ECO-FRIENDLY RIVER BANKS DUTCH PART OF THE RIVER

A Policy Assessment

Authors: - C.G. Deval (3920321) - J.P.J. de Kinderen (5529182) - M. Zoutendijk (5559596)

Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences MSc Program, Water Science and Management Course: Water Policy, Governance and Law

Utrecht, 29-06-2015

Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 Abstract ...... 3 Introduction ...... 4 Assessment Methodology ...... 5 Assessment ...... 6 1. Water System Knowledge (rijkswaterstaat, 2014) ...... 6 2. Values, Principles and Policy Discourses ...... 8 3. Stakeholders involvement ...... 9 4. Trade-offs between social objectives ...... 12 5 Responsibility, Authority, Means ...... 13 6. Regulations and Agreements ...... 14 7. Financial Arrangements ...... 16 8. Engineering and Monitoring ...... 18 9. Enforcement ...... 20 10. Conflict Prevention and Resolution ...... 22 Discussion ...... 24 Conclusion ...... 25 References ...... 27 Appendix 1. Natural river bank locations Meuse River ...... 30 Appendix 2. Cost indications for the construction of an Ecofriendly-riverbank ...... 31

2 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the policy measures taken pertaining to the establishment of eco-friendly river banks in the Dutch part of Meuse river basin. It further examines the policies with the aim to provide recommendations on the policy design. It was found that eco-friendly river bank projects are still in its early implementation phase and are actively being monitored. Farmers have high stakes in the development of eco-friendly river bank projects in Meuse basin and therefore are being involved in the project at the early stage. The responsibilities and authorities for such projects are shared between the public and private parties. However, enforcement is still very intricate, especially when it comes to controlling diffused pollution sources. Overall, the current policy measures pertaining eco-friendly river banks appear to be effective and sufficiently developed. However, with new insights these policy measures may require review.

3 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 INTRODUCTION

Anthropogenic influences on the global water system have been very well documented (C. J. Vörösmarty et al., 2010; C. Vörösmarty et al., 2004). Water quality is keystone to all the roles that water plays in sustaining life. Yet, the ever increasing population and escalating economic and agricultural activities, over the years, have deteriorated water quality worldwide. The extant anthroposphere is the manifestation of the economic activities and the anthropogenic modifications such as land cover changes (Meybeck, 2003). As a consequence of these anthropogenic perturbations, rivers, worldwide, are facing myriad challenges such as bank erosion (Urban & Rhoads, 2003), nutrient loading (Carpenter et al., 1998) and loss of habitat and biodiversity (Vaughn, 2010). The water bodies in the have not been an exception to the consequences of aforementioned perturbations. The surface water quality in the Netherlands especially as it relates to nutrient loading is below average. For instance, The Dutch part of Meuse river basin is spread over 7700 Km2 area and encompasses the entire province of and parts of the province of Noord-Brabant, Zuid-Holland and Gelderland. Agricultural is most predominant land use in this part of the basin, making the river and other water bodies susceptible to nutrient loading from agricultural runoffs. Both, the chemical and ecological status of Meuse River has been reported unsatisfactory, especially because of the exceeding concentrations of certain chemicals used for agriculture ending up into the river (Rijkswaterstaat, 2009b).

Water quality being central in sustaining ecosystem calls for management policies that advocate measures for eco-friendly river banks. The notion of eco-friendly river banks aims at making the river banks nature friendly. This implies managing the river banks in such a way that the impact on ecosystems is minimized as far as possible while at the same time benefits continue to be reaped from the functions that the river banks provide. For instance, allowing the vegetation to flourish along the river banks will not only stabilize the bank but will also encourage thriving of biodiversity. Furthermore, the vegetation growth will facilitate nutrient accumulation, preventing the water body from nutrient loading. In addition the vegetated banks will also function as a buffer zones thereby reducing the flood intensity. The eco-friendly river banks will also add the aesthetic and recreational value to the system.

The policies pertaining the river bank management do advocate the measures for eco- friendly river banks. However, this concept is still relatively new and is still in its execution stage. The present paper, therefore, attempts to evaluate the policy measures taken pertaining to eco-friendly river banks, especially in the context of Dutch part of Meuse river basin. Further, based on the policy assessment, the paper aims at providing recommendations on policy design. The research question of this paper is as follows:

“Are the currently used policy methods effective and do these policy methods contribute to sustainable management of the Meuse river?”

4 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The evaluation of the policy measures is based on the recently developed multi- dimensional interdisciplinary policy assessment method. The method consists of ten building blocks which underlie the three dimension namely the content, organization and implementation. Further these three dimensions are interlinked (See Figure 1). Each building block is equipped with its own assessment criteria. Depending on this criteria, policy measures for the Dutch part of Meuse river basin for each building block were assessed in isolation. Once the each part was addressed individually, the overall zoomed out perspective was adopted to look at the interactions amongst the different blocks.

Figure 1: Multi-dimensional water management and governance. Adopted from Van Rijswick et al. (2014a)

5 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 ASSESSMENT

1. WATER SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE (RIJKSWATERSTAAT, 2014)

The assessment question of this building block comprises the following:

“Is there sufficient knowledge of the existing water system in order to deliver the required service level of societal functions? If not, what are the gaps; is sufficient knowledge available to assess the impact on the water system because of changes in environment and societal functions?” (van Rijswick et al., 2014a)

The Meuse Riveris a river that has its roots in France and flows via Belgium into the Netherlands. The total length of the river is 935 kilometres, of which about 250 kilometres lies in the Netherlands. During the past the Meuse River has incised itself in the landscape. This is especially noticeable in the area between the boarder of Belgium and the Dutch city Cuijk. In this area a stair-shaped landscape has formed with different elevations. For Dutch standards this is a unique landscape. In this area dikes are not always necessary since the natural banks are high enough to secure areas from floods.

From Cuijk to the downstream parts of the Dutch the Meuse river valley with a lot of height dynamics is smoothly changed into a more flat landscape. In this part of the system the river flows through an area which is protected by high levees. From here the river water flows via de Bergsche Maas and the Nieuwe Waterweg into the sea. During periods with high discharges a part of the Meuse River water is transported to sea via the Haringvliet.

The point where the Meuse and the River are connected with each other is called the “Rhine-Meuse river mouth”. The water levels in this area are influenced by tides of the sea and less by river discharges. This influence of the tides are especially caused by the Nieuwe Waterweg. On high tide salt water can enter the Nieuwe Waterweg and therefore can reach parts of the Meuse River. During periods with low discharges and high water levels on sea, the salty water can also reach the Haringvliet and the Hollandsch Diep.

The transition of river to sea water consist of a complicated branched system of different waterways. Small riverbanks in this area could fall dry during low tide. The nature area named the Biesbosch was from origin a freshwater tide area. Since the government decided to close the Haringvliet and Hollandsch Diep these tidal influences are almost completely disappeared. However this area is still an attractive landscape with different ecosystems, flora and fauna. Some water streams which flowing close to the “Rhine-Meuse river mouth” are located far under MSL.

The Meuse River belongs to one of the most important waterways in the Dutch river delta. After canalizations and the construction of the “Maas-Waalkanaal” the Meuse River become increasingly important for navigation. For example: In 1930 about 15000

6 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 container ships were passing the sluices in Sambeek. In a time period of 50-75 years this number increased up to ±66000 container ships. In order to maintain enough water depth in the Meuse River for navigation a lot of sluices and weirs are located along the river.

Along the Dutch part of the Meuse River seven weirs are located. These weirs maintain a water depth of at least three meter in order to make navigation possible. In the past, in 1976, the Meuse water levels were too low and navigation was not possible. Since this year governments started with the implementation of new techniques to maintain water levels in order to prevent future problems. A good method to solve these problems was an efficient use of sluices.

The sluices in the Haringvliet are completely closed if the discharge by the city Lobith is lower than 1100 cubic meters a second. During periods of higher discharges the sluices are gradually opened. If the discharge rates exceed 10,000 cubic meters per second the sluices will be opened completely. This program has as main goal to maintain enough water depth for navigation and to prevent salinization.

Rijkswaterstaat wants to improve the Meuse river ecosystem by constructing eco- friendly river banks. The main goals of eco-friendly river banks are (Rijkswaterstaat, 2015):  Cleaner and healthier water;  More room for the river, which decrease flood risk;  Create good habitats for flora and fauna. There are a lot of factors that influence the efficiency of an eco-friendly river bank. Rijkswaterstaat has a schedule up to 2016 for the construction of eco-friendly river banks along the Meuse River. Appendix 1 shows an overview of constructed Eco- friendly-river banks along the Meuse River. The first phase was up to 2012 where almost 36.5 kilometres of eco-friendly river banks were constructed. Up to 2015/2016 another 33 eco-friendly river bank projects are expected to be completed. Conclusion Enough quantitative and qualitative knowledge exists pertaining to the Dutch part of the water system in the Meuse river basin. This is evident from the indicators such as hydrological characteristics, nutrient loads as mentioned in the river basin management plan (Ministry of Transport Public Works and Water Management, 2010). However there are still gaps in the knowledge about the functioning of eco-friendly river banks in the Meuse River. Many eco-friendly river banks are recently constructed (period 2010- 2015) and therefore research data about long term impacts on the Meuse River basin are scarce.

7 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 2. VALUES, PRINCIPLES AND POLICY DISCOURSES

The assessment question of this building block comprises the following:

“Is there sufficient knowledge of shared or conflicting values, viewpoints and principles (represented by different policy discourse coalitions) for water issues and their consequences for facing water management issues?” (van Rijswick et al., 2014a)

Values are the reflections of goals of different stakeholders in achieving certain status or implementing certain project, in this case eco-friendly river banks. Principles on the other hand are the general character. Policy discourse is a reflection of the goals of all the stakeholders along with the values and principles.

Values The different stakeholders in the Dutch part of Meuse river basin have different set of goals in working towards eco-friendly river bank. The stakeholders at the national level such as the Dutch state with the help of its ministries have the goals of protecting and improving the chemical and ecological status of the Meuse river by reduce the impacts of the activities on the its bank that hamper the ecological and chemical status of the river. Whereas the stakeholders at the provincial level such as the local water boards and municipalities aim at building with nature by providing more space of nature and water storage and also improving the recreational and aesthetic values. The stakeholders at more regional level such as the farmers and the landowners are more interested in having a stable river bank that is more suitable of their activities such as agriculture. Other stakeholders at the regional level include the shipping industry and environmental organizations like the NGO’s. Environmental organizations owing to their inherent values towards nature and biodiversity, support eco-friendly river banks.

Principles The polluter pays principle and the principle of solidarity are extensively included in the policies for water management. However, implementation of the polluter pays principle, especially in case of diffused sources of pollution such as agricultural sources is very difficult. In the Netherlands, the solidarity principle functions as a central principle especially in water management (OECD, 2012). Two more principles that the water service users need to comply with include the principle of cost recovery and the benefit principle. The cost recovery principle advocates recovering costs in the same river basin where they are incurred while the benefit principle advocates financial assistance from the users that are benefited from the water services (Lazaroms & Poos, 2004).

Policy discourse The water management in the Netherlands involves public participation and is a consensus based model where the inputs from the local residents is taken into account.

8 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 Conclusion It is evident from the discussion above that different stakeholders have different values. The values of some stakeholders such as shipping industry and farmers don’t coincide with the idea of eco-friendly river banks owing to their business oriented outlook. However most of the stakeholder’s values coincide with each-other. In general it could be said that there is a shared interest amongst different stakeholders and values are more or less non-conflicting and are leading towards eco-friendly river banks. Construction of eco-friendly river banks can, thus, be considered as a no regret measure owing to the functions that it will provide. Over all it could be concluded that there is sufficient knowledge of shared or conflicting values, viewpoints and principles for issues and their consequences for facing water management issues.

3. STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT

The assessment question of this building block comprises the following:

“Are all relevant stakeholders involved? Are their interests, concerns and values sufficiently balanced considered in the problem analysis, solution search process and decision- making?” (van Rijswick et al., 2014a).

Stakeholders and their responsibilities/ interests The water framework directive (WFD), which regards river basin as a primary unit of water management, in its article 14 advocates close cooperation and coherent action at community, Member State and local level (European Commission, 2000). This should include involvement of the public. Public should be informed and consulted and should have access to the time frame of the works to be done under river basin management plans. However, the member states are on their own responsible for bringing the WFD into practice.

The aforementioned public involvement can be broadly categorized into three classes which include public communication, public consultation and public participation (Rowe, 2005). The stakeholders in the Dutch part of Meuse river basin can be broadly categorised into five categories. These include i) the Dutch state, ii) the Provinces, iii) water boards, iv) municipalities, v) and local residents, farmers, land owners and shipping industries. Figure 2 shows position of these stakeholders based on their influence and importance in working towards eco-friendly river banks. For instance ‘The Dutch state’ is placed in the extreme right corner because it is most influential as well as important when it comes to establishing eco-friendly river banks. On the other hand, the shipping industry comparatively is less influential as well as important and thus find a spot in the middle in the importance-influence matrix.

9 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015

Figure 2: Stakeholder importance-influence matrix

Each stakeholder has certain interest and/or responsibility, in the Meuse river basin which are further elaborated below.

The Dutch state At the national level two ministries are responsible for certain tasks pertaining to water management in the Netherlands. These include the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (IenM) and the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ), formerly known as the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation.

Responsibilities: IenM is responsible for flood protection and water management on the national scale and for national environmental policies that include, amongst others, elements such as setting the discharge standards, water quality, drinking water and sewerage system. EZ is responsible for agriculture and nature management as well as food safety on a national scale. It is responsible for putting the WFD into practice.

Interests: Together these ministries are interested in:

 complying the goals of WFD pertaining with nature  Developing river basin management plans  Establishing and maintaining good chemical and ecological status of water bodies  Improving stability of river banks These interest also reflect the context of the national Water Act of the Netherlands (Ministry of Transport Public Works and Water Management, 2010).

10 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 The Provinces The provinces are responsible for putting into practice the WFD and the river basin management plans. The provinces therefore see the river banks as an important ecological corridor. The provincial authorities are also responsible for putting the national nature policy into practice (Van Der Windt & Swart, 2007). Consequently they are undertaking projects such as creating more room for the river so as to increase discharge capacity of the river and making banks of the river nature friendly (Rijkswaterstaat, 2009a). These measures in turn will also enhance the other function of the river and river bank such as ecology and ecotourism (Reuber, 2005). Some of the provinces like the province of Limburg, Noord-Brabant and Gelderland are working in different localities on establishing self-eroding eco-friendly river banks (Rijkswaterstaat, n.d.).

Water board Local authorities such as water boards are vital in bringing into practice and overseeing the activities pertaining eco-friendly river banks, both, within their boundaries and within the local and regional watersheds. At the water board level the responsibilities are as mentioned below:

 Creation of nature friendly river banks (Keessen, Kempen, & Rijswick, 2010)  Act in accordance with to nature goals of provinces and WFD goals

Few examples of water boards that are working towards establishing and maintaining the eco-friendly river banks include water board Roer en Overmaas in the province of Limburg and Brabantse delta in the province of Brabant (Rijkswaterstaat, n.d.).

Municipalities They have somewhat similar roles and responsibilities as that of the water boards. However they are responsible in overseeing the proceedings of the nature friendly river bank implementation whereas the water boards, as mentioned earlier are responsible for implementation itself. Municipalities can also benefit from the added cultural values and services such as aesthetics and recreation. Some examples of municipalities involved in eco-friendly river bank project in the Meuse basin, amongst many other, include ‘Peel en Maas' from the province of Limburg and ‘West Maas en ’ from the province of Noord-Brabant (Rijkswaterstaat, n.d.).

Local residents and farmers These stakeholders are interested in keeping the scenario as business as usual. However, efforts have been made to involve local residents in the early decision making stage for smoother implementation of the polices. Some suggestions on how farmers can contribute towards nature friendly river banks have been formulated and circulated. These outline the fundamental things that the farmers can do to cut down on the

11 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 nutrient loading from their farms to the river (Stam, Butler, Kretschmer, Dijkstra, & Hofstra, 2014). Agricultural organizations such as ‘Southern Agriculture and Horticulture Organization’ that represents thousands of farmers in south- Netherlands promotes environmental friendly agriculture (ZLTO, n.d.).

Conclusion Public participation is in its mature stage and the opinions of the local residents are been taken into consideration in the earlier stages of the decision making. All the stakeholders are sufficiently involved into the eco-friendly river bank projects either directly or indirectly. Direct involvement is by the means of subsidy policies such as financial assistance that is extended to the farmers and landowners in exchange of their land for the project. Indirect involvement includes effects such as indirect facilitation of navigation that the shipping industry has from the establishment of eco-friendly river bank projects.

4. TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN SOCIAL OBJECTIVES

The assessment question of this building block comprises the following:

“Are agreed service level decisions based on trade-offs of costs, benefits and distributional effects of various alternatives?” (van Rijswick et al., 2014a)

The eco-friendly river banks provide several services such as surface water with better quality, increased discharge capacity, and improved aesthetic value. These banks also function as recreational areas for the local residents. However, there is a strong trade-off between the eco-friendly river banks and agriculture. The only way that agriculture can coexist with eco-friendly banks is by making the agricultural practices nature inclusive and more sustainable (Rijkoverheid, n.d.). Another sector that is affected by the eco- friendly river banks is the shipping industry. Mainly these effects are positive when it comes to navigation functions because of the improved bank stability. In some places along the river bank trees called ‘bakenbomen’, translates to ‘beacon trees’, are located which play a crucial role especially during high discharge levels when they act as an indicator of the location of river bed. However this function has lost its importance in with the advancements in the GPS and RADAR technologies (Omroep Walraven, 2010). The trade-offs in general can be characterized into two categories namely ‘benefits Vs. displacement of landowners and farmers’ and ‘restoration of natural river functions Vs. loss of yield’.

The aforementioned services provided by the eco-friendly river banks come with the costs that are paid by the local farmers, land owners, municipalities and water boards. The land in the floodplains are bought from its owners by the water boards. The funds for this purchasing of land come from the taxes that the residents of the Meuse river basin pay under the principle of cost recovery, as explained earlier in the building block

12 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 2. Values, Principles and Policy Discourses’. It is, therefore, the inhabitants that indirectly pay for the services that the eco-friendly river bank provide. The policy guidelines at the European level such as Natura 2000 and WFD have facilitated buying of more and more land in the floodplains by national government for transforming them into ‘self-regulating nature’ (Bilt & Wiering, 2006; Heezik, 2008; Ward, Tockner, Uehlinger, & Malard, 2001).

Some of the projects that were undertaken and completed by water boards in the Meuse river basin include, among many other, creation of riparian strips of 25 meters along the river, pilots pertaining to free eroding banks and creation of water retention areas. Strips of land were bought between the areas of Grave and Gennep and between Arcen and Venlo and converted into riparian areas. This also facilitated reduction in soil erosion on the banks which indeed also facilitates shipping. The pilot areas were created near the areas of Aigen and Bergen for allowing the formation of naturally eroding river banks which is beneficial to certain flora and fauna. The retention areas were created between the Lateraalkanaal and villages Heel, Beegden and Horn to manage the extreme water flows in the river and Lateraalkanaal (Rijkswaterstaat, 2014).

Alternative to all these measures could be radical change in the anthropogenic activities on the river bank. According to Water Act (art 6.2, section 4), agricultural wastes entering the water are excluded from being forbidden, more so because it is taken care of in the law pertaining to fertilizer use. One of the alternatives could be making the regulation of the chemicals and fertilizers that are used by the farmers along the river banks more stringent. However, business oriented minds of the farmers does not help opting to this alternative. It can be therefore be concluded that, service level decisions are based on trade-offs of costs, benefits and distributional effects of various alternatives.

Conclusion Agreed service-level decisions are indeed based on trade-offs of costs, benefits and distributional effects of various alternatives. Trade-offs in the economic developments such as agriculture and shipping industries are been taken into account, further leading towards a stronger focus on eco-friendly river banks. Relocation/compensation measures do exist to deal with the trade-offs in a better fashion.

5 RESPONSIBILITY, AUTHORITY, MEANS

The assessment question of this building block comprises the following:

“Are authorities , responsibilities and means well-organized to deal with water issues at the appropriate administrative scale(s) in a participative and integrative way?” (van Rijswick et al., 2014a)

13 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 The Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment is by law (Water Act, Art. 3.1) responsible for the conditions of the major rivers (Ministerie VROM & Ministerie LNV, 2009). This includes the riverbanks of these rivers (Water Act, Art. 1.1). Rijkswaterstaat is the authority tasked with execution of changes to the major rivers and the riverbanks. The Provinces have some minor responsibilities in regards to the major river and the riverbanks. They are responsible for the quality of the ground in the so-called ‘drogere oevergronden’ (‘drier riverbanks’) based on the Water Act and the Soil Protection Act (Wet bodembescherming).

The riverbanks can be owned by public or private parties. In the case the riverbanks are public owned, they are owned by the state. Public owned riverbanks can be leased to private parties or are managed by Rijkswaterstaat or Staatsbosbeheer. The latter is for example the case in several eco-friendly riverbank projects in the Meuse (Rijkswaterstaat, 2015). In the case when riverbanks are private owned, they are either owned by individuals, companies or agrarians. The companies present in riverbanks often feature riverine activities like transport. Due to the Beleidslijn Grote Rivieren (Major Rivers Policy) a lot of activities are forbidden in the riverbanks of the Meuse River, except for the type of activities that cannot be executed at a location not in the riverbank, see article 5 and 6 of the Major Rivers Policy and the accompanying maps of the Meuse River. In general this means that the companies present in the riverbanks are mostly into riverine activities. With regards to eco-friendly riverbanks it is more likely that these riverbanks are owned by agrarians or individuals than companies, because the riverine activities often feature quays and other kinds of infrastructure to enhance the riverine activities.

With the development of an eco-friendly riverbank Rijkswaterstaat can ultimately force an owner of a riverbank to tolerate changes being done to the riverbank, if the owner doesn’t permit changes already (see article 5.24 of the Water Act). In this case it is important that the particular eco-friendly riverbank has to be located at that specific location.

Conclusion It can be concluded that the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and subsequently Rijkswaterstaat have the most responsibility and also the most authority and means to implement the eco-friendly riverbanks. When it is possible to do this in a participative way it is great, but even without participation it is possible to implement the eco-friendly riverbanks by force, but this is obviously much harder.

6. REGULATIONS AND AGREEMENTS

The assessment question of this building block comprises the following:

14 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 “Are regulations and agreements legitimate and adaptive, and if not, what are the main problems with regard to the above mentioned legitimacy aspects?” (van Rijswick et al., 2014a)

Assessing the regulations and agreements, the following notes are made. The implementation or eco-friendly riverbanks in the Meuse is based on the solidarity principle, which is displayed by the approach of public-participation, where the participants are more or less on equal footing and all have a say in the project. However, Rijkswaterstaat has a lot of authority and the means to overrule other parties, as has been described in the previous building block. This is also not surprising, because Rijkswaterstaat also has major responsibilities with regards to the eco-friendly riverbanks. The polluter pays principle applies when the eco-friendly riverbank is already created, and thus the polluter pays principle effectively is used during the monitoring and enforcement phase.

The implementation of eco-friendly riverbanks is conform the law, and notably on article 2.1 of the Water Act, which shows the mandate for the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. The law also defines the responsibilities, duties and rights of different parties related to changes in the riverbanks, and thus offers a lot of legal certainty, which aids the legitimacy of the implementation of eco-friendly riverbanks. Due to the clear definitions of responsibilities, rights and duties in the law it is clear on what basis enforcement can be executed. However this doesn’t really tell anything about how effective the enforcement is in daily practice, but the legal base is there to enable enforcement.

Rijkswaterstaat is the major party that makes decisions in the implementation of eco- friendly riverbanks. They also have major responsibilities and the riverbanks are part of their management area, so it isn’t surprising that they are the major party in making decisions. Their influence in decision making thus is according to their level of responsibilities. With the use of public participation other parties than governmental parties are involved in the eco-friendly riverbank projects. By the use of the public participation approach interests of different parties are taken into account. This also increases the transparency of the projects. Although the public participation approach is used, most instruments used are public instruments. However, private means and instruments are also used if a private party is initiator, as is shown in several eco- friendly riverbank projects (Rijkswaterstaat, 2015).

At the moment distributional effects are not known. The creation of eco-friendly riverbanks enhances the quality of the surface water and the way most projects are implemented in the Meuse the retarding effect of vegetation on the flow speed of the river is reduced (Rijkswaterstaat, 2015). The removal of redundant vegetation also enhances the view for the riverine traffic if the vegetation would have been a problem in the first case. Since the eco-friendly river banks are still being created or being

15 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 monitored the exact distributional effects are not known yet, but will become known in the future, if there are any distributional effects.

The regulations and agreements used feature legal certainty with regards to the responsibilities, duties and rights of different parties, but the way the eco-friendly riverbanks are implemented is not exactly defined. The latter enhances the adaptability and flexibility of the implementation of riverbanks. This results in a mix between an adaptive and flexible approach and a substantive approach.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that the implementation of eco-friendly riverbanks is legitimate and that it is adaptive up to a certain level. The legitimacy mainly originates from the clear definitions in the law which offer a lot of legal certainty.

7. FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

The assessment question of this building block comprises the following:

“Is the financial arrangement sustainable and equitable?” (van Rijswick et al., 2014a)

National level In the Netherlands, the state is responsible for flood defense, water quality and the infrastructure of managed waterways. All the large rivers which are part of the international river basin are included in the managed waterway program. Also the Dutch part of the North Sea is included in this program. The state gets its finance for these projects from the general budget. This is due to the fact that national security belongs to the public good. The implementation of state-managed water projects is governed by Rijkswaterstaat (Veeren, R. 2011)

Regional level In the Netherlands 27 regional water boards are responsible for the regional water quantity management, land reclamation and the water quality management. These democratically chosen water boards can finance their activities by using own levies. These levies should only cover the cost since the water boards are “non profitable” organizations (Veeren, R. 2011).

Local level In the Netherlands 400 municipalities which are democratically chosen. These municipalities are responsible for sewerage and groundwater quantity in cities (Veeren, 2011).

Future water management challenges

16 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 Due to climate change the Netherlands is getting dryer, more saline and wetter. The sea level is rising, rainstorms become more intents and longer periods of drought occur more frequently. Due to groundwater abstractions the soils are subsiding and water becomes more polluted due to growing urbanization. All these changes will affect our water system and therefore the efficiency can decrease (Veeren, 2011).

To prevent a collapse of the efficient water system a few management programs were developed. The delta program, the national water plan and the management and development plan for national waterways are the most promising (Veeren, 2011).

In the delta program recommendations and elaboration about threats of excess sea and river water and sustainable long term fresh water supply are discussed. The national water plan has as key point a sustainable water management. The management is based on the principle.

The management and development plan for national waterways describes the management of national waterway management between the years 2010 and 2015. This management plan is linked to the WFD in order to achieve water management goals for the 21st century (Veeren, 2011).

Construction costs for eco-friendly river bank The cost for the construction of an eco-friendly river bank consist mainly of construction costs, depreciation costs and maintenance costs. The costs are dependent on the type of eco-friendly riverbank, the location and in which season the eco-friendly river bank is constructed (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer, 2011)

Construction costs are for example strongly dependent on the amount of ground which is needed. If ground purchases are not needed the cost for the construction of an eco- friendly river bank are estimated at 45 euro per meter. However these cost can vary from 20 to 160 euro’s per meter. For exact numbers of costs see Appendix 2 In some cases the construction of new eco-friendly banks are combined with maintenance programs for old eco-friendly river banks. This combination can also lead to a decrease of costs (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer, 2011).

Depreciation costs of an eco-friendly river bank are much lower than for a traditional river bank. When an eco-friendly river bank is constructed and functions properly less maintenance is required due to the fact that these banks maintain themselves by natural processes. In the situation of the eco-friendly riverbanks in the Meuse cattle and horses are used to maintain the eco-friendly riverbanks by grazing (Rijkswaterstaat, 2015). This means that eco-friendly river banks could be sustainable. In practice this is not always the case and maintenance is needed (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer, 2011).

Conclusion

17 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 In general eco-friendly river bank projects are funded by the national government. It could be concluded that the financial arrangements are sustainable. (Note: By financial sustainability, we mean that there is a balance between costs (social) and benefits derived out of the funded project on the long term). However for the longer term it is hard to make predictions on sustainability since many eco-friendly-river banks are recently constructed. Monitoring plans are essential to check if these eco-friendly river banks can maintain themselves due to natural process or if artificial maintenance is needed. Maintenance could be costly since many eco-friendly river banks have a bad accessibility. An undesirable/unsustainable financial situation could evolve if maintenance is needed on a frequent basis. Long term monitoring projects are needed to check if the eco-friendly river banks along the Meuse River could sustain themselves or whether human maintenance is needed. The maintenance cost will strongly depend on the outcome of the monitoring programs. Since many eco-friendly river banks are recently constructed (2010-2015) and insufficient monitoring data is available it is hard to conclude if the financial arrangements are sustainable.

8. ENGINEERING AND MONITORING

The assessment question of this building block comprises the following:

“Are SLAs sufficiently available (implicit or explicit) in order to redesign the existing infrastructure? Are the design and consequences of different alternatives sufficient available? Is there sufficient monitoring of the system and are the data analysed?”(van Rijswick et al., 2014a)

Water boards are allowed to implement rules to reduce activities which might have negative effects on the water management of the Meuse river. The main aim of these rules are to prevent floods and water scarcity. This rules are registered in the “Keur” with related prohibitions and instructions. In the Keur a difference between weirs, surface waters and groundwater has been made. The Keur from the water board “Aa en Maas” is based on the “modelkeur” of the Union of water boards (2012) (Waterschap Aa en Maas, 2013)

Due to the set of rules, the total Keur policy has been made with the main aim to improve (Waterschap Aa en Maas, 2013):

 Protection of weir stability;  Protection of the total water management (water supply/drainage and water level);  Protection of the groundwater resources;  Protections against activities which may harm surface water bodies and weirs. Monitoring can give a good insight into the function of eco-friendly river banks. Monitoring projects facilitate checking of whether or not the goals and targets have been met. If goals are not reached yet it, changes in eco-friendly bank construction can be 18 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 made. During the monitoring it is important that several parameter will be checked. For example checks on ecology (according to the WFD), chemicals, physical parameters, costs, maintenance and water levels (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer, 2011).

Monitoring plan All agreements that have been made are placed in a monitoring plan. There are a few steps that are used to create a good monitoring plan (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer, 2011). Step 1: Define the information needs Purpose of monitoring, who and when is monitoring needed? Duration of monitoring program. Step 2 Determine measurement requirements Reliability of the monitoring, testability of the data, workability of the data. Step 3 Choice of parameters No measure, routine measures, single measures. Step 4 performance Methods, techniques, capacity, frequency, location. Step 5 processing Methods for processing and storage of the data, frequency of the analysis. Step 6 organization, planning and reporting Responsible parties per step (financing included), planning of the activities, reporting.

Construction If certain conditions are met only a notification is needed to construct an eco-friendly river bank. If these conditions are not met it is likely a permit is needed (Waterschap Aa en Maas, 2013). The construction of an eco-friendly river bank can also be related to filling up or excavation of a waterway.

Maintenance Another important goal of the Keur is to protect the ecological state of surface water bodies and eco-friendly river banks. During the permit application, effects on ecological states of a water body are determined as well (Waterschap Aa en Maas, 2013) .

In the water management plan of Aa en (Maas 2010-2015) all water bodies (also the Meuse river) with a nature function (eco-friendly river banks, ecological connected zones) are mentioned. These surface water bodies are extra protected. Some parts of the surface waters are not registered in the provincial water plan or water management plan. For these waters a more quantitative approach is used to reduce negative effects on ecological values. If for example a part of a eco-friendly river bank is lost, this should

19 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 be compensated by the building of a new eco-friendly river bank with similar ecological values (Waterschap Aa en Maas, 2013).

An important aim of the Keur is that it should be able to do maintenance on river banks along surface waters. A lot of surface waters are maintained by water boards. First is checked if proper maintenance is possible. If this is possible a maintenance permit is given (Waterschap Aa en Maas, 2013).

Some maintenance goals are described below (Waterschap Aa en Maas, 2013):

 The eco-friendly river bank should be sustainable and easy for maintenance.  During construction maintenance on the water body should still be possible.  In order to allow mechanical maintenance in the future the eco-friendly should not be too steep

Conclusion SLAs depend on the desired result, which in this case is eco-friendly Meuse river banks and good surface water quality. Therefore in this case the SLAs are sufficiently available and are explicit. Also the design and consequences of different alternatives sufficiently available. However natural development of eco-friendly river banks is generally gradual and that might affect certain SLAs. Current state of eco-friendly river banks in Meuse river basin is in the implementation and monitoring phase. But still there is not enough monitoring knowledge for the data to be analyzed.

9. ENFORCEMENT

The assessment question of this building block comprises the following:

“Are regulations and agreements enforceable by public and/or private parties, and are there appropriate remedies available?” (van Rijswick et al., 2014a)

Water quality As described before in building block 5 ‘Responsibility, Authority, Means’ the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment is responsible for the major rivers like the Meuse. The responsibility for the major rivers include the riverbanks and floodplains of the river. Rijkswaterstaat is the executing party of the ministry. The different regional departments of Rijkswaterstaat are tasked with the enforcement, which is carried out by the enforcement department of each regional department of Rijkswaterstaat. The enforcement departments along with the department responsible for regulating the permits monitor the pollution of the river, riverbanks and floodplains. They can execute their enforcement through a set of different articles, including Art 5.16 – 5.27, 6.2, 6.3, 6.6, 6.8 and 6.9 from the Water Act. The provinces are also responsible for the quality of the soil in some parts of the floodplains, namely the so-called ‘drogere oevergronden’

20 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 which translates to ‘drier riverbanks’. The provinces are tasked with the enforcement on these grounds, according to Article 6.2 section 3 of the Water Act and article 63b and 63c of the Soil Protection Act (Wet bodembescherming).

The pollution is either from point sources or diffuse sources (Ministerie VROM & Ministerie LNV, 2009). Eco-friendly riverbanks can be polluted by both types of sources. Point-pollution from upstream can pollute the riverbanks downstream. Major point polluters are wastewater treatment plants and industrial complexes. Pollution happens either by accident, if for example an industrial wastewater treatment plant is broken and polluted water spills into the river, or, if they don’t feel the necessity to comply with the emission standards, the pollution is done willingly by companies. In the first case it is usually the case of an ‘uncommon accident’ (‘ongewoon voorval’), in the latter case it might be the case of an ‘uncommon accident’, but it could as well be a ‘regular’ discharge with substances that are not permitted (according to the permit). In the case of an ‘uncommon accident’ art. 5.15 of the Water Act is applicable. In the other cases Art 6.2 is applicable, or in the case of ship discharges, Art 6.3 is applicable. Point-sources can be monitored effectively and enforcement is based on emission standards as well as regulations written in the permit.

Diffuse pollution sources are harder to identify, since they are diffuse. Agriculture is a notable diffuse polluter and the main polluter in the Meuse river basin (Ministerie VROM & Ministerie LNV, 2009). In the case of eco-friendly riverbanks the diffuse pollution can be brought in from upstream, as is the case with point pollution, or from the eco-friendly riverbanks itself. In the latter case it is likely that an owner of a floodplain, for example a farmer, exceeds the emission standards for the use of pesticides used as well as the nutrient output. The effects could be that the biodiversity of the eco-friendly riverbank decreases over time. This kind of pollution is harder to detect and to monitor. Inspectors of the regional department of Rijkswaterstaat need a lot of knowledge of the management area to detect and monitor changes.

Physical The eco-friendly riverbanks can also be affected by physical changes. Either by solid matter that is stored on the riverbanks or by excavating the riverbanks. In these situations it is considered that these changes were not done in the process of creating an eco-friendly riverbank or are the result of natural geomorphic processes encouraged by the creation of the eco-friendly riverbank. In other words the changes are unwanted since they harm the eco-friendly riverbank and the ecology related to the eco-friendly riverbank.

These physical changes can be detected quite well by inspectors from the water, by boat, or from the road, by car, and also from the air, by aircraft. However the inspectors need to be familiar with the management area to detect and monitor changes. In the case described above where some party harms the eco-friendly riverbank, the enforcement department will start an enforcement route to make sure the delinquent will undo the

21 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 changes and bring the riverbank back into the desired condition. In this case the enforcement department is able to enforce using article 6.5 of the Water Act and subsequently article 6.12 of the Water Decree and as well article 3 of the Excavation Law (Ontgrondingenwet).

Conclusions The enforcers are all public parties. Especially Rijkswaterstaat has a lot of enforcement tasks. The eco-friendly riverbanks can be harmed by pollution or in a physical way. Pollution from point sources is in general rather easy to detect, and can thus be enforced. Unwanted physical changes, by means of an offender, to the eco-friendly riverbank are detected rather well, but the inspector needs to be sufficiently familiar with the management area to detect these changes. Diffuse pollution is the hardest to enforce, since the eco-friendly riverbanks deteriorate gradually over time. Inspectors and enforcers need to have sufficient knowledge of the management area and sufficient knowledge of vegetation and pesticides, nutrients and other types of diffuse pollution to detect the changes.

10. CONFLICT PREVENTION AND RESOLUTION

The assessment question of this building block comprises the following:

“Are there sufficient conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms in place?” (van Rijswick, Edelenbos, Hellegers, Kok, & Kuks, 2014b)

As indicated in the 2. Values, Principles and Policy Discourses’ block, different stakeholders have different values in moving towards an eco-friendly river bank. These differences in the values cause a major rift between them. Furthermore, unclear distribution of roles or overlapping responsibilities are the prominent reasons that intensify the conflict. For instance the responsibilities and interests, as discussed earlier in the 3. Stakeholders involvement’ block, are overlapping when it comes to Rijkswaterstaat and local municipalities. Farmers are the most predominant type of stakeholders, particularly in case of eco-friendly river banks in Meuse river basin as they occupy the majority of the land along this river bank. Other stakeholders that may oppose activity in their land are private landowners. Irrespective of these differences and conflicts, the question that arises is that whether sufficient mechanisms are there in place to prevent these conflicts.

In the Meuse river basin, solutions such as the stakeholder involvement in the projects, public participation, compensation and relocation are evident in order to establish eco- friendly river banks. The focus of public participation is on being proactive and participatory. This implies using energy and means to find solutions instead of using energy and means to go to the court. As discussed in the ‘4. Trade-offs between social objectives’ block, the farmlands and land from private landowners is being bought in

22 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 order to create eco-friendly river banks. In return these landowners are also offered compensations and or relocation to another place. Also mechanisms do exist to deal with a situation where the private landowners and/or the farmers are not in terms of water managers. The article 5.24 of the Water Act facilitates this mechanism by asking the landowners and farmers to tolerate the changes that are being carried out in their land.

Conclusion The increased use of public participation in the last few decades has reduced the effects of conflicts. Stakeholders are being involved in the earlier stages of projects to be implemented causing alleviating the differences amongst the stakeholders. Overall sufficient means do exist to cope with the conflicts resulting from the eco-friendly bank projects in the Meuse river basin.

23 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 DISCUSSION

The main goal of this paper was to evaluate the policy measures related to eco-friendly river banks in the Meuse river basin. The research question which had to be answered in this report is:

“Are the currently used policy methods effective and do these policy methods contribute to sustainable management of the Meuse river?”

The 10 building block assessment method from Rijswick et al. (2014a) was used to evaluate the current situation. The main findings will be briefly discussed below.

The assessment method results in the overlapping building blocks. This makes it hard to allocate certain information to a certain building block. For instance 2. Values, Principles and Policy Discourses’ block coincides with 3. Stakeholders involvement’ block. Responsibilities, which are in a way governed by the values of different stakeholders result in overlapping information that has to be interpreted over two different blocks. Similarly 5 Responsibility, Authority, Means’ block overlaps with 3. Stakeholders involvement’ block because it is also deals with responsibilities of different stakeholders. Overall the assessment method is prone to being interpreted in various ways and depends upon individual’s ability to use the available information and segregate it into different building blocks. However usage of this method in a team consisting of members with different backgrounds can open up wider discussion and help interpret the information in a better fashion and make the method more convenient for eclectic applications.

The eco-friendly river bank project in the Meuse river basin is still in the implementation and monitoring phase. This makes it hard to give a definite answer to the research question of this paper. The effectively of the current policy methods can only be determined after the projects have been completely implemented and sufficiently monitored. Definite conclusions can only be drawn when enough monitoring data is available for further analysis. Another point to note here is that at this point the policy methods appear to be effective and sufficiently developed. However, it is tough to determine how the eco-friendly river banks might turn out in the long run as it takes time for these banks to develop naturally. And so it might turn out that the used policy methods might turn out to be less effective than they appeared at first.

24 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 CONCLUSION

To answer the research question that this paper aims at, the policy measures at present seem effective and sufficient, and combined with extensive knowledge of the water system the eco-friendly river banks can be implemented in an effective way. Furthermore, these measures may require a review in the future depending upon the knowledge base generated from the monitoring and enforcement of eco-friendly river banks.

To give an overview of the current condition of the building blocks the different building blocks have been scored for this policy assessment. The conclusions made for the individual building blocks resulted in the estimation of a score for the respective building block. The scores range from 1 to 5:

5 - Perfect condition. Does not need fixing. 4 - Good condition. Needs some fixing. 3 - Average condition. Needs improvements. 2 - Below average. Needs serious improvements. 1 - Bad. Insufficient, needs major improvements.

The results of the scoring are displayed in Table 1. Brief clarifications are given per building block, the more extensive conclusions are already discussed in each chapter handling a building block.

Table 1 Score per building block

Building block Clarification Score 1 Water system knowledge Water system knowledge is vast, but 4 there are some knowledge gaps, because the eco-friendly riverbank projects are relatively new. 2 Values, principles, discourses Most stakeholder views coincide with 4 each other and there is sufficient knowledge of the values, principles and discourses. 3 Stakeholders involvement Stakeholders are involved directly or 5 indirectly in the implementation of eco- friendly riverbanks. This is mainly due to public participation. 4 Trade-offs between social SLAs are based on trade-offs of costs, 3 objectives benefits and distributional effects. The main trade-offs are for agriculture, but there are measures to compensate this. 5 Responsibility, authority, Rijkswaterstaat has major 3 means responsibilities as well as major

25 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 authority and means. Other parties have less responsibilities, authority and means. 6 Regulations and agreements The legitimacy of regulations and 3 agreements mainly originates from the effective definitions in the law. 7 Financial arrangements The most financial arrangements are 2 governmental. Since the eco-friendly riverbank projects are not finished yet it is not known if the investments are sustainable. 8 Engineering and monitoring There is enough information about 3 engineering. Monitoring is still going on, especially for the recent constructed eco-friendly riverbanks. 9 Enforcement The mandate to enforce is there, but the 2 enforcement in practice might be hard, especially with regards to diffuse pollution, which is the main kind of pollution in the Meuse river area. 10 Conflict prevention and The use of public participation has 4 resolution decreased the amount of conflicts.

Especially the involvement of stakeholders in the implementation of eco-friendly riverbanks scores high. This is mainly due to the public participation, which also influences scores of other building blocks, ‘conflict prevention and resolution’ for example. The building blocks ‘financial arrangements’ and ‘enforcement’ received low scores. Improvement on both are needed, but this might be hard for the building block enforcement since detection of diffuse pollution is rather hard.

There has been a few occasion where a private party was initiator of an eco-friendly river bank project. These kind of projects indicate that the public participation is indeed working. This might also open up options for other kinds of (financial) means, responsibilities and authorities. Responsibilities, authority and means can thus be arranged in such a way that private parties are more involved in construction tasks, monitoring tasks, maintenance tasks and enforcement tasks.

26 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 REFERENCES

Bilt, S. G. T. van de, & Wiering, M. A. (2006). Natuur- en Waterbeheer in uiterwaarden. Een gelukkig huwelijk? Retrieved from http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/46619

Carpenter, S. R., Caraco, N. F., Correll, D. L., Howarth, R. W., Sharpley, A. N., & Smith, V. H. (1998). NONPOINT POLLUTION OF SURFACE WATERS WITH PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN. Ecological Applications, 8(3), 559–568. Retrieved from http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051- 0761%281998%29008%5B0559%3ANPOSWW%5D2.0.CO%3B2

European Commission. (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Parliament, L327(October 2000), 1–82. doi:10.1039/ap9842100196

Heezik, A. A. S. (2008). Strijd om de rivieren. 200 jaar rivierenbeleid in Nederland of de opkomst en ondergang van het streven naar de normale rivier. van heezik beleidsresearch. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=zGPXImYKQvQC&pgis=1

Keessen, A. M., Kempen, J. J. H. van, & Rijswick, h. f. m. w. van. (2010). de Kaderrichtlijn water in de praktijk. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://ucwosl.rebo.uu.nl/wp- content/uploads/2013/11/Advies-Vallei-en-Eem2.pdf

Lazaroms, R., & Poos, D. (2004). The Dutch water board model. Journal of Water Law, 15(3-4), 137– 140.

Maas in Beeld. (n.d.). Natuurlijke oevers en steilwanden langs de Maas (PNOM-project) « Maas in Beeld. Retrieved June 29, 2015, from http://maasinbeeld.nl/2/?p=20

Meybeck, M. (2003). Global analysis of river systems: from Earth system controls to Anthropocene syndromes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 358(1440), 1935–55. Retrieved from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1693284&tool=pmcentrez&render type=abstract

Ministerie VROM, & Ministerie LNV. (2009). Stroomgebiedbeheerplan Maas 2009 - 2015.

Ministry of Transport Public Works and Water Management. (2010). Water Act.

OECD. (2012). OECD Studies on Water A Framework for Financing Water Resources Management. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=pEm1MNAvlwMC&pgis=1

Omroep Walraven. (2010). Hoe gaat rijkswaterstaat om met de bakenbomen. Retrieved June 24, 2015, from http://www.omroepwalraven.nl/uitzending_gemist/650/hoe-gaat-rijkswaterstaat- om-met-de-bakenbomen.html

Reuber, J. (2005). Preparing a river for the future – the river Meuse in the year 2050, 687–692.

27 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 Rijkoverheid. (n.d.). Speech Secretary Dijksma at the High Level Conference EU Ecosystem Services | Speech | Rijksoverheid.nl. Retrieved June 13, 2015, from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/toespraken/2014/05/22/speech- staatssecretaris-dijksma-bij-de-high-level-conference-eu-ecosysteemdiensten.html

Rijkswaterstaat. (n.d.). Project Natuur ( vriende ) lijke Maasoevers Natuureiland Pietersplas. Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/images/Interactieve overzichtskaart natuur(vriende)lijke Maasoevers 2010-2015_tcm174-335515.pdf

Rijkswaterstaat. (2009a). Annual report. Retrieved from https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/en/images/Annual Report Rijkswaterstaat 2009_tcm224- 298744.pdf

Rijkswaterstaat. (2009b). Maas 2009 - 2015. Retrieved from http://www.helpdeskwater.nl/onderwerpen/wetgeving-beleid/kaderrichtlijn- water/sgbp/@28232/bijlagen_sgbp_maas/ rijkswaterstaat. (2014, April 5). Meer over Maas. Retrieved from http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/water/feiten_en_cijfers/vaarwegenoverzicht/maas/meer_over_ maas.aspx

Rijkswaterstaat. (2014, April 30). Afgeronde projecten. Retrieved from http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/water/plannen_en_projecten/vaarwegen/maas/maas_maaswer ken/afgeronde_projecten/#v17

Rijkswaterstaat. (2015, May 22). Maas: natuur(vriende)lijke oevers. Retrieved from http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/water/plannen_en_projecten/vaarwegen/maas/maas_natuurvri endelijke_oevers/

Rowe, G. (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. doi:10.1177/0162243904271724

Stam, J.-M., Butler, L., Kretschmer, W., Dijkstra, F., & Hofstra, S. (2014). Water Friendly Land Management. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://alfa-project.eu/_userdata/files/ALFA Best Practices Water Friendly Land Management def.pdf

Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer. (2011). Handreiking natuurvriendelijke oevers.

Urban, M. A., & Rhoads, B. L. (2003). Catastrophic Human-Induced Change in Stream-Channel Planform and Geometry in an Agricultural Watershed, Illinois, USA. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(4), 783–796. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2003.09304001.x

Van Der Windt, H. J., & Swart, J. A. A. (2007). Ecological corridors, connecting science and politics: the case of the Green River in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(1), 124–132. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01404.x

Van Rijswick, M., Edelenbos, J., Hellegers, P., Kok, M., & Kuks, S. (2014a). Ten building blocks for sustainable water governance: an integrated method to assess the governance of water. Water International, 39(5), 725–742. doi:10.1080/02508060.2014.951828

28 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 Van Rijswick, M., Edelenbos, J., Hellegers, P., Kok, M., & Kuks, S. (2014b). Ten building blocks for sustainable water governance: an integrated method to assess the governance of water. Water International, 39(5), 725–742. doi:10.1080/02508060.2014.951828

Vaughn, C. C. (2010). Biodiversity Losses and Ecosystem Function in Freshwaters: Emerging Conclusions and Research Directions. BioScience, 60(1), 25–35. Retrieved from http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/bio.2010.60.1.7

Veeren, R. Van Der. (2011). Financing water resources management in the Netherlands, (january). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/env/biodiversitywaterandnaturalresourcemanagement/44864161.pdf

Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., … Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467(7315), 555–61. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09440

Vörösmarty, C., Lettenmaier, D., Leveque, C., Meybeck, M., Pahl-Wostl, C., Alcamo, J., … Naiman, R. (2004). Humans transforming the global water system. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 85(48), 509–514. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2004EO480001

Ward, J. V., Tockner, K., Uehlinger, U., & Malard, F. (2001). Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 17(4-5), 311–323. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/rrr.646

Waterschap Aa en Maas. (2013). Waterschap Aa en Maas - Regelgeving. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://www.aaenmaas.nl/cvdr/293695_1/Beleidsregels+Keur+waterschap+Aa+en+Maas+2013. html

ZLTO. (n.d.). ZLTO - English information. Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://www.zlto.nl/english

FRONTPAGE FIGURE

Maas in Beeld. (n.d.). Natuurlijke oevers en steilwanden langs de Maas (PNOM-project) « Maas in Beeld. Retrieved June 29, 2015, from http://maasinbeeld.nl/2/?p=20

29 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 APPENDIX 1. NATURAL RIVER BANK LOCATIONS MEUSE RIVER

Figure 2. Ecofriendly-riverbank locations Meuse River (Rijkswaterstaat, 2015).

Figure. 3. Ecofriendly-riverbank locations Meuse River (Rijkswaterstaat, 2015).

30 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015 APPENDIX 2. COST INDICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ECOFRIENDLY-RIVERBANK

Figure 4. Cost indications construction Ecofriendly-river bank (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer, 2011).

31 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015

Figure 5. Cost indications construction Ecofriendly-river bank (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer, 2011).

32 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015

Figure 6. Cost indications construction Ecofriendly-river bank (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer, 2011).

Figure 7. Cost indications construction Ecofriendly-river bank (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer, 2011).

33 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015

Figure 8. Cost indications construction Ecofriendly-river bank (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer, 2011).

34 Water Policy, Governance and Law (GEO4-6002), 2014-2015