ECO-FRIENDLY RIVER BANKS DUTCH PART OF THE MEUSE RIVER · banks along the Meuse River. Appendix 1 shows an overview of constructed Eco-friendly-river banks along the Meuse River

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

ECO-FRIENDLY RIVER BANKS

DUTCH PART OF THE MEUSE 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

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

in the

2


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

3


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.

4


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 Netherlands 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

Limburg 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?”

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

5


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)

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

6


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 Rhine 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

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

no reference in title

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

why is this relevant?

7


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.

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

like?

8


2. VALUES, PRINCIPLES AND POLICY DISCOURSES


“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.

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

not clear

9


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


“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.

10


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).

11


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 Waal’ 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

12


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


“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

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

13


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


“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)

14


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


15


“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

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

16


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


“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

17


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

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

18


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


“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

19


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

20


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


“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’

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

21


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

22


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


“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

Carel Dieperink

Sticky Note

you enforce a rule

23


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.

24


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.

25


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 there are some knowledge gaps, because the eco-friendly riverbank projects are relatively new.

4

2 Values, principles, discourses Most stakeholder views coincide with each other and there is sufficient knowledge of the values, principles and discourses.

4

3 Stakeholders involvement Stakeholders are involved directly or indirectly in the implementation of eco-friendly riverbanks. This is mainly due to public participation.

5

4 Trade-offs between social objectives

SLAs are based on trade-offs of costs, benefits and distributional effects. The main trade-offs are for agriculture, but there are measures to compensate this.

3

5 Responsibility, authority, means

Rijkswaterstaat has major responsibilities as well as major

3

26


authority and means. Other parties have less responsibilities, authority and means.

6 Regulations and agreements The legitimacy of regulations and agreements mainly originates from the effective definitions in the law.

3

7 Financial arrangements The most financial arrangements are governmental. Since the eco-friendly riverbank projects are not finished yet it is not known if the investments are sustainable.

2

8 Engineering and monitoring There is enough information about engineering. Monitoring is still going on, especially for the recent constructed eco-friendly riverbanks.

3

9 Enforcement The mandate to enforce is there, but the enforcement in practice might be hard, especially with regards to diffuse pollution, which is the main kind of pollution in the Meuse river area.

2

10 Conflict prevention and resolution

The use of public participation has decreased the amount of conflicts.

4

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.

27


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&rendertype=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.

28


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_maaswerken/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_natuurvriendelijke_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

29


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

30


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).

31


APPENDIX 2. COST INDICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION

OF AN ECOFRIENDLY-RIVERBANK

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

32



33




34



Documents

ECO-FRIENDLY RIVER BANKS DUTCH PART OF THE MEUSE RIVER · banks along the Meuse River. Appendix 1 shows an overview of constructed Eco-friendly-river banks along the Meuse River