Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Pilots
Content
Process
Content Process Pilots
1.1 Why this guide?
1.2 Context and urgency
1.3 From urgency to action
1.4 Focus on the large bodies of water
1.5 How does this guide help?
1.6 Position of the guide in the MIRT procedure
1.7 Guide incorporates insights from two pilots
1.8 Reader's guide
2.1 Definitions
2.2 Conceptual model from ecosystems and biodiversity to
human welfare and prosperity
2.3 Categories of ecosystem services
2.4 Relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services
2.5 Policy-driven biodiversity
2.6 Sustainable development
2.7 Actors in relation to ecosystem services
2.8 Sustainable development: a co-creative process
2.9 Relationship between the ecosystem and the socio-economic system
3.1 Content
3.1.1 Challenge for water system and ambition for sustainable living environment
3.1.2 Long-list of possible region-specific ecosystem services
3.1.3 Insight into access to and exploitation of ecosystem services and preconditions for
sustainable conservation
3.1.4 Integral challenge for a permanently functioning water system
3.2. Process
3.2.1 Consult the actors
3.2.2 Master the concept of ecosystem services with your environment and translate it to the planning area
3.2.3 Method of interviewing actors
3.2.4 Explore the interests of actors in depth
3.3. Volkerak-Zoommeerand Grevelingen pilots in the context of the government's draft national framework
3.3.1 Challenge for water system and ambitions for sustainable living environment
3.3.2 Region-specific long-list of possible ecosystem services
3.3.3 Actor analysis
3.3.4 Familiarise yourself and actors with the concept of ecosystem services and translate it to the planning area
3.3.5 insight into the supply and use of ecosystem services in the current situation
3.3.6 Volkerak: Inventory of ecosystem services in the current situation
3.3.7 Obstacles to and wishes for water quality in relation to other ecosystem services
3.3.8 Survey of actors' views on ecosystem services
3.3.9 Grevelingen: actors' views on possible solutions
3.3.10 Grevelingen: actors' views on possible solutions
3.3.11 Volkerak-Zoommeer: actors' views on possible solutions
3.12 Volkerak-Zoommeer: current use, obstacles and wishes of anglers
3.13 Volkerak-Zoommeer: actors' views on possible solutions
3.3.14 Volkerak-Zoommeer: actors' views on opportunities and obstacles for
ecosystem services with tides (and saltwater)
3.3.15 Integral challenge for a sustainable water system
4.1 Content
4.1.1 Establishing the goals using input from the process track
4.1.2 Formulating alternative ways of achieving the goal
4.1.3 Selecting ecosystem services to be explored further
4.1.4 Formulating research questions and revising scope in an iterative process
4.2 Process
4.2.1 Discuss goals, alternatives and research questions
4.3 Tidal Grevelingen pilot
4.3.1 Problems in the current situation and goal of Tidal Grevelingen project
4.3.2 Revise scope on basis of research: iterative process
4.3.3 Select ecosystem services to be explored further
5.1 Content
5.1.1 Analysis of current system, use of ecosystem services and trends
5.1.2 Confrontation of wishes for ecosystem services with current and future functions
5.1.3 Conflict tests for guidance on sustainable development (1)
5.1.4 Conflict tests for guidance on sustainable development (2)
5.1.5 Integration of results of conflict tests in a spatial design, with alternatives if necessary
5.2 Process
5.2.1 Consult actors on desired scenarios and conflict tests, and incorporation of results in the design
5.3 Tidal Grevelingen pilot
5.3.1 Conflict tests
5.3.2 Current situation and most realistic scenario for shellfish farmers
5.3.3 Most realistic scenario for shellfish farming
5.3.4 Current situation with respect to recreation
5.3.5 Most realistic scenario for recreation
5.3.6 Most realistic scenario for recreation
5.3.7 Current situation + preconditions from Natura 2000
5.3.8 Extra island as precondition from Natura 2000
5.3.9 Most realistic scenario for nature management
5.3.10 Most realistic scenario for nature management
5.3.11 Takeaways from the discussion about biodiversity
5.3.12 Takeaways from the discussion about biodiversity
5.3.13 Conflict tests: survey of conflicts
5.3.14 Conflict tests: survey of opportunities
5.3.15 Research questions
5.3.16 Research questions
5.3.17 Design variables of alternatives
6.1 Content
6.1.1 Consequences for ecosystem services
6.1.2 Valuing ecosystem services
6.1.3 Quantification of biodiversity with the nature points method
6.1.4 Nature Points method
6.1.5 Nature points in SCBA
6.1.6 Dealing with the welfare value of ecosystem services
6.1.7 Conflicts and promising combinations of ecosystem services and biodiversity
6.1.8 Elucidation of how plan and alternatives contribute to achieving the goal
6.2 Process
6.2.1 Describe the significance of changes in the system for each target group
6.3 Tidal Grevelingen pilot
6.3.1 Ecosystem services in the earlier SCBA
6.3.2 Ecosystem services in the earlier SCBA
6.3.3 Nature points in tidal scenarios
6.3.4 Classification of nature types
6.3.5 Determination of weighting factors
6.3.6 Determination of quality of ecotopes
6.3.7 Nature points for tidal scenarios
6.3.8 Discussion of nature points for tidal scenarios
6.3.9 Added value and shortcomings of nature points method
7.1 Content
7.1.1 Translation of the consequences for natural capital into guidance for
decision-making
7.1.2 Translation of the consequences for natural capital into suggestions for action by Rijkswaterstaat
7.1.3 Translation of the consequences for natural capital into suggestions for action by parties
7.2 Process
7.2.1 Incorporate the views of actors in the guidance for
decision-making
7.3 Tidal Grevelingen pilot
7.3.1 Guidance for decision-making
7.3.2 Actions that Rijkswaterstaat could take
7.3.3 Actions that nature managers and the Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature and Food Quality could take
7.3.4 Actions that users could take
1 Introduction
Natural capital and ecosystem services
This guide fleshes out the concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services and demonstrates how ecosystem services can be integrated into the planning and decision-making process for large bodies of water. The guide has been written by Rijkswaterstaat, Royal HaskoningDHV and B2Consultancy on the basis of two pilots for the Volkerak-Zoommeer and the Grevelingen. The organisations frequently collaborate in projects to develop large bodies of water and used the pilots to learn whether insight into the ecosystem services delivered by large bodies of water could provide tools for sustainable development. We share our findings in this guide. Although the guide is primarily intended for use by Rijkswaterstaat and organisations it collaborates with in drafting planning studies for large bodies of water, anyone engaged with the development of the large bodies of water managed by Rijkswaterstaat is more than welcome to use it. We would like to thank the divers, anglers, entrepreneurs, nature organisations, research institute Deltares and the consultancy firm Stratelligence for their input to this guide and for revealing to us the importance of these waters.
Although the concept of ecosystem services has existed for a long time, awareness of the services that ecosystems can provide and their value to us as humans has been growing since the beginning of the 21st century. The concept really took hold in the political arena with UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) in 2001. The MA showed that humans had wrought substantially greater changes in ecosystems in the previous 50 years than in any earlier period, primarily to meet their needs for food, wood, fresh water, fuel and energy.
As a result, ecosystems have been degraded, the stream of ecosystem services is at risk of drying up and – without interventions – future generations will be deprived of the benefits enjoyed by the present generation and those of the recent past. The assessment made it clear that interventions would require a major political and institutional effort. In response to the MA, various initiatives, policy measures and research programmes were launched with the aim of integrating the values of biodiversity and ecosystem services into decision-making at different levels in order to prevent further deterioration. In 2007, for example, the environment ministers of the G7+5 initiated The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), and in 2011 the EU launched the Biodiversity Strategy 2020. The Netherlands has also promoted the sustainable exploitation of ecosystems with programmes and documents such as the government's strategy papers The Natural Way Forward (Rijksnatuurvisie Natuurlijk Verder) and Nature Ambition for Large Water Bodies (Natuurambitie Grote Wateren), the Programmatic Approach to Large Water Bodies (Programmatische Aanpak Grote Wateren), the Natural Capital Agenda, TEEB studies for the Dutch situation, the Natural Capital programme and the Natural Capital Atlas.
The urgency of the situation is stirring many organisations and individuals into action, worldwide but also closer to home:
This guide focuses on the large bodies of water because of the scale of the challenge they pose for Rijkswaterstaat, Staatsbosbeheer and the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland). These organisations have adopted the Programmatic Approach to Large Bodies of Water (Programmatische Aanpak Grote Wateren, PAGW) to improve the ecological quality status of the large bodies of water, primarily by ensuring the proper ecological functioning of the water bodies, facilitating their sustainable use and meeting targets for nature. From the outset, the PAGW projects have sought co-financing on the basis of other functions or social objectives (such as reducing CO2 emissions, the energy transition and the circular economy). The relevant parties are directly involved in the projects. The scale of the projects in the programme is also not confined to the water bodies themselves, but also embraces the surrounding areas with connections to the water. This broad, integrated approach increases the possibilities of creating added value for other parties and hence securing their acceptance of measures.
Adopting the perspective of ‘natural capital and ecosystem services' can yield new insights and generate suggestions for the sustainable development of the water system and stimulate a conversation on the subject. In that sense, the concept of natural capital and ecosystem services is a handy tool for analysis and communication.
This guide helps in:
The Dutch Multi-year Programme for Infrastructure, Spatial Planning and Transport (MIRT) is the government’s investment programme for projects in the spatial domain. It also covers the projects in the Large Bodies of Water Programme. Rijkswaterstaat therefore follows the rules of the MIRT procedure. This guide is particularly useful for the exploratory phase of the MIRT. That phase is devoted to selecting a preferred option, when the contours of sustainable use of ecosystem services can also be defined. The guide can be helpful during the plan elaboration phase when those contours are being fleshed out, but it is crucial for the exploratory phase, since that is when the preferred option is identified.
In preparation for writing this guide, two pilots for large bodies of water were carried out. The water bodies Volkerak-Zoommeer and Grevelingen were chosen because exploratory studies were already underway for them and all three organisations co-authoring this guide were involved in those studies. The first pilot was carried out in the period 2016-2017 as a follow-up to the Draft National Framework Vision for Grevelingen and Volkerak-Zoommeer (2014). The framework vision sketched a scenario of how the management of the two water systems should be developed to provide a solution for the problems with the quality of the water. In the development scenario, the Grevelingen would have a muted tide by connecting it with the North Sea by means of an opening in the Brouwersdam and saltwater would again enter the Volkerak-Zoommeer with a muted tide by being connected to the Oosterschelde with a sluice in the Philipsdam. The government has meanwhile earmarked additional funds for the Grevelingen, but not yet for the Volkerak-Zoommeer. In the Tidal Grevelingen project, the plans have been elaborated with a view to reaching a MIRT decision to implement them. The second pilot in the Tidal Grevelingen project was carried out in the period 2018-2019. The information in this guide is based on the situation at the time of writing (first pilot: 2016-2017, second pilot: 2018-2019).
The main focus of the first pilot was on the conceptual framework, the process and the link with the planning instruments, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the Social Cost-Benefit Analysis (SCBA). The second pilot focused more on quantifying and valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services, exploring suggestions for sustainable development with actors and the embedding in the EIA and SCBA. The problem exploration step in the guide refers to experiences from the first pilot, and the subsequent steps cover experiences from the second pilot.
This guide first discusses the conceptual framework of ecosystem services. It then takes you step by step through the method of identifying services provided by ecosystems in a particular area, how to conduct a dialogue about them with (groups of) users, and how to integrate the concept in planning and decision-making processes. We illustrate the steps with examples from two pilots: (1) Volkerak-Zoommeer and Grevelingen in the context of the National Framework Vision and (2) muted tide in the Grevelingen. We also show what action can be taken to promote sustainable development of large bodies of water. We make a distinction in the guide between substantive steps (content) and procedural steps (process). For each main step, we explain the content (green icons), the process (blue icons) and the illustrative examples from the Volkerak-Zoommeer and Grevelingen pilots (yellow icons). In the examples from the pilots, a green or blue icon with the relevant chapter number is used to indicate which step in the content or process track the example is illustrating.
It is important to realise that the steps described in the guide will not be so strictly delineated or follow the same sequence in practice. The pattern presented here was chosen mainly in the interests of a clear exposition. In reality, it will be a far more iterative process.
This is a translation of the original Dutch guide. Some of the figures are the Dutch originals and have not been translated. Although the guide is based on the situation in the Netherlands, the contents will also be applicable in other countries.
2 Conceptual framework
Derived from the Cascade model in Potschin & Haines-Young, 2011
Source: www.biodiversiteit.nl
The government adopts policies and laws and regulations to protect the nature and biodiversity in the Netherlands. For example, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) applies to all large bodies of water, all of which have also been designated as Natura 2000 areas. Targets have been adopted for the large bodies of water under the WFD and Natura 2000. Meeting those targets is an absolute requirement in planning processes. In this guide, we refer to this form of biodiversity as policy-driven biodiversity.
It is important to understand that the wishes and requirements for biodiversity specified in policies and legislation can differ from the wishes and requirements of those who might wish to use ecosystem services.
Achieving sustainable development with the conservation or restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity, and sustainable use of ecosystem services call for interaction between the previously mentioned actors in a process of co-creation. The process can be sketched as follows:
Using ecosystem services for social and economic purposes calls for collaboration between public authorities, managers and users. Formulating policies to create the right conditions for and access to the ecosystem is the playing field of the public authorities and managers, and creating the commercial and social conditions and providing access is the domain of the users of ecosystem services. In the co-creative process, actors express their wishes for the functioning of the ecosystem, the biodiversity and access to the ecosystem. It makes matters clearer if, during the discussion between the parties, a distinction is made between the various approaches to biodiversity discussed in sheets 2.4 and 2.5: biodiversity for a properly functioning ecosystem, policy-driven biodiversity and biodiversity for use. The reason for this is that it emerged from the pilots that failing to make a clear distinction between the different approaches to biodiversity sometimes caused confusion, and even incomprehension, among the participants. The characteristics and processes of the ecosystem and the biodiversity determine the available ecosystem services. Once they have discussed their respective wishes, actors have to reach a consensus on sustainable use of ecosystem services, and each will then have to carry out those actions that fall within their remit. The figure below illustrates the relationship between the ecosystem and the socio-economic system.
Generally speaking, a project or planning study is instituted because a mismatch between the existing situation and/or autonomous development and the desired situation is creating an urgent problem. In the case of water systems, the reason might be that the standard of water quality or flood protection does not meet policy or legislative criteria. It is also possible that addressing the problem will create opportunities (or wishes among stakeholders) for RWS to implement policies to create a more sustainable environment (‘linkage’). RWS can use those policies to give the actors more room for sustainable use of ecosystem services subject to the precondition of sustainable conservation of ecosystem and biodiversity.
The first step is to describe, from both perspectives (the immediate pretext and the possibilities for linkage), the aspects (design, management and maintenance, for example) on which the existing situation falls short, the desired situation and the ambitions for a sustainable living environment. Describe all of the possible solutions and the preconditions ensuing from policy and legislation that will have to be met.
An essential tool for formulating the challenge for sustainability is an overview of ecosystem services that the water system might be able to provide. Prepare this overview on the basis of the current situation, but also estimate the prospects for new ecosystem services that the water system might provide in the various alternative solutions for the desired situation. The survey of actors in the process track will provide useful input in that respect.
There are various standards, classifications and studies that can be used as a checklist in producing a long-list of area-specific solutions. A broad and internationally accepted standard is the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). The classification used in The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB) is also internationally recognised. Other useful sources for compiling an area-specific long-list of possible ecosystem services include the Natural Capital Atlas, which describes the ecosystem services in the Netherlands, and the Ecosystem Service Assessment of TIDE Estuaries (a TIDE study based on the TEEB classification). It is important to realise that CICES and TEEB adopt an academic classification and taxonomy of ecosystem services which is sometimes difficult to follow. CICES and TEEB also each follows its own logic for the classification and taxonomy of ecosystem services, in which the main categories of provisioning services, regulating services and cultural services are first broken down into sub-categories and then into individual ecosystem services. In the interests of the communication with actors, it would be better to use a taxonomy of ecosystem services that is recognisable to everyone. It is also preferable to refer only to the principal categories and individual services. Using a variety of possible sub-categories is only likely to cause confusion.
To formulate an integral challenge, insight is needed not only into the ecosystem services that the water system can provide now and in the future, but also what ecosystem services are currently accessible in the area, for example because the infrastructure is in place and/or they are actually being used. It is also useful to know how those services have historically been used, since that says something about how the ecosystem functioned in the past and how it is currently used, and illuminates the wishes and expectations the actors may have for the project. This information is collected from the actors in the process track. Surveying actors also generates information about the possible obstacles to the accessibility and use of the ecosystem services, as well as wishes for future uses and solutions that could possibly facilitate them.
RWS may in fact have its own wishes for making better use of ecosystem services. For example, it might be considering making greater use of provisioning and regulating functions to meet goals for a sustainable living environment (with a focus on themes such as the circular economy and sustainable water management).
Interviews with managers will pinpoint any bottlenecks that exist in relation to achieving statutory goals for water and nature and sustainable conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity.
In combination with the long-list, this process will produce a broad overview of the stock of natural capital, access to it and its (historical) use, the obstacles faced by actors, and their willingness to use potential new ecosystem services.
The preceding steps have provided building blocks for defining an integral challenge. Now that it is clear where there are shortcomings in the sustainable functioning of the water system and what the wishes of stakeholders are, an integral challenge and possible solutions to be explored can be defined. Sustainable use of ecosystem services is one of the considerations. Part of the challenge is to establish whether the current use of ecosystem services is compatible with sustainable conservation of the ecosystem and biodiversity. The exploration of possible solutions also has to determine what sustainable use of ecosystem services actually involves with respect to each solution. On the basis of the integral challenge, the possible solutions and the potential effects, the scale of the planning and study area and the research questions can be determined. This answers the question of ‘what’ needs to be done in relation to the water system. The question of ‘how’ can then be addressed (see 4 Scoping).
The possibility of incorporating sustainable use of ecosystem services in decisions on changes to large bodies of water cannot be explored without consulting the relevant actors. They can provide specific information about the locality, provide insight into (historical) use, identify obstacles and wishes, and help in understanding how the ecosystem functions and how access to the natural capital can be improved for people in the area. As users, they can also express their specific wishes for the functioning of the ecosystem and the biodiversity (functional biodiversity). Finally, they can help to ensure that the findings from the exploratory studies are robust and credible.
As explained in sheet 2.7, relevant actors are users of ecosystem services, nature and water managers and public authorities. For large bodies of water, the principal actors are Rijkswaterstaat, the responsible ministries in other domains, nature management organisations, the provinces, neighbouring municipalities and water boards, the fishing industry and the water recreation sector, both recreationists and businesses in the recreation sector.
The literature provides countless guidelines for conducting actor analyses. Whichever approach you choose, the analysis must always identify the relevant actors and how they depend on, benefit from or influence the proper functioning of the ecosystem. This will clarify their interest in the project and make it possible to estimate their influence on and attitude towards the project.
& biodiversity
People cannot live without the earth and its nature. But not everyone realises that. Whereas humans and nature used to live in harmony, over the centuries mankind has become increasingly remote from nature. It is therefore useful to reflect with the team members and the actors in the planning area on the significance of the earth and of nature for humans, the substance of the concept of ecosystem services and why the concept is useful. It is also essential to use a comprehensible and shared language and terminology in relation to the concept. In communicating with actors it is important to use names of ecosystems services that are recognisable to everyone rather than the scientific titles that are often used in standards and classifications (see also sheet 3.1.2).
Nor is everyone aware that sustainable conservation of the processes and structures of ecosystems, and biodiversity, is a prerequisite for the continued supply of various services. Greater awareness and understanding of the link between ecosystem services and ecosystems and biodiversity, and the different approaches to biodiversity, are important requirements for a fruitful discussion of this subject in the following steps of the process. By translating the conceptual framework to the situation and practice in the planning area, team members and actors will reach a better understanding of the ecosystem services the area provides and their relationship to the ecosystem and the biodiversity. The sheets on the conceptual framework (2.1 to 2.9) in this guide provide a useful tool for this discussion.
With the actor analysis, the appropriate parties can be asked about their use of and interaction with the ecosystem and their wishes for the future. It is possible to address both the current situation and the future in interviews. The pilot also demonstrated the importance of inviting the actors to look beyond their own interests and to avoid lobbying in the traditional sense. There are two ways of accomplishing this. First, actors were found to be more open in one-on-one interviews than in the presence of ‘competing’ users or managers of ecosystem services. Second, the manner in which the interview is conducted is important. Deltares has developed a method of interviewing actors (Brils, J. and S. van der Meulen: Participatory ecosystems assessment, 2013). The method starts with a number of open questions about the natural and socio-economic systems and their mutual interactions, and then moves on to a joint discussion of a list of all the relevant ecosystem services in the area. Experience with this method has been positive, because it leads to a discussion that goes further than the usual lobbying. Interviewees consider not only their own interests, but also the needs of the ecosystem itself. We therefore recommend using this method for the interviews. There also has to be a discussion of what else is needed to unlock and use ecosystem services (see the next sheet). It is advisable to use maps and (aerial) photos because they help the interviewees to understand where particular ecosystem services are provided, and where there are opportunities and obstacles.
In practice, actors appear to be relatively unaware of regulating, and some cultural ecosystem services, so focus explicitly on these services in the interviews and keeping pushing for answers. Another issue that needs to be addressed is what the wishes for ecosystem services imply for possible solutions for the water system, the delineation of the planning and study area and the research questions.
In the previous sheet we discussed the importance of inviting actors to look beyond their own interests. At the same time, it is important for Rijkswaterstaat – as the director of the process to bring about sustainable development – to look beyond its own interests as water manager and to explore what the actors regard as important. Only a deep understanding of the respective interests can highlight conflicts that could arise between different uses and/or goals, common interests and possible paths towards sustainable development.
A user might have very specific wishes for the functioning of an ecosystem because particular processes are important for the use of the system. Examples might be sufficient primary production and oxygen for shellfish farming. It is also important to realise that the use of an ecosystem service often requires more than just the ecosystem that provides the service. For instance, infrastructure, docking facilities, boats and fishing gear might be needed to unlock the service. For entrepreneurs, accessing and using ecosystem services must have economic value or they will not make the necessary investments. Operating results depend not only on a properly functioning ecosystem that provides services, but are also influenced by various commercial factors and the market. Accessibility is crucial for recreationists, since otherwise the area is out of bounds to them. For nature-management organisations, a relevant factor is the need to achieve the (statutory) goals for nature, partly because their management fees are linked to it.
By studying what is really important for actors, their wishes can be linked more closely to management variables in the project and research questions designed to identify the effects for the users and managers can be formulated more precisely. Variables that are relevant for the actors and compatible with sustainable development can then also be taken into account in the design. Examples might be jetties, restrictions on the distances that professional fishermen can sail, docking facilities for leisure craft and a zoning regime that provides sufficient room for sustainable use and for achieving management objectives.
The government's draft National Framework Vision for Grevelingen and Volkerak-Zoommeer stated that the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management planned to improve the water management in the Grevelingen and the Volkerak-Zoommeer because of the poor quality of the water. Particularly in the summer, the Grevelingen is devoid of oxygen due to a combination of stratification of water layers, which prevents mixing, and the decomposition of organic substances at deeper levels, which causes the oxygen to be used up. The Volkerak-Zoommeer has periods of explosive growth of blue algae. The problems with water quality have a negative impact on nature, recreation, fisheries and the fresh water supply and must be resolved. Furthermore, the rising sea level and higher discharges from rivers require measures to provide sufficient protection against flooding in the Rhine-Meuse estuary. Finding solutions for both problems will create opportunities for economic development and for improving the quality of the living environment in the region. In the draft framework vision, the government has chosen to restore muted tidal movement in the Grevelingen and the Volkerak-Zoommeer, and hence make Volkerak-Zoommeer a salt-water body again. Rijkswaterstaat is combining this policy proposal with measures to create a sustainable living environment. For that reason, our ambition for the pilot on ecosystem services is to create room for sustainable use of ecosystem services in the Grevelingen and the Volkerak-Zoommeer. From the perspective of ecosystem services, the pilot will contribute to the research for and realisation of the development plans in the draft framework vision.
On the basis of TEEB and TIDE, the project team has drawn up an initial long-list of possible ecosystem services for the Volkerak-Zoommeer and the Grevelingen. The list was expanded and refined following a survey of actors. The list of ecosystem services was then re-assessed against the CICES classification, which showed that the CICES classification differs from TEEB’s. This process showed that differences in scientific classifications and taxonomy can cause confusion. In the communication with actors, it is preferable to use only the main classification of provisioning, regulating and cultural services and to choose titles for individual ecosystem services that are recognisable to them. In the case of the Grevelingen and the Volkerak-Zoommeer, a good dialogue was possible using the following (non-exhaustive) titles for ecosystem services.
Provisioning services: food (fish, shellfish and plants), water (for agricultural use, for industrial purposes, drinking water, for energy, shipping), raw materials, genetic resources, medicinal resources and decorative resources.
Cultural services: angling, diving, recreational sailing, walking, bird-watching, studying plants, mammal-watching, quality of living environment, experiencing history, intrinsic values of nature.
Regulating services: regulation of air quality, regulation of climate, regulation of soil quality, regulation of water quality, water storage, regulation of erosion and sedimentation, pest and disease control, pollination.
To assess and refine the long-list of ecosystem services and form an impression of wishes and obstacles, interviews were conducted with actors.
Given the scope of the pilot, it was impossible to speak to every relevant actor. In consultation with Rijkswaterstaat’s review group, we decided to speak mainly to users for whom the Grevelingen and the Volkerak-Zoommeer have value in terms of welfare. The idea was that the user groups that derive direct monetary value from the lakes via provisioning services were adequately represented in the SCBA (2014) produced for the government's Framework Vision for Grevelingen Volkerak-Zoommeer.
For the first pilot we interviewed:
It emerged from the interviews that the actors are aware that ecosystems provide services that benefit people. It is also clear to them that the services are grouped into provisioning, regulating and cultural services.
The anglers, the divers and the operator of Marina Port Zélande are well-informed about how the areas are used, not only by themselves but also by other users, and what managers such as Staatsbosbeheer and Rijkswaterstaat are doing in the region. Their knowledge extends mainly to provisioning and cultural services. They are also aware to varying extents of the importance of regulating services and biodiversity. The users of recreational services refer mainly to the importance of good water quality, abundant underwater life, and preventing stench.
Rijkswaterstaat is familiar with the use of the lakes and is familiar with various regulating services, particularly with respect to the quality and quantity of water and erosion and sedimentation. All of the actors know less about the mechanics (and hence the supply) of some other regulating services, such as carbon sequestration or biological soil processes. Staatsbosbeheer would like to see greater awareness of the importance of regulating services for human welfare and prosperity and the importance of biodiversity and a robust ecosystem for the supply of various ecosystem services.
The views expressed by the actors in the interviews gave us an insight into their perspective on the supply and use of ecosystem services, and the obstacles, wishes and opportunities in relation to ecosystem services in both the current situation and in the future as a result of the possible solutions.
To show what substantive results this step can produce, a number of sample maps were produced on the basis of interviews with the actors and the team members' existing knowledge of the water system and its use:
In the Grevelingen en Volkerak-Zoommeer pilot, the actors were asked not only about the ecosystem services in the current situation, but also for their views on possible solutions for the poor water quality and the opportunities and obstacles those solutions might create for ecosystem services. One of the solutions discussed was to introduce muted tide in the Grevelingen and muted tide and salt water in the Volkerak-Zoommeer. The following sheets give an impression of these discussions.
‘What is good for nature is good for divers’. Quote from HES van Schoonhoven.
‘It will be truly great’. Quote from Port Zélande Marina
‘The Flakkee sluice is already a success’. Quote from anglers
As users of the recreational facilities of the Grevelingen, anglers, divers and the operator of Port Zélande Marina are convinced of the importance of biodiversity for their activities. The user value of the Grevelingen for anglers has seriously deteriorated in recent years, as reflected in the fact that only a few of the dozens of charter boats that used to take out groups of anglers still operate. Divers suffer from the smell of underwater sulfur and find dead fish in the oxygen-depleted layers. The users of recreational services would therefore like a sluice in the Brouwersdam as that would largely resolve the oxygen problems and enhance underwater life. The anglers are already enthusiastic about the opening of the Flakkee sluice. Within a month, small plaice were already being caught again. The stench from accumulating seaweed has also diminished with the movement of the water.
The interviewed consumers and providers of recreational services know that the introduction of a tide is at the expense of special types of vegetation, plants and breeding grounds on the islands and sand shelves. However, because they benefit mainly from the water-based recreational services, they see more advantages than drawbacks in the improved water quality and richer underwater life. Furthermore, they argue that nature organisations and nature lovers pay too little attention to the underwater life, which is also nature.
Staatsbosbeheer has concerns about the negative impact of tides on the exceptional vegetation and plants and breeding grounds for coastal birds in the Grevelingen. Staatsbosbeheer realises that as manager of the islands and sandbars it has traditionally devoted less attention to underwater nature. Staatsbosbeheer understands that introducing tides benefits the underwater life, but wonders whether, on balance, it is better for the nature as a whole. Furthermore, Staatsbosbeheer's financing depends directly on meeting targets for nature on the islands and sandbars, because it receives subsidies for them. Staatsbosbeheer would like the other parties to show more sympathy for the financial consequences for the nature managers of the introduction of tides.
Another concern of Staatsbosbeheer is that the benefits of improved water quality in the Grevelingen will accrue mainly to users of ecosystem services with monetary value if more space is devoted to mussel and oyster farms. In that case, the added value for nature will be limited.
The biodiversity in a saline Volkerak-Zoommeer is very different to that in a freshwater Volkerak-Zoommeer. There will be different species of fish and benthic animals. Some of the birds that currently inhabit it will also not thrive in a saltwater system.
Divers see possibilities for expansion of their activities in a saltwater Volkerak-Zoommeer, because a saltwater system offers more interesting underwater life than a freshwater system. Anglers would prefer the Volkerak-Zoommeer to remain a freshwater system.
For anglers, the current freshwater Volkerak-Zoommeer has international appeal. There are around 12,500 visitors annually, with anglers coming from countries such as Belgium, Germany, Poland and Russia. From the banks, anglers like to fish for white fish such as roach and bream. Offshore anglers fish mainly for predators such as pike and pike perch. Anglers see less added value in a saltwater Volkerak-Zoommeer, since it would mean there is no longer a place for freshwater anglers, for whom the Volkerak-Zoommeer is now a top international location. There are also sufficient locations for saltwater fishing in the vicinity. Moreover, the anglers do not expect a large fish population in a saltwater Volkerak-Zoommeer without a connection to the rivers. They refer to the Oosterschelde, where the fish stocks have diminished greatly since no more freshwater (with nutrients) has been admitted. They would prefer that the Volkerak-Zoommeer remains a freshwater system and is improved for competitive angling where possible (see sheet 3.3.12 on the current use of the Volkerak-Zoommeer by anglers).
This sheet shows in more detail the current use, the obstacles and the wishes of the users of one of the ecosystem services in the Volkerak-Zoommeer, angling. No similar maps were produced for other ecosystem services and their users.
As with the Grevelingen, Staatsbosbeheer wonders whether the introduction of saltwater and tides in the Volkerak-Zoommeer will have a negative impact on nature. The nature has steadily improved in recent years. More and more unusual birds have been appearing, for example.
A return to saltwater and tides must therefore be carefully managed, with the creation of a natural estuary with an open connection to the river system, according to both Staatsbosbeheer and the anglers. In a natural situation, fish spawn mainly in flood plains. The fresh water carries nutrients. This creates a healthy fish population with sufficient possibilities for migration, say the anglers.
Staatsbosbeheer feels that this is the only way of creating a resilient, robust and natural system as it has traditionally been, where regulating services (such as water treatment, water storage and carbon sequestration) can do their work, a minimum of management is needed and appropriate biodiversity can develop. It feels that other parties sometimes overestimate the range of additional ecosystem services that will actually be generated with the introduction of tides and saltwater. Parties then refer to studies showing that natural estuaries deliver far more services than other ecosystems. What they fail to realise is that enclosed lakes with muted tides are not natural estuaries. Staatsbosbeheer would like to have seen a return to natural estuaries explored as an alternative in the context of the EIA and the SCBA.
The maps below show the opportunities and obstacles for ecosystem services with tides and saltwater for the Grevelingen and the Volkerak, as suggested by the actors who were interviewed.
Besides improving the water quality, the additional challenge addressed in the pilot is to create room for sustainable use of ecosystem services while conserving biodiversity and the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. This yields the following additional research questions, which were not fully explored in the earlier EIA and SCBA:
The purpose of scoping phase is to frame the project or plan: in light of the challenge, what goals are feasible, what alternative solutions will be developed (for the water system and for the ambitions in terms of sustainability), what effects will be considered and what questions need to be answered. How actors will be involved in the planning process is also worked out in this phase.
Having established the integral challenge for a sustainable water system and the current and desired use of ecosystem services, the challenge can be defined more precisely and ambitions can be formulated in terms of specific goals for the plan or the project. One of those goals is sustainable development of the water system, which means that the envisaged level of use of ecosystem services has to be determined. That might require reducing the use of some ecosystem services because their current use or their use in the future is not sustainable.
Formulate SMART goals and also specify what constitutes ‘sustainable development’ in the context of the specific plan or project. Finally, describe the absolute preconditions the water system must always meet. These might be obligations ensuing from the Water Framework Directive or from the Nature Conservation Act with respect to protected species and areas.
An important element of the scoping phase, after establishing the goal, is to explore alternative options for achieving that goal. Those alternatives might relate to resolving the problem with the water system, but also to the ambitions for a sustainable water system and how they can be realised. This might concern issues such as the characteristics of the system, changes in its function, or its management and maintenance. In short, the buttons that can be pushed to achieve the goals.
Formulating alternatives only make sense if there is a choice in how the goals can be achieved. For example, if the process track reveals that stakeholders differ in their views on the future of the area or on the use of ecosystem services in the current or future situation. By suggesting alternative options, the social issues surrounding ecosystem services in the area can be highlighted.
During the scoping phase, it is enough to outline alternatives. They can be fleshed out at the next stage.
To frame the research in the following stages, it has to be clear what ecosystem services are relevant for further study and how information about the consequences of the plan or the project for the availability of those ecosystem services will be provided, and in how much detail.
An ecosystem service can be regarded as relevant if significant use is made of it, or might be made of it in the future, and if the availability of the service is expected to differ in the various alternatives.
Changes in the availability of ecosystem services can be determined by various factors:
1. By changes in the abiotic (water) system
2. By changes in biodiversity
3. By changes in access to ecosystem services, due to changes in:
Specify the relevant dose-effect relationships for the plan or project. Make a list of indicators to make the effects 'measurable'. Carefully consider indicators that spotlight changes in ecosystem services that are difficult to quantify. Finally, this is also the stage where it has to be determined whether the challenge also makes it necessary to define changes in ecosystems services in monetary terms. If it does, quantitative indicators should be formulated as far as possible. Quantitative indicators will in fact also be needed if the plan or project is going to be monitored. The methods of quantifying and valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity are discussed in more detail in the sheets on the 'Consequences for natural capital and biodiversity'.
Research questions can be formulated on the basis of the specified goals, the alternatives and effects to be explored, the methods to be adopted for quantification and valuation and input from the consultation process. These questions concern how the processes, structures and characteristics of the ecosystem and the associated biodiversity will change as a result of the various alternatives and the interventions they involve in order to accurately estimate their impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
In practice, the scope is regularly revised in response to progressive insight generated by research, studies and input from stakeholders, leading to new research questions. It is an iterative process.
During the exploratory phase, the actors are all interviewed in person. The organiser of the process has then formulated at least a first draft of the goals, alternatives to be explored, research questions and effects to be assessed. In practice, all of these will be gradually revised on the basis of progressive insight as the planning studies continue, also in response to input from the consultation process. Because sustainable development calls for interaction between the various actors, it is important to inform the actors of the goals and the approach and to modify or further refine them on the basis of the discussions.
With the construction of the Delta Works, the Grevelingen was shut off from the North Sea. Ebb and flood disappeared and a combination of stratification of water layers and decomposition of organic material, a process that consumes oxygen, caused oxygen depletion, particularly in the former tidal channels. The oxygen-free state means that benthic fauna die and bacteria survive in parts of the lake. It is an annual phenomenon in the summer months. It causes harm for the benthic community in the Grevelingen, which is an important link in the food chain for seals, fish and birds, among others. Consequently, the entire ecosystem is vulnerable. The region’s economic vitality also depends on the water and its quality. This calls for sustainable conservation of the entire system. The goals of the project therefore extend to more than just restoring the quality of the water.
The ambition for the Tidal project is:
We want to improve the water quality in the Grevelingen by restoring muted tides. The tidal current will prevent stratification of water layers and solve the problem of oxygen depletion in large parts of the lake. That is good news for the underwater nature and will also create possibilities for a more integrated improvement of nature in the long term. It will also provide a solid foundation for sustainable development of the entire area that balances social and economic interests and the interests of nature development. To restore the tide, a sluice has to be installed, which could also be used to generate renewable energy with a tidal power station.
The government’s framework vision for Grevelingen Volkerak-Zoommeer (2014) originally envisaged a muted tide of 50 cm with a mean level of NAP -20 cm for the Grevelingen, the same as the mean level in the existing situation (50/-20 scenario). On the basis of research, it has now been decided to start with a muted tide of 40 cm with a mean level of NAP -30 cm (40/-30 scenario). This is an example of an iterative process in which research and progressive insight has led to revision of the scope as mentioned in sheet 4.1.4.
To proceed from the government’s framework vision to the planning phase, two other issues had to be investigated further: Natura 2000 and the rising sea level due to global warming. We explain the research relating to Natura 2000 here because it is relevant for the pilot. The 50/-20 scenario was found to have quite significant negative effects on the terrestrial nature with Natura 2000 values. These are nature values that depend on fresh water or on incidental flooding with saltwater and are not able to withstand frequent flooding with saltwater. In 2018 and 2019, therefore, the Tidal Grevelingen project conducted research into the optimal water level management to start with, to resolve the problems with water quality, improve the underwater nature and to minimise the effects on the terrestrial nature, more specifically the Natura 2000 values occurring there. The latter can be achieved with a lower maximum level. Of the scenarios that were further investigated (50/-30, 40/-30 and 30/-20), the 40/-30 scenario was found to be the best. That scenario offers the prospect of a substantial improvement in the water quality and the underwater nature, while also respecting the protected nature values on the islands and banks. As with the other scenarios, in the 40/-30 scenario measures have to be taken due to the negative effects for Natura 2000 values, but they are less extensive than in the other scenarios.
If muted tides are introduced in the Grevelingen, differences will arise between the ecosystem services listed below in the muted tide scenarios and in the current situation and/or with autonomous development. They were therefore selected for further investigation in the pilot.
Regulating services
Tides solve the problems with oxygen depletion in large parts of the lake and improve the water quality. Due to the movement of the water with the tide, the stench declines (improved regulation of air quality). The climate regulation also improves: it is expected that carbon sequestration will increase and the problems arising from temperature stratification will decline.
Provisioning services
Tides and the connection with the North Sea will probably improve the conditions for commercial fishing of lobsters and eels and farming of shellfish such as oysters and mussels. Oxygen depletion will decline, so fewer shellfish will die and primary production will increase. The arrival of tides in the Grevelingen will create possibilities to generate tidal energy.
Cultural services
Tides and the connection with the North Sea will increase the diversity and populations of species. The water quality will improve and the stench will decline, which will benefit various water-based recreational services including diving, angling, recreational sailing, swimming and recreation on the banks.
The purpose of this phase is to flesh out alternative concrete designs for the plan or the project. The level of detail in each draft depends mainly on the decision that needs to be made. Ecosystem services are incorporated in the designs, which can be used in the next step to identify the consequences for the availability and use of the natural capital and the differences between the alternatives.
Now that the problem exploration and the scoping have clarified the problem and the goal, a ‘tailored' and deeper system analysis can be carried out to identify the crucial features of the system for ecosystem services, as well as the autonomous trends.
The so-called layer approach (see https://www.ruimtexmilieu.nl/lagenbenadering) provides a suitable opening for the system analysis. Enumerate the system features on which each (existing) ecosystem service depends. Map their current use and identify their user groups. Investigate whether the ecosystem service already has negative effects on the ecosystem and biodiversity due to over-exploitation. Also consider whether the use of particular ecosystem services conflicts with the use of others or with management objectives for nature and water. In short, explore whether ecosystem services are being used sustainably in the current situation. Then indicate the autonomous trends affecting the system features and their potential consequences for the supply of ecosystem services. Wherever possible, illustrate the assembled information with maps, photographs, etc.
Users might want more or different ecosystem services or may wish to make better use of existing services. This can be arranged by improving access to the existing natural capital or by adding new natural capital to the system or by expanding the scope that policy allows for the use of ecosystem services. A change in the supply or use of one ecosystem service can create opportunities to strengthen existing functions, but can also cause conflicts with other functions. To discover where there are opportunities or obstacles, the use of an ecosystem service has to be confronted with other services and with the management objectives for nature and water. One way of doing this is to conduct conflict tests on the desired scenarios for different functions, as explained in the next sheet. These tests can show up conflicts between scenarios and opportunities for mutual reinforcement. The information can be used to exploit feasible benefits and remove obstacles in the spatial design for the new situation.
To reconcile the wishes of users and the desire for sustainable development of the large bodies of water, a crucial question is what level of use of ecosystem services is compatible with safeguarding a properly functioning ecosystem and biodiversity. Testing for conflicts between the desired scenarios for different functions can help to acquire a better sense of how functions can together make optimal use of the water system and the immediate environment while ensuring that it continues to function sustainably. This requires the involvement of the relevant actors. The method is as follows.
1) Compiling the most realistic scenarios
2) Carrying out conflict tests
3) Searching for possible sustainable solutions
4) Formulating research questions
Incorporate the desired scenarios for ecosystem services and the management of the water system, the findings from the impact tests and the possible sustainable solutions in the process of designing an integral (spatial) plan. If this process is preceded by a Statement of Requirements, the aspects it covers must also be incorporated. In the design process, the envisaged usage functions, system features and ecosystem services should be integrated into a coherent whole that responds to the goals formulated in the earlier scoping phase. The aim is to produce a spatial design, or alternatives to it, that are sufficiently realistic to play a role in an EIA procedure. The steps described here provide the necessary building blocks. As a rule, this integration is an iterative process.
The purpose of the problem exploration phase was to form an impression of the current use of ecosystem services and establish the wishes for the future. In this phase, when the spatial design is being produced, input from actors is needed again.
Whereas during the problem exploration the actors were consulted in bilateral meetings, in this phase it is more effective to consult the actors as a group in the drafting of the design – insofar as the problem exploration has made it clear that they have a direct interest in the use of ecosystem services. Their involvement is most effective if they start with a preliminary draft of the system analysis and the existing ecosystem services and their mutual relationship. Actors are asked to specify their wishes, and can then discuss opportunities and conflicts between functions and explore possible sustainable solutions (impact tests). In practice, a workshop-like setting, where everyone can devote their creativity and brainpower to the discussion without being constrained by a strict mandate from their grassroots, is generally an important success factor. The involvement of actors in this phase can be iterative in nature, but to what extent depends of the scale and complexity of the plan or project.
Ensure that the full range of actors are represented in this phase, including owners and managers that are engaged in conserving and developing a sustainable ecosystem. They also have visions for the system. Their input is particularly useful for acquiring a clearer impression of the capacity of the sustainable system to deliver (new and existing) ecosystem services. They also possess considerable knowlege of the preconditions imposed by legislation and the existing water system and its mechanics, and can provide valuable information about these aspects.
For the Tidal Grevelingen pilot, the conflict test approach was tried out to determine whether it could be used to formulate research questions from the perspective of ecosystem services and to generate guidelines for sustainable development. We organised two workshops with some of the relevant actors around the Grevelingen:
Starting from the current situation, we asked them to compose most realistic scenarios for shellfish farming, recreation and nature management in the desired future situation with a muted tide of 40 cm around a mean level of NAP -30 cm. We used those scenarios to explore where different functions could exist together or where they would conflict with each other and/or with the requirements of nature legislation. We also asked the actors whether there were any other issues that required further research to learn more about the possibilities for their own use of ecosystem services and sustainable use of those services.
In preparation for the workshop, we mapped the current use for shellfish farming (560 ha).
Most plots are in the west at a depth of between NAP -2 metres and -7 metres. A deeper level is currently unappealing because of the anoxic conditions, which cause shellfish to die. A muted tide of 40 cm would improve the conditions for shellfish cultivation.
The area affected by problems with oxygen would decline from 800-1600 hectares now (the variation over the last twenty years) to approx. 630 ha. Primary production would increase by roughly 75%. For the workshop, we showed the location of the (sub-)optimal depths for shellfish cultivation in the new situation with muted tide on the map and made an initial rough estimate of the number of hectares by which shellfish farming could expand (approx. 420 ha). In the current situation, the oysters are sufficiently fat and there are no signs of overgrazing. We therefore assumed that with a similar distribution of the primary production across filtering organisms, a 75% increase in primary production could also generate growth of 75% in shellfish cultivation. We think in terms of 200 ha soil cultivation for oysters, 150 ha soil cultivation for mussels and 70 ha suspended cultivation for mussels. To produce a most realistic scenario for oysters, during the workshop we asked the Dutch Oyster Association to let us know where they saw possibilities to expand oyster plots by 200 ha.
The Oyster Association told us that with the available data it was not really possible to say whether expansion of oyster plots by 200 ha was realistic or where the best location would be for the oyster plots, because depth was not the only factor. For example, a hard bed is needed and it is important to know where and to what depth the anoxic conditions would be resolved (the findings from the model study are at present only expressed in hectares) and where and to what extent primary production would increase. If the oxygen conditions at deeper levels improve, oyster plots at depths of more than 7 metres could be considered. That would also mitigate the risk of storm damage to the oyster plots. The problem is that plots at depths of more than 7 metres are currently prohibited because that depth is designated for recreational sailing. A policy change would therefore be required to allocate more space for deeper shellfish cultivation. Mussels and oysters are not really compatible, because mussel seed clings to oysters and suffocates them. The mussel and oyster plots must therefore laid far apart. The conditions for shellfish farming could also be improved with an optimal water level management with a net flow from the Brouwersdam towards the Oosterschelde, which would also improve the conditions in the eastern part of the Grevelingen. The oyster farmers would also like an extra mooring point as this could greatly reduce the time taken to sail to and from the plots. That would save time and fuel, and hence also money and CO2 emissions.
Maps were provided for the workshop showing the current use of most of the recreational activities and the navigation routes.
The Grevelingen has traditionally been an important location for diving. The water was deep and clear and there was a rich and interesting benthic life. The increasing lack of oxygen in the summer months means that there is little left to see in deep water. There is only one site left that is really interesting for divers.
Immediately after the construction of the Brouwersdam, anglers also fished from the banks in many places. There is practically no onshore fishing any longer due to the presence of Japanese oyster banks that cut the fishing lines. The only remaining areas of real interest for anglers are the waters near the Brouwersdam and the Flakkee drainage sluice. There are few fish anywhere else in the Grevelingen.
There are several marinas along the Grevelingen from where charter boats operate, but there far fewer now than there used to be, which is also seen as a consequence of the decline in the water quality. The water-related recreation also suffers from the stench caused by the accumulation of sea lettuce.
The introduction of muted tide would reduce the problems with anoxia in large parts of the lake and enhance underwater life. Representatives of the Nederlandse Onderwatersport Bond, Sportvisserij Nederland and the marinas along the Grevelingen jointly reflected on the scenario for recreation.
The Grevelingen is a protected nature area. It is a designated Natura 2000 area and there are conservation targets for birds, the tundra vole, habitat types and fen orchids. Coastal breeding birds, such as the Sandwich tern, breed on the bare ground on the islands. The populations of birds foraging on fish and benthic animals have declined in recent years, possibly because of a deterioration in the food supply for birds due to the poor water quality. The map below shows the main areas of habitat types, birds, the tundra vole and fen orchids in the current situation.
Restoring tides would improve the food situation for birds that forage on fish and benthic animals. With the appearance of an intertidal area, waders would have possibilities to forage. But tides would have negative effects for habitat types and species that depend on fresh water or only incidental flooding with saltwater. They cannot cope with frequent flooding with saltwater. Breeding birds also suffer negative effects because tides will flood their breeding areas every day. A number of measures will therefore have to be taken for the natural values of the Natura 2000 area in order to comply with the EU's Natura 2000 directives before muted tide can be introduced. For example, the breeding islands and high-water havens for waders will have to be raised and a new island will have to be created for habitat types, fen orchids and birds. These measures, and more generally compliance with the conservation targets for the Natura 2000 area are absolute requirements for the future design and use of the area.
We asked Staatsbosbeheer and the Netherlands Society for the Protection of Birds to describe their desired scenario for the Grevelingen with a tide van 40/-30. They based that scenario on the existing nature, the conservation targets that have to be met and the measures required by Natura 2000 with a 40 cm tide. To achieve the targets for birds, it is important that sufficient food remains constantly available and that they can find sufficient rest via (temporary) zoning. In that context, the nature organisations suggested fishing-free zones at important locations for fish and birds, particularly near the sluices in the Brouwersdam to allow fish to swim in and out freely. The breeding islands and high-water refuges must remain peaceful.
They also expressed the following wishes:
During the workshop we discussed the most realistic scenarios for ‘shellfish farming’, ‘recreation’ and 'biodiversity'. In hindsight, the latter discussion should have been about a scenario for nature management rather than biodiversity, as we have just done in the previous sheet. After all, it is not only nature managers that have wishes with respect to biodiversity, but also users of ecosystem services. Anglers, for example, want to be able to fish for particular species of fish at particular locations and divers would like a biodiverse underwater life. It is important to recognise that nature managers and users both have legitimate wishes for biodiversity. Users felt somewhat aggrieved that the scenario for biodiversity was assigned solely to the nature organisations.
In discussing the scenario for biodiversity (or the scenario for nature management as it should be called) in the workshop, we did not make a sharp distinction between absolute requirements ensuing from the Nature Conservation Act and more extensive wishes derived from the needs of nature management. But this distinction is important for a good discussion of sustainable use of the ecosystem. It must be clear to all the actors when absolute statutory requirements apply and when there is room to 'share' the ecosystem and the biodiversity. Another development during the workshop was that the managers of the Grevelingen used the argument of having to meet the conservation targets to ‘claim’ more space and to restrict use, for example with the demand for fishing-free zones near the sluices. For anglers, the zones near the sluices are actually the best sites and it was not entirely clear to them that prohibiting fishing at those sites was necessary to achieve the conservation goals. That conclusion was premature, they felt. In other words, such claims must be properly substantiated. On the other hand, it has to be realised that the relationship between use and the achievement or otherwise of the conservation goals is not always clear. If conservation goals are not achieved, a (temporary) restriction of use – even if the relationship is not immediately clear – is still defensible and is necessary to ascertain whether there is any improvement. Users often find this difficult to accept and it should receive a lot of attention in the communication.
In a nutshell, we expect that the discussion of sustainable use with safeguards for biodiversity will be more fruitful if a distinction is made between :
In the conceptual framework, we have translated the takeaways into distinct types of biodiversity and explained them (see sheets 2.4 and 2.5).
On the basis of the desired scenarios for shellfish farming, recreation and nature management, in the workshop the stakeholders discussed the conflicts and opportunities they perceived (see also the map insert). The following conflicts were identified:
The following opportunities were identified during the workshop:
The research into the various tidal scenarios in 2019 looked mainly at the relationship between the tide and the size of the anoxic area and the ecological effects on habitats and species. It emerged during the workshops that there were other issues relating to functions and uses that required further research and monitoring, such as the relationship between the tide and primary production or the depth at which anoxia disappears. A number of research questions relating to shellfish farming, recreation and nature management that were raised during the workshop are listed below.
Shellfish farming
Recreation
Nature management
The exercise with the conflict tests highlighted various design variables on the basis of which the alternatives for a sustainable Grevelingen can be composed:
This pilot was a creative exercise in designing scenarios for the use of ecosystem services based on shellfish farming, recreation and nature management. However, we did not reach the point of being able to present alternative uses of ecosystem services with sufficient realism to be investigated in an EIA. That would require further research into the issues raised by users and nature managers. On the basis of the findings, alternatives for (sustainable) use can then be formulated, in consultation with the stakeholders.
Even with research it will not be possible to determine precisely the relationship between tides, ecological functioning and carrying capacity for different functions. The relationship between use and the attainment or otherwise of conservation goals for Natura 2000 will also not be immediately clear. But with monitoring and adjustment, a modus can still be found to produce a design for sustainable use of the Grevelingen.
The aim of this phase is to identify the implications of the design and the alternatives for biodiversity, the availability of natural capital and a sustainable living environment as is done in an Environment Impact Report. The consequences for natural capital are measured as far as possible in quantitative orders of magnitude. If there is added value in doing so, they can be assigned a value in terms of (monetary) costs and benefits. The design can be improved on the basis of progressive insight into the consequences in a further round of the design process.
There is now a detailed plan/spatial design for the desired situation (or various alternatives), so the likely consequences for ecosystem services can be identified.
The first step is to describe changes in the features of the system, such as changes in the dynamics of water movement and sediment or the quality of soil and water, and to quantify those changes if possible. Various forecasting methods that are already commonly used for EIAs can be used here. A system change might lead to a change in the stock of natural capital, but could also make the use of ecosystem services based on that stock more difficult (or in fact easier) due to changes in access to them. For example, creating recreational amenities such as new routes, harbours and other facilities could enhance the experience of the water system. On the other hand, prohibiting the use of a water barrier for recreational purposes could have the opposite effect. At this stage, it is important to specify the changes in each ecosystem service for each alternative, and where possible quantify and assign a value to them. Naturally, these insights can be used to optimise the plan or project in an iterative process.
Highlight the most important differences between any alternatives.
A useful tool for quantifying and valuing ecosystem services is the Manual for Social Cost-Benefit Analysis for Nature (Werkwijzer Natuur voor maatschappelijke kosten-batenanalyse) (Arcadis), which was produced for the Ministry of Economic Affairs in 2017. The procedure describes the approach and different methods of quantifying and/or valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services. Methods of valuing ecosystem services include:
To quote from the Manual for Social Cost-Benefit Analysis for Nature, only final ecosystem services contribute to human welfare. These final services are the ‘outputs’ of ecosystems (natural, semi-natural or artificial) that directly influence human well-being. Regulating ecosystem services are often intermediate ecosystem services; they are input for final ecosystem services. Intermediate ecosystem services are covered indirectly in the SCBA. They are not assigned an independent value, because that would lead to double counting with the final ecosystem services. In this guide, we recommend that the importance of regulating intermediate services for final services and the relationships between them should be explicitly spotlighted in the SCBAs
The Manual for Social Cost-Benefit Analysis for Nature also devotes specific attention to biodiversity. As in this guide (see sheets 2.3 and 2.4), the procedure covers different approaches to biodiversity and the various relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services and provides advice on how biodiversity can be integrated in SCBAs:
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) developed the nature points method in 2009. Nature points are a tool for quantifying the effects of interventions on biodiversity in a structured manner. It is based on a classification of types of nature. Nature points are expressed as the product of the surface area, nature quality and the weighting factor of each distinct type of nature.
Nature points were first used to measure effects on terrestrial nature in 2009. In 2014, the PBL used the same method for aquatic nature and for the transitions between terrestrial and aquatic nature. However, the Tidal Grevelingen pilot demonstrated the need to further refine the method to tailor it to the problems of the large bodies of water.
Nature points are not a substitute for other approaches to biodiversity, such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) or Natura 2000. The application of the nature points method complements the existing approaches under the WFD and Natura 2000, principally because it yields a profit and loss account for threatened species on the scale of the Netherlands. In the case of system recovery as in the Tidal Grevelingen pilot, the method provides a clearer picture of the gains for nature on the scale of the Netherlands and does not focus solely on the losses, as is the case with the Natura 2000 assessment. If the balance is positive, there might be greater acceptance of the losses.
The nature points method was not devised for the purpose of assigning a value to nature in SCBAs. In a SCBA, the costs and effects are estimated separately every year and are then discounted to a base year and the net cash value is determined. This method allows effects occurring at different times to be compared. The time horizon is formally infinite, but in practice an indicative period of 100 years is adopted. By discounting, the effects that occur early in the period weigh more heavily than later effects.
In practice, not all effects can be quantified and expressed in monetary terms. Effects that cannot be quantified are described in qualitative terms and shown with a + or a - in the table for the SCBA. This generally applies for natural effects, with the result that those effects are not always assigned the same weight as the effects that are quantified and monetised.
By expressing natural effects in nature points, they can be quantified. It is not yet possible to monetise them, but quantifying the nature effects can already help to give them more weight and to illustrate the relationship between the project alternatives.
Because other effects are investigated over an ‘infinite’ period (≈100 years), the development of nature points should also be identified over time and not just for a single year.
If necessary, nature points could be discounted in the same way as euros. That is the logical option if the value of nature points will appreciate or depreciate in the future. Because that is not yet clear, it is recommended that for the time being a table should be produced showing the average of the nature points over the period of the analysis.
For the pilot we investigated whether there were any new developments or methods for determining the welfare value of cultural services in SCBAs. It is difficult or impossible to assign an objective weight to an effect if it cannot be quantified and/or monetised. This applies not only for SCBAs, but also for a country’s national accounts, which measure the gross domestic product and in the process ignore the long-term value of the environment, social values and earning capacity. This is now widely felt to be an omission, as shown by the debate about the need to remedy the situation with a 'broad definition of welfare’ . For the pilot, we studied the developments in the discussion of welfare in a broad sense, but found no way of quantifying and/or valuing the welfare effects of cultural services. With respect to the effects on nature, in the pilot we discovered that determining nature points has added value for SCBAs, which is a good first step towards assigning greater weight to nature. We have not yet reached that point for welfare. We have not yet been able to define ‘welfare points’. We recommend continued monitoring of developments relating to the concept of broad welfare and remaining alert for methods with which welfare effects can eventually be quantified and/or valued. Naturally, the welfare effects can already be taken into account in qualitative terms.
In addition to the preceding steps, the interactions between different ecosystem services have to be identified for each alternative (in the current and the future situation): where will there be opportunities for promising new combinations of ecosystem services and/or combinations with management goals for nature and water, and where will there be conflicts that require choices to be made (along the same lines as the impact tests described earlier).
For example, realising water safety by building with sand will lead to new choices: is the ensuing cultural ecosystem service ‘recreation’ compatible with the conservation of biodiversity? Note, however, that identifying this type of interaction for each alternative is not the same thing as making choices. These are ‘if…then’ considerations, important building blocks for making decisions.
At the start of the project, goals were formulated for the desired state of the water system and for sustainable use of ecosystem services that safeguards the proper functioning of the ecosystem and biodiversity. The information that has now been gathered can be used to show in how far the plan/project and alternatives respond to the prescribed goals. Will natural capital actually be used more sustainably in the new situation, and if not, where are there still shortcomings in the plan/project. This step could lead to a new iterative process, but also to specific recommendations for additional measures in the following steps. The chosen course will depend mainly on what is actually feasible in the project (time, budget, procedures, etc.).
This phase of the substantive track is devoted to gathering information about the changes in the natural capital and their possible consequences for its use. Those consequences will differ according to the target group (users of ecosystem services, managers and public authorities). The significance of the changes therefore has to be described for each of the target groups. During this phase, new actors might emerge or it might be found that former stakeholders no longer have an interest. Inform the actors of the consequences. The findings from the substantive track and the reactions of actors will help in weighing up the various interests during the decision-making process.
For the pilot, we investigated whether the ecosystem services that were expected to be affected had been covered in the earlier SCBA for the government's framework vision for Grevelingen Volkerak-Zoommeer (2014). It was found that in particular regulating services and the welfare values of some cultural services had not been fully covered in the SCBA. Some intermediate services, such as the importance of water quality and primary production, were considered in the SCBA, but it was not explicitly explained that they are intermediate services for one or more final services. We recommend showing explicitly the importance for final services and the relationship in SCBAs. The table in the following sheet shows the final services for which the regulating intermediate ecosystem services are relevant for the Grevelingen and explains the connection on the basis of tidal effects.
Most of the Grevelingen’s regulating services are intermediate services and therefore do not need to be valued separately. Only climate regulation in the form of carbon sequestration is a final service which has to be valued separately. The full extent of this regulating service was not explored in the earlier SCBA. The CO2 emissions saved by constructing a tidal power station was considered, but no account was taken of changes in CO2 emissions through other processes, such as carbon sequestration via sedimentation or in vegetation.
We wanted to use the pilot to ascertain whether the nature points method could be applied to the scenario study for the Grevelingen. To that end, in accordance with the PBL’s method we determined the nature points for the tidal scenarios 40/-30 (a tide of 40 cm around a mean level of NAP -30 cm), 50/-20 and 30/-20 and the autonomous development. The method was originally devised for terrestrial habitats. The pilot showed that the method would have to be further refined to address the issues we face with the Grevelingen and other large bodies of water. We explain this further on the basis of the model application for Tidal Grevelingen.
We determined the nature points using existing information about the project, in particular the recent studies by Wageningen Marine Research (WMR) and Deltares:
For a more detailed description of this model application, see the report entitled Pilot Grevelingen natuurlijk kapitaal, ecosysteemdiensten en biodiversiteit (RHDHV and B2Consultancy, 2020).
Every application of nature points is based on a classification of nature types. If different typologies are used in project reports, PBL recommends that just one should be chosen. Different classifications were also used to determine effects in the study by WMR for the Grevelingen: ecotopes, Natura 2000 habitat types and WFD types. For this pilot study, we chose the classification of ecotopes as used by WMR:
- Deep water
- Shallow water
- Permanent intertidal zone
- Dry in breeding season (and intertidal zone in the rest of the year)
- Terrestrial
We also found that choosing a classification based on nature types can be the best for a close correlation with the expected changes due to tides and the differences between scenarios. For example, tides mainly cause a contraction of the anoxic water surface in the summer months. To show the tidal contribution to improvement of the water quality in terms of nature points, we further broke the deep water down into surface areas that are anoxic every year, in an average summer or only occasionally.
In the nature points method, the weighting factor indicates the extent to which a nature type contributes to the complete diversity of species (flora and fauna) at a higher spatial scale. PBL has calculated weighting factors for the nature types in the Netherlands and expressed the contribution of the nature types in relation to the national scale. The calculation is made in such a way that a nature type that contains an average number of threatened species is given a weighting factor of 1. The weighting factor is higher for types with more threatened species and lower for types with fewer threatened species.
PBL based these calculations of more or less natural nature types, while the Grevelingenmeer is an artificial system influenced by humans in both the current situation and the tidal scenarios. We therefore decided to correct the weighting factors. It was not possible to ascertain from the PBL’s reports which species the weighting factors are based on, what analysis underpinned the weighting factors or how the distance from 1 as the average situation for endangered species was determined. It was therefore a reasoned correction that was not scientifically substantiated.
The quality was determined, in accordance with the nature points method, by examining the distance of the nature type from what species would be present in an optimal reference situation. The quality of a nature type is expressed as a percentage of the species that are present or expected to be present in relation to what species would be present in an optimal reference situation. We had no such data for this pilot study, so we estimated, on the basis of expert judgement, whether the right conditions would exist for the presence of species in the various scenarios.
The following example shows how we arrived at quality percentages for the deep water:
The tables below show the nature points calculated for the various scenarios in this model application on the basis of the defined weighting factors, quality percentages and surface areas.
It can be seen that the tidal scenarios score better than autonomous development. It is also clear that in all tidal scenarios the biodiversity of the water types improves more than with autonomous development and the above-water nature deteriorates. It is also noteworthy that there is little difference between the tidal scenarios in terms of the points scored. Slightly more gains for the aquatic nature translates into greater loss of above-water nature and vice versa. They are communicating vessels.
The nature points provide little guidance regarding which tidal scenario to choose and provide no additional arguments for choosing the 40/-30 scenario. In that sense, the argument used by the Tidal Grevelingen project team for choosing that scenario, i.e., that it provides the best balance between an adequately robust water system and the smallest possible challenge in the context of Natura 2000, remains the most valid.
There are two objectives in this phase. First, to interpret what the results of the previous steps imply for the incorporation of ecosystem services in the decision-making on the plan or project. Second, to indicate the significance of those results for actions that could be taken by RWS and other parties.
Natural capital, and access to and use of it through ecosystem services, is one of the aspects to be considered in making decisions on a water system. The aim of this guide is to demonstrate how the subject of natural capital can receive equal consideration with other topics as a basis for sustainable use of the living environment in decisions on water projects.
The previous sections of this guide have shown that at least the following aspects have to be identified:
For the decision-making process, it is also advisable to present an alternative that would accomplish most in terms of sustainable use of ecosystem services while still achieving the ‘primary’ goals of the project. This proposal could provide inspiration for additional ‘sustainability measures’ during the decision-making process.
The European Commission is also reflecting on how ecosystem services can be incorporated in decision-making processes. In its recent ‘Action plan for nature, people and the economy’ (27-4-2017), the European Commission proposed: ‘ (…) Update, develop and actively promote guidance on (…) integrating ecosystem services into decision-making.’
Opportunities for sustainable use of ecosystem services have to be translated into actions compatible with the tasks and roles of Rijkswaterstaat, since that is the purpose of this guide. As manager of public waters, Rijkswaterstaat can initiate projects within the area it manages, but it can also arrange access to ecosystem services for use by others. Finally, it can also be a consumer of ecosystem services in the areas it manages and elsewhere. For each of its roles, the actions that Rijkswaterstaat has to take to facilitate sustainable use of ecosystem services have to be determined during this phase. One of those might be monitoring the system to make adjustments if necessary.
It is also useful to explore the potential consequences for other parties, particularly where other actors, such as land-management organisations, are responsible for implementing measures relating to the water system. There must also be consultation and collaboration with users, who take the commercial and social measures required for sustainable use of natural capital. Provinces and municipalities are also important partners because their rules and regulations can influence access to and use of ecosystem services. The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality might also need to be involved because it is responsible for managing the nature network (including Natura 2000 areas) in the Netherlands, as well as for issuing fishing permits and for the application of the Nature Conservation Act to the large bodies of water. More sustainable use of natural capital in water systems could have unforeseen consequences for the ministry at system level (for example, fishing quotas for inland waters).
To ascertain the feasibility of more sustainable use of ecosystem services during the decision-making process, it is crucial to know the consequences for other parties and their willingness to collaborate.
During the drafting of the plan, the actors had an opportunity to provide input. It is now time to inform them of what has been done with their suggestions.
This can be done in a formal procedure (the draft plan is laid open for public inspection), but it is also useful to provide this feedback in a more informal setting (for example, at an information market where visitors can give their reactions or at a specially arranged meeting with actors). During this feedback session, the actors should be asked not only for their reactions to the plan/project as a whole, but also their specific views on access to and anticipated take-up of ecosystem services in the new situation.
The pilot was only an exercise. We did not reach the point where we could provide the decision-makers with the information they needed to choose a preferred option for (sustainable) use of ecosystem services from the Grevelingen. However, we can provide some tips here for choosing a preferred alternative:
There are various actions that RWS could take. First, RWS can control the operational management of the sluices. How muted tides can be optimised in the interests of ground-breeding birds, habitat types and fen orchids was already investigated in the exploratory study. RWS could also link the management of the sluices to real-time monitoring of water levels and measurements of oxygen levels. If necessary, the operational management of the sluices could also produce a net flow in the direction of the Flakkee sluices, which might allow more of the Grevelingen to share in an increase in primary production and make the east of the Grevelingen more attractive for activities such as shellfish cultivation and angling. The current plans are based on a permanent tidal range of 40/-30, but it might still be possible to improve that.
RWS could also improve the zoning of use by adapting zoning to the new situation, the firm policy objectives and a guarantee of sustainable use. Monitoring could show how the system adapts so that zoning could gradually progress from a provisional and cautious approach to a balanced and more effective performance of the function.
When the sluices go into operation, the Grevelingen will commence a new development path, whereby the system will constantly change over time. The same applies for external conditions such as climate change. This calls for a plan for monitoring and adaptive management that is continuously improved on the basis of the observed developments and the available resources.
It is also important for Rijkswaterstaat to ensure that the responsible ministries of Infrastructure and Water Management and Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality adopt policy goals that are appropriate to the system’s potential, so that they do not impede sustainable development of the system.
Rijkswaterstaat’s main challenge as a water manager is to ensure that the Grevelingenmeer functions properly in a manner that complies with the policy objectives for water and nature and provides room for usage functions. The banks and islands are managed by Staatsbosbeheer. Natura 2000 prescribes conservation targets for birds, fen orchids, the tundra vole and habitat types. With the operational management of the sluices, Rijkswaterstaat ensures that the islands are not flooded during the breeding season of coastal birds and that flooding can occur in the winter to prevent growth of vegetation and bare land remains available for birds that breed on bare ground. When tides are introduced, a new island will also be created for birds, fen orchids and habitat types in compliance with the conditions of Natura 2000, which will then be managed by Staatsbosbeheer. Staatsbosbeheer also sees many other possibilities to enhance the biodiversity, such as constructing extra islands for breeding and biodiversity reefs and hard substrate for fish and other underwater life. Staatsbosbeheer would like 'no fishing' zones near the new and existing sluices to conserve enough fish for birds. That will require the consent and collaboration of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality as the competent authority under the Nature Conservation Act and for the issuing of fishing permits.
The oyster farmers see possibilities for expansion, but need to know more about the consequences of tides for the preconditions for their activities, such as the depth to which the oxygen conditions will improve, the development of primary production at specific locations and the presence of hard substrate. At present, the lake bed below the level of NAP –7 metres is not accessible for oyster cultivation. This calls for a relaxation of the policy, if necessary in combination with a trade-off with plots that might be too high and which become too exposed during storms at low tide.
The oyster farmers said that oyster and mussel cultivation do not really go together. There are actually only possibilities for mussels in the easternmost corner of the Grevelingen, where there would be a clear physical separation of oysters and mussels. A net eastward current, which would also lead to an increase in primary production in the east of the Grevelingen, could help in that. The cost of transport and the associated emissions, and possibly also disruption, could be reduced if an extra landing site can be constructed for the oyster farmers in the middle of the Grevelingen.
The greater potential that will be created for anglers and divers can only be exploited if there is also sufficient access to suitable new locations. That calls for facilities, such as boat slips, but also for businesses that can provide recreational services such as boats and other amenities. With effective communication and a complementary range of hospitality services and other facilities, in so far as they are not already present, those greatly enhanced possibilities could ultimately generate even greater spin-off in the recreation sector.
This guide is an initiative of:
B2Consultancy
Author and contact person:
Bernadette Botman,
b.botman@b2-consultancy.nl
Royal HaskoningDHV
Authors: Jan Bakker and Jasper Fiselier
Design: Anne Floor Timan
Contact persons:
-Simeon Moons, simeon.moons@rhdhv.com
-Boris Everwijn, boris.everwijn@rhdhv.com
Project code: BE9776
Rijkswaterstaat
Members of advisory group and contact persons:
-René Boeters, rene.boeters@rws.nl
-Elmert de Boer, elmert.de.boer@rws.nl
-Loes de Jong, loes.de.jong@rws.nl
-Leo Adriaanse, leo.adriaanse@rws.nl
-Rob van der Veeren, rob.vander.veeren@rws.nl
-Joost Backx, joost.backx@rws.nl
-Marieke de Lange, marieke.de.lange@rws.nl