Palatinateatanearlystage, which often resulted in protracted planning and approvalprocesses.Forthisreason, the Rhineland- PalatinateMinistry of the Environmentand Forestry setupthe Rhine Floodplain Developmentand Planning –aRegion in Consultation model project,withthe aim of initiating anopen planning and administration cultureinthe areabetween Mainzand Bingen. Thiswasbased on the factthatdialogueand consensus withthe people of the region isanecessary prerequisiteforasustainable spatialplanning policy.

The coreofthe process wasthe involvementof differentinterest groups(schools,residents, agriculture, natureconservation, industry,tourism, association, clubs)innumerous planning workshops,wherethe interested groupshadthe opportunity tocontributetheirideas, knowledge and experiences.Theyalsohadthe opportunity torevealfaults and conflicts of use, todevelop amission statementtogether,aswell asconcepts and strategiesforsolving problems.ForIngelheim Polder,three keyfloodplain components (Jungaue, Heidenfahrt, AlteSandlach) wereplanned and implemented. The closeinvolvementof the farming community made itpossible touseland division measurestodifferentiateland usesand improvethe structureinthe Rhine wetlands. The interdisciplinary planning process forIngelheim Poldertook only18 months.Asthe main results hadalreadybeen discussed and agreed within the workshop process,only18 objectionswerelodged. Itwaspossible toissuethe keyplanning decision asearlyasfour monthsafterthe discussion stage. Finally,onlytwoyears hadelapsed between the commencementof the planning workand the keyplanning decision.

Communication and publicinvolvement227 Withthe implementation of the ‘mixed in place’(MIP)techniqueinthe Hondsbroeksche Pleij project,the Netherlandsgotthe opportunity tolearnmoreabout thistechniquewhich iscost-effectiveand canimproveadike construction without anyextranecessary space. Severalworkshopswereorganised toexchange the construction techniqueduring execution of the works.Field tripswerepart of the workshops.AGermansubcontractortook the opportunity torevealhisknowledge. Aftercompletion of the project,experienceswill be made available tootherprojects within the Netherlands.

Anotherexample of whatcanbeachieved within the scope of aworkshop isthe Emscher decision concerning the design of alocalbridge. In2004, the Emschergenossenschaftgave localpeople and students the opportunity todecide on the architectonicalappearanceofa technicalbuilding, i.e. the design of alocalbridge. Asafollow-upactivity,adesign workshop washeld in spring 2006.The publicdiscussion on the design of the floodplain outletbuildingsand the landscape appearancewasused asanopportunity tofiveteamsof architects,landscape planners,waterengineers and artists todevelop ideason architecture and the integration of the buildings.Afterafirst workingphase, the interim results were presented toawiderpublicand discussed atameeting, whereNGOs,politicians,nature conservationists,culturalheritage experts,representativesof localand regional administrations,etc.provided feedback. Inthe finaljury session, aSDF representativefrom the Netherlandsand children from the localprimary school wereinvolved in the jury.The whole process wasaccompanied byintensivemediainterest from the townsand villages. The results of the workshop wereintegrated intothe permission procedures.

The aboveworkshop on the design of the outletbuildingsinvolved severallocalinterest groupsand politiciansand not–asnormallythe caseindesign workshops–onlyarchitects orotherexperts.Acertain amountof jealousy wasexpected from thosewho werenotpart of the jury (especiallypoliticians), but every single person who wasinterested in the process hadthe chancetovisitaninterim meeting. Here, first drafts of the fiveplanning teamswere presented forfeedbackfrom the public(beforethe teamsworked out the finalplansforthe jury session four weekslater). Ingeneral, the entireprocess wasreceived very positively.A discussion waslaunched within the Emschergenossenschaftabout newways of communicating formalplanning and permission processeswithinformaltools.Furthermore, localcitizensand politiciansfeltreallyresponsible and taken seriouslyaspart of the project development,and theynowrelyfarmoreonthe Emschergenossenschaftthanthey previouslydid.

4.1.4 Bilateralmeetingsand field visits

Field visits and bilateralmeetingsareusuallyimplemented mostlyduring the projectprocess when difficultiesand conflicts of interests occur orareexpected tooccur.Ingeneral, stakeholders and people living in the areaareinvolved. Incomparison withinstruments whichaim onlyatinformation flow,thesetwotoolsareproblem-oriented and asolution has tobedefined.

Itisnotanopen participation process,asinteraction takesplaceonlywithinvited personsor personswithwhom difficultiesoccurred.

Bilateralcommunication withstakeholders affected bythe projectactivitiesisanimportant instrumentin caseswhereconflicts arelikelytooccur orvery privateinterests areatstake. In most cases,the groupofparticipants will belimited in numbertofacilitateproperdiscussion of possible difficultiesand solutions.Innearlyall SDF pilotprojects,bilateraltalkswithspecial stakeholders took placeand projectpartners rated thesetalksasasuccess and asan importantinstrument.However,theyaretime consuming and requirequalified and experienced projectmanagers.Ingeneral, anobjectiveshould beestablished beforesuch meetingstogivebothsidesthe ideaof having achieved something.

Communication and publicinvolvement228 4

Figure4.10:Workshop on design at the Emscherproject

Field visits maybedivided intotwogeneralgroups:thoseaimed atpresenting the planning location todecision makers,stakeholders orinterested groups,and thosewhichare organised toshowcomparable projects in otherregions.Inthe main, thissub-chapterrefers tothosefield visits thatareintended tobroaden stakeholder’smindsbyshowing them what comparable projects canbelike. The normaldailyexperienceofmost people doesnot consist of construction sites,large scale technicalprojects and interpreting technicalplans,so most people cannotimagine the dimension ormeaning of complexwatermanagement projects.However,whatyousee iswhatyoubelieve!

Despitethe outcome of anextended surveyand research, inhabitants mayfearthe measures and theireffects.Inordertoconvincestakeholders thatpotentialnegativeimpacts will be avoided, afield visittoacomparable projectisanappropriatemeasure. Italsooffers the opportunity totalk tolocalprofessionals,politiciansand the public.

Forseveralreasons,bilateralcommunication waschosen in the caseofsome SDF pilot projects insteadoforin addition togroupmeetings.Inthe SDF projectareaof Lohrwardt, fivelandowners withlarge agriculturalfieldswereinvolved. Inthiscase, various lakesin the areaareused forfishery.Therefore, waterquality isimportantassome housesin Lohrwardt will beremoved from the floodplain and rebuilton higherground. The topicstobediscussed concerned very specificproblems.Furthermore, topicssuchasland acquisition, compensation, land pricesand dataprotection wereimportant.Consequently,bilateral discussionswerethoughtpreferable togroupdiscussions.Anarrangementwasreached concerning the exchange of agriculturalfieldsand financialcompensation.

At BemmelseWaard ,the bilateraltalkswiththe inhabitants focussed on the following issues.Howwould the projectaffectthe inhabitants,would the inhabitants agree withthe changes,and howcould the plansbetailored totheirsituation. The resultwasthatnone of the inhabitants made anofficialobjection tothe legalpermitprocedure.

At Lexkesveer and Heesselt ,the bilateralcommunication wasorganised in whatwere termed kitchen table meetings.Thesetook placeatthe homesof the inhabitants and stakeholders and wereconsidered asuccess,becausetheyenabled directcommunication between projectleaders and stakeholderon specificitems.

AtLexkesveer,objectionswereraised regarding importantmorphologyvalues,including an old waterwaysurrounded byvaluable willowvegetation, whichcould notbespared asa newsummerdike hadtobeconstructed atthislocation in ordertoavoid inundation of agriculturalland. Asolution wasfound byholding kitchen table discussions.Asolution had tobefound outside the projectarea.The southernborderof the projectareaneeded tobe relocated 50mtothe south. Inthisway,the summerdike could beconstructed on the new southernborder,sothe existing valuescould bespared. Inordertoimplementthissolution,

Communication and publicinvolvement229 Figure4.11: Lexkesveer:maintaining old pollardwillows leading togreater commitment

additionalland waspurchased. The provinceneeded toapprovethe enlargement,asthe old projectareawasdefined according toformalised boundariesdetermined fornature development.Asthe projectareawasenlarged, the discharge capacity alsohadtobe enlarged asthisareacontributed directlytothe discharge atthe ferry bridge location. Inthe end, the commitmentof the stakeholders wasgained and the impacton the projectgoal wasimproved.

AtHeesselt,kitchen table meetingswerealsoorganised todiscuss the problemsof stakeholders and tosee whatsolutionscould befound. Becausethesemeetingshadalow profile, people feltfree totalk, discuss and ask. Thiswasusefulingetting tothe pointat issueand the plan(aftersome effort)waseventuallyadapted. Thishadthe advantage that the quality of the planimproved, the conditionsof the permits could bemaintained and stakeholders weresatisfied. Inthe end, the required commitmentwasgained. Direct communication withstakeholders regarding unexpected itemsresulted in commitment during the participation phase. Consideration should begiven toimproving and implementing housemeetingsasageneralfeatureand atanearlierstage in projects.

Anothermethod of directcommunication tolocalstakeholders isorganising field visits.One of thesewasorganised atEmschertogivethe localpoliticians,press,projectresidents, natureconservation and administrativerepresentativesanideaof whatthe planned floodplain projects will look like. Suchavisitin 2004showed acomparable floodplain in the region, wherethe attitude towardsthe planning projectstarted tochange from NIMBY (“notin mybackyard”)toPIMBY (“pleaseinmybackyard”). The visitors understood forthe first time whatthe planned retention floodplainswould look like. Anotherexcursion in 2005 wenttoaconstruction siteinBaden-Württemberg, whereanoutletbuilding of comparable sizewasunderconstruction. Here, the opinion of the localmayorand ecologists wasvitalfor decision makers.

Communication and publicinvolvement230 4

Figure4.12:Example of sitevisit

Communication and publicinvolvement231 Atthe Bislich-Vahnum projectfield, visits wereorganised forthe advisory group. Excursions weremade toseveralDutchprojectlocationstogain informabout structuresand experienceswithotherside channels.

4.1.5. Politicsand press

During planning and during the implementation process of aproject,itisvery importantto address the politicallevel of the projectsurrounding and toinvolvethe press asamultiplier of amessage. Bothpoliticsand press areimportanttospreadthe message of the project,to raisepublicawareness and toevoke generalacceptance. Ingeneral, the experiencesin many projects showthatmedialike toconnectabstractplanning withpersonalstories,sodirectly affected residents orwell-knownanimalsareoften in the focus of astory told. InHeesselt, forexample, aworkofart using atypicalDutchcowacted asasynonymforlocallyadapted landscape developmentand raised publicinterest.

Figure4.13:Workofart in Heesselt: typicalDutchcow

Projectmanagers need tobeawarethatliving imagesbythe press aregenerallypreferred to plain technicalinformation offered byplanners.

Overall, itishelpfultobeopen topublicdebateand the prosand consof the project.Itwill receivemorecredibility thansimplyemphasising perfectplans.

Finally,itshould beremembered thattechnicallanguage will notleadtobetter understanding but often togreaterconfusion. Itisbettertokeep the message short and simple and offeradditionalinformation (e.g. on CD withmapsand text)tothe press rather thantrying toexplain everything in full.

At Emscher ,politicalbodieswereinvolved. Asin large Germancities,the sub-districts (Bezirksvertretungen) decide on localdevelopment.Politiciansin the sub-districtof Mengede (Dortmund) werevery keen tobeactivelyinvolved in the planning process (even though theywerenotco-financing), becausethe Emscherfloodplainscoverabout 2.3%of thisarea.Consequently,from 2003,the ongoing process waspresented severaltimesayear tothe politiciansin question. Asafollow-up, therewasintensivereporting bythe press.The politicaldiscussionswerepartlycarried out atanemotionallevel and wereoccasionallytime consuming. The benefits of newnatureinthe city and of flood prevention could be explained atanearlystage, but the expected impacts from the construction phasewerethe main discussion itemsand worries.Finally,continuity and the credibility of the project managers led togeneralacceptance, although some doubts remained. The extensive information and discussion process eventuallypaid off. Atthe finalformalpublic consultation, the contradictionsrelating tothe Mengede floodplain werecleared upwithin twohours and thoserelating tothe Ellinghausen floodplain within 22 minutes.

Communication and publicinvolvement232 4

Press-ScansProsand Cons The wayprojects arereported in printdependson the materialavailable tothe press.The betterthe materialthe press receives(photos,figures,sketches), the morereliable the information thatwill bepublished. The aim of the projectleadershould betoprovide information and notletemotionsdetermine the reporting of the project.

Figure4.14: Examplesof positivepress

Communication and publicinvolvement233 Figure4.15: Examplesof negative press

Communication and publicinvolvement234 4

Lake Lippe: Referendumonawaterproject

Hamm isatownwithabout 180,000 inhabitants and islocated on the RiverLippe. Ithas acoalmining history and nowhasurban, naturaland socialqualities.One of the features of the MasterplanHamm an’s Wasser ,adopted bythe towncouncil in 2001, wasalake of 43hawithpositiveimpacts on flood prevention downstream. Asthiswasaprojectwith considerable consequencesforHamm’s citizens,the Mayorof Hamm decided tohold a referendum. All citizensoverthe age of 16who havethe officialrighttovotewereasked whetherof nottheywanted the lake. Referdumsarenotobligatory in NorthRhine– Westphalia,sothisdecision wasanextraordinary example of democraticpublic participation. On18June 2006,42%ofHamm’s inhabitants voted, whichwasahigh turn-out rate. Ofthese, 57%said ‘no’tothe lake. Thiscleardecision wasendorsed by Box4.2:Lake Lippe: Referendumona the towncouncil twodays later.Formoredetailsof the project,pleasesee the finalreport waterproject of the Interreg IIIB UrbanWaterprojectatwww.urban-water.org.

Politicalevent

The aim of the meeting on ‘Revitalising degraded Rhine riverbanks’ held in Mainzin February 2007 wastopresentthe results of the Rhine projectand discuss them within the context of the currentrequirements in politicaltermsand in termsof EU legislation forthe developmentof rivers and waterways.Over180participants,including the Presidentof the ICPR,Dr.Holzwarth, anumberof representativesof the GermanFederalWaterand Navigation Administration, various levelsof the NatureConservation Administration and otherauthoritiesaccepted the offer.The three thematicworkshopson the second day concerning the various areasof action torevitalisethe riverwereintensivelyused as forumsforthe exchange of knowledge and experiencewhichextended beyond the boundariesof responsibility.Atthe end of the event,acommuniquéwasdefined according tofollow-upactivities.

Figure4.16:StateMinisterMargitConradand Hubert Weinzierl, chairof the DBU Box4.3:Politicalevent

Communication and publicinvolvement235 In Heesseltsche Uiterwaarden,modified projectgoals(targetreduction of high waterlevel wasmodified from 0cmto8cmto5.5 cmto19cmand finallybackto5.5 cm) and the change of accompanying measuresresulted in aneed forpoliticaleffort.Thesechanges burdened the communication process withthe inhabitants and the publicregarding the Heesseltsche Uiterwaarden project.Inaddition, therewassignificantdistrust of the governmentdating from the time thatthe dikeswerestrengthened. Overcoming this attitude of ’whataretheygoing todowithour fields’ wasnoteasy.Furthermore, the above changesin policywerecounterproductive. Combined withseveralchangesin projectleaders overthe years,itresulted in poorcommunication and aneed foranintervention.

Inthe areaof Heesselt,agreatdealofeffort wasrequired in communication withthe inhabitants toremovethe distrust thatwasfeltwithrespecttoRijkswaterstaat.The people involved did notwanttostudytheoreticalalternatives,suchaspresented in the Initial Documentof the EIA.Theywanted onlytotalk about arealplaninwhichtheycould recognizetheirowninput and values.The compromiseplanforthe Heesseltsche Uiterwaarden floodplain satisfied theirwishes.

Lessonslearned: Flood prevention in Cologne

The intensiveworkonflood damage prevention in Cologne started in the 1990s underthe IRMA umbrellaand continued in Interreg IIIB in various projectpartnerships.Public awareness and involvementwerewhatthe SDF socialaction &communication working groupwasparticularlyinterested in when visiting the Hochwasserschutzzentrale Köln in 2005.

Amain taskofthe Hochwasserschutzzentrale Köln istoraiseawareness among the public (‘absolutesafety isnotpossible’)and toinitiateself-defenceataprivatelevel. • All information about risksisavailable viaInternetin flood maps,showing waterlevels atdifferentflood events. • People alsoreceiveinformation about risksbehind dikesasseepage, rising groundwateroreven bursting dikesormobile flood defencewallsarelatentrisksfor residents. • Transparencyisobligatory forpublicservicestoguarantee the functioning of the task forces.People need toknowand understand beforehand whatpolice, firebrigadesor emergencyservicesdo and howtheycansupport them.

The Hochwasserschutzzentrale Köln buildsupand supports networkstoenable residents tohelp themselvesand nottoblame publicservicesforeverything thathappens.Forthis reason, the InteressengemeinschaftKölnerAltstadt(NGO,localaction groupofresidents who liveand workinthe historiccentreclosetothe river)isactivelyinvolved in emergencyplansand politicaldecisions.Partnershipsarealsocreated withenergy suppliers orengineerconsultants toadviseand informhouseowners howtotake precautions. Thesepartnership approachesareexpanding and the Hochwasserschutzzentrale Köln is cooperating withotherregionsalong the Rhine and othercatchments (e.g. Elbe) toforma networkofNGO flood defencecommunities. Box4.4: Lessonslearned: Flood prevention in Cologne Formoreinformation pleasevisitwww.hochwasserinfo-koeln.de

Communication and publicinvolvement236 4

4.2Conclusionsand lessonslearned

The emphasisin thischapterwasplaced on the useofinformalinstruments within the public participation processesof the SDF project,asinformalinstruments reallymake the difference in suchprojects.The legalinformation dutiesareobligatory and thereisalmost no difference in theseprocedureswithin Europe. The informalinstruments arevoluntary and therefore depend on the ambition, the initiativeand finallythe action of responsible actors.

The useofinformalinstruments,especiallyin the projectpreparation phase(suchas participation orinformation events,etc.) dependsvery muchonsociety in anation or region. Inaddition, the style orviewof the projectleaderand the organisation isof equal importanceindetermining whetherand howinformalinstruments areused, aswell asthe kind of projectand the projectlocation.

The SDF partners experienced thatmorepublicparticipation in projectplanning and implementation isnecessary and bringsadvantagesin addition tothe legalstipulated participation processes.But insteadofdeveloping newmethods,existing communication toolsshould beapplied in aplanned and structured communication process.

SDF experiencesand recommendationstosetupasuccessfulparticipation process 1. Process preparation: The participation process should beplanned and well structured. The steering of the process must becontrolled atall timesbythe initiativetakerin order topreventthe riskofneworunforeseen actionsthatmightleadtoadelayin the whole process.

2.:Communication and division of tasks Involvementof the publicand/orstakeholders meansclearcommunication from the beginning. When working withadvisory orproject groups,theirdutiesand responsibilitiesshould bedefined atfirst,sothatno disappointmentorfrustration will ariseinalaterstage. Anewlydefined name cangive identity tothe groupand mightcreatesolidarity amongst the members.Successful planning projects need common aims.Thesemust beidentified and discussed within the groups.Keep afocus on localrelevantplanning activities,otherwisethe scope becomes too large and goesbeyond the scope of the personsinvolved. Information transferto the publicshould bewell balanced but nottoo technical.

3.Reliability and continuity: The initiativetakerneedsflexibility,politicalwill and openness tounexpected results and possible consequencesorchangeswithin the project.Itisvery importanttospeakwithone voice(one consistentand reliable contactperson) tothe public.Projectinitiators and competentauthoritiesshould sell theirprojectand should nottoargueinfrontof the public.Aneutraloranobjectiveand reliable chairperson can behelpfulinmeetingstofind constructiveand commonlyshared goals.

4. Dealing withprotest/opposition: The initiativetakershould take protest and opposition of the public/stakeholders seriouslyand should explain howthe discussed issueswill be furtherhandled. Furtherdiscussion and areassessmentof the protest issueswill be carried out and the results will becommunicated tothe public.Politiciansand the press always find protest and opposition itemsmost striking. Therefore, the responsible authoritiesshould ensurethatthe process iseffected carefullyand try toobtain positive feedbackontheirengagement.Thatisthe challenge.

5. Monitoring and Evaluation: The publicinvolvementshould becontinuous tomaintain relianceand credibility in the responsible bodies.Forfurtherplanning projects,itis helpfulforthe initiativetakerduring the courseofthe process tomonitorand evaluate the targetgroupsand the interested parties(start/end) and toillustratetheirpoints of vieworinterests.

Communication and publicinvolvement237 Outcome withregardtoadditionalparticipation The experiencesof the SDF activities,whichwereimplemented against the background of differentculturaland administrativehistory and presentdayattitudes,encourage the involvementof publicparticipation in planning and implementation processesin floodplain development.

Inanycase, publicparticipation particularlyrequirescreativesolutionsand notjust business asusual. The decision-makers of anorganisation havetoacknowledge the need for developmentof aneffectivepublicparticipation strategyand leavethe practicalside tothe scientificprojectleaders.

Often thereareconcernswithin organisationsthatplanand implementfloodplain projects thatthe participation process mightbetoo time and cost consuming. Inaddition, itisfeared thataparticipation process draws attention topotentialproblemsof the project.

Inanycase, implementing publicparticipation mayinfluenceplanning measuresin apositive aswell asnegativeway(Table 4.2). Moreover,implementing trueorreallyeffectivepublic participation (according tothe participation ladder)infloodplain planning projects isstill in its infancy.Withevery step upthe ladder,interaction between governmentand participants becomesmoreintense.

Positiveaspects Negativeaspects Betteracceptanceand agreementand Delayin projects/processes reduction of maintenancecosts (e.g. vandalism) Decreaseofcosts (e.g. reduction of Increaseofcosts duetounforeseen maintenancecosts duetovandalism) measuresormoreexpensivematerials within the implementation Knowledge-transfertopublicand Newadditionaltasksunforeseen atthe start integration of (local, regional) knowledge Legitimating projects and removing fear/ Non-satisfaction, disappointmentand protest among the public frustration Leanapproval/assessmentprocessesto Delay/disappointment preventcontradictionsand tochoosethe Table 4.2:Brief assessmentof public best option participation within the SDF project

The overall experienceinthe SDF projectshowed thatawell organised publicparticipation decreased the numberof objectionsconsiderablyand resulted in apositivelong-term relationship between the publicand the responsible authorities.Therefore, the useof informalinstruments iscertainlywothwile.

Communication and publicinvolvement238 4

Communication and publicinvolvement239 Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships240 2

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships241 Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships242

regarding the specificprojectlocation. Consequently,the shape of the floodplain, especially Mengede floodplain, isratherunusual. The planning approachfocused on acommon acceptanceofthe projectdevelopmentin general. Inastep-by-step process,the regional spatialplans,the localspatialplansand the technicalelaboration wereworked out in sucha waythatthe land could bepurchased bythe Emschergenossenschaft voluntarily(without expropriation). Thiswastaken asabasisforthe permission-granting process. Finally,the outline of the floodplain isacompromisethatminimisesnegativeecological impact,respects privateland ownership but enablesthe ecologicaldevelopmentof the river asfaraspossible.

Figure5.1: Emscherfloodplain

Incomparison, therearegenerallydifferentways topurchaseland in the caseofpublic construction worksin the Netherlands.

• Purchaseonavoluntary basisatmarketvalue, usuallythe commercialvalueas agriculturalland. Thismethod isgenerallyapplied if thereisno urgencytobuy the land and no compelling legalneed forthe publicauthority tobuy the land. • Purchaseonavoluntary basisatthe open marketvalue, but withapremiumto compensateforthe costs the ownerwill incur topurchaseland elsewhere. • Purchaseonavoluntary basisbut withfull compensation (the capitalvalue, loss of income and otherlosses). Thismethod isapplied in situationswherethe ultimatelegal instrumentof expropriation will beused. Expropriation involvestwosteps. -The administrativeprocedure, whichconcludeswithadecision bythe Crown(the highest decision-making bodyin the Netherlands)establishing preciselywhichland

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships244 5

istobeexpropriated. Negotiationsareconducted withthe ownerduring thisphase, sincethe governmentisobliged toshowthatithasdone everything in its powerto reachanamicable settlementwiththe owner. -The judicialprocedure, whichconcludeswitharuling bythe court thatcanbe enforced withcoercivemeasures,ifnecessary. • Purchaseonthe basisof ajudicialexpropriation order.The owneralsoreceivesfull compensation in thiscase.

The option of property exchange isfrequentlyemployed in the Netherlands.The governmentpurchasesland outside the areawherethe measurehastobeimplemented and exchangesthisland forthe land within the areawherethe measureistobeimplemented. The areaof land tobeexchanged maybesmall, but itcanalsobelarge asin the caseof land developmentprojects.

Inthe projectsiteat Lexkesveer ,itwasdiscovered thatthe expropriation acthasrestricted possibilities.Among others,itprovidesthe possibility of expropriation but onlyin the caseof implementation of safety against floodsand notin the caseofnaturedevelopment. Eventually,the planned projecthadtobeadapted asone landownerrefused tocooperate. Expropriation wasnotasolution asthe areaconcerned wasplanned fornature development. Additionally,restricted appropriation mayinvolveconsiderable risksforthe project,asthe projectand its measurements arepresented asawhole in the proceedings.The permits applied forarebased on anintegrated project.Anappealofinterested partiesagainst apart of the projectisconsidered anappealagainst the entireproject.Inthe Lexkesveerproject, the riskofhaving onlyscattered parcelsremained presentduring the planning phaseand during the preparation of the implementation. The planhadtobeadapted toavoid these risksand newpermits hadtobeapplied for.Thisled toadelayof the project implementation.

The experiencesgained withland acquisition atthe Hondsbroeksche Pleij projectwere somewhatdifferent.Inordertorelocatethe dike and toconstructthe high-waterchannel, it wasfirst necessary toacquirethe required plots of land. The areaconcerned includesa composting plantand three houses.Inordertocreatemoreroom forthe river,the land could havebeen acquired bymeansof compulsory purchase. Inanyevent,thiswould have been the finaloption. First,anamicable settlementwasexplored. The public-oriented approachwassuccessfuland the land purchasesweresettled bymutualagreement.The opportunity torelocatethe composting plantwascrucial. The relocation of the people living in the areaforgenerationsrequired balanced compensation offers.Thisall took placeunder the strictregulationsof the regionalauthoritiesand taking accountof the arguments of environmentalorganisations.Inthe end, following intensivecommunication withthe plant and houseowners,the environmentalists and the authority,abalanced regionalconcept could bedefined.

Conclusionsand lessonslearned

The need forland acquisition should bediscussed withbothprivateand publicpartners in ordertoobtain asupported solution. The following recommendationsaremade. • Earlycontacting: in ordertogain publicsupport itisdesirable tocontactstakeholders atavery earlystage of the project.Theirwishesand needscanbediscussed in order toacquireasupported solution. • Personalapproach: apersonalapproachtolandowners ishighlyrecommended, as projectmeasuresmaybeplanned on privateproperty. • Need forprivatemanagement:land acquisition should beconsidered in relation tothe need and opportunity forprivatemanagementafterimplementation of the project. • Possibilitiesforexchange of land: creation of possibilitiesforland exchange mayhelp considerablyin the process of land acquisition.

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships245 5.2Tendering procedure

Normally,the responsible authoritiesarenotable toimplementaprojectwithout contracting additionalcompanies.Thisisespeciallytrueforconstruction worksin the areaowned bythe government.Therefore, the authoritiesareobliged tofollowaregulated tendering proceduretocontractcompaniesforcertain tasksof the project.Asexperienced within the frameworkofSDF,therearedifferentproceduresalong the Rhine forselecting appropriate implementing partners and defining the tasksrequired.

Inthe Netherlands ,therearevarious typesof contracts forconstruction work. The following typeswill bediscussed: • Traditionalcontracts. • Integrated contracts. • Public-privatepartnerships. • Design and construction contracts.

Traditionally ,the most common method isthatthe principalcommissionsaconsultantto preparethe design and then outsourcethe worktoacontractor.Withthistype of contract, the risksaredivided moreevenlybetween the principaland the contractorthaninaregular contract.The principalprovidesthe datafrom the soil surveytothe contractor,whichcan then interpretthem itself and, if necessary,verifythem in situ.The contractorcanthen use the datatodrawupits ownworking planand make the most appropriatearrangements for selling the soil. The soil isthereforethe contractor’sresponsibility and isnotcharged perm 3 . The principalthereforerunsno riskifthe salesaredisappointing orthe quality orquantity of the soil ispoorerthanexpected, nordoesitprofitfrom anywindfalls.

The contractorcanclaim additionalcosts,afterapprovalofthe principal, onlyin the caseof predetermined exceptionalrisks.Ifthe contractoralsohadtobearthoserisks,the costs would beincorporated in the contractprice, whichwould make the worktoo expensive. Consequently,withthismethod arelativelylarge projectorganisation isrequired tosupervise the process and ensurethatthe finalproductcanbedelivered.

Politicalpressureinthe Netherlandshasled toamovementtocut backeven furtheron governmentservices.One wayof doing thisistodelegatetasksrelating tothe preparation and execution of assignments.The currentvogueistoinvolvethe marketmoreinthe preparation and execution of projects.One of the optionsin thiscontext istouse integrated contracts,wherethe drafting of the plansand the execution of the workaremoreorless carried out byasingle contractor.Withthistype of contract,the principal’s taskisto formulatethe generalrequirements forthe projectasawhole and the quality standardsthat the completed projectmust meet.Ifsuchcontracts areput out totender,itistherefore crucialtobeextremelyclearand unequivocalwhen evaluating the offers.Figure5.1 shows the consequencesforthe principaland the contractor.Inthe caseofatraditionalcontract, the specificationsaredescribed in precisedetail sothe contractorhaslittle influenceonthe ultimateconstruction. The principalthereforebears the risksassociated withthe preparation of the specifications.The situation ispreciselythe oppositewithan integrated contract .A public-privatepartnership (PPP) isthereforesimplyatype of integrated contract.

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships246 Freedom of choice

Principal Contractor

Specifications IC The design &constructprocedure(D&C)wasapplied forthe tendering of the adjustable weirin the Hondsbroeksche Pleij. Thismeansthatthe competentauthority sets onlythe conditionsand the functionalcriteria,whichapplyequallytoall parties.The market determinesthe finaldesign and construction. Thisprinciple createsmoreflexibility on the market,whichmust finallyresultin acost reduction of the implemented work. Rijkswaterstaatawardsthe contracttothe best offerand monitors the implementation of the work.

Advantagesof aD&C contract

• The construction industry’sknow-how,and in particularempiricalknowledge whichis notdocumented forcommercialreasons,isapplied during the design phaseofthe project.However,thisisonlytrueinthoseinstanceswhereitistothe marketparties’ advantage. • During the tendering procedure, marketactors cancarry out theirownresearchand develop smart concepts forthe work. Given the competition, the principalcanbenefit economicallyfrom theseconcepts during the tendering process. • Ifthe marketiscapable of executing aD&C contractindependently,expertlyand with adequatemanagementof the risks,the principalisrelieved of the responsibility and it mayreducethe need forassessmentbythe principal.

Disadvantagesof aD&C contract

• Inviewof theircommercialinterests,marketpartiesarenotinclined toshareall their know-howwiththe principal. Theywill shareinformation onlyif itistotheiradvantage todoso. Consequently,the principalmayreceiveadistorted impression of whatis actuallypossible. • The principalisless closelyinvolved in the actualimplementation and knows less about the economicand commercialcosts of development,construction and future management.The margin of errorin the cost estimatesbecomesfargreater. • The maximumriskforthe contractoristhe contractprice. The principalbears the remaining risk. Thatresidualriskisoften very greatin projects involving the construction of primary damsand otherwaterworks,especiallyif adike bursts,forexample. Commercialplayers still choosetoofferthe minimumintermsof the marginsforquality specified in the contractand tomaximiseprofits. • Therewill benorealinnovation, whichwould benefitthe principal, aslong as commercialplayers,including suppliers,feel itwould hurt theirmarketposition.

Ingeneral, therearedifferencesin the tendering procedureinGermanyin comparison tothe Dutchdesign and contractsystem.

Functionalinvitationstobids .Invitationstobid withperformanceprogramme areonlyused in Germanyin exceptionalcasesand afterevaluation of the practicability.Forexample, if onlyafewconstruction companieshavethe know-howforacertain type of structure, such asthe construction of large bridgesovervalleys,and if independentengineering consultants canonlypartiallycoverthe specialknowledge required.

But in most cases–including flood protection –the engineering officeselaboratedetailed performanceplansand specification texts withregardtoaplanapprovalprocedure. For theseprojects,publictendering isusuallyeffected. Thisensuresthatquality standardsand marginalengineering conditionsaremet.The construction companymust calculateeach partialservice(item), of whichtheremightbehundredsduring alarge project,and itmust guarantee thatitcanperformthe workatthe stated prices.Thisensuresthatthe structureis constructed in accordancewiththe standardsand planand thattherewill notbeany changestoits construction. The performanceofworkismeticulouslymonitored by engineering offices–the clients’ trusted engineers –within the context of the supervision of

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships248 5

the construction. Besidesthe geo-technicalcontrolswhichcanbedemanded from the construction contractor,the clients will haveadditionalthird-party controlsperformed in ordertoensurethatthe required materialcharacteristicsand the installation conditionsare observed in the earthwork. The construction contractors aremostlyallowed tosubmitanalternativebid forthe completestructureorforparts thereof within the scope of specialsuggestionsasdefined by design and contract.But in suchacase, the specificationsand the contractconditionssetout bythe clientserveasthe basisforthe quality and the workmanship, and the responsibility and the liability pass tothe construction contractor.Specialsuggestionsdo nothavetobe accepted. Theyarecloselyreviewed fortheirefficiencyand quality within the context of the awardprocedure.

Incomparison tothe Dutchdesign and contractsystem, the invitationstobid arepre- contractualprocedures.The design and contractproceduredescribesthe desired resultof a project,while aninvitation tobid aimstodefine the desired results of aproject.

Conclusionsand lessonslearned

The policyon tendering in the Netherlandsisin development.Thereisashifttowards contracting the privatesectorbothmoreand earlier.The following aspects areofinterest.

• Thereisapoliticaldesiretocontinuewithinnovativeconstructing. Thismaybedesign and construct,but furtherpossibilitiesarebeing applied, like contracting executive partners during the planning phase.

• Innovativecontracting will beofinfluenceonpublicorganisations.Therewill bea shifttowardsamorespecialised and professionalprojectmanagementasprojects will belargerand will alsoextend beyond the execution phase. Boththe planning phase and managementphasemaybeincluded in the contract.

• Moreexperienceisneeded and will gained withregardtoinnovativecontracting. Lessonslearned will beapplied in future.

• Asaconsequence, therewill beashifttowardsanincreaseofscale on the private market.Smallercompanieswill betaken overbybiggerprofessionalcompanies.The increaseofscale hascaused Dutchpoliticianstoexpress theirconcernabout the loss of smallercompanies.Furtherattention will bepaid tothisconcern.

• Germanpolicy,however,supports smallercompanies,asmillionsof jobsand alarge taxyield areinvolved. Forflood protection projects,detailed specification texts are usuallyelaborated byengineering bureaus and aretendered publicly.D&C isan exception.

5.3Public-privatepartnership in waterprojects

Public-privatepartnership meansacooperation of publicauthoritiesand the privatesectorin whichaproject(e.g. infrastructureprojects orproviding servicesforthe public)is implemented based on adivision of tasksand risks.All partiesinvolved keep theirown identity and responsibility.The resultof aPPP hasadded value, meaning the finalproductis of ahigherquality.However,itwascompleted forthe same amountof moneyoranagreed quality wasreached forless money.Thereareadvantagesforbothparties.Forthe private sector,newchancesdevelop on agrowing marketand itcancontributetoaninteresting projectfrom acommercialpointof view.The planning and implementation canbe influenced. The publicauthority canimplementcommunity objectivesand createahigher quality perspectiveand areduction of costs.

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships249 PPP arrangements,whichtypicallyinvolvecomplexlegaland financialarrangements,have been developed in severalareasof the publicsectorand arewidelyused within the EU.This isparticularlythe casefortransport,publichealth, publicsafety,wastemanagementand waterdistribution. The Pof partnership ismost importantin the caseofPPPsin regionaldevelopment.The integralscope of the projectisguaranteed bythismixtureofpartiesand interests.But the PPP isnotanobjectiveinitself;itisaninstrumenttocompletebetterprojects.Inthe 1980s and 1990s,the traditionalwayof projectimplementation wastochooseone contract partnerand togiveall the workinthatregion/areatothatpartner.Thisworking method wasnotvery transparentand did notinvolvecompetition, meaning high risksand not necessarilyleading tothe best result.

Therefore, the EU introduced atreaty in ordertoincreasecompetitiveness and transparency. But itshould beclearthatthisshould notresultin arejection of all good initiativesand plans of privatepartiesin whichnocompletion withpublicauthoritiescanbeexpected. The existing EU Guidelinesforconcession of worksand servicesarevery complex,and although thosehavebeen published manyyears ago, the contents arenotcleartoevery partner within aPPP.The interpretation of privatecompaniesdiffers from thatof the publicsector.In dailypractise, thereappears tobeagreyareawhichcanbeinterpreted and implemented differently.The publicauthoritiesarevery interested in howtodealwithPPP within regional developmentprojects.The EU Commission adopted the Green Paperon PublicPrivate Partnershipsand Community Lawon PublicContracts and Concessionson 30 April 2004 (IP/04/593).

Concerning the successfulimplementation of PPPs,housing projects arethe most powerful projects.Inthe caseofwaterand/orfloodplain projects,the first problem isthatthereis often no realdeadline. Anoption mightbetodivide projects in phases,sothatthe control on implementation mightbehandled better.The second problem isthatin certain projects in aruralarea,onlyone privatepartnerisinvolved/interested and thismeansthatno competition ispossible in accordancewiththe rulesof PPP.All contracts in whichapublic bodyawardsworkinvolving aneconomicactivity toathirdparty,whethercovered by secondary legislation ornot,must beexamined in the lightof the rulesand principlesof the EC Treaty,inparticulartransparency,equaltreatment,proportionality and mutual recognition.

Especiallyin urban-ruralcontactzones,the large numberof interests and partiesinvolved createsvery complexsituations.Onthe publicside, differentbranchesand layers of governmentall develop theirownnon-integrated policyplanswithvery often ashortage of budgettoimplementthem. Onthe privateside, weusuallysee avariety of private landowners and otherinterested parties,eachwiththeirowngoals,plansand ideas.Inmany situations,bothsideshaveused every opportunity toacquireland in the areastobe developed, therebycreating deadlocksituationsin whichcompeting partieseventuallycause astandstill in furtherdevelopment.Insituationslike that,PPP canofferanewapproachin whichformercompetitors become partners.InorderforPPP tobesuccessful, itisessential tounderstand thattheremust beadded valueinthe cooperation foreachindividualparty involved. The onlysensible reason whyeachpotentialpartnershould wanttoparticipateina PPP istobebetteroffwiththanwithout it.The added valueusuallyconsists of one of three factors.

• Partners canreachtheirrespectivegoalsquicker. • The partnership results in betterquality forthe same money. • Partners achievethe same quality forless money.

Inshort:tobesuccessful, PPP should generatequicker,betterorcheaperresults.

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships250 5

WhatisPPP? The traditionalwayof completing publicconstruction and developmentprojects usually starts withapublicplanand apublicbudget.Subsequently,the planiscarried out byone ormoreprivatecontractors,who will usuallyhaveacquired theircontracts in some formof open competition. Inthiscasetoo, bothpublicand privatepartiesareinvolved, but this traditionalmethod isnotwhatisgenerallymeantbyPPP. Underthe currentdefinition, PPP projects answertoatleast the following characteristics.

• Publicand privatepartners eachwanttoachievetheirowngoalsand objectives,but havedecided toimplementthe projectin full together.

• The participating partieseachrecognisethe mutualbenefits theyderivefrom the cooperation (quicker,better,cheaper…).

• Partners havereached agreementon howtosharethe profits and risksinvolved in the project.

• All aspects (financial, legal, etc.) of the agreed partnership arelaid downincontracts (thisisusuallyavery complicated and time consuming job,but absolutelynecessary Box5.1: WhatisPPP? forthe success of the partnership).

Howtomust aPPP beeffected in areadevelopment? Inordertoimplementaprojectin cooperation withprivatepartners,the following steps will havetobetaken bypublicparties.

• First thingsfirst:make surethatall publicpartiesand layers of governmentinvolved agree upon the publicgoals.Theseshould beformalised in apublicagreementsigned byall parties.

• Determine whichprivatepersonsorcompanieshaveexisting interests in the areaand whichpartiesmighthaveapotentialinterest in the planned development.Private partiesareinformallyconsulted on this.

• Selectprivatepartners,taking intoaccountthe EU and nationalregulationson state-aid and open competition. Itisin the interest of bothpublicand privatepartners todothismeticulouslytopreventdelayand otherproblemsatthe laterstagesof the project.

• Drawupajointplan, including all interests involved, going through arepetitive process of designing/redesigning and calculating/recalculating.

• Sign contracts in whichagreements on all aspects of the plan(intended results, financing, time planning, distribution of costs,benefits and risks,etc.) areincluded.

• Proceed stepwiseduring the entirePPP process.Generally,every single step is formalised in agreements like asigned policyagreementbetween publicparties,a declaration of intentbetween publicand privatepartners,apublic-privateagreement Box5.2:HowtoeffectPPP in area of cooperation, etc.Ateachstage, make sureall partiesconcerned arereadytotake development the next step.

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships251 Do’s and Don’ts in PPP Forpublicpartiesinterested in implementing aprojecttogetherwithprivatepartners,itis importanttobeawareofsome criticalsuccess factors foraPPP. • Clearlydetermine your owngoalsand beopen about them tobothprivateand other publicpartners. • Make suretoreachpublicagreementfirst,beforeconsulting potentialprivate partners.(Notethatthisagreementshould beconfined togoalsand objectivesatthis stage. Howtoachievethem isamatterthatshould bedealtwithlaterand together withthe privatepartners,aftertheyhavehadachancetomake cleartheirown objectives). • Beawareofpublicaccountability and the democraticprocess involved. Thiscanbe quitetime consuming and should thereforebeclearlyexplained toprivatepartners. • Inordertofacilitatethe decision-making process on the publicside, appointapolitical manageratthe most suitable level of governmentforagiven project. • Beawareofculturaldifferencesbetween publicand privatepartners and discuss those withthe partiesconcerned. • Invest in relationshipsand mutualtrust. • Make risk-managementacontinuous process.Long-termprojects havetodealwith ongoing changesin context (political, financial, etc.) whichbring about changing risks Box5.3:Do’s and Don’ts in PPP thathavetobedealtwith.

PPP in the Netherlands Inthe Netherlands,manyministrieshavearegionalofficeoradvisory bureauon PPP implementation. The Ministry of Finance, Rijkswaterstaat ,StateForestry Serviceand the Ministry of EconomicAffairs havesimilarofficesasthe GovernmentalServicesof Land and WaterManagementbeing apart of the Ministry of Agriculture, Natureand Food Quality. The advisors of the ministriesmaybedescribed asbeing generalists,the morespecialised people canbefound on the market.Inthe Netherlands,PPP hasbecome quite fashionable in the past years,but privatepartnershipsareeven morefavoured. Therefore, itisvery importantthatagreementbetween the publicbodiesinvolved isreached atfirst. Onlyafterhaving reached thispublicagreementcanprivateinterests beassessed. The selection of privatepartners hasbecome very complicated withthe introduction of the EU legalaspects (EU rules). The EU rulesarebased on Europeancompetition and thiscan sometimesdelaynationalimplementation. Potentiallyinteresting projects foraPPP are found within the red forgreen sector,but opportunitiesalsoexist in the caseofrecreation, waterand mineralextraction sectors.PPP isappropriateforprojects combining spatial Box5.4: PPP in the Netherlands developments and investments.

One example of aDutchPPP in SDF isthe BemmelseWaard project.Itstarted witha managementplanin2001. Thisplanwaswritten byDLG (Dienst Landelijk Gebied) in cooperation withapublicprojectgroup(ProvinceofGelderland, Municipality of Lingewaard, WaterBoardRivierenland, the StateForestry Service (Staatsbosbeheer) , Rijkswaterstaat,Commission forLand ManagementOoijpolder). The projectareaas described in the managementplancovered the propertiesof twoprivateparties, Wienerbergerand DOS.Toimplementthe plan, cooperation withthe twoprivatepartiesin the BemmelseWaardappeared tobeunavoidable asbothprivatepartiesalsohadproperty asaconcession forclayand sand extraction.

Afterinvestigationsof the permits and concessions,DLG concluded thatthe impactof the concession and permits made itnecessary forDLG tocooperatewiththe privatepartners. Animportantissuewasthatopen tendering would bevery expensive, asthe property, including the concession forextraction of sand and clay,hadtobeboughtfrom bothparties. Therefore, DLG decided tostart the negotiationswiththe privatepartners.Internal documents werewritten and agreed beforenegotiationsstarted. Negotiationswithbothprivatepartiesstarted in 2002 afteraletterof intentwassigned. The next step wastoagree on aprocess plantoreachthe common goal: the implementation of

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships252 5

the BemmelseWaardmanagementplan. Beforethe negotiationsstarted, one of the private partners,DOS,hadalreadydeveloped its ownmanagement/developmentplan. Thisplan appeared tobeanimportantinput forthe start of the negotiations,becauseitclarified the privateinterests.Wienerbergerwanted the brickfactory tocontinueand DOS wanted an efficientdevelopmentof the naturalmaterials.

Afteragreementon the interests of the three parties,ajointmanagementplanwas implemented. Ittook ayeartoreachagreementon the jointmanagementplan. Thisyear wasalsonecessary forDLG togetsupport from the publicprojectgroup. DLG made cost estimatesand asked the privatepartiesDOS and Wienerbergertotenderforthe work. They made theirowncost estimates,whichhavebeen assessed byDLG.

Newnegotiationsabout the details,contentand financing of the planstarted. From that time, adesign and financediscussion started in combination withthe developmentof a contract.Ittook about sixmonthstoagree on the financialand contractualaspects.In January 2006 the contractwassigned.

Figure5.4: Interests of publicand privatepartners atBemmelseWaard

Contentof the PPP Results of the negotiations: • Jointmanagementplan. • Adjustmentof existing permits and rights. • Managementof the totalareaof 400 ha. • Transactionsof propertiesbetween partners toenlarge the brickfactory areaand to completeconnectionsbetween the natureareas. • Efficientexploitation of naturalmaterials.

The contractissplitupin4main parts: • Intention tocooperate. • Preparation and implementation of the planwill beeffected byDOS. • Transaction of propertiesforall parties. • Some specialagreements between privatepartners.

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships253 The contractin figures: • About 280hatotalareanature. • 159 hanewnaturecombined withexisting nature. • 30 hatransaction of properties. • Costs forexecution EUR 1,600,000. • Excavation 2,000,000 m 3 : -m3 sand forindustrialpurposes; -600,000 m 3 sand forinfrastructuralpurposes; -45,000 m 3 clayforbrickfactory.

The coming years: • 1.5 yearpreparation (permits)uptomid-2007. • 2years implementation uptolate2009. • 2010projectcompleted.

The implementation of the BemmelseWaardprojectappeared onlypossible through cooperation withprivatepartners.The PPP construction forthe BemmelseWaardresults in a cheaperimplementation of the project,asproperty and rights do nothavetobebought.In addition, itmaybeargued thatthe projectwill becompleted earlierand withahigher quality thatif traditionaltendering hadbeen used.

The public-privateagreementin the LohrwardtPolder projectconsists of the following elements.Afterseveralyears of preliminary investigations(e.g. Lohrwardt-ReesRhine Floodplain Concept,1990)and planning considerations,ajointagreementregarding the relocation of the dike and Lohrwardtsummerpolderwasconcluded between Deichschau Haffen-Mehr ,whichisnow Deichverband Bislich-Landesgrenze ,the stateofNorthRhine- Westphalia,Rees,and the Hülskenscompanyon 28January 1998. Thisagreementsets out the requirementtoupgrade/relocatethe dike and itarrangesthe courseofthe dike and the financialaspects.Besidesthe financing arrangements,the specialaspectworthmentioning withregardtothisagreementisthe cooperation between the Deichverband and the Hülskensgravel mining company.The Reckerfeld open-pitmining areasouthofthe LohrwardtPolder,whichisrunbyHülskens,borders the planning area(compareFigure5.5).

Figure5.5: LohrwardtPolder,Recker- feld neighbouring open-pitmining area

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships254 5

The Reckerfeld areawill shortlybeexcavated on the basisof the planapprovalprocedureof the ArnsbergRegionalGovernment,Department8Mining and EnergyIndustriesin North Rhine-Westphaliaof 7June 2001(transaction number:81.05.2-3-7)asopen-mining area Reckerfeld byHülskens,based in Wesel (construction of the ring dike 2006-2007).

Duetothe factthatthe damming-upsituation of thissection of the dike haschanged during the excavation in comparison tothe main dike situation, the following installation areasof thisdike section must beadjusted when the Reckerfeld excavation iscompleted (compare Figure5.6).

The filterbodyon the land side, whichishighlypermeable and servesasasuperimposed loaddike shoulderof gravel sand/filtergravel, will berelocated tothe otherside of the dike. Ifthereareinsufficientquantities,additionalquantitieswill bedelivered.

The dike body’stop soil covering and the rounding of the dike’s crest will beeffected, if necessary.Anymissing quantitieswill besupplied.

Duetothe completion and recultivation of Reckerfeld, itwill notbepossible toperformall construction processesforLohrwardtPolderatthe same time and/orgradually.Thatmeans thatonlythe workincluded in planning sections2and 3canbeperformed in the time expected until completion of the Reckerfeld excavation and/orclosing of the main dike and relocation of the ring dike (estimated time until approximately2015).

Figure5.6:PolderLohrwardt, cross-section of open-pitmining area Reckerfeld, during mining (blue), after completion (red)

The planapprovalprocedureofthe open-mining areaReckerfeld included marginal conditionsregarding to:

• The filling height. • The required banking of the main dike especiallyin the areasof the filled site. • The dike foundation of the futuredike alignment. • The required stability concerning the quality of the prefilling and the construction materialsforthe ring dike.

Theseconditionswereallowed according tothe established rulesof techniqueforthe further planning of the Lohrwardtdike relocation.

The twoexamplesof the PPP procedureinthe SDF projectwerestarted and agreed on the basisof the formerEU publicprocurementrules.Inlate2005, the EU made theseEU public procurementrulesmorespecificconcerning the tendering procedureforthe implementation of works.Recently(February 2008), the EU adopted the communication guidancedocument in whichthe EC rulesareexplained on howtocomplywiththe selection of privatepartners foraPPP.Inpractice, thismeansthatthe process tosetupaPPP in waterprojects mightbe moredifficultormoretime consuming in future. However,thisdependson the natureofthe taskand whetherapubliccontractoraconcession isinvolved.

Land acquisition, tendering proceduresand public-privatepartnerships255 Transnationalcooperation 256 2

Transnationalcooperation 257 Transnationalcooperation 258

6.2Howwascooperation effected?

The SDF projecthasworked on anintegrated approachinthe Rhine catchmentand has implemented various flood alleviation measures.Asaresultof the project,cohesion in the Rhine catchmentwasachieved between Germanyand the Netherlandsand the German federalstates (Länder) .The knowledge exchange and mutuallearning hasreduced the implementation costs (in the Hondsbroeksche Pleij project,forinstance) considerably,and furthermore, the projectacted asacatalyst and boosted decision making in the partner organisation and surroundings,e.g. speeding upprocesseslike approvaland budgeting of pilotprojects.

Astrong bond developed between the partners during the frequentmeetingsof the steering group, transnationalpartnergroupmeetingsand the working groupmeetings.The transnationalcooperation will notend when the SDF projectfinishes.Itwill beextended withsome of the partners in Interreg IVB projects.

6.3Cooperation withInterreg IIIB projects

The InternationalConferenceonFlood RiskManagementand MultifunctionalLand Usein RiverCatchments in Mainzin 2005, whichwasjointlyorganised bythe SDF projectand the INTERREG IIIB NorthWest Europe JointTechnicalSecretariat,hadbroughttogether170 waterexperts from 10Europeancountries.The results weresummarised in the Mainz Declaration, in whichpoliticiansemphasised the importanceofadopting anintegrated and transnationalapproachtothe problem of flooding.

Acooperation agreementwassigned between the SDF projectand the NOFDP projectin whichbothEU-funded projects benefited from one another.The SDF EmmericherWard planning projectwasused totest the hydro-ecologicalmodel developed in the NOFDP project.The model output on floodplain vegetation patternsranked planning alternativesof the NABU in Kranenburgtorehabilitatethe floodplain area.

Acooperation atcatchmentlevel isquitetime consuming and dependson regularmeetings. Aplatform(ornetwork) would bevaluable toguarantee the furtherexchange and transfer of knowledge/experiencesgained within NW Europe.

Figure6.2:The panel members discuss the MainzDeclaration

Transnationalcooperation 260 6

6.4 Common challengesand benefits of transnationalpartnerships

Common challenges • Partnershipstake time and dedication todevelop. • Identifying the most appropriatetransnationalpartners isatime consuming. • Negotiating acommon transnationalworkprogramme withpotential. • Working in partnership isademanding business thatrequiresflexibility and willingness tocompromise, in addition topropermethodsforwork, documentation and monitoring. • The process usesupsignificantfinancialand humanresources. • Itinvolvestaking risksif creativeand innovativeresults aretobeachieved. • Transnationalworkmakesnewdemandson staff and requiresnewskillsand the ability toworkwithcultural, context and language differences. • Successfultransnationalpartnershipsrequirecontinuous monitoring and ongoing evaluation. • Intellectualproperty rights. • Difficultieswithchanging partners in the courseofcooperation. • The continuity of staff from design toprojectimplementation. Everything should be done toensurethatcorestaff remainsorisatleast available asareferenceforthe benefitof the work.

EU benefits • Flood alleviation will become moreand moreimportantin the futureduetothe expected climatechange accompanied byanincreaseinrainfall. The denselypopulated rivercatchments havetofind sustainable solutions.Areservation of sufficientfloodplain areasiswise, asnationalprogrammesin manyEU countriesarealreadydemonstrating. • Anintegrated approachinEuropeanrivercatchments and agood mixof specialists (suchascivil engineers,spatialplanners,environmentalists and legalexperts)isa favourable instrumentformutuallearning and achievescost efficiencythroughout borders. • NewMemberStatescanlearnfrom the experiencesgained and canattempttoreserve spacealong theirrivers and thereforeavoid creating problemssimilartothosethat occurred in WesternEurope in the past decade.

Benefits toorganisations–strategicand long term • Participating in Europeannetworksand building contacts in otherMemberStatesopen uppossibilitiesforfuturecooperation and add aEuropeandimension toaworkplan. • Increasesawareness and understanding of relevantEuropeanpolicydevelopments.

Benefits toorganisations–operationaland short term • Allows accessing newideasand sharing and discussing individualideasin awider context. • Encouragesusing internationalexperienceand expertisetotest and improveexisting courses,materialsand methods,and todevelop newproducts. • Providesanextended choiceofnewbusiness partners,politicalallies,and technical collaborators. • Facilitatesacquiring newskillsand competences. • Enablesexperimenting in areasof common interest and enhancing mutualbusiness opportunities.

Benefits forindividualparticipants • Extendspersonalexperience, language, communication and otherskillsand offers a widerEuropeanperspective. • Extendssourcesof information and contacts. • Providesawareness and understanding of the strengthsand weaknessesof national employmentpoliciesand learning systems. • Givesimproved self-awareness and growthinself-esteem and self-confidence.

Transnationalcooperation 261 6.5 Follow-upofSDF transnationalcooperation activities

The SDF partners recognised thatchangesin managementpracticeand publicperception arelong-termissues.The partners alsoacknowledged the need tocontinuethistype of support beyond the end of the SDF projectin ordertoconsolidateachievements and secure long-termbenefits.The Interreg IVB programme offers opportunitiesand challengesto continuethistransnationalcooperation atEuropeanlevel. Transferof knowledge and experiencesof the SDF projecttorivercatchments in otherregionsin Europe would then be anopportunity.

The SDF projectextended the partnership withpartners from France (Institution Interdépartementale desBarrages-Réservoirs duBassin de laSeine),United Kingdom (EnvironmentAgency)and Ireland (OfficeofPublicWorks). The extended partnership organised workshopstodevelop projectideasand prepareprojectproposalsforsubmission tothe North-West Europe (NWE)Interreg IVB programme. The developmentof projectproposalswassupported bythe NWE Interreg IIIB programme secretariatin Lille (France) byproviding additionalfunding (seed money).

Twoprojectproposalshavebeen submitted tothe NWE Interreg IVB programme secretariat. The projectproposalswereapproved atthe end 2007 and arenowin operation.

The following twoprojects areinvolved.

1. AdaptiveLand UseforFlood Alleviation (ALFA) The generalaim of the ALFAprojectistoprotectthe North-West Europe region against the effects of flooding duetoclimatechanges.Thiswill beeffected in the projectbycreating newcapacity forstorage ordischarge of peakfloodswithin rivercatchments.Forexample, newfloodplainswill becreated in areasthathavenotbeen flooded recently.The need for the creation of newcapacity forwaterstorage ordischarge reflects the impactof climate change.

The objectivesof the projectare: • Todevelop and implementtechnicalsolutions related tothe creation of newcapacity forwaterstorage ordischarge. • Toraiseawareness and increasesolidarity between and within upstreamand downstreamareaswithin rivercatchments in Europe. The projectwill focus on adaptation/intervention in one areatoprotectanothermorevulnerable (in economical, socialand/orecologicalperspective) area.The lattercanbeeitheranurbanorarural area,situated upordownstreamofthe intervention area. • Tooptimisethe combination of functions in the targetareasbypreserving the current function and developing desirable and suitable newfunctions,e.g. natureand recreation.

The workiscarried out in differentEuropeancatchments,but the challengesarethe same in all countries.The following catchments areinvolved: RiverMeuse(The Netherlands), River Rhine and Emscher(Germany), RiverEden (United Kingdom), RiverSeine (France), and the Kleine Nete(Belgium). Transnationalcooperation aspects include the following. • All partners areimplementing actionsthatarepart of largernationalschemes. • Theseschemesareframeworksforthe definition of concreteprojects. • Bothschemesand projects within the schemesaredynamic. • Knowledge and experienceswill beshared and results tangiblytransferred intothe largernationalschemes.

Transnationalcooperation 262 6

Figure6.3:Signing of the Partnership Agreementbythe ALFASteering GroupMembers

2.Flood ResilienCity project(FRC) The generalprojectaim istointegratethe increasing demand formorehousesand other buildingswiththe increasing need formoreand betterflood riskmanagementmeasuresin North-West Europeancitiesalong rivers. The objectivestoachievethataim areasfollows.

1. Awareness:Toenhancethe awareness and engagementin all aspects of flood risk and the meansof managing itat: • policylevel (politicians/decision makers); • among professionals(of the involved authoritiesand elsewhere);and • atpubliclevel (people, companies,developers,insurancecompanies). 2.Avoidance: Tolimitflood damage and easerecovery byplanning and adapting buildings,infrastructure, surfacesand economicactivitiesand encouraging individualsand institutionstobecome moreresilient. 3.Alleviation: Toreduceflood riskbyimplementing physical, technical, non-structural and proceduralmeasuresforthe managementof watersystems. 4. Assistance: Toprovide support torecovery processesand toengage and build capacity in communitiespriorto, during and afterflood events 5. Strategyand capacity:Todevelop the capacity toengage in the processesabove. toadapttoand manage flood riskbyintegrating the activitiesassociated with objectives1-4.

The projectwants toeffectastructuralchange in the mindsetof politicians,professionals and publicin Brussels,Leuven, Mainz,Paris,Orléans,Dublin, Nijmegen and Bradford. That change should meanthatall thoseinvolved recognisethe importanceofaddressing all four ‘A’s in theirpoliciestoachievesustainable flood riskmanagement.Moreover,theyshould recognisethatlocation-specificapplication of eachofthe four ‘A’s delivers morepolicy optionstofacilitatenewurbandevelopmentplans.

Transnationalcooperation will make itpossible foreachcity tocompareitself withother NWE cities,notonlyatthe technology-oriented professionallevel, but even moreimportant alsoatthe levelsof politicaldecision makers and non-structuralresponses.Thisfive-year cooperation will resultin bettersolutionsand greaterawareness,capacity and engagement in flood management.Itwill benecessary forthe partners toworktogetheracross borders

Transnationalcooperation 263 in alearning alliancetoletgo of preconceived nationaland localapproachesand mindsets stemming from historicalneedsand traditionalapproachestomanaging theseproblems.In thisway,the partnership canquestion currentmethodswithout prejudiceand createthe environmentforjointlydeveloped innovativeapproaches.Ifthe partners weretocontinue addressing the conflicts between urbandevelopmentand flood riskson theirownlocaland regionalscales,theywould haveonlyalimited numberof regionallyproven solutions, constrained byregionalconventions.

The projectgiveslocalpoliticiansalegitimatereason todiscuss newproposalswithpeers from othercities,ingeneraltermswithout specificpoliticalconsequencesormediacoverage. The transnationalcooperation will raisepoliticians’ awareness of increasing flood risksand the potentialconsequencesforspatialdevelopmentwithin theircities.Italsoprovidesthe politicianswiththe results of differentpoliciestested in similarcities,whichwill develop capacity in crucialpolicyand legislativeareas

Transnationalcooperation 264 6

Transnationalcooperation 265 References

Anonymous 1993: Living Rivers (in Dutch). Publication from World Wildlife Fund (the Netherlands).

Baptist,M.J.2005 :Modelling floodplain biogeomorphology.PhDthesis,DelftUniversity of Technology,DelftUniversity Press,Delft.

Baptist,M.J.etal. 2004 .Assessmentof the effects of CyclicFloodplain Rejuvenation on flood levelsand biodiversity along the Rhine River.RiverRes.Applic.(20): 285-297.

Breen, L.E.van&Havinga,H.2003: Riverengineering aspects of side channelsin floodplains(in Dutch). Ministry of PublicWorks,Transport and WaterManagement, RijkswaterstaatDirectie Oost Nederland, Arnhem.

Breen, L.E.van, Jesse, P,Havinga,H2005: Riverrestoration from arivermanager’spointof view.

Bruin de, D., Hamhuis,D., Nieuwenhuijzevan, L., Overmars,W., Sijmons,D., Vera,F.1987: Stork, the futureofthe riverine area(in Dutch). Stichting GelderseMilieufederatie, Arnhem. Duel, H.etal. 2001. CyclicFloodplain Rejuvenation. NCR-Publication 14-2001.

Fehrenbach, H., Roth, E., Nährig, D., Marthaler,R., Wein, C.(2008) –Sustainability Studyin the Frameworkofthe EU project„Sustainable Developmentof Floodplains“,IFEU-GefaÖ, Heidelberg/Walldorf, Germany.

Froelich&Sporbeck(2002): Leitfaden zur Durchführung von FFH- Verträglichkeitsuntersuchungen in Nordrhein-Westfalen.[Guide tothe conductof investigationsintocompatibility withthe Habitats DirectiveinNorthRhine-Westphalia.] Commissioned bythe NRWMinistry of Environmentand NatureConservation, Agriculture and ConsumerProtection. Bochum, May2002.

Gewässerdirektion SüdlicherOberrhein/Hochrhein (1997): The integrated Rhine Programme. Flood control and restoration of formerflood plainson the UpperRhine.

Ghimire, B.2003: No-regretsolutionsforintakesforsecondary channels.MSc Thesis. InternationalInstituteforInfrastructural, Hydraulicand EnvironmentalEngineering (IHE), Delft.

Havinga,H.&Smits,A.J.M.2000: Rivermanagementalong the Rhine: Aretrospective view.In: Smits,A.J.M., Nienhuis,P.H.&Leuven, R.S.E.W.(Editors.) -NewApproachesto RiverManagement.Backhuys Publishers,Leiden, 15-32,2000.

InternationalCommission forthe Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)(2006): Umsetzung des AktionsplansHochwasser-Bericht2005-Bezugsjahr1995.

InternationalCommission forthe Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)(2003): Upstream- Outcome of the Rhine Action Programme.

InternationalCommission forthe Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)(2001): ConferenceofRhine Ministers 2001. Rhine 2020 -Programme on the sustainable developmentof the Rhine.

InternationalLawAssociation (ILA)Committee on LegalAspects of Sustainable Development(2002)–Fifthand FinalReport:Searching forthe contours of international lawin the field of sustainable development,NewDelhi Conference2002.UN Doc. A/57/329, p. 3,www.un.org/ga/57/document.htm

References266 Jans,Luc(ed.), 2004, Evaluatie nevengeulen Gamerensche Waard1996-2002.RIZA rapport 2004.024, Lelystad(in Dutchlanguage withanEnglishsummary).

LUA NRW(2003): MorphologischesLeitbild desNiederrheins [Morphologicalmodel of the LowerRhine].- Information Sheets,No. 41: 122 pages,Essen.

LUA NRW(2005): Biozönotische Leitbilderund dashöchsteökologische Potenzialfür Rhein und Weserin Nordrhein-Westfalen [Biocoenoticmodelsand the maximumecological potentialforthe Rhine and Weserin NorthRhine-Westphalia].- Information Sheets,No. 49, 122 pages,Essen.

Molen vander,D.T.&Buijse, A.D.2005: Anevaluation of the benefits of lowland river- floodplain rehabilitation (the Rhine, the Netherlands). In: Rehabilitating large regulated rivers,Proceedingsof Lowland RiverRehabilitation Conference(Archivfür Hydrobilologie), Wageningen, 2003. Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung,Stuttgart.

Ömer,B.&Strigl, A., (2000) – Konzepterstellung Nachhaltigkeit:Ermittlung von Nachhaltigkeitskriterien und -indikatoren (generell, praxisorientiert)Österreichisches Institut für Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Universitätfür Boden-kultur,Wien, www.flusslandschaften.at

Peters,B., Kater,E., Geerling, G.2006: Cyclicmanagementin floodplains(in Dutch). CentrumvoorWateren Samenleving, RadboudUniversity,Nijmegen.

Rhodius,R.(2006) :Reommendationsforpublicparticipation in the planning of retention areas.In: Armbruster,J.etal(Ed): FOWARA.Forested waterretention areas-Guidelinesfor decision makers,forest managers and land owners.

Rijkswaterstaat,2004 . Projectnota/MER Rivierverrruiming doordijkverlegging Hondsbroeksche Pleij. Main report (in Dutch). Arnhem, the Netherlands.

Rijkswaterstaat,2004. Projectnota/MER Rivierverrruiming doordijkverlegging Hondsbroeksche Pleij. Main report (in Dutch). Arnhem, the Netherlands.

Rijkswaterstaat,2004 . Rivierverruiming Hondsbroeksche Pleij: Dijksverleggingsplan. Draft plan(in Dutch). Arnhem, the Netherlands.

Rijkswaterstaat,2004 . Rivierverruiming Hondsbroeksche Pleij: Dijksverleggingsplan. Draft plan(in Dutch). Arnhem, the Netherlands.

RIZA 2003. Stromingsweerstand vegetatie in uiterwaarden, versie 1. Deel 1en2.RIZA rapport 2003.028/029 (in Dutch).

Siepe, A.(2006): dynamische Überflutungen amOberrhein: Entwicklungsmotorfür die Auwald-Fauna.WSG Baden-Würtemberg10,149-158. World Commission on Environmentand Development(1987)–Our Common Future, OxfordUniversity Press:Oxford, p. 43.

References267 Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes268 1 Annex1

Internationaland national regulationsand programmes

Internationalregulationsand programmes

EuropeanSpatialDevelopmentPerspective The EuropeanSpatialDevelopmentPerspective(ESDP)wasadopted bythe MemberStates and the EuropeanCommission in May1999 and containsthe common spatialplanning objectivesand models.Itstates:“[...]endangered areashavetoberecognised as components of urbanand ruralregions.[...]Indecisionsconcerning territorialdevelopment, potentialrisks-suchasfloods[...]should beconsidered. Indealing withrisks,itisimportant, in particular,totake the regionaland transnationaldimension intoaccount.”Itfurther emphasisesthat“[...]Spatialplanning, aboveall attransnationallevel, canmake an importantcontribution tothe protection of people and the reduction of the riskoffloods. Flood prevention measurescanbecombined withnaturedevelopmentorrestoration measures.” Theseconclusionsin the ESDP werebased on anumberof statements made byministers for the environmentand spatialplanning in the Rhine-Meuseregion afterthe devastating floods of 1993and 1995.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htm

EU WaterFrameworkDirective The WaterFrameworkDirectiveofthe EuropeanUnion (WFD)isacentralpillarof the EU's waterpolicy,whichaddresseswaterquality and transnationalriverbasin management.The aim of the directiveistoachieveagood level of waterquality forall rivers,lakes,coastal waters and otherwaterbodiesin the EuropeanUnion by2015. Underthe directive, Member Statesareobliged toadoptRiverBasin ManagementPlansbythe end of 2009.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html

Directiveonthe assessmentand managementof flood risks InJanuary 2006,the EuropeanCommission proposed aDirectiveonthe assessmentand managementof flood risksasaresponsetopast floodsand aneffort tolimitthe fallout from futurefloods,whicharelikelytoincreaseinfrequencyand severity duetomoreintense rainfall and rising sealevels. Its aim istoreduceand manage the risksthatfloodsposetohumanhealth, the environment,infrastructureand property.Underthe proposed directive, MemberStates havetofollowthree implementation steps.

1. Preliminary flood riskassessments of riverbasinsand coastalareasby2011. 2. Flood hazardmapsforhigh riskareasby2013. 3. Flood riskmanagementplansby2015.

InApril 2007,the EuropeanParliamentadopted acompromisepackage agreed withthe Council whichinessencemeansthe directiveisagreed. Formaladoption isexpected laterin 2007 bythe Council.

The "Directiveonthe assessmentand managementof flood risks" hasbeen strengthened regarding the requirements on internationalcooperation in shared riverbasinsand streamlined regarding the preliminary flood riskassessmentand mapping.

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes269 Inits amendments tothe directive, the Parliamentadded the requirementthatflood risk managementplansinclude "measuresthatworkwithnaturalprocessessuchasmaintenance and/orrestoration of floodplainsin ordertogivebackspacetothe rivers wherever possible."

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/index.htm

Naturepolicy The EU natureconservation policyisbased on twomain piecesof legislation -the Birds Directiveand the Habitats Directive-and benefits from aspecificfinancialinstrument,the LIFE-Naturefund. Its prioritiesaretocreatethe Europeanecologicalnetwork(of special areasof conservation), called Natura2000,and tointegratenatureprotection requirements intootherEU policies,suchasagriculture, regionaldevelopmentand transport.

The networkcomprisesSpecialProtection Areas(SPAs)forthe conservation of over180bird speciesand sub-speciesand SpecialAreasof Conservation (SACs)forthe conservation of over250typesof habitat,200 animalspeciesand over430 plantspecies.Natura2000 now accounts forover20%ofEU land. The statesof the EU areresponsible formanaging the SPAsand SACs. Natura2000 wasintroduced intothe Germanlawbythe FederalNatureConservation Act (BNatSchG)amendmentin 1998.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm

ICPR –Rhine Action Programme The InternationalCommission forthe Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)wasfounded in 1950 on the basisof internationallawbythe following countries:Switzerland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,aswell asthe EuropeanCommunity.Itwasforced intoaction afterthe contamination catastrophe asconsequenceofafireatthe Sandozchemicalplantin Basel. In1987,the Rhine ministers approved the Rhine Action Programme (RAP)inStrasbourg. It aimed atimproving waterquality and biodiversity and itwasdesignated toachievethe following targets by2000. • Faunaspecieswhichhadvanished from the Rhine, suchasthe salmon, should returnto liveinthe Rhine. • Drinking waterproduction from Rhine watershould continue. • The pollutantcontents of riversediments should bereduced. The Rhine Action Programme marked the rehabilitation of thisgreatriverbythe Rhine ministers. The results areimpressive. 1. Waterquality hasconsiderablyimproved asless polluted wastewaterisdischarged into the Rhine. 2. Accidents resulting in the discharge of hazardous substancesintothe Rhine havebeen considerablyreduced, asthe companiesalong the Rhine aremuchbetterprepared for emergencysituations. 3. The Rhine faunahasalmost recovered. Apart from eel, fishcaughtin the Rhine are again edible.

http://www.iksr.org

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes270 1

ICPR –Convention on the Protection of the Rhine On22 January 1998, the 12thConferenceofRhine Ministers adopted the Action Planon Floodsin Rotterdam, resulting in spending of upto12billion ECU.ThisAction Plan, aimed atthe improvementof precautionary flood protection, will beimplemented within the next twenty years.Furthermore, the ICPR wasassigned todraftanewprogramme on the sustainable developmentof the Rhine forthe period following 2000 and the Rhine Action Programme. Anewconvention integrated ecology,waterquality,waterquantity and the protection of groundwaternearthe surfaceinalluvialareas.Inaddition, ashifttowardsan integrated policyapproachtook place.

When the newConvention on the Protection of the Rhine wassigned in Bernon12April 1999, the governments of the fivecountriesbordering the Rhine (Switzerland, France, Germany,Luxembourg, the Netherlands)and the representativeofthe European Community formallyconfirmed theirdetermination toreinforcetheircooperation witha viewtocontinued protection of the valuable characterof the Rhine, its banksand its floodplains. The convention entered intoforceon1January 2003. http://www.iksr.org

ICPR –Action PlanonFloods The targets of the Action PlanonFloodswerespecified asfollows. • Toreducedamagesbyupto10%bythe year2005and byupto25% by2020. • Extreme flood levelsdownstreamofthe regulated UpperRhine aretobereduced byup to30 cmby2005and byupto70 cmby2020. • Enhancementof publicawareness through developmentof riskmapscovering 100%of the floodplainsand areasatriskforflooding by2005. • Advancementof the flood alert system byinternationalcooperation. Extension of forecast upto100%by2005.

Implementation of the Action PlanonFloodsby2005 Inits report concerning the implementation of the Action PlanonFloodsin 2005, the ICPR stated the following. 1. Nearlyall planned measureswereimplemented. 2. The changesin damage potentialshowalargerreduction atstretcheswithout dikes then withdikes. 3. Flood retention areasdirectlylocated atthe rivers main streamhavethe greatest effect withregardtoreduction of extreme waterlevels. 4. The planned reduction of extreme flood waterlevelsalong the Rhine from 30 cmby 2005incomparison with1995 will bereached onlyatthe UpperRhine closetoMaxau. Atthe LowerRhine, the reduction will beupto10cmand more. 5. The Rhine Atlasshowing flood riskand risk-potentialmaps(see Rhine Atlas2001) have raised publicawareness. 6. The planned extension of prediction time by2005ofupto100%could beachieved, but notwiththe same reliability asshort-time predictions. 7. Asaconsequenceofclimatechange, winterdischargesareexpected toincreaseand summerdischargesareexpected todecreased. http://www.iksr.org

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes271 Rhine 2020 –Programme on the sustainable developmentof the Rhine In2001, the Rhine ministers adopted ‘Rhine 2020 -Programme on the sustainable developmentof the Rhine’in Strasbourg. Thisprogramme focuseson ecology,nature protection, flood prevention and groundwaterprotection. Furthermore, monitoring and improvementof waterquality will becontinued and improved. Inaddition, itwill implement the requirements of the EU WaterFrameworkDirectiveand Swiss waterpolicyalong the entireRhine. Inthisway,the successfulRhine programme isbeing continued. The ICPR and the countries along the Rhine haveanewvision of moreroom forthe Rhine. Theyplantoopen old alluvialareastothe riverand thereforecombine natureprotection and flood prevention.

http://www.iksr.org

Nationalregulationsand programmes(Germany)

Germanlegalframework InGermany,the SpatialPlanning Act(ROG)and the GermanWaterAct(WHG)areofgreat importanceforthe implementation of SDF pilotprojects.The communaldevelopment planning isbased on the Building Code (BauGB). The ActtoImprovePreventiveFlood Control of 2005updated the statutory regulationsfor flood protection in Germany.The Actresulted in changestoseverallaws,including the WaterAct(WHG), the Building Code (BauGB), the FederalSpatialPlanning Act(ROG), the FederalActon Waterways (WaStrG)and the WeatherServicesAct(DWDG). Planning issuesconcerning waterrights areregulated bythe FederalWaterActand the State WaterActs of the various federalstates.

http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht//

Five-pointprogramme of the FederalGovernment Afterthe RiverElbeflood of August 2002,the GermanFederalGovernmentadopted a five-pointprogramme in whichitlaid downthe main toolsforeffectivepreventiveflood protection. The action plansinclude cooperation and implementation in the field of preventiveflood protection atEuropeanlevel, assessmentof the bank reinforcements and similar constructions,the environmentalimpactof inland navigation, aswell asshort-termmeasures forcrisismanagement. Otheractivitiesconcernprotectivedikes,adaptation of land useinfloodplains,the preservation of wetfloodplainsand waterretention capacities,renaturation of rivers and lakesand the improvementof the waterretention and seepage capacity of the ground. Italsoformed the basisof the Flood Control Actof 2005.

www.bundesregierung.de

Recommendationsof the Standing ConferenceofFederaland StateMinisters Responsible forSpatialPlanning (MKRO) In2000,the MKRO published its recommendationsforpreventiveflood protection measures in spatialplanning. Apart from the generalchapters on principles,etc., the document containsanumberof practicalrecommendationsforhandling differenttasksin connection withregionalplanning. Ofimportancetothe SDF activitiesarethe principlesof the protection and extension of floodplainsaswell asthe reduction of the potentialdangers.

www.bmvbs.de

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes272 1

Guidelinesof the Working GroupofFederalStateson WaterProblems The Working GroupofFederalStateson WaterProblems(LAWA)isaworking groupofthe ConferenceofEnvironmentalMinisters of the Federation and the States.Itbringstogether the ministriesresponsible forwatermanagementand waterlawof the Länderand the FederalGovernmentwhichsetupGuidelinesforForward-Looking Flood Protection. The conferenceofEnvironmentMinisters agreed totheseguidelinesin May1995. The guidelinesanalysed the differentcausesof flood and flood damage and developed differentstrategiesand actionstominimisethe consequencesof floods.Finally,the working groupofLAWA,LABO,LANA and responsible FederalMinistriesdeveloped guidelinesand recommendationsforactionswithregardtoseveralstakeholders of flood prevention. Itemphasisesthe role of spatialplanning in connection withpreventiveflood protection measuresforareasatrisk. The relevantstatutory regulationsand appointments aretobe made atstate, regionaland local(i.e. land useplans)level. In2006,the recommendationsof LAWA forthe drafting of flood hazardmapswere completed. www.lawa.de

The German-Frenchtreaty Duetoconstruction workonthe UpperRhine, suchasthe Grand Canald´Alsaceand hydropowerplants,the flood situation haddeteriorated dramatically.Inordertocompensate the negativeimpacts of theseconstructions,aGerman-Frenchtreaty wassigned in 1969 (revised in 1982)based on aninvestigation byaninternationalcommittee ( Hochwasserstudienkommission). The treaty aimsatthe restoration of floodplainsand the construction of retention ponds,aswell asothermeasuressuchasthe emergencyoperation of the powerstations.Germanyhadtofinanceall measuresexceptthe one concerning the powerstations. Following thisinternationaltreaty signed bythe GermanConfederation (Bund), atreaty between the Bund and the Länderin Germanyhadtobeconcluded. In1977 and 1989, the Germantreaty stipulated thatthe costs of the measuresin Rhineland-Palatinatewould be shared between the Bund (40%), Rhineland-Palatinate(40%), and Hesse(20%). InBaden- Württemberg, the Bund bears 41.5% of the costs,excluding the Söllingen-GreffernPolder, whereRhineland-Palatinateand Hessehavetopayapart of the costs.Some locationsfor polders werealsosetout in the treaty. The volume of the retention facilitiesagreed upon in the treaties(status 2007)isabout 287million m³,with62 million m³in Rhineland-Palatinate, 167 million m³in Baden- Württembergand 58 million m³in France. The German-Frenchtreaty,however,doesnotconcernmeasurestaken in NorthRhine- Westphalia.

Baden-WürttembergFlood Strategy Following the treatiesof the 1980s,planning procedureswereintroduced. Sincethen, 13locationsforpolders havebeen designated and agreed upon in the Integrated Rhine Programme Baden-Württemberg(IRP), whichwasadopted byBaden-Württembergin1996. The IRP aimstorestoresustainable flood protection through the creation of flood retention and restoration of floodplain wetlands.The basisforthe programme isthe German-French treaty described above.

Withabout 167 million m³,the majority of the flood waterretention areahadtobe constructed in the federalstateofBaden-Württemberg. Asthe lowlandsof the UpperRhine arebothintensivelyused (foragricultureaswell assettlements)and ecologicallysensitive (floodplain locations), the planning authoritieshadtofacesevereproblemswhichled tothe ideaof anintegrated approach.

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes273 Importantstepsleading tothe IRP in Baden-Württemberg. 1919 Treaty of Versailles. 1928–77 Systematicdevelopmentof the UpperRhine. 1968-78Establishmentof the Internationalflood studycommission forthe Rhine River. 1982Franco-Germanagreementon the systematicdevelopmentof the Rhine. 1988 Decision on the developmentof aframeworkconceptbythe State Governmentof Baden-Württemberg; 1996Adoption of the frameworkconceptforthe implementation of the integrated Rhine Programme bythe StateGovernmentof Baden-Württemberg.

The following figure(FigureA1.1) providesanoverviewof the planned and partly completed measureson the UpperRhine from Basel toMannheim and shows the 13measuresin Baden-Württembergwhichformtogetherthe IRP.

FigureA1.1: Polderand dike relocationsalong the UpperRhine

Comprehensivestudiesconducted overaperiod of severalyears haverevealed thateachof the proposed retention areasissuitable forthe purposesof flood retention and the restoration of semi-naturalfloodplain conditions.However,notall siteswill enjoyan optimumachievementof bothobjectives.Sinceboththe timing of artificialflooding and the level of flood retention maybecontrolled toalarge degree, polders maybeused in a targeted and highlyefficientway.All areascombined provide protection against a1in 200-yearflood, the statisticalmeanmeasured atthe Maxaugauging station. The flood retention measuresreducethe discharge to5,000 m³/s downstreamofIffezheim uptothe mouthofthe Neckarand/or6,000 m 3 /s downstreamthe mouthofthe Neckar,quantities whichcanbedischarged without causing anyharm.

The ecologicalflooding operation mode standsforthe flooding of the retention areas,at higherbut notextreme dischargesfrom the Rhine. Ecologicalflooding servestore-establish flood-tolerantvegetation similartothatusuallyexisting in floodplains,whichcanwithstand the rareeventof flood retention without anyharm.

Asaresultof the ecologicalflooding, less retention volume will beavailable forhigh water flood retention. Consequently,anassessmenthasbeen made astowhetherflood protection

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes274 1

canbecombined withecologicalflooding in the same retention area.The efficiencyof the retention areashasbeen reviewed.

1. Efficiencyof the retention areawithout ecologicalflooding. 2. Efficiencyof the retention areawithecologicalflooding.

The calculationswereperformed bythe EnvironmentalProtection Office(Landesanstaltfür Umweltschutz/LfU )using asynopticallyflood model. The results of the investigationswereasfollows.

Option 1: • All flood protection measuresmust include the assessed entirecapacity in orderto achievethe re-establishmentof flood protection. • Aboveall, the flood retention measuresmust beimplemented in acontrolled wayalong the developed stretchsouthofIffezheim. Controlled meansthatthe time of implementation, aswell asthe quantity toberetained must bedetermined in advance. Independentof thisconsideration, the positiveeffectof the 90mwide flooding area along the Rhine southofBreisachcanbetaken forgranted. Option 2: • The contractuallyagreed re-establishmentof the flood protection canbeachieved only if the retention areasintended forecologicalflooding aredrained again toagreater extent. • OnastretchaboveIffezheim, the ecologicalflooding must bestopped priortoflood retention. The pre-flood watercanflowbackintothe riveratthe downstreamend of the retention area. • The ecologicalflooding forthe measuressouthofIffezheim maycontinueifitcanbe unequivocallypredicted thatthe areawill notberequired forhigh waterflood retention. • The polders along the free Rhine stretchcannotbedrained afterecologicalflooding priortotheiroperation in the caseoffloods.Atflood events that,based on predictions, mightrequireretention, no ecologicalflooding canbeeffected.

Altogether,the regulationsfor200-yearflood events havebeen optimised toagreatextent. Byinfluencing the effectof the retention areason eachother,even slightchangesin the regulationsmayhavevisible effects on the effectiveness of the entiresystem.

Rhineland-PalatinateFlood Protection Concept Inessence, the flood protection conceptisbased on three pillars. 1. Promotion of the naturalretention of waterin the area. 2. Technicalflood protection bymeansof safe dikes,retention areasand localprotective measures. 3. Furtherflood prevention measuresbyavoiding damage and strengthening local precautionary measures.

1. Flood Protection starts in the area Eachcubicmeterof waterthatcanberetained in the catchmentareacontributestothe reduction of the flood effects.The worsening of the soils’ retention capability and capacity caused bythe sealing and compacting of the soilsbyhumanswill bereversed or compensated toalarge extent.Thiswill beachieved byenvironment-friendlycultivation of the soil aswell asbyreforestation measures.Inthe long run, the developmentof nature- oriented mixed forests adapted tothe individuallocation will playadecisiverole in the increaseofwaterretention capability.Measuresremoving hardsurfacescovering the soil, as well asrulesgoverning the retention of rainfall in the area,whichwerealreadyincluded in the WaterLegislation of the StateofRhineland-Palatinatein1995, supplementamodern conceptforthe useofrainfall in farming.

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes275 Operation Blue: Decentralised retention of waterand the ecologyof waterbodies. Operation BlueinRhineland-Palatinaterepresents anattractiveconceptand promotion instrument,especiallyforcommunitiesresponsible formaintenancemeasuresbywater bodies,forcreating retention areasand fornature-oriented developmentof rivers and streams.Anymeasurestaken byOperation Bluearealsoinvestments in the quality of water bodies,aswell asin flood protection.

2.Technicalflood protection bymeansof safe dikes,retention areasand localprotective measures.Inthisconnection, the reestablishmentof a200-yearflood protection on the UpperRhine hasthe highest priority. Thisaspectinvolvesthe safety of 700,000 people forwhom the lowland of the UpperRhine region servesasliving, working and culturalspace. The areain question hasassets totalling approx.70 billion euros.Should the flood protection measuresfail, damagesof upto 13billion eurosmust betaken intoaccount.‘Morespaceforthe Rhine’ispart of the internationalplanofaction of all Rhine riparianstates. Forthispurpose, 288 million m 3 of usable retention area,62 million m 3 of whichwill bein Rhineland-Palatinatewill becreated along the UpperRhine. Thiswill compensatethe negativeeffects of the developmentof the UpperRhine area,namelythe reduction of dike safety toa50-yearflood protection level. The conceptof Rhineland-Palatinateprovidesfor floodwaterretention measuresat10locations,whichareeitherembanked areas(polders), orareasof dike relocations. The construction programme isin excess of 150million euros.The DaxlanderAu,Flotzgrün and Kollerinsel polders,aswell asthe Worms-MittlererBuschand Ingelheim Polderdike relocationshavealreadybeen completed. Thesemeasuresalone havealreadyachieved an approximate100-yeardike safety.Upon completion of all measures,the main Rhine dikes on the UpperRhine will guarantee aprotection against 200-yearfloods.Asaresultof the Elbeand Mulde flooding disasters in 2002,aswell asthe findingsof international committees,the StateGovernmentfeltcompelled togobeyond the stated measuresand to createreservespaceforextreme floodsin ordertoavoid uncontrolled flooding and all its consequences.

3.Furtherflood prevention measuresbyavoidanceofdamagesand strengthening local preventivemeasures The newStateDevelopmentProgramme IV refers toareasin dangerof being flooded, differentiated byriskclasses.Italsoinvolvesflood protection. Byestablishing prioritiesand reserveareasforflood protection, acontext forthe futuredevelopmentof communitiesin the newregionalpoliciesisstipulated. InRhineland-Palatinate, all flooding areashavebeen covered. Astrategyforreducing damage during aflood eventcanbesuccessfulonlyif the responsibilitiesand preventivemeasuresof all partiesarestrengthened. The federalstateof Rhineland-Palatinatehasbeen informing its citizensforover10year,even attimeswhen floodsdid notoccur.Aflood manual‘Living, Residing, and Building in AreasEndangered by Floods’ hasbeen available since1998 and itiscurrentlybeing updated. Moreover,a‘Safety checkwithregardtoflood prevention’isbeing drawnupincooperation withthe associationsof architects and engineers. Inordertostrengthen the protectivemeasuresof all partiesin areasendangered byflooding even though relativesafety exists asaresultof flood protection measures,mapsarebeing drawnupshowing the dangers ensuing from floods(the mapsforthe Rhine and Mosel areasarealreadyavailable). Thesemapshelp communitiestotake specificflood preventive measuresin the areaendangered byflooding and tooptimisetheirdefensivemeasuresin the caseofadisaster.Thisprojectisbeing implemented across the borders togetherwith Luxembourgand Franceand promoted bythe EuropeanUnion. Its findingswill be incorporated intothe action programme planned bythe EuropeanCommittee withregardto the managementof flood risks. The flood alarmservicehasbecome the most importantsourceofinformation forpeople living along the Rhine, Mosel and Saarand theirtributariesif aflood eventisimminentor

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes276 1

hasalreadyoccurred. Itisalsointended todevelop the flood alarmsystem forsmallerwater bodies. Inordertoreinforcethe notion of solidarity along the rivers,support isbeing given toa Flood Precautionary MeasuresNetworkconnecting the communitiesin the catchmentarea of thesewaterbodies.Forthispurpose, flood partnershipsarebeing founded toserveasa platform. Rhineland-Palatinatehasawell-developed emergencymanagementsystem, which hasproven tobesuccessfulonmanyoccasionsduring flood events.Inordertoguarantee effectiveness and coordination in the caseofemergencies,alarmand duty scheduleshave alreadybeen in usefor10years and theirimplementation istested on aregularbasis. During the Florianflood disasterdrill in November2004along the Rhine and Mosel, the state, togetherwiththe Military DistrictCommand II,wasable tosuccessfullytest its plans of action forthe first time. The cooperation of soldiers withthe Voluntary FireBrigade, the TechnicalEmergencyServicesand the WaterManagementAuthoritieswassuccessful. http://www.wasser.rlp.de/servlet/is/390/

NorthRhine-WestphaliaFlood Protection Concept Togetherwiththe ICPR (Rhine Action Programme)) and on the basisof the ‘Rhine in North Rhine-Westphalia–flood protection, ecology,and shipping’conceptand the ‘Flood protection on the LowerRhine 1990in the administrativedistrictDüsseldorf’generalplan, retention areaswithatotalsizeofapproximately4,700 haand aretention volume of approximately175million m 3 wereplanned. The NorthRhine-Westphaliagovernment’s precautionary ecologically-oriented flood protection conceptof 1996indicated retention areasat11 locations. The Governmentof the federalstateofNorthRhine-Westphaliaadopted the Flood Protection PlanforNorthRhine-Westphaliaupto2015 (Hochwasserschutzkonzeptdes Landesbis2015) on 7March2006.The Environment,Conservation and Consumer Protection Board (Ausschuss für Umwelt,Naturschutz und Verbraucherschutz) approved the planon25May2006. The planconstitutesthe basisforwaterauthoritiesfordecisionson flood protection. The reason fordrawing upthe planwas–and remains–the flood risksituation along the Rhine in NorthRhine-Westphalia.Given the population density and the residentialand industrialdevelopment,people living along the Rhine areparticularlyendangered. The potentiallevel of damage isput atEUR 130 billion, withfailureofthe technical protectivemeasuresalone causing damage amounting toEUR 3billion. Thismeansthat pro-activeflood protection ischeaperthandealing withdamage onceithasactually occurred. Even though flooding cannoteverbeprevented entirely,protection objectivesand measures in combination withreducing the potentialfordamage along waterways canpreventthe most damaging effects.

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes277 FigureA1.2:Locationsof measuresin NorthRhine-Westphalia

Flood Protection Planupto2015 Objectives(in relation towaterlevelsatLobith). • Reducing waterlevel by10cm • Delaying flood surge by24hours Relocation of dikesand waterretention areas • Completion of atotaloffivemeasuresby2015 • Including twodike relocation projects • and three retention areas • withawaterretention areaof 2,415 hectares • and aretention volume of 82million m³ Additional: dikestobeimproved: 114 km Totalbudget:approx.EUR 1.2billion

Besidesthe responsibility of the Governmentof NorthRhine-Westphaliaforflood protection along the Rhine, thereare10waterboards,based on speciallaws,whichareresponsible for sub-catchments of the Rhine tributaries,suchasthe Emschergenossenschaft forthe River Emscher,the Lippeverband forthe RiverLippe (downstreamLippborg), the Wupperverband forthe RiverWupper,etc.Thesewaterboardsarealsoresponsible forthe flood protection in theircatchment,and projects,maintenanceand all watermanagementaffairs arenormally financed bywaterand wastewaterfees.

The principle underlying all the various measuresisthatof shared precautionary measures. The focus will benotsomuchonprohibition ason cooperation between thoseinvolved in planning.

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes278 1

Atthe Conferenceonflood protection in Arnhem on 8February 2007,EckhardUhlenberg, Ministerforthe Environmentand Conservation, Agricultureand ConsumerProtection of the federalstateofNorthRhine-Westphalia,signed ajointdeclaration between NorthRhine- Westphaliaand the Netherlandswiththe following objectives. • Drawing upajointflood protection strategy. • Implementing relevantresearchand determining the effects of flood control measures. • Coordinating measuresin the short,mediumand long termfortechnicalflood control, naturalwaterretention, and far-reaching flood precautions. • Applying forEU funding forthe programme. • Implementing jointpublicrelationsworksoastopromotepublicawareness of the risk of flooding and toincreasethe level of acceptanceofthe required measures. • Specifying perspectivesrelating topotentialfuturechangesin the discharge of the Rhine asaresultof climatechange. • Adopting aplanofworkforthe period from 2007 to2012and monitoring its implementation. http://www.lanuv.nrw.de/wasser/hwschutz.htm

Nationalregulationsand programmesin the Netherlands

NaturePolicyin The Netherlands AtDutchnationallevel, animportantmilestone in riverdevelopmentwasreached withthe NaturePolicyPlanin1990.Inthisplan, targets wereseton anationalscale forthe different regionsin the Netherlands.Forthe riverregion itwasstated thatmorenatureareasare needed. In2000,the “Natureforpeople, people fornature”policydocumentwas published. The documentdescribesthe enlargementof the ecologicalmain structurebythe creation of linking zones.Large rivers areanimportantpart of the ecologicalnetwork. Anoverviewof hownaturepolicyisorganised in the Netherlands. • Nationallevel: policyinstruments &quantitativetargets areset. • Provinciallevel: the delineation of the EHS (ecologicalmain structure) in the 12Dutch provinces. The newpolicyintroduced anewpossibility of naturemanagement; workcanbecarried out byprivatepersons. The ecologicalmain structurehasgiven direction tothe provincialnatureplan. The responsibilitiesatnationaland provinciallevel canbesummarised asfollows. • Localauthorities,waterboards. • Naturemanagementisimplemented bygovernment(DLG &RWS), waterboards,local communities,privatepersons/partners. • List of sitemanagers. • EU directives:WaterFrameworkDirective(WFD), Birdsand Habitats Directive(BHD) and the Natura2000 network.

Flood protection in the Netherlands:‘Room forthe River’ programme In2006,the Dutchcabinetproposed aSpatialPlanning KeyDecision in whichthe spatial planning forthe entireRhine deltaareaislaid out.Inthisplan, the measuresforflood control of the majorrivers areoutlined;theyinclude the creation of additionalspaceforthe rivers.Foreachlocation, the localplansaredescribed: e.g. the construction of secondary channelsin the riverforeland, the relocation of adike furtherinland orreturning previously reclaimed land tothe river. Completion of abasicpackage of about 40projects isexpected in 2015, withabudgetof EUR 2.2billion. The objectivesof the programme areasfollows.

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes279 1. Safety against extreme riverfloods Duetoanticipated climaticchanges,the Rhine deltariverbrancheshavetoaccommodate increasing extreme discharges.Until recently,itwasstandardpolicytoraisethe crest levels of the dikestomaintain the required level of flood protection. Thiscenturiesold policywas abandoned in 2000 in favour of Room forthe River.Inthe newpolicy,rivercross sections arewidened bysituating the dikesfurtherawayfrom the river,orbylowering the river forelands.Thiswill resultin lowerflood levels.By2015, the rivershould beable tosafely discharge 16,000 m 3 /s.

2.Improvementof overall environmentalconditions InRoom forthe River,caremust betaken toavoid harming valuable featuresof landscape, natureand culturalhistory.Morespacecanalsobefound byenlarging the riverchannel within the dikes.The process should involvemaintaining abalancebetween presentand foreseeable futurespatialrequirements,taking every opportunity toenhancesafety,aswell asthe best possible landscaping and the improvementof overall environmentalconditions.

FigureA1.3:Locationsof measures and alternatives

Room forthe Riverand the implementation of EU naturepolicyin the Netherlands The SpatialPlanning KeyDecision orRoom forthe Rivercontainsaseriesof localmeasures aswell aslong-termallocation of spaceforflood alleviation measures.Localmeasuresare, forexample, the bottleneckatthe Dutchvillage of Lent.Some long-termmeasuresare included in Room forthe River(e.g. Biesboschdike relocation, IJssel Green River,etc.). The safety needsand the increaseofspatialquality isdifficulttoequatewiththe conservation of the currentsituation.

About 70%ofthe floodplain areasin the Netherlandscontain SPAs(SpecialProtected Areas) of Natura2000.Forthe proposed measuresin the Room forthe Riverdocument, the responsible ministries(Ministry of Transport,PublicWorksand WaterManagement, Ministry of Agriculture, Natureand Food Quality,Ministry of SpatialPlanning and Environment)received approx.3,000 reactionsfrom the public,companies,NGOsand privateorganisations. Nevertheless,the strategicdecision of Room forthe Rivercanalsostrengthen the Natura 2000 network. Ecologicaldiversity,e.g. calcareous grasslands,hayfloodplains,alluvialforests

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes280 1

and humid floodplains,isof greatimportance. According tothe EuropeanScale, the last two typeswill beacontribution tothe environment.The most importantbirdsspeciesareswans and geese. Recommendationsregarding the SpatialPlanning KeyDecision of the Room forthe River Programme areasfollows. 1. Nomeasuresshould becarried out atvulnerable locations. 2. Anadjustmentshould bemade in relation tothe preventativemeasuresof the Habitats Directive. 3. The negativeeffects on waterbirdsshould bemitigated in the areawherethe measure istaken. 4. The measuresshould contributepositivelytothe Natura2000 network. http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/

Internationaland nationalregulationsand programmes281 Publicparticipation in regulations282 1 Annex2

Publicparticipation in regulations

Publicparticipation in internationaland Europeanregulations

Rio Declaration on Environmentand Development Numerous internationaldocuments haveexpressed the importanceofpublicparticipation and the need toinstitutionaliseittomovetowardssustainable development.Itisimportant tomention Principle 10of the Rio Declaration on Environmentand Developmentsigned by morethan100 headsof Stateworldwide in Rio de Janeiroin1992,establishing that: "Environmentalissuesarebest handled withthe participation of all concerned citizens,at the relevantlevel. Atthe nationallevel, eachindividualshall haveappropriateaccess to information concerning the environmentthatisheld bypublicauthorities,including information on hazardous materialsand activitiesin theircommunities,and the opportunity toparticipateindecision-making processes.Statesshall facilitateand encourage public awareness and participation bymaking information widelyavailable. Effectiveaccess to judicialand administrativeproceedings,including redress and remedy,shall beprovided".

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163

Aarhus Convention Furtherimplementation of thisprinciple took placeinthe United NationsEconomic Commission forEurope (UNECE)Convention on Access toInformation, PublicParticipation in Decision-making and Access toJusticeinEnvironmentalMatters (Aarhus Convention), whichwasadopted in 1998. Itestablishesthatsustainable developmentcanbeachieved onlythrough the involvementof all stakeholders and linksgovernmentaccountability and environmentalprotection.

"Although regionalinscope, the significanceofthe Aarhus Convention isglobal. Itisbyfar the most impressiveelaboration of principle 10of the Rio Declaration, whichstressesthe need forcitizen's participation in environmentalissuesand foraccess toinformation on the environmentheld bypublicauthorities.Assuchitisthe most ambitious ventureinthe area of environmentaldemocracysofarundertaken underthe auspicesof the United Nations." Kofi A.Annan, formerSecretary-Generalofthe United Nations(1997-2006) The convention consists of three main columns: 1. The rightof everyone toreceiveenvironmentalinformation thatisheld bypublic authorities(access toenvironmentalinformation). 2. The righttoparticipateinenvironmentaldecision making (publicparticipation in environmentaldecision-making). 3. The righttoreviewprocedurestochallenge publicdecisionsthathavebeen made without respecting the twoaforementioned rights orenvironmentallawin general (access tojustice).

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/

EuropeanDirectives Inthe Europeanperspective, thesecolumnsarebeing implemented in the following Europeanregulations: • Directive2001/42/EC of the EuropeanParliamentand of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessmentof the effects of certain plansand programmeson the environment. • Directive2003/4/EC of the EuropeanParliamentand of the Council on publicaccess to environmentalinformation. • Directive2003/35/EC of the EuropeanParliamentand of the Council providing for publicparticipation in respectof the drawing upofcertain plansand programmes

Publicparticipation in regulations283 relating tothe environmentand amending withregardtopublicparticipation and access tojustice. And further • Directive2000/60/EC of the EuropeanParliamentand of the Council establishing a frameworkforthe Community action in the field of waterpolicy.Article 14 of the directiverequiresearlyand comprehensiveinformation aswell asconsultation of the public.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/

Participation in projectpermitproceduresin the Netherlands

Involvementof the public Inthe Netherlands,the publicisinvolved in avery earlyplanning phasebyusing informal instruments.Duetothe factthatalarge part of the Netherlandswould beflooded if there werenodikes,and historicaldevelopment,thereisgreatinterest in spatialand water-related themes.Publicinvolvementismainlyconsensus oriented, sometimeslong-termdesigned and based on open discussions.

The responsibilitiesforfloodprevention of main riverstreams(putting in placerequirements/ standards)rest withthe governmentalauthority.Meeting the requirements and dealing with calamitiesisamatterforthe State, provincesand the waterboards,depending on the case. Responsibilitiesforcatchments areorganised within the waterboards.Inthe Netherlands,a process-oriented ordevelopment-oriented publicdiscussion about the projectisconsidered normaland maybeincontradiction toumbrellaplans.

The demandsorstatements of potentiallyaffected people orinterest groupsmayleadto considerable changesof plan. Thisispositivefrom the democracypointof view,but may resultin greaterrisksordelays in the projectschedule.

SpatialPlanning KeyDecision Three administrativelayers exist in the Netherlands:municipality,provinceand State. Land canbeused orbuilton onlyin accordancewithazoning plandecided upon bythe town council. Oncethe planisaccepted byall parties,anyconstruction planthatiscontrary tothe zoning planwill bedenied abuilding permitbythe localauthorities.Azoning plan, however, isnotvalid until ithasbeen approved bythe provincialadministration. The provincedraws uparegionalzoning planagainst whichtoassess the localplans.Thismeansthattownand country planning isfirst and foremost determined bylocalauthorities,and then assessed in relation tooverall schemes.

Spatialplanning isexecuted on anationalscale. The results arereferred toasSpatial Planning KeyDecisions(SPKD). Thesearedrawnupatministeriallevel and havetobe approved byparliament.ASPKD describesgeneralorspecificspatialplanning policy.A generalspatialplanning policymaydealwiththe keyfunctionsof townand country planning in the Netherlands,orwithagriculturaland natureareas,ortransportation, orthe provision of electricity.However,aSPKD canalsofocus on aspecificprojectataspecific location, suchasbuilding arailwayline, ahigh speed train orthe construction of aharbour facility.Priortopublication of aSPKD,its effects on natureand the environmenthavetobe studied atastrategiclevel.

Publicparticipation in regulations284 2

SNIP SNIP (SpelregelkaderNatteInfrastructuur Projecten) describesthe proceduretobefollowed forinfrastructuralprojects in the watersector.The stepstobetaken areasfollows. • Reconnaissancesurvey:isthe projectreallynecessary and whatarethe possibilities? • Planning study:preparing the development(alternativestosolvethe problem and studiesof the possible effects). • Implementation. http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/

EnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA) According tothe DutchEnvironmentalManagementAct( WetMilieubeheer ), manyprojects areobliged toperformanEnvironmentalImpactAssessmen ( MilieuEffectRapportage (MER) in Dutch). AnEIA follows adefined procedure, but isin anycasecombined withthe planning phaseofthe SNIP procedure. The EIA procedureconsists of the following. • Start-updocument. • Publicparticipation (4 weeks). • Advisory guidelinesfrom the EIA Committee (anindependentcommittee). • Definitiveguidelinesfrom the competentauthority. • The actualdevelopmentof the EIA. • Publicparticipation (8 weeks).

Becausethe EIA iscombined withthe planning studyof SNIP,the actualproductisoften a projectdocument/EIA,containing the description of the alternativesand all effects (notonly environmentaleffects). Everyone canjoin the publicparticipation through written and/or oralstatements.The reactionsof the first publicparticipation phasetothe start-up documentareused bythe EIA committee todevelop the guidelines.The second participation phaseiscombined withadecision, suchasapermitoraspecialplan.

Twoparticipation phasesin the EIA procedurearesufficienttofulfil legalobligations. However,manyprojects include extraparticipation and communication actions.Asaresult, the riskofmanynegativereactionsin the formalprocedureisdiminished. Involving the publicbeyond the legalobligation iscalled anopen planning process.

On1September1987,the Netherlandsintroduced astatutory requirementforEIA in responsetoaEuropeandirectiveonEIA.Inaddition tothisstatutory procedure, alist of activitieswasdrawnupforwhichanEIA must beprepared beforethe relevantdecision –on aspatialplanorlicenceapplication –maybetaken. From then on, the competentauthority hadtodetermine, on the basisof the newlawand the EIA Decree, whetheranEIA was required.

The Actdid notinclude aprovision forimposing penalties–afine orotherpunishment– whichsuggested atthe time thatthe regulation wasoptional. Ascheme canbeseen in FigureA2.1. The Committee forEIA (EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentin the Netherlands,Views from the EIA,June 2002)described the conditionsforaneffectiveEIA regulation without direct sanctions.

Foralmost all projects in the Netherlandsthatmeetthe requirements forEIA,anEIA is carried out.Bothdevelopers and governmentauthorities,but particularlyalert citizensand pressuregroups,ensurethatEIAsareactuallycarried out forprojects thatrequirethem. The Dutchpress plays anactiverole asinformantand manyindividualsand pressuregroupsfind out aboutprojects thatrequireanEIA from the news.The riskthatthe courts will suspend or quashadecision on aprojectisreason enough fordevelopers totake moreorless immediateaction tofollowthe EIA procedures.Individualsand pressuregroups,inparticular,

Publicparticipation in regulations285 playasignificantrole in bringing projects forwhichnoEIA hasbeen prepared tothe attention of the courts.

But judgeshavealsoplayed animportantrole. Manycasesof salami slicetactics–breaking downlarge projects intosmallerelements,eachwithmuchless significantimpacts –have been dealtwithseverelybythe Dutchcourts,but unfortunatelynotalways.Decisionshave regularlybeen suspended orquashed, and manydevelopers havehadtogothrough the planning process from the beginning again asaresult.Astrict,independentjudiciary isa necessary condition foraneffectiveEIA regulation.

Besidesdeciding on whetheranEIA isrequired in specificcase, judgesmust alsoregularly decide on the quality of anEIA.Doesapublished EIA contain all the information needed to informthe decision-making?Inperforming thisrole, judgesalsocheckthe workofthe Committee forEnvironmentalImpactAssessment.Ifthe Committee hasnotdone its job properly,the courts canpass judgementon this.Inthistask, the Dutchjudiciary issupported byafoundation, whichcancall upon experts in the field of spatialplanning and the environment(Stichting Advisering Bestuursrechtspraak). Theseexperts make ajudgmenton the quality of the contents of anEIS.The courts canthen usethisinformation when coming totheirdecisions,whicharebased on bothlegaland materialenvironmentalconsiderations. When doing so, Dutchcourts often choosetotake apragmaticapproach. ThisDutch approachworksvery well when applied tothe practicalworld of EIA becauselittle time is lost in formalprocedures,allowing everyone toconcentrateonthe materialissuesinvolved. Apart from anumberof particularlydifficultdecisions,whichhavemade EIA less popular among some administrators,Dutchjudgeshavecontributed tothe developmentof a practicalEIA system thatfocuseson quality.Aswell asthe activerole played bycitizensand pressuregroupsand analert media,Dutchjudgesdeservespecialpraisefortheirefforts and the waytheyhaveapproached the whole issueofEIA.

The required conditionsforeffectiveenforcementof the EIA regulation in the Netherlands, wherethe legislation containsno provisionsforimposing penalties,canbesummarised as follows. 1. Anactive, free press. 2. Alert citizensand pressuregroups. 3. Apragmatic,but rigorous judiciary. 4. Expert and pragmaticadvisers on materialinformation.

Theseconditionsshould becombined withastatutory EIA proceduregeared toa)openness, b)earlypublicconsultation proceduresopen toall, and c)independentand expert review.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/home.htm

Exemplary EIA in the riverine areaof the Netherlands–Lexkesveer The Lexkesveerprojectispart of the DutchnationalRoom forthe Riverprogramme. Within the project,the hydraulicobstacleslike the ferry damwill bechanged intoabridge. The reshaping of the ferry damcanbecombined withnaturedevelopmentin the floodplains.An excavation ispart of the project,the surfaceisbiggerthan100 hectareand thereforeanEIA isrequired.

Stepsin the EIA procedureinthe Lexkesveercaseareasfollows. 1. Starting document(Startnotitie) withadescription of the project published in May1999. 2. Formal(public)involvementprocedure(formele inspraakprocedure) June/July1999. 3. Publichearingswereheld and reactionsin paperwerecollected and evaluated. 4. The EIA Guidelineswereissued bythe ProvinceofGelderland.

Publicparticipation in regulations286 2

5. Planprocess wascarried out,whichcame upwithnewviews.Thismeansasmall deviation between the EIA and the guidelinesand starting document.The scope isstill appropriate. 6. Developmentof alternativescenarios/plans(May1999 until spring 2001). 7. The preferred alternativewasworked out in adetailed design planforLexkesveer.This planisnecessary toacquirethe permits needed forimplementation. The planalso containsthe description of the measurestobeimplemented, including the management measures. 8. The ProvincialExecutive (Gedupteerde Staten) must judge whetherthe EIA is admissible. 9. The EIA,the design plan, aswell asthe required permits werepublished. This publication wasavailable forpublicconsultation atseveralpublicbuildingsforfour weeks. 10. After4weeks(starting from the publication date), the period of publicinvolvement (inspraakperiode) started. Afterthisperiod of four weeks,twopublichearingswere organised tocombine involvementand the information provision. Reactionsand objectionsagainst the published EIA could bevoiced during the hearing and senttothe competentauthority. 11. The ProvincialExecutive(and the Ministerof Transport,PublicWorksand Water Management)asked advice, while taking intoaccountthe objectionsand comments made from the EIA committee and the legaladvisors. 12. Decision of the competentauthority on the EIA and corresponding permits. 13. Afterthe decision on the EIA wastaken, the competentauthority needed toevaluate environmentaleffects.The competentauthority decided whichenvironmentaleffects hadtobeevaluated and when. 14. The projectimplementation wasprepared.

FigureA2.1: EnvironmentalImpact Assessmentin the Netherlands

Publicparticipation in regulations287 Ingeneraltherearetwooccasionsforpublicparticipation/consultation within the EIA procedure. • The first occasion forpublicparticipation/consultation isthe publication of the starting document.Thereareusuallyfour weeksforpublicparticipation. Itisopen toeveryone. • The publicisconsulted asecond time afterthe draftEIA report ispublished. Anyone can commenton the report and raiseobjectionstothe application ordraftdecision, which will betaken intoaccountbythe environmentalassessmentcommittee. The moments of publicinvolvementin the EIA aremaximised toinform, consultand commit the public.The involvementisdetailed in publicmeetings,newsletters and articlesin local papers.Moreover,thereisthe process of publicinvolvement.Reactionsfrom the participatory process are, wherepossible, given aclearposition in the design or implementation. Ifpublicproposalscannotbeimplemented, aclearsubstantiation isgiven of the wayin whichthe proposalwasconsidered. All proposals,reactionsand repliesare combined in aseparatedocumentwhichismade public.

Integrating differentaims(e.g. naturedevelopmentand improvementof discharge capacity) often leadstoanimproved publiccommitment.Farmland will belost in anycase, so sometimesthe publicconsiders itbetterthatanareacancontributetoexpanding nature areas.Setting cleargoalsand objectivesisanimportantpart of the communication process.

Itappears thatanEIA ishighlyappreciated bythe publicand bystakeholders.The instrumentgivesdetailed information, especiallywhen the EIA isprovided withthe preferred alternativeand even morewhen –asin the Lexkesveerproject–the preferred alternativeis combined withadetailed design.

The EIA documenthasbeen requested agreatdealbyinterested parties.During the process, itbecame clearthatthe expected large soil excavationshaddecreased somuchthatanEIA wasno longerobligatory.Nevertheless,the EIA proved tocontain somuchinformation on the design process and about the assessed impacts of the alternativesthat,although the EIA procedurestopped, the EIA documentwasadmitted asbackground information during the participation.

Participation in projectpermitproceduresin Germany

Legalfoundations InGermany,the publicisinvolved bylegislation, based on the administration law (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) .The involvementof TrägeröffentlicherBelange (= organised public,suchasauthoritiesorofficiallyregistered interest groupsfornature, farming, forestry, etc.;publicutility,residents,etc.) isnotorganised bythe responsible bodyforplanning or construction, but bycompetentauthorities.Participation opportunitiesin planning processes in Germanyaredescribed below.

The planning procedurehastobefinalised following the stipulationsof the federal managementprocedurelaw,whichisimplemented in the federalstatesthrough the plan approvalprocedure (Planfeststellungsverfahren).

The objectiveofthisprocedureistofixthe specificplansin alegallybinding form. The permission tobegin the construction of apolder(and otherinfrastructure) canbegiven only when the planapprovalprocedurehasbeen successful. Thismayalsomeanthatdifferent changescanstill bemade tothe initialplan. The procedureisdescribed in §72to§78of the federalmanagementprocedurelaw.The procedureinvolvesthe responsible authorities (Verfahrensträger) ,otherauthorities,the generalpublicand officialrepresentativesof stakeholders (TrägeröffentlicherBelange).The representativesmaybefrom environmental NGOs,aswell asfrom citizen movements.Legalcomplaints from differentgroupsor concerned individualsmaybesubmitted in thisphaseand maydelaythe finalisation of the

Publicparticipation in regulations288 2

procedure. Afterthe planhasbeen formallyfinalised bythe federalstateusing this procedure, no morelegalcomplaints canbesubmitted against the plans.

Itisimportanttonotethatthe spatialplanning lawand the planapprovalprocedurearethe onlyprocedurestobeexecuted beforeconstruction cantake place. Within theseprocedures, all interests and concerned partieshavetobeheardand theirconcernshavetobeevaluated. Anenvironmentalimpactassessmenthastotake placewithin the planapprovalprocedure toassureminimalimpacton the environment.

Majorplanning phases The planning procedureinGermanycanbedescribed bythree majorphasesand three major groupsof responsibility.

Pre-planning: Pre-studies,studiesabout needsand demands,studiesabout locations,generalalternatives,pre-feasibility and generalimpacts including the environmentalimpactstudiesatthe first level (no procedurerulesin laworconducted byapprovalauthorities). No approval.

Spatialplanning Preparation and enforcementof the spatialplanning procedure procedure: including the decision about alternatives,integration of different needsand demandsof participating publicbodies.Thisprocedure issetout in the RegionalPlanning Act(Raumordnungsgesetz, ROG). The resultisthe decision concerning agreementorallowing deviation of the planned infrastructurefrom the spatialplanning objectives.

Approvalprocedure: Preparation and enforcementof the approvalprocedure, including specifictechnicalplanning, landscape conservation support plans, compensation studies,environmentalimpactstudiesand other studiesorplanson specialordetailed questions(e.g. geology, groundwaterimpact,etc.). The approvalprocedureisbinding on everyone and alsoappliestoall matters concerning privateor publicproperties,compensation, etc.(concentration of decisions in one procedure, German: Konzentrationswirkung).

The planning authoritiesareresponsible forall planning. Thisrelatestothe retention areas, the watermanagementauthoritiesof the federalstates,theirregionalwatermanagement authoritiesand engineering companiesworking on theirbehalf. Theyareresponsible for technicaland all otherplanning in all phasesand alsoforthe preparation of all materialsthat areneeded in the publicprocedures.The integration of publicbodies–interest groups, federationslike natureconservation groupsorlocalpublic–intothe planning process isnot governed bylaw,even though itisquitecommon. Within thisframework, the planning authoritiesarealsoresponsible formediation in the context of the location processesor cooperativeplanning measures,whereapplicable, in the caseofretention pond planning. Theseprocessesarenotgoverned bylaw.

Spatialplanning authoritiesatfederalstatelevel areresponsible forthe preparation and enforcementof the spatialorregionalplanning procedure. Theyusuallydelegatethisduty tothe regionalplanning authorities.Theyinclude publicbodiesand federationsin the procedure, but notprivatepersons.The proceduresarebased on the planned structures,the impactstudiesand the studiesof alternatives(worked out byengineers and experts beforethe procedure). The procedureitself alsoincludesthe environmentalimpactassessmentand concludeswitha declaration of agreementorthe allowanceofdeviation from spatialplanning objectives.

Within the procedure, all publicbodies,localinterest groups,municipalities,federationsand otheraffected partieshavethe possibility tosubmitstatements concerning the plans.

Publicparticipation in regulations289 Afterthe planshavebeen published bythe implementing authority in anewspaper,every citizen and organisation isinvited tosubmitwritten ideasand/orlegalcomplaints.The submitted materialisevaluated and solutionsaresought.Remaining issuesarethen handled in hearingswithall publicbodiesand affected privatebodies.The objectiveofthe hearing is tohearall statements and arguments whichhavenotyetbeen solved. Afterthe approval procedurehasbeen finalised, onlylegalcomplaints about the procedure, notabout the contents of the plan, canbefiled. The procedureiscompleted bythe approvaldecision and the finalsigning of the plans (Planfeststellung).Afterthisprocedure, the technicalplanning will bedetailed topreparethe construction ( Ausführungsplanung), and the construction itself canbestarted.

Ausführungsplanung),whichcanthen bestarted.

FigureA2.2:Proceduresforplanning infrastructureand participation of targetgroupsin Germany

Publicparticipation in regulations290 2

Example of aPlanfeststellungsverfahren –Emscherfloodplain Inadvanceofthe Planfeststellungsverfahren,aplanning process lasting severalyears was implemented. The Emschergenossenschaft worked on the flood prevention conceptforthe entireRiverEmscher.The floodplain locationsEllinghausen and Mengede wereidentified at avery earlystage. Duetotheirregionalimportance, bothareashavebeen integrated in regionaland localspatialdevelopmentplanssince2003. The floodplain Dortmund-Mengede ispartlylocated in the municipalareaof Castrop-Rauxel and thereforethe regionalauthority of Arnsberg(responsible forthe city of Dortmund), as well asMünster(responsible forthe townofCastrop-Rauxel) arealsoinvolved. The authoritiesand the EnvironmentMinistry of NorthRhine-Westphaliahaveagreed upon a formalleadership forthe competentauthority of Arnsbergresponsible forthe Planfeststellungsverfahren.

FigureA2.3:Waterboards

Forbothfloodplains,the Planfeststellungsverfahren underthe Wasserhaushaltsgesetz (FederalWaterAct)and Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (AdministrativeProceduresAct)were implemented in severalsteps.

1. The projectplanning isdetailed bythe applicant(here: Emschergenossenschaft ), normallyafterinitialcontacts withthe competentauthority. 2. One componentof the planning isthe environmentalimpactassessment(in accordance with§5ofthe FederalEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentAct), being detailed beforeor parallel tothe projectplanning. The scoping datewas2April 2004, withthe Arnsberg (Dortmund) competentauthority being responsible. Based on agreements,the environment-related surveyand examinationsweredetailed bythe Emschergenossenschaft. 3. Afterthe distribution of the Planfeststellung documents tothe competentauthority (by the Emschergenossenschaft ) • The competentauthority checksall application documents. • The competentauthority starts the formalparticipation of the Trägeröffentlicher Belange,suchas -organised orofficialpublicinterest representativeslike energysuppliers,public utility,municipalities,etc;

Publicparticipation in regulations291 -natureconservation organisations(in accordancewithSections§§12,12aof the FederalLandscape Act). • The competentauthority publishesthe planning documents in the municipalities concerned byinforming the press and making the documents available in apublic building forone month. Inthisphase, privatethirdpartiesmayparticipateasinterested partiesorsubmit objectionsin the publicbuilding in writing. • Objectionsmust besubmitted byinterested partieswithin twoweeksof the end of the one-monthpublishing phase. • Statements of the TrägeröffentlicherBelange must bemade within three months. • Discussionsabout all incoming statements/objections/suggestionswill beheld in a publicbuilding and invitationswill besentbythe competentauthority tothe interested parties.

4. Afterall suggestionsand objectionshavebeen checked bythe competentauthority and the arguments havebeen weighed, the Planfeststellungsbeschluss (decision) follows.Ifchangesareneeded duetothe objections,the competentauthority will request the applicantforfollow-updocuments.

5. The contentof the Planfeststellungsbeschlusseswill include the permission, the conditions–ifrequired, the handovertothe applicant,the distribution tothe Träger öffentlicherBelange and concerned personsand the publicannouncement.

Thismarksthe completion of the Planfeststellungsverfahren.

Regional Authorities Dep.5 Dep.6 Regional Council Water Planning (representatives of local politics, Management Section Section Preparation of RDP-design advising representatives)

Spatial planning Drafting and decision Supervision revising of Decision on RDP in cooperation with Regional Develop- State Environmental ment Plan/RDP Agencies Sends representatives Supervising authorities Organised Principle Public of Administration of Municipalities countervailing Environmental Planning influences Authorities Department Local Council Preparation LUP/BP

Permission Design and revision Spatial planning of Land Use Decision on the LUP/BP Sending Decicion: Plan/LUP and Representatives advising Supervision Building plan/ BP try to influence representatives FigureA2.4: Involvementof administrations,politiciansand interest Organised Public groupsin planning systemsin North Project related planning processes, e.g. fo water management measures under Nature conservation Rhine-Westphalia(omitted aredistrict „Lobbies“ supervision of the compentent authority organisations administrationsacting as (to be congruent with spatial planning Industry, Organised Sport environmentalagenciesin the caseof objectives) Political Chamber of Commerce. Public Associations Craftsmen affiliated townsand whose parties organisation administrativeorganisation and Farmers / Chamber of Organised politicalbodiesarecomparable to Agriculture land owners thoseofmunicipalcouncils)

Publicparticipation in regulations292 Annex33

Construction in floodplains

Integrated Rhine Programme (IRP)withPolderSöllingen/Greffernasanexample The IRP planstocreateflood retention areaswitharetention volume of 167 million m³in the formerfloodplainsat13locations.The Söllingen/GreffernPolder,whichwascompleted atthe end of 2005, isconsidered tobeone of the most importantretention areas.Withan areaof approximately540haand aretention volume of approximately12million m 3 ,itis the northernmost retention areain the areaof the developed stretchofthe Rhine. Itcanbe used specificallyforthe flood protection along the free stretchofthe Rhine witha substantialeffect,sothatthe flood protection forthe partiesadjoining the Rhine will be increased from today’s100-yearflood toa120-yearflood event.The construction costs alone areestimated atapproximately66million euros.The construction of the Söllingen/ GreffernPolderwasanotherimportantcomponentof the Integrated Rhine Programme for environment-friendlyflood protection on the UpperRhine. Thisproject,togetherwithretention measuresin Franceand Rhineland-Palatinate, aimsat the restoration of the 200-yearflood protection downstreamofIffezheim, whichused to exist priortothe developmentof the UpperRhine.

Söllingen/GreffernPolder

General The retention areacomprisesthe floodplain on the rightbank of the Rhine between Rhine km 317.4 atGrauelsbaumand Rhine km 329.5 atthe borderof Söllingen/Hügelsheim, whichhadbeen cut offasaresultof the construction of the Iffezheim barrage. The outletarea of the polder,whichborders on the aboveareauptoRhine km 335.6atIffezheim, isflooded bythe backwaterfrom Iffezheim barrage during flood events on the Rhine.

FigureA3.1: AerialphotoofSöllingen/ GreffernPolder

Construction in floodplains293 The retention areas,withthe volume of 12million m³and anareaof 580m²,aredivided intofour partialpolders.Atpresent,aconsiderable part of the formerfloodplain areasis occupied byflooded quarries.The remaining polderareaismainlyforest.Twoflooded quarrieswithgravel pits arelocated in the areain question. InGreffern, the federal governmentisalreadyperforming groundwatermanagementin ordertopreventdamage duetoIffezheim barrage.

Environmentalcompatibility Extensiveinvestigationswerecarried out toreviewthe environmentalcompatibility forthe planapprovalprocedure. Currentconditionsforhumans,animals,plants,soil, water,air, climate, landscape, culturaland otherassets wereevaluated and forecasts weremade forthe futuredevelopmentwithand without the polder.

FigureA3.2:Söllingen/GreffernPolder

The EIA established thatthe operation of the retention area,including retention and ecologicalflooding, istypicalforfloodplainsand environmentallycompatible. Ecologicalflooding reflects awide range of drainage situationsin anaturalfloodplain. These range from temporary flooding of lowerareasuptoflooding of extensiveareas.Such extensiveflooding operationsareusuallylimited toafewdays ayear.The waterrequired for suchameasureistaken from the Rhine. The time, the level and the duration of such measuresdepend on the currentdrainage ratesof the Rhine. Asaresultof thismeasure, flood events areachieved thatareinline withnatureand aretypicalforthe floodplainsprior tothe construction of the barrages.

Construction measures • Redevelopmentof the flood damsand of the side damofthe Rhine. • Newdamconstruction. • Construction of 4intake and 12passage works. • Construction of three pumping stations. • Groundwatermanagementsystems. • Adjustmentof the existing infrastructure. • Various waterdevelopments. • Accompanying measuresforconservation of the landscape. • Structuresin Söllingen/GreffernPolder.

The Polderisconstructed asFließpolderextending overanareaof 580haand withalength of 12km. Thismeansthatacertain amountof watercanflowintothe polder,but itcanbe discharged again. The Polderisflooded viathe outletstructuresin the areaof the side damofthe Rhine. Here,

Construction in floodplains294 3

the waterflows through the reinforced concretestructureswhichpass underthe landside waters (flooded quarries,old armsof the Rhine). Guide wallsreducethe formation of turbulenceinthe areaof the discharge structure. Large-scale floating beamstructures protectaquaticsports enthusiasts from the considerable suction effectof the structures. The discharge of waterisperformed linearlywiththe waterflowing offfrom the Rhine. This adjusts the efficiencyof the structures.Atthe start of the flooding, approximately140m³/s flows intothe polderon average. During operation, the waterflowing through isreduced to anaverage of 80m³/s. The discharge structuresaredescribed belowasanexample.

Reconstruction of discharge structures Forthe futureoperation of the existing discharge structures,the guide wallson the Rhine, on the poldersides,aswell asthe still basin protection must beadapted. Newfloating beamsarebeing fitted atall discharge structures.The steel barscreensand the hydro- engineering shut-offcomponents (rollerand sliding gates)arebeing reconstructed depending on the requirements.Alternatively,the corrosion protection isbeing renewed. All shut-offmembers areequipped withelectricmotors. Itshould benoted thatduring construction measuresalong the Rhine, the barrage water level cannotbelowered. Furthermore, the waterlevel in the Rhine will deviateasaresultof the operation of the Iffezheim barrage severaltimesadaybyupto30 cm. The discharge structurefillspartialpolder3bymeansof three channels.The guide wallson the Rhine side consists of sheetpilesof about 13minlength, section L25S.Asteel structure of HEA 600,whichisfastened topilesof LP25Sbridgesthe inlet.The floating beamsof wood and steel wereattached tosteel pipe dolphinsof 16mlength.

FigureA3.3:Construction of pit structure64(land side)

Astilling basin wascreated on the landside, protected byawater-tightconstruction pitof sheetpiling. The bed wasconstructed bymeansof ananchored concreteunderwaterbase and the construction bed wasconnected tothe concreteunderwaterbase. Hydraulic building blockswerefitted overthe concretebase. Oncethe stilling basin wascomplete, the sheetpiling wasburntoffunderwater.

FigureA3.4: Inletstructure64

Construction in floodplains295 Newconstruction discharge structureN The structureNhasbeen builtintothe side armofthe Rhine. Itconsists of twoparts:the 2-channel discharge structureforfilling of partialpolder1, whichissimilartothe others,and the rough channel passage. Waterflows constantlythrough thischannel passage and close tothe surfaceintothe side channel of the Rhine. Thisallows fishand micro-organismsto migrateatanytime from the Rhine intothe landside waters.

FigureA3.5: Discharge structureN

Inordertoavoid flooding of the hinterland, twocut-offplainsbetween the Rhine and the construction pitmust always beavailable during construction. Thisrequirestwosheetpiling pits and severalconstruction sections.

• First,the sheetpiling box,whichprotects all parts required forthe installation of the gateshut-offcomponents,isconstructed on the Rhine side. Onlyafterthe complete flood protection hasbeen created withthe gatesfullyfunctioning will the second sheet piling boxbeexcavated. Thisalsorequiresthe relocation of the siteaccess road. • Inthe second sheetpiling box,the concreteforthe landside components of the discharge structureand the channel passage will then bepoured. Subsequently,the side channel of the Rhine will then berelocated overthe twochannelsof the discharge structure.

Inthe courseofthe thirdsection of construction work, the components on the Rhine and on the landside areconnected. Forthispurpose, awindowin the middle sheetpiling isopened. The sheetpiling wall located aboveitwill remain in the dam. The seambetween the components will beconcreted.

Aftercompletion of the structure, the basesecuring workonthe Rhine and landsideswill be effected. The Söllingen/GreffernPolderbecame operationalatthe end of 2005.

Construction in floodplains296 Annex4

List of Figures

Chapter1 Figure1.1 SDF projectlocations Figure1.2Location of Kirschgartshausen projectarea Figure1.3Kirschgartshausen developmentplan Figure1.4 Kirschgartshausen projectarea Figure1.5 Ingelheim Polderin the agriculturalregion between the Rhine and the A60 autobahn Figure1.6Components of the developmentplanofIngelheim Polder Figure1.7ProjectareaIngelheim Polder Figure1.8 Location of the Emscherproject Figure1.9 Developmentplanofthe Emscherfloodplain Figure1.10Floodplain location Mengede beforeconstruction Figure1.11 Location of EmmericherWardfloodplain Figure1.12EmmericherWardfloodplain withplanned side channelsand riverside forest Figure1.13EmmericherWardfloodplain area Figure1.14 Location Bislich-Vahnumfloodplain Figure1.15 Bislich-Vahnumdevelopmentplan Figure1.16Bislich-Vahnumfloodplain area Figure1.17Location of the LohrwardtPolder Figure1.18 DevelopmentplanofLohrwardtfloodplain Figure1.19 LohrwardtPolderprojectarea Figure1.20 Location of the Rijnwaarden project Figure1.21Developmentplanofthe Green River Figure1.22 The Green Riverarea Figure1.23 Location of the BemmelseWaard Figure1.24Developmentplanofthe BemmelseWaard Figure1.25The BemmelseWaardprojectarea Figure1.26 Location of the Fortmond projectarea Figure1.27 Fortmond developmentplan Figure1.28The Fortmond projectarea Figure1.29Location of the Hondsbroeksche Pleij project Figure1.30 Hondsbroeksche Pleij developmentplan Figure1.31The Hondsbroeksche Pleij area Figure1.32 Location of the Lexkesveerproject Figure1.33 Lexkesveerprojectdevelopmentplan Figure1.34The Lexkesveerprojectarea Figure1.35Location of the Heesseltsche Uiterwaarden Figure1.36 Developmentplanofthe Heeseltsche Uiterwaarden Figure1.37 The Heesseltsche uiterwaarden area Figure1.38Overviewof main themes,working groupswithin SDF and the connecting role of communication Figure1.39SDF Working Groupmeeting

Chapter2 Figure2.1 Effects of dike relocation (uncontrolled) on the flood peak Figure2.2Effects of controlled retention on the flood peak Figure2.3Example of acontrolled retention area:Ingelheim Polder,leftecological flooded, rightHQ200 flooded Figure2.4 Flood retention measuresin the Emschersystem Figure2.5 Standardcross-section on the dikeson the rightside of the Rhine Figure2.6Dike structureIngelheim Poldereast dike Figure2.7LohrwardtPolder:cross-section main dike Figure2.8 Traditionaldike construction in the Netherlands Figure2.9 Alternativedike construction withsealing wall (Hondsbroeksche Pleij)

List of Figures297 4

Figure2.10Dike construction (Hondsbroeksche Pleij, July2008) Figure2.11 Construction of MIP cut-offwall Figure2.12Excavated test section Figure2.13Sample of the finished MIP-wall Figure2.14 Alternativedike alignments in Kirschgartshausen Figure2.15 Sand craters in the hinterland of the Rhine winterdike closetoHördt,(DE) Figure2.16Soil layers in Kirschgartshausen Figure2.17AerialphotoofSöllingen-GreffernPolder Figure2.18 The Ninletconstruction (Söllingen-GreffernPolder) Figure2.19 InletstructureIngelheim Polder,viewfrom riverside. Figure2.20 Cross-section of aweirflap Figure2.21Position of the inletstructurewithin the Lohrwardttotaldike relocation system and Lohrwardtsummerpolder Figure2.22 Inletstructure, construction November2006,closetothe Rhine Figure2.23 Inletand outletstructures,cross-section of the summerpolder Figure2.24Inletstructure, returnwalls(lefttoright): formwork, concrete, clinkerlayer Figure2.25Inletstructure, cross-section withillustration of temporary adaption tothe main dike Figure2.26 Model of the weirflap Figure2.27 Model of the stilling basin Figure2.28Trialoperation of the weirflap Figure2.29Stilling basin Ingelheim Polder–readyforoperation Figure2.30 Design of the Emscheroutletbuilding Figure2.31Cross-section of outletworkinthe Emscherretention area Figure2.32 Design of the building Figure2.33 Hondsbroeksche Pleij adjustable weirstructure Figure2.34Construction of the adjustable weirstructureHondsbroeksche Pleij, July2008 Figure2.35Layout of the Hondsbroeksche Pleij project Figure2.36 Presentsituation atHondsbroeksche Pleij Figure2.37 Futuresituation atHondsbroeksche Pleij Figure2.38Adjustmentmeasuresforgroundwaterpreservation Figure2.39Positiveeffectof the adjustmentmeasuresforpreservation of groundwater Figure2.40Drainage system location (hatched in blue) Figure2.41 Cross-section of the drainage system Figure2.42Location of the groundwaterponds Figure2.43Well No.3withbuilding forswitchgears Figure2.44 Viewintowell chamber Figure2.45 Well filterpipe DN 1500 (atthe Badweg waterworks) Figure2.46IKA-lake Figure2.47Underground portion of the pumping station withsubmersible pumps Figure2.48 Culvert Dike East underconstruction withincorporated sheetpile walls Figure2.49 Lohrwardtinland drainage, left:main dike around 1900; right:main dike today,planning and historically Figure2.50Lohrwardtinland drainage, existing drainage ditches,situation 2006 Figure2.51 Lohrwardtinland drainage, reactivation and newconstruction (marked in yellow) Figure2.52Hydrograph of groundwaterobservation points 080200047from 1939to 2006,Rhine observation Reesand position of groundwaterobservation points (in orange: 080200047) Figure2.53LohrwardtPolderpumping station, completion ceremonyApril 2006 Figure2.54 LohrwardtPolderpumping station, formworkNovember2005and reinforcementpassage June 2005 Figure2.55 LohrwardtPolderpumping station, trialoperation June 2006 and pipe- basementJune 2006 Figure2.56Location of the seepage ditch Figure2.57Hondsbroeksche Pleij seepage ditch Figure2.58 Hondsbroeksche Pleij seepage ditchconstruction Figure2.59 Room forthe Riverprojects along the LowerRhine

List of Figures298 4

Figure2.60 Discharge distribution (DD 16,000 m 3 /s,closed weir) Figure2.61Discharge distribution (DD 16,000 m 3 /s,open weir) Figure2.62 The Gameren floodplain along the RiverWaalwiththe newdike alignment(in1995) Figure2.63 The Gameren floodplain afterconstruction of the side channels(in 2000) Figure2.64Sedimentation and erosion ratesbased on monitoring between 12/1996 and 10/2002 (within the green line:12/1998 and 10/2002) Figure2.65Fortmond: excavation of the side channel Figure2.66 Developmentof aside channel in the Vreugderijkerwaard/RiverIJssel (2000,spring 2002,autumn 2002) Figure2.67 Wooden pile foundationsof the culverts (inletworks) Figure2.68Design of the culverts Figure2.69Generalplanofthe riverbank alternative;BCE Consulting Engineers, Cologne, August 2007 Figure2.70 Draftplanofthe groyne interruption;BCE Consulting Engineers,Cologne, August 2007 Figure2.71Mutualeffects of impactfactors atthe side channel Fortmond Figure2.72 Three control principles:sedimentcontrol, hydrauliccontrol, cross-section control Figure2.73 Fortmond: transport byboat Figure2.74Hill foranimals(cross-section) Figure2.75Construction of atemporary road, Fortmond

Chapter3 Figure3.1 Landscape comparison 1790and today Figure3.2Useofthe land in the caseofthe UpperRhine during the straightening Figure3.3developmentof the floodplain forest on the UpperRhine from the straightening until present Figure3.4 Example of floodplain forest Figure3.5 Example of floodplain meadow Figure3.6Example of periodicwaters withcanebrake area Figure3.7Sowing of the newdike bymeansof the Heudrusch-procedure Figure3.8 Improvementof the environmentforthe stork Figure3.9 Situation in early19thcentury Figure3.10Currentsituation Figure3.11 Planned Mengede floodplain Figure3.12Lexkesveer:marshestobedeveloped Figure3.13 AlteSandlach :existing Altrhein arm Figure3.14 Upperstreamground excavation of the AlteSandlach Figure3.15 ImMörs ecologicalflooded areain March2007 Figure3.16Outletstructureforecologicalflooding Figure3.17LohrwardtPolder:Natura2000 areaswithin the planning area Figure3.18 The Rhine atEmmerichwithexisting and planned riparianforest,planned side channel (A)and flood channel (B) Figure3.19 Change in flowratesduetothe planned riparianforest,side channel and flood channel ataverage high waterlevels( mittelerem Hochwasser/ MHW)(above: currentstatus,below:planned status) Figure3.20 Bridge overthe AlteSandlach side cahnnel, small flood in August 2007, the RiverRhine in the background Figure3.21Excavated AlteSandlach Figure3.22 Lexkesveer:overdimensioned high watergullycompensatesfornature development Figure3.23 Access roadseparating the twofloodplains Figure3.24Heesseltsche uiterwaarden compromiseplan Figure3.25Gelsenkirchen zoo Figure3.26 Balancing impactand compensation Figure3.27 Eco-accountareasin KIrschgartshausen

List of Figures299 Figure3.28Lexkesveer:managementbyprivateowners Figure3.29Grazing developmentconceptatthe ImMörs ecologicalflooding area Figure3.30 Grazing Gallowaycattle atWorms-Rheindürkheim Figure3.31Warning sign –Free-roaming cattle on the Lippe floodplain Figure3.32 Natura2000 areasin the Netherlands Figure3.33 Lexkesveer:potentialconflicts between maintaining existing geeseand developmentgoals Figure3.34Aimsand fulfilmentof objectivesof the overall SDF-project

Chapter4 Figure4.1 Publicperception in Germanyand the Netherlandsregarding waterissues Figure4.2Ladderof participation Figure4.3Impressions–opening ceremony,Emscher Figure4.4 Information eventatthe Emscherproject Figure4.5 Big Jump atRheinhausen, 17July2005 Figure4.6BrochuresEmscher:Transgenerationalproject–reshaping the Emscher, flood retention along the Emscher Figure4.7Hondsbroeksche Pleij website Figure4.8 Exhibition of model and plansin the locallibrary (Emscher) Figure4.9 Exhibition atHondsbroeksche Pleij Figure4.10Workshop on design atthe Emscherproject Figure4.11 Lexkesveermaintaining old pollardwillows leading togreatercommitment Figure4.12Example of the sitevisit Figure4.13Workofart in Heesselt:typicalDutchcow Figure4.14 Example of positivepress Figure4.15 Examplesof negativepress Figure4.16StateministerMargitConradand Hubert Weinzierl, chairof the DBU

Chapter5 Figure5.1 Emscherfloodplain Figure5.2Freedom of choice, principal, contracts,specifications,IC (Integrated Contract) Figure5.3Type of contracts most suitable atanygiven pointin the courseofaproject Figure5.4 Interest of publicand privatepartners atBemmelseWaard Figure5.5 LohrwardtPolder,Reckerfeld neighbouring open-pitmining Figure5.6LohrwardtPolder,cross-section of open-pitmining areaReckerfeld, during mining (blue), aftercompletion (red)

Chapter6 Figure6.1 The SDF partners atthe kick-off Figure6.2The panel members discuss the MainzDeclaration Figure6.3Signing of the Partnership Agreementbythe ALFASteering GroupMembers

Annexes FigureA1.1 Polderand dike relocationsatthe UpperRhine FigureA1.2Locationsof measuresin NorthRhine Westphalia FigureA1.3Locationsof measuresand alternatives FigureA2.1 EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentin the Netherlands FigureA2.2Proceduresforplanning infrastructureand participation of targetgroupsin Germany FigureA2.3Waterboards FigureA2.4 Involvementof administrations,politiciansand interest groupsin planning systemsin NorthRhine-Westphalia FigureA3.1 AerialphotoofSöllingen/GreffernPolder FigureA3.2Söllingen/GreffernPolder FigureA3.3Construction of pitstructure64(land side) FigureA3.4 Inletstructure64 FigureA3.5 Discharge structureN

List of Figures300 5 Annex5

List of Tables

Chapter1 Table 1.1 Projectmeasuresand SDF book themes

Chapter2 Table 2.1 Ingelheim Polderflooding data Table 2.2Splitting of discharge bythe inletsill and proportion of Rhine discharge when aculvert isopen

Chapter3 Table 3.1 Summary of the consulted criteriaforassessing the sustainability of SDF Table 3.2Finalanalysisof the fulfilmentof sustainability criteriawithin the SDF project(2008)

Chapter4 Table 4.1 Applied informaland additionalinstruments in the SDF projectand target groups Table 4.2Brief assessmentof publicparticipation within the SDF project

List ofTables301 6

List of Boxes302 Annex66

List of Boxes

Chapter1 Box1.1 Facts and Figuresof the SDF project Box1.2The SDF partners

Chapter2 Box2.1 Increasing the effects of retention areasalong the upperRhine by integrated operation Box2.2The system of retention polders in the Emschercatchment Box2.3Lessonslearned from the visittothe Söllingen-GreffernPolder Box2.4 Lessonslearned from the Kollerinsel Polder Box2.5 Landside drainage and pumping stationsatIngelheim Polder Box2.6Exemplary solution: seepage ditchwithpumping station Box2.7StrategiesforControl of the Retention Areasof the UpperRhine Box2.8 Self-regulation of anuncontrolled retention area Box2.9 Floodgateattendantatthe LohrwardtPolder Box2.10Side channel in Gameren (NL): technical(morphological) aspects Box2.11 Side channelsatVreugderijkerwaard(NL) Box2.12Experienceswithside channelsin Gameren floodplain Box2.13Example of soil certificates Box2.14 Temporary roads,infrastructurepipesand recreationaluseatthe Emscher

Chapter3 Box3.1 Landscape developmentin the Rhine floodplain (UpperRhine) Box3.2Naturedevelopmentconcepts in the Netherlands Box3.3Advantagesof dike relocation forLampertheim Box3.4 Differentiation of dynamiczonesin side channels Box3.5 MultifunctionaluseatGelsenkirchen zoo Box3.6Multifunctionaleconomicand ecologicalobjectivesatMillingerwaard Box3.7Lessonslearned from the Interreg IIIB Freude amFluss project Box3.8 Heckcattle in the Lippe floodplain –the naturemanagers

Chapter4 Box4.1 Ladderof participation Box4.2Lake Lippe: Referendumonawaterproject Box4.3Politicalevent Box4.4 Lessonslearned: Flood prevention in Cologne

Chapter5 Box5.1 WhatisPPP? Box5.2HowtoeffectPPP in areadevelopment Box5.3Do’s and Don’ts in PPP Box5.4 PPP in the Netherlands

List of Boxes303 7

List of abbreviations304 Annex77

List of abbreviations

BauGB Baugesetzbuch (Building Code) BHD Birdsand Habitats Directive BHW Bemessungshochwasser (Design discharge) CFR CyclicFloodplain Rejuvenation D&C Design and Construct DD Design discharge DLG Dienst Landelijk Gebied (GovernmentServiceforLand and Water Management) DLG Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft (GermanAgriculturalAssociation) DN DiameterNominal DVWK DeutscherVerband für Wasserwirtschaftund Kultur (GermanAssociation forWatermanagementand Culture) DWDG Gesetz überden Deutschen Wetterdienst (WeatherServicesAct) EAU Empfehlungen desArbeitsausschusses–Ufereinfassungen EC EuropeanCommunity EHS Ecologische Hoofdstructuur ( NationalEcologicNetwork) EIA EnvironmentalImpactAssessment EU EuropeanUnion EVU Energieversorgungsunternehmen (Responsible electricsupplycompany) FFH FloraFaunaHabitat GIS Geographicalinformation systems HBPL Hondsbroeksche Pleij HQ100 Flood recurrency1/100 years HQ200 Flood recurrency1/200 years HQ5Flood recurrency1/5years IC Inegrated Contract ICPR InternationalCommission forthe Protection of the Rhine IRP Integrated Rhine Programme Baden-Württemberg kf Waterpermeability coefficient LABO Bund-LänderArbeitsgemeinschaftBodenschutz LANA Bund-LänderArbeitsgemeinschaftNaturschutz,Landschaftspflege und Erholung LAWA Bund-LänderArbeitsgemeinschaftWasser (Working Groupofthe Federal Stateson WaterIssues) LfU Landesanstaltfür Umweltschutz (EnvironmentalProtection Office) LÖBF Landesanstaltfür Ökologie, Bodenordnung und Forsten NRW (Regional OfficeforEcology,Land Division and Forestry NRW) LUBW Landesanstaltfür Umwelt,Messungen und Naturschutz Baden- Württemberg (RegionalofficeforEnvironment,Measurements and NatureConservation Baden-Württemberg) MHW mittelerem Hochwasser (average high waterlevel) MIP mixed in place MKRO Ministerkonferenzfür Raumordnung (Standing ConverenceofFederal and StateMinisters Responsible forSpatialPlanning) MRIJ MaasRijn IJssel (MeuseRhine IJssel) MUNLV Ministeriumfür Umwelt,Naturschutz,Landwirtschaftund Verbraucherschutz desLandesNordrhein-Westfalen (Ministry for Environment,Agricultureand Consumerprotection of the Land North Rhine-Westphalia) NABU Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V. (NatureConservation Organisataion Germany) NAP Nieuw AmsterdamsPijl (meansealevel)

List of abbreviations305 NATO NorthAtlanticTreaty Organisation NGO Non GovernmentalOrganisation NIMBY Notin mybackyard NOFDP Nature-Oriented Flood Damage Prevention NRWNorthRhine-Westphalia NSG Naturschutzgebiet (Natureprotected area) NURG NadereUitwerking Rivierengebied Planstousethe predominantlyagriculturalfloodplainsalong the riverfor wetland naturedevelopment NW Europe North-West Europe PIMBY Pleaseinmybackyard PPP Public-privatepartnership PR Publicrelations qu 1-axialcompressivestrength RAMSAR The RamsarConvention on Wetlands RAP Rhine Action Programme ROG Raumordnungsgesetz (SpatialPlanning Act) RPK RegierungspräsidiumKarlsruhe RvdRRoom forthe RiverProgramme RWS Rijkswaterstaat RWS-ON RijkswaterstaatOost-Nederland SDF Sustainable Floodplain Development SGD Süd Struktur-und Genehmigungsdirektion Süd SLW60 Design load SPASpecialProtected Areas TAW Technische Adviescommissie voorde Waterkeringen (Advisory Committee fordikes) TÖB TrägeröffentlicherBelange (“organised public”) WaStrG Wasserstraßengesetz (FederalActon Waterways) WFD WaterFrameworkDirective WG Working group WHG Wasserhaushaltsgesetz (GermanWaterAct) WSP Waterlevel WSV Wasser-und Schifffahrtsverwaltung desBundes (GermanFederalWater and Navigation Administration) WWF World Wildlife Foundation

List of abbreviations306 2

ProjectPartners and Contact

Inthe SDF project,twoDutchand fiveGermanpartners worktogetheralong the riverRhine. The organisationsinvolved are publicauthoritiesatlocal, regionaland nationallevel and twonon-profitorganisations.The leadpartnerisRijkswaterstaat- Oost Nederland in Arnhem, the Netherlands.

Rijkswaterstaat-Oost Nederland (RWS-ON) Struktur-und Genehmigungsdirektion-Süd RegierungspräsidiumKarlsruhe (RPK), (DirectorateGeneralforPublicWorksand (SGD Süd) Markgrafenstrasse46 WaterManagement) Kleine Langgasse3 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany Gildemeestersplein 1, 6826 LL Arnhem 555116Mainz,Germany Contactperson: BarbaraLampert PO Box9070 Contactperson: Dr.-Ing. ThomasBettmann Phone: +49 721926 7564 6800 ED Arnhem, The Netherlands Phone: +49 61312397162 Fax:+49 721933 40250 SDF ProjectManager:Henk Nijland Fax:+49 61312397155 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +3126 3688911 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.rp-karlsruhe.de/ Fax:+3126 3688455 Website: http://www.sgdsued.rlp.de/ Project:Kirschgartshausen E-mail: [email protected] Project:Ingelheim Polder [email protected] [email protected] Website: http/www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/ Projects:Hondsbroeksche Pleij, Lexkesveer, Heesseltsche Uiterwaarden

Emschergenossenschaft NABU Naturschutzstation Kranenburg Kronprinzenstraße 24 Bahnhofstraße 15 D45128Essen, Germany 47559 Kranenburg, Germany Contactperson: Kirsten Adamczak Contactperson: Klaus Markgraf-Maué Phone: +49 2011042679 Phone: +49 2826 91876-00 Fax:+49 2011042661 Fax:+49 2826 91876-29 Dienst Landelijk Gebied- Regio Oost E-mail: [email protected] E-mail :klaus.markgraf@nabu- (GovernmentServiceforLand and Water Website: http://www. naturschutzstation.de Management) emschergenossenschaft.de/ Website: http://www.nabu- PO Box9079 Project:Emscher naturschutzstation.de 6800 ED Arnhem, The Netherlands Projects:BislichVahnumand Emmericher Contactpersons:FransvanOs, Ward MarcDoppenberg MathijsLogtenberg, JanvanSoest Phone: +3126 3781200 Fax:+3126 3781250 Deichverband Bislich-Landesgrenze E-mail: [email protected] Stadweide 3 [email protected] 46466 EmmerichamRhein, Germany [email protected] Contactpersons:HolgerFriedrich [email protected]/ Phone :+49 28822 9339-0 Website: http://www.minlnv.nl Fax:+49 2822 933930 Projects:Rijnwaarden, Bemmelse E-mail :holger.friedrich@deichverband- waard, Fortmond bislich-landesgrenze.de Website: http://www.deichverband-bislich- landesgrenze.de/ Project:LohrwardtPolder

ProjectPartners and Contact307