SCOPING STUDY: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS GREEN RHINE …

SCOPING STUDY:

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS GREEN RHINE CORRIDOR

MR. F.J. VAN ZADELHOFF

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

18 december 2014

078122124:A - Definitief

C03011.000344.0100

Scoping study: Cost-benefit analysis Green Rhine Corridor

078122124:A - Definitief ARCADIS

1

Contents

1 Management summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Green Rhine Corridor................................................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Background and Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Structure ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

3 Analysis of CBA’s within the Rhine Action Program (ICPR) ...................................................................... 9

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 9

3.2 ICPR ............................................................................................................................................................. 9

3.3 CBA - Room for the River. ...................................................................................................................... 10

3.4 IRMA ......................................................................................................................................................... 10

3.5 Province of Gelderland ........................................................................................................................... 11

3.6 Science for environment policy .............................................................................................................. 12

3.7 Joint Research Centre .............................................................................................................................. 13

3.8 Summary and conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 13

4 Overview of CBAs in river management ....................................................................................................... 17

4.1 Purpose of this chapter ........................................................................................................................... 17

4.2 HOW CBA’S are used in river management ........................................................................................ 17

4.3 Elements of CBA ...................................................................................................................................... 19

4.3.1 Stakeholder analysis and interaction ................................................................................ 19

4.3.2 Scenarios ............................................................................................................................... 19

4.3.3 Valuation of nature .............................................................................................................. 19

4.3.4 Effects .................................................................................................................................... 21

4.3.4.1 List of possible effects ................................................................................. 21

4.3.4.2 How to assess effects .................................................................................. 21

4.4 Economic valuation ................................................................................................................................. 23

4.4.1 Economic valuation techniques ......................................................................................... 23

4.4.2 Possible costs to be included in a Green Rhine Corridor Natural Sponges CBA ........ 23

4.4.3 Possible benefits to be included in a Green Rhine Corridor Natural Sponges CBA ... 24

4.4.4 Natural Sponges as a climate change adaptation measure ............................................ 24

5 Best Guess Effectiveness Sponges .................................................................................................................. 25

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 25

5.2 Technical context and scope ................................................................................................................... 26

5.3 What level of storage is needed? ........................................................................................................... 28

5.3.1 Flood control and drought control .................................................................................... 28

5.3.2 Influencing the build up of a flood peak .......................................................................... 29

5.3.3 The challenge ........................................................................................................................ 29

5.4 Surface area needed ................................................................................................................................. 30

5.4.1 Uneven distribution of precipitation decreases the area needed .................................. 30

5.4.2 Distance between problem region and solution region increases the area needed .... 31

5.4.3 Smart location of sponges within regions decreased the area needed ......................... 31


2

ARCADIS 078122124:A - Definitief

5.4.4 Sponge capacity decreases over time and this increases area needed .......................... 31

5.5 Surface area available .............................................................................................................................. 32

5.5.1 Region suitable for natural storage.................................................................................... 32

5.5.2 Analysis of 5 smaller vallys ................................................................................................ 34

5.5.3 Contribution to the peak reduction of the Rhine ............................................................. 36

5.6 Costs .......................................................................................................................................................... 36

5.6.1 Purchase of land ................................................................................................................... 36

5.6.2 Compensation per m3 stored ............................................................................................. 37

5.6.3 Comparison with ‘traditional measures’ .......................................................................... 38

6 Stakeholder analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 39

6.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 39

6.2 Approach .................................................................................................................................................. 39

6.3 Results of Stakeholder Scoping .............................................................................................................. 39

6.4 Specific role of a stakeholder in the next phase ................................................................................... 40

6.5 Recommendations for the stakeholder analysis and management for the next phase ................... 41

6.5.1 Dutch stakeholders with High interest: ............................................................................ 41

6.5.2 German stakeholders with High interest .......................................................................... 42

6.5.3 The most interesting stakeholders with Moderate interest ............................................ 44

7 Next steps ............................................................................................................................................................ 45

7.1 Prepare selection criteria for potential partners and co-financers ..................................................... 45

7.2 Contact most interesting partners as soon as possible ........................................................................ 45

7.3 Perform a CBA to involve and convince decision makers and other stakeholders ........................ 47

7.4 Detailed study on restoration of sponges ............................................................................................. 48

7.5 Prepare stakeholder analysis and implement a participation strategy ............................................ 48

7.6 Prepare an assessment framework for decision making .................................................................... 48

Annex I: Context and scope for this quick scan .................................................................................................. 49

Annex II: Long list of stakeholders with description ........................................................................................ 51

Annex III: First indication of interest ................................................................................................................... 58

Annex VI: List of stakeholders to partner with in Dusseldorf ........................................................................ 64

References.................................................................................................................................................................. 66

Colofon....................................................................................................................................................................... 67



3

1 Management summary

This report contains a scoping study to a CBA for the Green Rhine Corridor. The purpose of this study is

to demonstrate the costs and benefits of restoring sponges in the middle mountains as an example of an

integrated Room for the River solutions on a river scale. This will help mobilize additional supporters for a

Room for the River approach and will strengthen the position of the Rhine-corridor network. Based on the

results of this study gathered in this report, the Rhine-corridor network can seek funds among its partners,

the stakeholders identified (annex II) and governments (including the European Commission). The results

will be presented to the Rhine Commission during the first half of 2015 and in an appropriate international

conference.

This report is conducted with cooperation between Platform BEE, ARCADIS, Bureau Stroming and

Wetlands International. Wherein ARCADIS was responsible for the general coordination, an analysis of

CBAs within the Rhine Action Program (ICPR) and a stakeholder analysis. Bureau Stroming did a best

guess of the effectiveness of sponges in terms of lower peaks and fewer droughts in the river basin of the

Rhine, based on rough calculations. Wetlands International described how cost benefit analyses are used

in integrated water resources management and river basin planning. Together these aspects are forged

into this scoping study presented within this report.

The main results of this report are:

- There is little information about CBAs conducted regarding to similar measures as ‘sponges’ within

the ICPR as well as other organizations. This suggests that a pilot project to research the costs and

benefits of an international Room for the River measure is desirable. So costs and benefits could be

spread over the total length of the river and all participants can get aware of the effects of measures to

be taken.

- There is a clear description of how a CBA on water management should be conducted, some CBA-

projects are highlighted and lessons learned are extracted. Some lessons learned:

o measures that only seem or actually are costs on the one place have a large impact or even large

benefits on the other place;

o Costs in water management and water safety can lead to benefits for other sectors such as

industries or recreation.

- If the total length of 40,000 km of suitable valley could be used to store a discharge of 1,250 m3/s, and

if in those valleys a zone of (on average) 50 meters would be available, this would result in a sponge

area of 2,000 sq km.

- The purchase of such area would require € 2.94 billion and is less than the cost estimate (€ 3.7 – 5.0

billion) for the next round of river safety measures along the Rhine included in the Deltaprogramme.

- A long list of stakeholders and rate of interest as presented in annex II.

- There has been pre-selection of the top 3 interesting partners to approach first in the next stage: the

cities Dusseldorf and Rotterdam and the Waterboard Rivierenland.

This report contains only a scoping study to a CBA for the Green Rhine Corridor. A logical next step is to

conduct an actual CBA with this report as a starting point and basis (see chapter 7: next steps).


4




5

2 Introduction

2.1 GREEN RHINE CORRIDOR

Green Rhine Corridor

The Green Rhine Corridor (GRC) is a wide international platform which aims to strengthen and future-

proof the significance of the Rhine as a hydrological, ecological, economic and social backbone of Europe.

Green Rhine Corridor wants to achieve this goal through the restoration of natural processes and by

building new, strong and sustainable links between the river, people and economies (Rhine Corridor

2013). GRC includes a variety of possible landscape interventions ranging from creating natural water

storage, greening rivers in urban areas, reforestation of the headwater areas, creating fish passages and

restoring wetlands zones to enhance biodiversity. International cooperation between NGO’s, governments

and bigger companies is necessary to promote these interventions on a larger scale.

GRC is an initiative by the Rhine Corridor, an initiative of the following organizations: Aqua Viva –

Rheinaubund, BUND / Rhine Working Group, European Rivers Network, Institute for Geography and

Geoecology, Natuurmonumenten, Platform Biodiversity Ecosystems and Economy, Staatsbosbeheer,

WWF France, WWF Netherlands, WWF Switzerland and support of Wetlands International and others,

like the authors of this report.

The partners and supporters share common targets on:

1. Longitudinal connectivity: primarily fish migration.

Migratory fish should once again be able to migrate freely up and down the river.

2. Lateral connectivity: Room for the Rhine.

A Room for the River approach should be fully embraced for the whole river basin.

These targets can only be achieved in international cooperation among NGO’s and with governments,

businesses and other relevant players.

Room for the River solution for water management on a river scale

In this report the focus will be mainly on the second target by restoring marshes in the middle mountains,

so-called ‘sponges’. Restoring access to floodplains and restoring marshes in the middle mountains would

help to store water during times of plenty rainfall, thus reducing flood peaks and securing a prolonged

supply of water during droughts. Reducing flood peaks and droughts will not only bring profits for water

managers, but for all those who are faced with the impact of regular high waters and droughts like those

who live and work in areas with regular inundations as well as those who are dependent from the river.

Like for transport or the withdrawal of water (drinking water for civilians, processing and cooling water

for the industry, irrigation water for agriculture) etc. Normally the costs and benefits of different scenario’s

for water management are not calculated, the decision making is a political process with little interference


6


of other stakeholders. Rhine Corridor partners are in favour of a more transparent process, based on the

comparison of different scenario’s with calculations of the costs and benefits for different stakeholders. It is

convinced that such an integrated approach will bring more benefits for the economy and ecology than the

current approach which mainly focusses on water safety and water quality within strict boundaries. Rhine

Corridor wants to demonstrate the added value of such an integrated approach by calculating the costs

and benefits of a defined measure that is not yet on the agenda of the Rhine Commission, namely the costs

and benefits of restoring sponges in the middle-mountains.

The purpose of the cost-benefit analysis is to demonstrate the costs and benefits of restoring sponges in the

middle mountains as an example of integrated Room for the River solutions for water management on a

river scale. Not just from the perspective of water safety, but also from the perspective of the use of the

river for transport, process and cooling water for the industry, withdrawal of drinking water, water

supply for agriculture. This will help mobilize additional supporters for a Room for the River approach

and will strengthen the position of the Rhine Corridor network.

2.2 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Over the last centuries many of the middle mountain regions in Germany, France and parts of

Luxembourg have been turned into agricultural production areas. To maximise production, areas are

deforested and natural drainage systems altered to create water conditions optimal for agricultural

operations. These changes in the landscape have changed the potential to store water in the areas where it

reaches earth as precipitation. It also changed the hydrographs of the Rhine tributaries increasing the

quick-flow component and decreasing the base-flow component. As a result of changed economic

conditions the agricultural potential of these same areas have diminished and agricultural production

greatly reduced. In some of these areas farmers have abandoned their agricultural livelihoods and leave

fields non-utilized. However the landscape and its drainage system have not been restored back into its

more original state.

Climate change effects in the Rhine Basin foresee higher temperatures and increased variability in

precipitation with longer periods of intense rainfall interchanged with periods of decreased rainfall. This

has the potential to result in creased flooding risk and drought risks. GRC states that restoring these

abandoned agricultural pastures in their more original state will help to store water in times of excess

rainfall while releasing the water during periods of drought. In other words develop these landscapes can

act as natural sponges.

There is disagreement about whether restoration of natural sponges can lower flood discharges. This debate is partly fed

by the fact that computer models (mostly a combination of SOBEK and HBV) often ‘show’ that restoration of natural

sponges cannot be expected to reduce flood peaks. However: current models are not suitable for calculating the

effectiveness of sponges. This report will describe a CBA, with is conduced ARCADIS, Bureau Stroming and Wetlands

International, which will explain that relatively small interventions in middle mountains can make a big difference.

The purpose of the scoping study is to identify the best way to frame a comprehensive analysis of the costs

and benefits of the restoration of sponges in terms of:

the possibility to build on the experience with, and outcomes of, cost-benefit analysis in the

Rhine river basin as well as similar river basins;

the expected reduction of flood peaks due to restoration of sponges as a starting point for

the analysis;

the stakeholders with an interest to be involved as well as their requirements.



7

2.3 STRUCTURE

This report is divided in separate chapters.

Chapter 3: Analysis CBA’s related to Rhine Action Program (ARCADIS)

This chapter describes the analysis done concerning CBA’s conducted by the ICPR within the Rhine Action Program.

Practical examples of measures upstream with effects downstream are analyzed on effectivity and lessons learned.

Chapter 4: Overview of CBA’s in river management (Wetlands International)

In this chapter, a more generic approach of how cost benefit analysis are used in integrated water resources

management and river basin planning is described. Also some case studies are highlighted which illustrate a variety

of ways how CBAs can be instrumental in decision-making processes.

Chapter 5: Best Guess of natural sponges (Bureau Stroming)

Here a best guess is given about the effects of sponges. An overview of the total surface needed in relation to a certain

effect is presented as well as the related costs.

Chapter 6: Stakeholder analysis (ARCADIS)

A complete stakeholder-analysis has taken place and is presented here. A list of potential stakeholders is prepared

including the rate of interest. Certain important stakeholders are highlighted and contacted in order to check their

possible interest.

All chapters together form a complete and compact CBA


8




9

3 Analysis of CBA’s within the Rhine

Action Program (ICPR)

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Increasing the storage capacity within hydrological systems can be achieved in a number of various ways.

The landscape can act as a natural buffer system and has the ability to capture and store huge amounts of

rainwater and snowmelt by acting like a sponge. This natural sponge capacity has been severely disrupted

by changes in the hydrology such as artificial drainage of ground water (for agricultural purposes).

Changes in land use would than create opportunities for water retention.

However, results of hydrological model calculations show limited effectiveness of measures in order to

increase or restore this sponge capacity. The question rises if these outcomes are correct?

It is not yet known if creation or restoration of natural buffers will be enough efficient and if they can play

a vital role in national or international water management. When such measures would be taken upstream

of the Rhine river, all functions and users downstream will also benefit from such measure. But then again

because calculation models seem to argue this theory, we wanted to find out if practical examples exist

within the Rhine river basin. There have been numerous of researches within the ‘Rhine Action Program’

by the International Commission for Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). Therefore practical examples will be

searched for within this organization.

3.2 ICPR

Project description

When the IPCR was contacted, we raised the question if the organization was familiar with the concept of

natural sponges (possibly in relation with a CBA). They stated that within IPCR they do not have any

knowledge on cost-benefit analysis regarding restoration of sponge capacity and the effectiveness of such

measures in prevention of floods downstream. But obviously besides measures that include increasing

sponge capacity, there are a lot of other types of measures that can be taken. The ICPR has conducted an

evaluation of effectiveness of measures (e.g. dike relocation, floodplain lowering and removal of obstacles)

along the Rhine river (ICPR, 2012). However this evaluation does not include the determination of changes

in the probability of flood events. It focuses mainly on the effects of measures on water level and drainage.

What was indicated was that the ICPR is currently developing a GIS-based instrument for assessing the

flood risk and effects of various types of measures on risk reduction. Then it will be freely available on

demand at the ICPR. The ICPR uses this tool to assess risk reduction and evolution from 1995 up to now as

well as to carry out regular reviews of the impacts of measures on flood risk reduction for the new Flood

risk management plan Rhine. As an example, consider a retention measure which aims at reducing water


10


levels, resulting in lower flood probabilities. Within this tool, this is translated into a modification/

reduction of flood risk.

As this is still an ongoing project, they cannot share any further information or provisional results. During

the first quarter of 2015 this project will be finalized and published (ICPR, Abstract ICPR tool). Besides

this, new reports should be available from the expert groups HVAL (flood validation) and HIRI (flood risk

assessment) by the end of this year or beginning next year (2015). But for now there is little known about

upstream measures with downstream effects within the ICPR especially in relation to a certain CBA.

To us it was an eye-opener that there is such little information about measures comparable to natural

sponges within the ICPR. That’s why we widened our search to practical examples. We have gathered

information on projects and researches on a random-based search (university’s etc.) to find costs and

benefits of comparable measures. With these results we hope to experience if it would be cost efficient to

conduct measures upstream of the river in order to reduce water levels downstream. Effects of climate

change are an additional challenge for the future, as flood risks might rise in winter and risks of low water

might rise in summer. Therefore, we also explored if the projects that are already conducted, accounted for

changes within flood events. By reading the conducted researches and project below it becomes clear that

discussion about whether restoration of natural sponges can lower flood discharges is very present.

3.3 CBA - ROOM FOR THE RIVER.

Project description

At the request of the project 'Room for the River', CPB (Central Plan Bureau) carried out a cost-benefit

analysis for this project. This analysis includes a study of the optimum safety of the Dutch dikes. The

study contains an improved and more comprehensive method for the optimum safety, and determine

optimal height of embankment dike, along with the optimal investment strategy

Their research aimed at improving the safety against flooding along the river Rhine. A new method has

been developed to find the optimal safety level for dike rings against flooding and the accompanying

investment strategy. This method has been applied to 22 dike rings along the Dutch rivers. Innovation

within this method is that it answers the question of how much to invest but also when to invest.

Main results

An important outcome is that the current safety norms in the Act on the Water defenses turn out to

be not optimal from an economic point of view. Outcomes support a ‘robust’ investment strategy which

takes future changes fully into account. However the CPB does not recommend an investment strategy in

nature in order to achieve more water safety. One of the conclusions of the CPB is “combining nature

with safety benefits generally do not lead to cost advantage”. Generally this is not a favorable starting

position for the green component. What needs to be taken in consideration is that the CPB purely focused

on a national scale, wherein the method is applied to 22 dike rings. They didn’t take cross-boundary

measures into account within their analysis, therefore the value of this statement has to be seen in

perspective.

3.4 IRMA

Project description

The IRMA-SPONGE Umbrella Program brought together 13 European scientific projects researching a

wide range of flood risk management issues along the Rivers Rhine and Meuse. The aim was to develop

methodologies and tools to assess the impact of flood risk reduction measures and scenarios. As there is an



11

increasing support for ’resilience’ strategies at the academic and decision making level, a number of clear

advantages over the present flood protection strategy are recognized. Amongst other reasons because the

room needed for resilience measures is not permanently lost for human land use or other (e.g. ecological)

functions, as it is only temporarily and/or incidentally needed for storage or discharge of flood water

(IRMA, 2002).

IRMA-SPONGE dealt with preventive flood risk management measures including technical, regulatory,

financial and communicative measures/ instruments:

Flood generation prevention measures: land use management in the upstream catchment.

Preventive flood risk reduction measures: flood control, retention, spatial planning and awareness

raising.

Effectiveness

IRMA states that upstream flood prevention measures can reduce extreme floods only at the local scale.

Retention of water through changes in land-use may be useful in lowering the frequency of extreme floods

in small basins and possibly in reducing the level of medium-sized floods in large basins. However, water

retention measures have no significant effect on extreme floods (caused by heavy rainfall over large areas)

occurring downstream of the Rhine. Even when these measures are taken in areas along channels far

upstream, they seem to be only marginally more effective.

Reversing changes in land-use (e.g. urbanization, deforestation) increases the amount of rainfall that can

infiltrate into the soil. When this approach is implemented over a large fraction of the basin area, this may

be well effective to enhance base flows and reduce low-medium peak flows at the local and regional basin

scales. However, the effects on extreme peak discharges are limited and strongly depend on the type of

precipitation. Hydrological studies found no evidence that such measures can have a significant effect in

the main channels of the river. Thereby, effects of climate change on peak flows cannot be compensated by

land use changes in the long term, as this influence is much stronger (according to projections).

One retention measure is to store water gradually when flood waters rise by extending retention areas

upstream of the river, this results in flood peak attenuation. It is suggested that attenuating peak flows and

lengthening the total duration of flood flow, could be achieved by increasing the retention capacity of

wetlands. Though the area available for such measures along the Rhine cannot make a significant

contribution to the attenuation of extreme peak flows, it can for low to medium peak flows.

On the other hand, detention areas have a controlled inlet for flood water in order to store river water

when water levels are at its highest. These kind of measures are most effective downstream of the river by

discharging capacity and peak attenuation and shaving. Detention measures seem to have a more

significant impact than retention measures, so decision makers should not look far upstream for solutions.

For both retention and detention measures the conclusion is that the further upstream they are

implemented, the less they can be relied upon for reducing extreme floods along the lower Rhine.

Measures that aim at increasing the storage and discharge capacity of the floodplains, can be combined

with an increase in the area of floodplain wetlands along the lower Rhine river.

3.5 PROVINCE OF GELDERLAND

Project description

In 2012, the Province of Gelderland, situated in the delta of the Rhine in the Netherlands, invited experts

and policy advisers to an international conference on ‘Water shortage and climate adaptation in the Rhine

Basin’ (Province of Gelderland, 2012). Although this conference focused mainly on water shortage and its

negative consequences on all kinds of services that depend on the water of the Rhine (e.g. agriculture,

shipping, drinking water), they also address the strategy of increasing the landscapes’ sponge capacity as

an ecosystem-based adaptation measure. Restoring the basin to a more natural system is the basic concept


12


behind the strategy of ecosystem-based adaptation. They also state that these measures can play a role in

flood protection as well, by slowing down and reducing flood peaks.

Effectiveness

There have not been conducted any pilot projects to test and monitor what ecosystem based adaptation

measures can do for future water management. The Province of Gelderland states that the upper parts of

the sub-catchments are most effective for storing water. Measures should however cover the whole Rhine

Basin catchment area as widely as possible.

The original size of floodplains along the Rhine in Germany has declined considerably, which results in

less room for water in the case of high water discharges. Thereby, extensive moorland areas that used to

retain large amounts of rainwater, were converted into forests and farmland. Also the water balance of

many wetlands and aquatic ecosystems has been altered significantly due to changes in land-use.

Ecosystem-based adaptation is based on (re)using the natural buffer capacity, it is a sustainable approach

which enhances biodiversity, improves environmental conditions and supports financial conditions in the

Rhine countries. They could be complementary to structural measures and could include amongst other:

renaturation of streams, floodplain restoration, surface water retention, expansion of forests and increased

water storage under arable land.

3.6 SCIENCE FOR ENVIRONMENT POLICY

Project description

In a thematic issue of ‘Science for Environment Policy’ the potential management measures are explored

that are aimed at enhancing the water storage potential of Europe’s ecosystems and aquifers and

safeguarding them against the effects of climate change and other such human-induced pressures

(Emeritus, 2012).

Protection against flooding afforded by natural ecosystems is of particular concern to policymakers.

However, the ability of natural features to retain water also delivers other vital ecosystem services such as

water provision, improvement of soil quality, provision of habitat and climate change mitigation.

Measures to promote natural water storage in order to smooth peaks and moderate extreme events

include amongst others; restoration of floodplains and wetlands.

Wetlands, such as swamps, marshes, bog and fens, cover 6% of the world’s land surface and have been

important throughout human history. However, many wetlands in Europe and around the world have

been drained, mainly for economic reasons.

The multifunctional importance of wetlands and often non-market economic values of intact wetlands

include: reducing or delaying floods, improving water quality and recharging aquifers. The understanding

of this multi functionality has been acknowledged, but it is vital that these areas are managed to support

ecosystem services.

Climate change is predicted to increase the number and severity of extreme weather events, raising the

question of how to prevent future flooding at the catchment level.

Effectiveness

For this project effectiveness includes scientific evidence for wetland functions. For instance, wetlands can

reduce or delay flooding. However, the ability of the lands to do so, depends on the soil. Water can be

retained, but only if the soils within the wetlands are not already saturated. The surface run-off of water is

slowed down by the vegetation within these lands, this can reduce downstream flooding.

In order to unify existing land use and water management policies policymakers need a new approach to

better account for the diverse roles of wetlands. This is currently poorly evaluated while there are lots of



13

opportunities at hand, such as payments for ecosystem services in order to ensure the buy-in of the

stakeholders.

3.7 JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE

Project description

The Joint Research Centre has carried out research which shows the impact of retention measures on water

quantity (JRC, 2012). It also contributes to the identification of measures that reduces the vulnerability of

water resources and their related ecosystem services to climate change and other anthropogenic pressures.

Within the study, climate, land-use and hydrological scenarios and models are being linked. This provides

a quantitative overview of the effects of measures on the discharge of water, which should encourage to

further explore the use of efficiency measures and also communication between stakeholders.

Effectiveness

From the modeling research, it seems that restoration of wetlands has no influence on low flows and on

average discharge of water. There is however a reduction in flood peaks predicted. For the Rhine it seems

that restoration of wetlands is not effective in reducing flood peaks along the river. The flooding of polders

with rising water level is the most effective measure. The alpine regime of the rivers produces most of the

discharge and therefore the land-use scenario is weaker. Implementing re-meandering of small to medium

rivers on the other hand, increases low flow. This is also a relatively low cost measure for implementation.

Re-meandering, enhancing grassland/ pasture (from forest/ natural vegetation), restoration of wetlands

and natural retention ponds are the four cheapest measures out of eleven.

3.8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

What is noticeable is that there is practically no experience and thus no information about CBAs within the

ICPR about this (or comparable) topic. Therefore, the analysis was broadened towards other studies

outside the ICPR. Remarkable was that only one CBA regarding to water safety was found which focuses

only on a national scale. The rest of the studies where comparable measures with downstream effects but

did not include a CBA. This implies that still little is known about the costs and benefits of a measure like

sponges.

When we compare the studies which were analyzed, conclusions and results on the effectiveness of

upstream measures differ from one another. Overall it seems that the modelling studies state that there is

no or little effect when restoring sponges. However literature studies imply that restoration of wetlands

could give rise to opportunities that reduce the potential of flooding events. There is only little information

on how efficient these measures would be. Summarizing the findings within this chapter, we could draw

the conclusion that there is an ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of restoring sponges.

There is not enough information at hand that can quantify the effectiveness of natural storage by

increasing sponge capacity. More research is needed to conclude whether restoration of wetlands, i.e.

increasing the sponge capacity of lands, results in an attenuation of flood peaks. A call for pilot studies is

made because insufficient (monitoring or evaluation) data exists, starting up a program of pilot projects in

order to gain experience with natural storage is recommended. In addition to gather the necessary data

and measure the exact effectiveness setting up monitoring systems would be desirable.

A summary and ‘lessons learned’ of the analysis on the next page:


14


Reference

*

Type of effects /

indicators analyzed

Valuation methodology Main results

1 Water safety: lowering

water level and

drainage

Evaluation of preventive

measures along the Rhine

including uncontrolled measures

like dike relocation, floodplain

lowering and removal of

obstacles and controlled

measures like controlling dams

in the southern upper Rhine.

Numerous measures were evaluated

with different outcomes. There was no

overall main result drawn.

2 Water safety,

increasing nature

areas, spatial quality,

recreational

opportunities

The CPB has developed a

method to find the optimal

safety level for dike rings

against flooding and the

accompanying investment

strategy.

Innovatory is the fact that the

method gives an answer to the

question when to invest, as well

as to the question how much to

invest.

Combining nature with increasing water

safety does not result in profits in terms

of costs. However within the study

there is a strong focus on a national

scale, cross-boundary measures

weren’t taken into account.

3 Water safety: land use

management and flood

control, retention,

spatial planning and

raising awareness

Based on the results of 13

interrelated research projects,

the report provides insights in

the problems of flood risk

management in the Rhine and

Meuse basins, and a consistent

view on how improvements can

be made. The majority of the

research dealt with preventive

flood risk management

measures.

Extreme floods in the Rhine and Meuse

rivers cannot be significantly reduced

by catchment measures.

The further upstream retention and

detention areas are, the less they can

be relied upon for reducing extreme

floods along the lower Rhine and

Meuse rivers. However, detention

areas are generally more efficient and

both these areas often also have a role

in nature management, which may lead

to other considerations.

Damage prevention by spatial planning

was found to be the most cost-effective

flood risk management measure. A

requirement is the (p)reservation of

space for flooding (dike relocation,

green rivers, detention areas).

4 Restoring water

balance, enhancing

biodiversity, improving

environmental

conditions, supporting

financial conditions

The inspiration document

presents information on

projected water shortages in the

Rhine Basin, highlights the need

to take action at river basin level

and gives examples of

ecosystem-based adaptation

measures to show effectiveness

of these kinds of measures and

No main results are given as it is an

inspiration document.



15

Reference

*

Type of effects /

indicators analyzed

Valuation methodology Main results

to underline the fact that it is a

multi-benefit approach.

5 Natural water storage This special issue explores

potential management

measures aimed at enhancing

the water storage potential of

Europe’s ecosystems and

aquifers and safeguarding them

against the effects of climate

change and other such human-

induced pressures.

For this project, effectiveness includes

scientific evidence for wetland

functions.

Wetlands can reduce or delay flooding,

but the ability to do so, depends on the

soil (saturation). Vegetation within

these lands, slows down the surface

run-off of water. Soil characteristics

should be taken into account in a

multidisciplinary policy approach to

flood prevention, involving a wide

range of stakeholders from the forestry,

agriculture, water management and

spatial planning sectors.

6 Water safety (flood

risk) with related

advantages, amongst

others: reduced

erosion and leaching,

increased groundwater

recharge and climate

regulation

The study links climate, land

use and hydrological scenarios

and models on a pan European

scale and provides a

quantitative overview of

estimated effects of green

measures on discharge impact

of no-regret (based on

hydrological impact) natural

water retention measures on

water quantity. The costs

related to each scenario per

region were calculated in

millions of Euros (excluding the

costs for scenario polders).

In each region, a different set of

measures can be effective, depending

on climate, flow regime, land use and

socio-economics.

Restoration of wetlands has no

influence on low flows and on average

discharge of water.

For the Rhine region, the most effective

scenarios are those that reduce the

flood peaks along the river e.g. polders.

Restoration of wetlands is not effective.

No estimation of costs is given for this

scenario.

For all central European regions,

implementing the re-meandering

scenario increases low flow. Re-

meandering is also a relatively low cost

measure to implement.

Tabel 1: Summary analysis


16


Reference Lesson learned

1 -

2 Combining nature with increasing water safety does not result in profits in terms of costs. This was a

conclusion of the CPB from a purely national-scale study. It would be useful to turn this into a cross-

boundary study.

3 Damage prevention can be achieved by spatial planning. Spatial planning is by far the most effective

flood risk management strategy.

4 -

5 Wetlands can reduce or delay flooding, but the ability to do so, depends on the soil (saturation).

Within a next study there must be a focus on ‘soil saturation’.

6 Restoration of wetlands is not effective in reducing flows and average discharge of water. Does

sponges have only a local effect or on a river basin level? Research should determine an answer.

Tabel 2: Lessons learned

* The following sources have been used:

1. ICPR, 2012. Evaluatie van de effectiviteit van maatregelen ter verlaging van de hoogwaterstanden in de Rijn. Uitvoering van het Actieplan Hoogwater in

de periode 1995-2010 en vooruitblik naar 2020 en 2020+. Rapport nr. 199.

2. CPB (2005): MKBA Ruimte voor de Rivier.

3. IRMA, 2002. IRMA-Sponge. Towards sustainable flood risk management in the Rhine and Meuse River basins. Proceedings of IRMA-SPONGE final

working conference. NCR-publication 17-2002.

4. Province of Gelderland, 2012. Water shortage and climate adaptation in the Rhine Basin. Inspiration document. Based on the International Rhine Basin

Conference. 29-31 October 2012, Kleve.

5. Emeritus, 2012. Natural water retention measures. In Science for Environment Policy, DG Environment News Alert Service. Thematic Issue, Issue 32.

May 2012.

6. JRC, 2012. JRC scientific and policy reports. Evaluation of the effectiveness of natural water retention measures. Support to the EU Blueprint to

Safeguard Europe’s Waters. Report EUR 25551 EN.



17

4 Overview of CBAs in river

management

4.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER

The purpose of the this chapter is to inform t about how cost benefit analysis are used in integrated water

resources management and river basin planning. The chapter describes what a cost-benefit analysis (CBA)

entails and how it can be used in river basin and land use planning. The report discusses a number of

elements which are normally included in CBAs that are conducted for large scale projects/programs on

water and land management. It includes the use of concepts like ecosystems services and how to calculate

the effects of the proposed landscape interventions and then how to economically value and monetarise

them. . A number of case studies are shortly described to illustrate different ways of using CBAs in water

related decision-making and to learn what lessons can be taken from those processes.

4.2 HOW CBA’S ARE USED IN RIVER MANAGEMENT

A cost-benefit analysis is a technique to measure and assignment benefits and costs to alternative projects

or alternatives for some project (Cap-NET 2008). A social CBA is supposed to include not only direct and

immediate financial costs and benefit but also indirect societal and environmental costs that occur in the

larger society and or at later times. A financial CBA differs from a social CBA as these indirect (and often

hidden costs) are not included and treated as externalities.

Social CBAs have their roots in welfare and utility economics. A social CBA is supposed is the method of

choice when the objective is to assess the optimality of policies or projects (Dubgaard 2003) with

optimality meaning that the resources (like private sector investments, publicly spent tax money and EU

subsidies) used in the project (or project alternative) yield benefits at or above the level obtainable in their

best alternative use. CBA include cost and benefits that are not being traded in a market economy like

public goods (like the utility of living in a green and clean environment and common property goods like

(like clean water). This memo deals with social CBAs.

CBA in the field integrated water resources management, land management and river basin planning are

used to assess the optimality of various decisions on and proposed investment like:

Allocating scarce water resources to certain water demanding sectors and or regions reducing the

water availability to other sectors and regions like in the CBA done for the Upper Niger-Inner Niger

Delta (Zwarts et al, 2008) and the Tana River Basin in Kenya (IUCN, 2003 and Van Beukering et al,

2014 in press).

Building costly flood protection measures like dike reinforcement (Deltares, 2011), riverbed widening

and deepening (”Maasprojecten” and creating flood retention in floodplains like in ” Ruimte for de

River” (Eijgeraam 2005).

Building river water depth controlling infrastructure like weirs and sluices to support river navigation

and the transport sector.


18


Investing in emission reduction (domestic and industrial waste water treatment plants and fertilizer

use) to increase surface water health.

Increasing environmental quality of the area by natural restoration work like river re-meandering,

often with multiple objectives like flood reduction like the river restoration in Drente (Van der Flier

and Rosenberg, 2009) and the restoration of the Skerngard river in Denmark (Dubgaard et al., 2003) .

The Mahanadi Delta and Lake Chilika in Orissa

The Mahanadi Delta and Chilika Lake are coastal ecosystems in the Mahanadi River Basin in the State

of Orissa in India. These ecosystems provide various services on which local communities’ livelihoods

strongly depend. Under, the World Bank funded, Orissa Water Resources Consolidation Project

(OWRCP), a barrage has been constructed at the head of the delta across the Kathajori branch of

Mahanadi River to regulate irrigation discharge for 206,000 ha of agriculture land and to decrease

waterlogging and flooding. It was widely recognized from the start that the dam operations could also

negatively affect the functioning of above mentioned ecosystems and the benefits provided by them.

Under the pressure from especially the local communities living in the area, the Government of Orissa

agreed to perform a CBA process on which decisions on dam design and operations were going to be

based. A CBA committee was formed with staff from the Department of Water Resources, Government

of Orissa and the Chilika Development Authority. Stakeholder participation was organized from the

local communities and various other groups of stakeholders were represented in commissions which

had different roles and mandates in the design and execution of the CBA process. A lot of effort was

put in designing a transparent and inclusive CBA process that found a wide acceptance across the

various stakeholders. Those stakeholders were also included in identifying the, to be assessed effects

and the design of other CBA elements like a multi-criteria analysis tool. From the very start, it was clear

how the CBA results (whatever the outcome) would be used in which decision-making. It was also

agreed that after approval of the various technical CBA reports by the CBA committee they were made

public.

Loktak Lake, in Manipur State

In the second case study, the CBA process was used as an advocacy tool to secure budget for an

ecosystem restoration. The importance of the Loktak lake ecosystem in the State of Manipur in the far

east of India had already been widely recognized, also by the Government of Manipur. Still,

increasingly the ecosystem health had been degrading in the past decades mainly as a result from

strong human activity pressure and demand for water resources and a suboptimal management of the

ecosystem and natural resources. Despite its known importance for the local livelihoods and its ability

to decrease downstream flooding no budget for ecological restoration of the lake could be generated.

Then, Wetlands International (with the endorsement and support of the Government of Manipur)

conducted a CBA study to show that investments in restoration would be exceeded by additional

monetary benefits from increased and improved in-situ and downstream ecosystem services. The CBA

results proved instrumental for the Loktak Development Authority in finding the required restoration

budget.

Kanwar Lake, Ganges Floodplain, State of Bihar

In the case of the lake Kanwar, its flood reducing potential had been recognized and a restoration plan

needed to be prepared. The state of Bihar in partnership with the World Bank (who would finance the

restoration activities) commissioned a CBA study to assess the cost-efficiency of 3 different restoration

intensities (full, partial and none). This helped the financing institute to determine the highest level of

return of investment into the restoration of the lakes. Positive effects of flood risk reduction were

included in the balances. A methodological issue existed here as only a limited of amount of data and

information was available. To improve the wide acceptance of the CBA outputs made under these

conditions of limited understanding of the system and uncertainty, it was decided to use the most

credible organisations to develop it.



19

Within the European context increasingly landscape-scaled interventions often have a transboundary

components. Such interventions are often governed by EU policies. CBAs can be used how large-scale

interventions in land and water management help to meet requirements resulting from EU Water

Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, Flood Directive, Emissions Directive and others.

4.3 ELEMENTS OF CBA

4.3.1 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS AND INTERACTION

CBA are not just data, information and knowledge producing studies. CBAs also act as an instrument to

facilitate dialogue and negotiations between various stakeholders. Certain policy decision might need the

electoral endorsement of taxpayers others require investment form private sector financers. CBAs help to

build the case and proof the optimality of certain projects.

Hence stakeholder participation during a CBA process is essential as it:

helps to improve the quality of the CBA as the different scenarios and effects can be defined more

precisely;

leads to possibly better uptake of the outcomes of the CBA as stakeholders agree step by step which

methodologies, tools and data to use to define scenarios, calculate effects of scenarios and value the

costs and benefits. Understanding the different steps leads to improved acceptance of using CBA as a

tool;

CBAs often reveal distributional effects where the costs and benefits of policy decisions and investment

shift sectorially, geographically and generationally. Symmetric informing of stakeholders about these

distributional effects often lead to wider acceptance of the CBA outcomes.

4.3.2 SCENARIOS

CBAs show the changes in costs-benefits of policy choices to a society relative to a reference development.

Hence it is equally important to develop the reference scenario next to the alternative scenarios that

include the policy choices. The reference scenario describes the development of a certain area when the

proposed interventions resulting from the to be tested policy choice are not implemented nor

operationalized.

The reference scenario is however far from static. Autonomous developments are taking place in the Rhine

Basin any which are driven by the to be assessed policy decision. Within the field of IWRM, climate

change and its effects on the hydrological cycle is an obvious autonomous development that needs to be

incorporated in the scenarios. Other processes are changes in population density due to growth and

migration and economic development that change welfare levels in to be studied area.

4.3.3 VALUATION OF NATURE

The Green Rhine Corridor has a co-objective to create a more natural environment with higher

biodiversity levels. How are such nature-related values included in a CBA? Here it is important to repeat

that CBAs are rooted in the utility theory and hence includes exclusively what is valued by human beings.

A CBA will reveal the total economic value of a certain situation which includes the financial values

(revenues for people and markets) and economic values to the society. The latter consist of use-values or

the utility people received from consuming goods from that society including nature-produced goods and

of non-use values, for example the mental satisfaction people receive form the fact that they might visit an

beautiful nature reserve once in their life. However, it does not include the intrinsic value of nature and

biodiversity or the welfare experienced by animals and plants (Ruigrok et al, 2004).


20


Increasingly the concept of ecosystem services is used in CBAs which assess effects of ecological

restoration or effects of potentially strong adverse impacts on the functioning of ecosystems. Ecosystem

services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystem functions. These can be goods like clean water,

timber and/or services like water purification in wetlands or the water storage potential in natural

sponges. Normally one differentiates between provisioning services, regulating services (climate

regulation, water and air purification, natural hazards management, erosion control and pollination and

cultural services (spiritual/religious experiences, aesthetical value, recreation and tourism, cultural

heritage, education and scientific knowledge).

Room for the River (see also section 3.3)

The Room for the River program has been innovative in a number of ways. First of all, this

program searched for solutions to increase flood risk safety which deviate from the classical

vertical flood defence measures into also lateral solutions of lowering flood levels by creating

storage and reducing hydraulic threshold effects (Warner et al., 2012). Secondly, and partially as a

result of the first innovative direction, it increasingly integrated multi-functional use of

landscapes in its solutions. The constructed landscapes are supposed to be designed and

developed that reduced the flood risks (in times of flooding) but at the main time improve the

perceived landscape quality (as a result from increased nature, landscape aesthetics and

recreational opportunities). It thus explicitly included and integrated a number of river-related

regulating and cultural ecosystems services. Thirdly, this approach needed more vertically

integrated governance as responsibilities and mandates from central, provincial and municipal

governmental entities were needed. Fourthly it needed a laterally integrated coordination over

the various relevant governmental entities as it crossed-over from water hydraulics and

landscaping into agriculture and the recreational sector, into real estate and large-scale trade of

dredged river sediments. Fifthly, fitting the sign of the times of the current and past decade of

river basin planning, it took a much more participatory approach integrating non-governmental

stakeholders at various level in the decision-making, design and implementation (and even

financing) of interventions.

It must be clear that with this approach of integration over so different framings, values and

perceptions on fundamental aspects of this program like the benefits of reduced flood risks and

more natural landscapes as amenities to name a few, tools are needed that bring people together

in a similar mind-set. Or at least a common language.

The CBAs’s, performed in the Room for the River program, have greatly contributed in

developing such a shared mind-set and common language. A first CBA in this program

predominantly looked into the financial justification of huge governmental investments that are

required to realize the flood risk reduction interventions. A second CBA looked into the cost-

efficiency of different proposed interventions and combined sets of interventions. As mentioned

above, it was aimed to implement those interventions that first of all reduced flood risks but

secondly would result in ancillary benefits of an increased spatial quality. The second CBA

revealed that the interventions needed to realize the first goal of flood risk reduction, did not

always automatically realize the second goal of increased spatial quality. Such interventions were

often more expensive. The CBA helped to determined how the benefits of increased spatial

quality were distributed across scales and geographies. Based on the results, a financing scheme

was prepared and agreed putting a relatively larger share of the required budget (about 300

millions of Euro) for the “extra” interventions at the lower levels of Provinces and Municipalities.

The CBAs used in this program have helped to make complex decision making across many

scales and sectors and mind-sets possible. Using agreed methodologies, including stakeholders in

the definition of spatial quality and having the CBAs conducted by credible organizations are all

important ingredients to make the CBA processes effective tools in River Basin Planning and its

related decision-making.



21

4.3.4 EFFECTS

4.3.4.1 LIST OF POSSIBLE EFFECTS

Based on other CBAs addressing river restoration projects in Europe the following list of possible effects

are assumed relevant to include for a GRC CBA. Below, the effects are posed as questions or information

gaps.

Local effects

How are the planned interventions changing the local hydrological regimes (soil moisture,

groundwater level, discharges into local rivers and water levels in local rivers)?

How are planned interventions changing the outflow of nutrients, silts or other substances into nearby

surface water bodies?

How do the planned landscape changes affect habitats and biodiversity levels in the area?

How do changes in the water and soil characteristics resulting from the planned interventions affect

agricultural production and the sustainability of man-made infrastructure like roads, weirs, culverts

and pipes?

Do the rewetted and possible reforested, formerly drained agricultural lands allow other types of

economic activities like extensive grazing, wood production, hunting grounds?

What recreational functions could be generated locally with the nature restoration and what type of

extra enablers are needed to facilitate the recreation?

Wider effects

How do accumulated effects resulting from all planned interventions to restore part of the landscape in

the middle stretch of the Rhine Basin change the downstream hydraulic regime and affect the

occurrence, frequency, duration and intensity of hazard-like events like flooding, droughts and low

flows?


the middle stretch of the Rhine Basin change the downstream water quality?


the middle stretch of the Rhine Basin affect carbon sequestration and biodiversity enhancement at a

wider European scale?

4.3.4.2 HOW TO ASSESS EFFECTS

To assess above listed potential effects of the planned interventions, a suite of impact assessment or dose-

response function tools are needed. Most CBAs in IWRM and river basin planning apply at least some

type of hydrological model that can assess the impacts of the planned land use changes or interventions in

the hydrological cycle on hydraulic and hydrological regimes. These can be empirical models relating

measure water levels to flooding areas such as in the CBA to assess the effects of upstream dam

development on the economic potential of the downstream Inner Niger Delta in Mali (Zwarts et al 2000) or

sophisticated hydrodynamic models. To quantify effects of the Green Rhine Corridor the most essential

tool will be a sophisticated and detailed, dynamic soil-water model that calculate changes in water storage

in different compartments of the land and water bodies at a detailed time scale. To assess the accumulated

effects of planned interventions downstream on an even larger scale model outputs of the more detailed

water-soil models probably need to be used as boundary conditions for hydraulic models covering the

entire (downstream part of the) Rhine Basin.

Other dynamic computer-based models could assess the changes in water quality and agricultural crop

production. However, generally the complex models linking different compartments of the natural system


22


trying to simulate many non-linear relationships are very data-intensive and have limited reliability and

application.

Impact relationships can also be obtained from using rules of thumb and codes such as collected in various

guidelines and directives. Such codes either relate changes in one environmental variable (like water level,

or hectares of forested area) into changes of another dependent environmental variable (like biomass

production and or biodiversity in forests). Other codes directly related changes in environmental variables

directly in monetarised costs and benefits (see for example Wittteveen & Bos, 2011).

Since this initiative entails effects in a transboundary river basin, it is important that the models, standards

and codes being used in a possible future CBA are acceptable to all the relevant institutions based in the

riparian souvereign nation states. Where possible, international standards from international authorative

organisations such as the European Union could be used to overcome long negotiations on which

standards to use.

CBAs for dam decommissioning

In the United States, large number of dams have been built in the past century for diverting

and storing water for agricultural purposes, hydropower and flood regulation. Most of these

dams were built without having conducted CBAs that included indirect societal benefits and

costs resulting from ecosystem services. Simply, that way of thinking about ecosystems had not

been developed yet or was at least not be integrated in the then practiced more engineering-

based and plan and control types of water resources management. However, even in those

days, these dams and the related water infrastructure have always been built with a

decommission phases in mind. A limited lifetime duration of engineered constructions has

always been part of the engineering approach toolkit and hence decommission after decades of

functioning has been anticipated. Currently, many of those dams are being decommissioned

and removed which may create large changes in the biophysical system and sectors and

economies that build on those. It is mostly only now that CBAs including environmental

benefits and costs (e.g. by ecosystem services valuations) have found their role in the dams

management in US. They are used to map the changed distribution of costs and benefits

resulting from the decommissioning.

Such a process has a bit of similarity with the Green Rhine Corridor Initiative. In this imitative,

the proposed CBA is going to evaluate the effect of a large-scale drainage infrastructure

removal. Those drainage systems were put in place to increase agricultural productivity but

have lost its functioning, not because of its limited lifetime but because the land use purpose

for which it was designed is not profitable anymore.

Smith 2006 mentions that in CBAs are principally supposed to assess the effects of large scale

interventions on the national welfare. USs dam policy in the past century has nevertheless

often been used as a tool to support regional development. Federally subsidized projects under

the Reclamation Act, for example, concentrated benefits to a region while spreading the costs

over the nation’s taxpayers. Dam removal can do just the opposite. Local benefits may be lost,

but bringing back the river system into an earlier or new ecological status may spread benefits

over a larger area. Removal of the drainage infrastructure developed for the increasingly

obsolete agriculture sector in some parts of the Middle Rhine in Germany may do exactly the

same.



23

4.4 ECONOMIC VALUATION

4.4.1 ECONOMIC VALUATION TECHNIQUES

The economic valuation of occurring effects forms the crucial part of the CBA. Unifying the costs and

benefits of effects into a single measure allows comparison of the accumulated effects that take place at

different time scales and may have different values to different groups of people. Putting the costs and

benefits of effects into a monetary value allows people to relate the welfare generated by the proposed

policy choice to other investments. It also allows a prior estimation of financial and fiscal consequences of

the anticipated policy choice.

Below follows a short description of various economic valuation techniques that are applied in CBAs. It

goes beyond the scope of this report to provide a detailed comprehensive overview. For this, the reader is

referred to one of the many textbooks and manuals that exist on these techniques like in Cap-Net (2008).

From Dubgaard, 2003: “The Travel Cost method has been used extensively to value site-specific recreation

benefits, utilizing differences in visitors costs of travelling to a specific site as a basis for estimating a

demand function. Hedonic Pricing models utilize the fact that environmental characteristics – such as

land-scape amenities, the proximity to recreational areas, air quality, etc. – influences the value for

residential properties. The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is the most important among the direct

valuation techniques. CVM stipulates a scenario for the preservation or production of a non-market good.

Having explained the characteristic of the good, the rules of provision, access, method of payment, etc.,

respondents are asked to state their willingness to pay for the good in question. Indirect valuation

methods are revealed preference approaches based on the complementarity between the use of

environmental services and certain market goods. Non-use value is attributed to preferences, which are

separate from the use of market goods. As a result, revealed preference methods cannot estimate non-use

values. The contingent valuation method, on the other hand, sets up hypothetical markets for the

procurement of environmental services. In principle this means that contingent valuation can capture use

as well as non-use values.

There are also a number of non-preference based methods available for monetizing non-market benefits.

These methods can be described as pricing. One such approach is pricing via the costs of alternatives or

replacement costs. An example is the costs of sewage treatment as an alternative to the retention of

nitrogen and phosphorus on a restored floodplain.”

4.4.2 POSSIBLE COSTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A GREEN RHINE CORRIDOR NATURAL SPONGES CBA

Construction cost of reforestation and for removal and or retro-fitting of drainage infrastructure and

ground works for landscape (nature-friendly river borders, check dam building in hills-slope creeks for

wetland construction.

Costs of research and monitoring of these large-scale land use changes.

Costs of establishment of tourist facilities (parks, hunting, fishing and leisure grounds, cycle and

footpaths).

Maintenance costs.

Forgone benefits because of decrease agricultural productivity/ forgone EU agricultural subsidies).

The main rationale for creating the natural sponges in the middle stretch of the Rhine Basin is to reduce

flooding and drought risks in the lower Rhine stretch and decrease investments needed to reduce those

risks by conventional means like hard water infrastructure (dykes, water diversions, sluices etc).


24


JRC’s study revealed that wetland construction and other natural sponge –like water retention only have

limited effects far downstream. In order for it to create a real solution for flooding risk reduction in the

Ruhr area and Randstad area in the Netherlands, these natural solutions seem to be needed to be

implemented over vast areas. The law of Economies of Scale comes into play and cost standards for e.g.

wetlands construction taken from the guidelines may be rated too high as they are based on single

wetlands construction projects. Also other effects like possible outmigration of people as a result of

reducing economic drivers in the area should be included.

4.4.3 POSSIBLE BENEFITS TO BE INCLUDED IN A GREEN RHINE CORRIDOR NATURAL SPONGES CBA

Avoidance investments in (improved) conventional flood risk reduction measures taken locally or in

the lower part stretch of the Rhine Basin or avoided flood disaster costs.

Avoided investments in drought resistance measures or avoided drought disaster costs (like reduced

agricultural yield and less navigation because of low flows.

Benefits of yielding alternative produce in the restored, formerly intensive agricultural areas where the

natural sponges are developed. (e.g. extensive grazing, forest, biomass production like reed).

Avoided investments in or replacement costs of water quality treatment plant.

Benefits from extra tourism created by increasing the aesthetics of the landscape and improving

biodiversity values (nature lovers, angling, hunting, hiking, boating, etc.).

Increases in real estate values as a results of residential areas being located in a greener areas

Benefits of CO2 emission reduction and or carbon sequestration.

Equally as with the estimation of costs of developing natural sponges in large areas, foreseen benefits are

subjected to scale effects. People tend to value additional nature areas most when they perceive that their

landscape lacks it. Here the law of diminishing marginal utility applies. Real estate prices are highest

when they are not too distant from economic drivers (agglomeration effect) and at the same time

providing the luxury to have a view on or be close to pleasant green landscapes. Houses in the middle of

vast green remote areas which are far from various facilities do not necessarily increase their value.

Again it is repeated that it might be a nice exercise how the natural sponge idea provides solutions to meet

the demands from the various EU directives.

4.4.4 NATURAL SPONGES AS A CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION MEASURE

The Green Rhine Corridor proposes to restore parts of the Rhine Basin in a state that can help to adapt to

climate change aspects. CBAs dealing with climate change adaptation measures differ from other CBA in

the way discount rates and sensitivity analysis are dealt with.

Normally durations of period to base net present values which include climate change are in the order of

100 years until eternity instead of the sometimes. The level of uncertainty in climate change effects

together with the intrinsic uncertainty on biophysical system behaviour and uncertainty on economic

developments on these long terms merit a thorough sensitivity analysis.

With the aim to of Green Rhine Corridor to reduce downstream natural hazards risk a thorough risk-based

approach in the planned CBA is essential as well



25

5 Best Guess Effectiveness

Sponges

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Importance and costs of flood control

Water management becomes increasingly important, throughout the world but in particular in regions like

Europe because of 4 aspects, which reinforce each other:

high population densities, which are still growing and in particular are concentrating in cities often

within reach of a river. In other words: the number of people potentially affected by flooding or

droughts is very high;

high and increasing levels of investment, which also tend to concentrate in areas vulnerable to

flooding. In other words: the economic damage potentially caused by flooding (less so droughts) is

extremely high;

climate change is under way and expectations are that this will lead to higher river discharges and

prolonged periods of drought;

water managers have been active in flood and drought control for decades or even centuries. Every

time a new step in water management was deemed necessary, the parties involved – when given a

choice - have opted for the one that gives the “biggest bang for the buck”. This means that the cheapest

measures in most cases have already been implemented and are getting out of stock. In other words:

reducing flood risks or droughts with X% is much more expensive now than it was before and this will

continue.

All of the above is applicable to the Rhine Basin, the focus of this report, and illustrates clearly that is

becomes increasingly important to ensure that a euro spent on flood control will not only generate

safety but also other benefits like nature, space for leisure, new business opportunities.

Costs for flood control go up Up till 1995 the Netherland’s part of the Rhine was capable of safely channeling a discharge of

15.000 m3/s arriving at the German/Dutch border to the North Sea. After serious floodings in 1993

and 1995 it was decided that the discharge capacity needed to be increased to 16.000 m3/s. The

almost completed (2015) programme “Space for the River” uses a budget of 2,3 billion Euro to

achieve this. With this amount both river safety and environmental quality is enhanced.

Within the Delta Programme (under development) it is suggested that the capacity should be

further increased to 17.000 m3/s and in future possibly 18.000 m3/s. The costs for the step from

16.000 m3/s to 17.000 m3/s have been estimated at € 3.7 – 5.0billion. The lower estimate relates to a

dike-strategy in which environmental quality will at best (but is unlikely) to stay at the current

level. The higher estimate relates to a strategy that continues the “Space for the River” approach

in which both river safety and environmental quality are increased.

In Germany 5.7 billion euro’s will be spent on flood control till 2021.


26


Can restoration of natural sponges be an effective strategy?

There are clear indications that restoration of the sponge capacity in middle mountains, i.e. the capacity of

soil and vegetation to store and slow down the run-off of precipitation, will lead to lower peaks, and thus

lower flood risks in streams and the river. Furthermore sponges are likely to extend the period in which

water is fed to streams and subsequently to the river. This may reduce the length of dry periods, but

strong indications confirming this are lacking.

Although there is little disagreement as to whether restoration of natural sponges can lower flood

discharges, there is debate when it comes to answering the question: can this be an effective strategy for

flood and drought control? This debate is partly fed by the fact that computer models (mostly a

combination of SOBEK and HBV) often ‘show’ that restoration of natural sponges cannot be expected to

reduce flood peaks. However: current models are not suitable for calculating the effectiveness of sponges

(see http://www.stroming.nl/pdf/RijnCor-Brochure01072013.pdf). This same brochure explains, to the

contrary, why it is likely that relatively small interventions in middle mountains can make a big difference.

Purpose and status of this report

The only way to be able to state with full certainty how effective a restored sponge is, is through field

measurements (see http://www.stroming.nl/pdf/RijnCor-MogelijkhBergen%2020130507.pdf). It is however

possible to make an educated guess. This (nothing more, nothing less) is what is presented in report, (see

also Annex I):

1. on the basis of readily available data on (desirable) river discharges a rough calculation is made of the

surface area needed to make a difference on high water levels in the river;

2. prices of land are provided and used for a rough calculation on what it would cost to lower flood

levels in the river;

3. very roughly an indication is given of the costs of reducing flood risks through traditional methods

(building dikes)

4. 2 and 3 are compared and – with great caution –something initial thoughts are provided on the (cost)

effectiveness of sponges.

5.2 TECHNICAL CONTEXT AND SCOPE

Technical approach and working with nature

There are several ways to reduce flood risks and control droughts. The distinction is often made between

the ‘technical approach’ involving the building of dikes and pumps and a ‘working with nature approach’

such as restoring old river channels and meanders. Both approaches can be combined with goals relating

to environmental quality and ecological restoration – it is important to keep that in mind. However, in this

report we focus on the ‘working with nature’ approach.

Geographic focus

In this report the focus is on the international Rhine catchment. Within this region and within the ‘working

with nature’ approach there is a wide array of measures that can be taken to influence floods and

droughts. Possibilities in particular depend on the position of a given area in the river catchment. But

before going in to that it is also important to know where, geographically speaking, floods and droughts

originate.

http://www.stroming.nl/pdf/RijnCor-Brochure01072013.pdf

http://www.stroming.nl/pdf/RijnCor-MogelijkhBergen%2020130507.pdf



27

In fact the Rhine has two sources of water: precipitation and the glaciers in the Alps. The first is much

more erratic and especially the absence or abundance of precipitation in the middle mountains is

responsible for droughts and flooding. So, this provides us with additional focus: we are looking for

‘working with nature’ solutions in the middle mountain ranges in those parts of Germany, France and

Luxembourg that feed into the river Rhine.

Within that scope there are still various possibilities1. In downstream-upstream order these are:

tributaries of the Rhine, like Mosel, Ruhr, Neckar, and Kinzig, have (like the Rhine itself) been

channeled. As a result water travels down with much higher speeds than before, resulting in higher

flood peaks and longer periods of drought. Restoring river bends and allowing more natural

vegetation on the banks are some of the measures that can help slow down the run-off of water in this

section of the river;

smaller streams like Kyll and Ruwer (feeding into the Mosel), Wenne (feeding into the Ruhr), Fils

(feeding into the Neckar) and Gutach (feeding into the Kinzig) often flow through shallow valley

plains: areas of relatively flat land on both sides of the river. Often these are used for agriculture and to

protect these areas against the erosion the shores of these streams are often fixed, e.g. with stones. As a

consequence the stream digs itself deeper into the soil – this is the only direction the erosive power can

go. The increasing, vertical distance between the river and the valley plain makes it increasingly

difficult for the river to flood the valley: even at high discharge levels the entire discharge remains in

the deep river bed and travels downstream with high speed. Removing the fixation of river banks in

this part of the river bed can be an effective measure to reverse the process: the moment a stream starts

flooding a valley plain, stream velocity drops drastically and thus decreases peak levels and flood risks

downstream;

the plateaus, slopes and upper valleys of the middle mountains of e.g. Eiffel, Hunsrück,

Rothaargebirge, Swabische Alp en Black Forest receiving precipitation which eventually reaches the

Rhine.

Fig 1. Various sections of a river (schematic). The upper parts are the capillaries and have potential for

restoration of natural sponges. Ill. Jeroen Helmer.

1 Van Winden, A., W. Overmars, W. Braakhekke. 2004. Storing water near the source. Publication Stroming B.V,

commissioned by Stichting Ark, with support of Postcode Loterij and WWF Netherlands.


28


This reports explores flood control measures in the last of these three regions (namely Germany and the

Netherlands); the possibilities to store and slow down the flow of water in the capillaries of the water

system, also called “restoration of natural sponges”. Before we start doing this however, we will first look

for an answer to another important question: how much water should be held back in these capillaries to

obtain a noticeable, meaningful contribution to flood and drought control further downstream – be it in

the Netherlands or in the lower parts of Germany?

Natural sponges: definition and mechanisms.

Natural storage: the ability of soils and (natural) vegetation to slow down the runoff of precipitation by

temporarily storing water in a given area. Natural storage can also be called natural retention.

Natural sponges: areas in which the capacity of natural storage is present or restored.

There are two important methods to maintain or increase the natural retention capacity of an area:

maintain or increase natural vegetation and prevent or decrease drainage of the soils. Natural vegetation

increases the amount of precipitation penetrating the soil (increases infiltration), where it joins the base

flow, which travels very slowly in the direction of the nearest brook or river. When in parts of an area the

soil becomes saturated with water, the natural vegetation has an additional advantage: it slows down the

run-off of water over the surface, the overland flow (see also fig. 3).

If soils have been artificially drained, the slow base flow is intercepted and immediately turned into the

fasted transport component in the system: the stream flow. Artificial drainage is a measure for agricultural

land use and thus three negative aspects reinforce each other:

1. artificial drainage increases the transformation of (slow) base flow into (fast) streamflow,

2. agricultural land use decreases infiltration and

3. agricultural (seasonal) crops are less effective in slowing down overland flow.

Therefore reversing unproductive agricultural land to a more natural situation will slow down the runoff

process of an area. This principle can be applied throughout a river basin but the highest efficiency can be

reached if natural sponges are restored at the foot of a slope2. If this is done a (new) hydrological profile

will build up in the slope in which water from a large surrounding areas is temporarily stored and (thus)

runoff decreased. An additional advantage is that sponges developed at the source of a river or stream, are

effective all along the entire (downstream parts of) the river.

5.3 WHAT LEVEL OF STORAGE IS NEEDED?

5.3.1 FLOOD CONTROL AND DROUGHT CONTROL

Water storage can be used to level off flood peaks and to ensure that a certain amount of water can still be

released during times with little rainfall. In fact these are two sides of the same coin: if in times of heavy

rainfall water can be stored this will level off the peak discharge and be available for release during

periods of drought.

Although this is true, there is reason to believe that natural storage will be much more effective as a flood

control measure than as a measure for drought control. The reason for this is relatively simple: after heavy

rainfalls a flood peak – and thus a potential flood risk - usually will build up within 3-5 days. This means

2 Deursen, W. van, A. van Winden en W. Braakhekke. 2013. Possibilities for storage? Stores of possibilities.



29

that holding back part of the water during a relatively short period of time will prevent it from

contributing to the flood peak. The time between heavy rainfall in winter and spring, and periods of

droughts – in particular occurring late summer – is much longer. In order for natural storage to contribute

to drought control water therefore would have to be stored for several months.

5.3.2 INFLUENCING THE BUILD UP OF A FLOOD PEAK

In most cases a flood peak builds up after several periods of consecutive (heavy) rainfall. If runoff is fast,

peaks will be high; if the runoff of water can be slowed down the discharge of the same volume of water

will be spread over a longer period of time and hence the peak will be lowered.

Analysis of 10 flood peaks shows that on average 15% (between 7% and 18%) of the rainfall in a given

period, contributes to the build up of peak. The remaining 85% either is still present in the basin or falls

after the peak level already has been reached. This is true for all types of flood peaks: both the normal ones

and the peaks reaching or exceeding risks levels (the figure of 18% relates to the year 1993, when critical

levels were reached in the river Meuse).

5.3.3 THE CHALLENGE

Although an average of 15% of the rainfall in a given period contributes to a peak, it is not necessary to

prevent this entire volume from contributing to the peak. What is necessary is to prevent the problematic

part of this 15% fraction to reach the river during peak build-up. The “problematic” part is the difference

between what the river can safely discharge and the expected maximum discharge or in other words: the

maximum peak level that could develop and the maximum peak level the river system can safely cope

with.

Now let’s take the current Dutch situation as an example. After completion of the Space for the River

programme in 2015 the Netherlands part of the Rhine basin will be able to safely discharge 16.000 m3/s

(Lobith) to the North Sea. Let’s also accept that this may not be sufficient and that in fact a discharge of

17.000 m3/s can be expected. This means that 1000 m3/s needs to be temporarily stored, i.e. 1/17th of the

expected discharge must be kept out of the peak. This is slightly less than 6% and would reduce the water

level (Lobith) by approximately 30 cm.


30


Fig. 2. After consecutive periods of rainfall a peak build up (above). In order to reduce the peak from 17,000 m3/s to

16,000 m3/s a peak reduction of 6% is necessary (middle). This means that a certain amount of water needs to be

temporarily held back (below, red) so that it is released after the peak (below, red).

5.4 SURFACE AREA NEEDED

In order to keep 6% of the precipitation out of the main flow of the river, one would estimate that 6% of

the river basin is necessary. There are however four factors influencing this percentage.

5.4.1 UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF PRECIPITATION DECREASES THE AREA NEEDED

Rainfall in the middle mountains is more intense than in other parts of the river basin, i.e. 50% higher. If

restoration of natural sponges is concentrated in the middle mountains the surface area needed therefore is

not 6% but (100/150)*6% = 4%.



31

5.4.2 DISTANCE BETWEEN PROBLEM REGION AND SOLUTION REGION INCREASES THE AREA NEEDED

When a peak travels downstream it collapses: in a way the “peak problem” reduces itself when travelling

downstream. As a consequence restoring natural storage far away from the region where flooding may

cause problems, is less effective than when natural storage is revived closer to the problem site. Preventing

100 m3/s to contribute to peak build-up in the Ruhr (close to the Netherlands) results in a 70 – 75 m3/s

lower discharge at the Dutch/German border. Holding back the same amount of the water from the Kinzig

(close to Switzerland) will result in a 40-50 m3/s lower discharge in the Netherlands. In both cases the

geographical distance between the problem and the solution causes an efficiency loss. Working from the

assumption that measures are taken in the most suitable regions (with 75% efficiency) the area needed for

sponge restoration is not the 4% mentioned in § 4.1 but (100/75)*4% = 5,3%

5.4.3 SMART LOCATION OF SPONGES WITHIN REGIONS DECREASED THE AREA NEEDED

Precipitation falling on the plateaus and slopes will travel down and eventually reach the foot of the slope.

In a sense the foot of the slope acts as a receptacle for water from the region around it (see fig 3) . Natural

sponges located at the foot of the hill will therefore collect water from a much larger area. An analysis of 5

regions in the Rhine basin shows that the surface ratio between ‘foot of the hill” and ‘slope and plateau’ is

approximately 1:8. In other words: 1 hectare of natural sponge at the foot of a hill collects water from 8

hectares in the wider surroundings. This means that the surface area needed to store 1,000 m3/s is not the

5,3% mentioned in § 4.2 but 5,3/8 = 0,66%. Since the Rhine basin measures 185,000 sq km this involves an

area of approximately 1,225 sq km.

5.4.4 SPONGE CAPACITY DECREASES OVER TIME AND THIS INCREASES AREA NEEDED

Popular belief has it that at a certain moment, e.g. after continued heavy rain showers, the natural sponges

will be full and stop storing water. This is not the case: there is clear evidence that soils and vegetation are

never “full”. However: the capacity of soils and vegetation to store water decreases after consecutive

periods of (heavy) rainfall. This means that in practice it will be unlikely that the maximum storage

capacity can be used when it is needed. It is feasible that there will be situations where – when critical

situations start to build up – only 10% of the storage capacity of a given area is still available. On the other

hand: it is very unlikely that this unfavourable condition will be found in the entire Rhine basin. For now

we will assume, as a worst case scenario, that at the start of a ‘peak build up’ on average 50% of the

storage capacity is available in Rhine basin. This affects the surface area needed: in this ‘worst case

scenario’ we do not need the 0,66% mentioned in 5.4.3 but twice as much: 1,32% of the Rhine basin (2450

sq km).


32


Fig. 3. Situation in the middle mountains. On the right the situation that often occurs: the foot of the slope is drained

and accelerates the discharge of water from slopes and plateaus. On the drainage was undone, resulting in lower runoff.

5.5 SURFACE AREA AVAILABLE

5.5.1 REGION SUITABLE FOR NATURAL STORAGE

Areas suitable for natural storage are widespread in the Rhine basin (see fig. 4), especially in the middle

mountains. High mountain ranges do not qualify because in that type of landscape most of the

precipitation travels downward as overland flow. In addition the big lakes in the Alps act as buffers. This

effect is much stronger and overshadows the possible effect of natural storage in the upper parts of the

basin. Also low lands and extensive flat regions (e.g. the valley of the Upper Rhine) have little potential for

natural storage because there are no adjacent higher grounds.



33

Fig. 4. Areas with valleys potentially suitable for restoration of natural sponges. Base map Wikipedia.

Overall, approximately 60% of the Rhine basin is suitable for natural storage in the sense that within these

60%, areas can be found where water can be held back in the (often) broad valleys before being discharged

into the Rhine. Table 1 gives an impression of the potential for the most important tributaries. The relative

largest potential for natural storage can be found in Glan, Mosel, Lahn, Sieg and Ruhr. These are all rivers

in the Middle section of the Rhine. In absolute terms the largest contribution is likely to come from the

Mosel, followed by the Main and Upper Rhine.


34


Surface

(km2)

Percentage

suitable

Surface suitable

(km2)

Maximum

discharge since

1900

Upper Rhine 54,000 40% 21,600 4,450

Neckar 13,900 75% 10,425 2,750

Main 27,300 80% 21,840 2,150

Glan 4,000 95% 3,800 870

Moezel 28,300 95% 26,885 4,170

Lahn 6,000 95% 5,700 840

Sieg 3,000 95% 2,850 930

Ruhr 4,400 95% 4,180 910

overig 29,100 0% 0

Total 170,000 97,280 17,100

Table 3: The most important tributaries of the Rhine and their potential for natural storage.

5.5.2 ANALYSIS OF 5 SMALLER VALLYS

A total of 5 valleys (see fig 5) were analyzed within the framework of this study (Table 2). The length of

brook valleys suitable for natural storage varies between 230 and 590 meters per kilometer. The mean is

420 meters per kilometer.

Surface

(sub)basin

T=1 T=50 Length suitable Length/km2

Wenne 219 48 100 70 0.32

Kyll 301 65 102 145 0.48

Ruwer 102 20 69 60 0.59

Fils 146 20 83 34 0.23

Gutach 145 40 155 70 0.48

Total 913 193 509 379 0.42

Table 4: Surface, discharge characteristics, and length suitable for the development of natural sponges for 5 smaller

valleys in the Rhine basin. T=1 is a discharge occurring each year, T=50 is a discharge occurring once in 50 years.

These 5 smaller valleys cover slightly less than 1% of total area suitable for natural storage. Assuming that

these valleys are a fair reflection of the situation in the Rhine basin the total length of valley suitable for

natural storage would be 40,000 km.



35

Fig. 5. Location of 5 valleys examined in terms of their potential for natural storage. The 5 valleys are spread throughout

the Rhine basin in order to include regional differences and obtain a more or less representative sample. Base map

Wikipedia.


36


5.5.3 CONTRIBUTION TO THE PEAK REDUCTION OF THE RHINE

In the Netherlands the Rhine basin is considered “safe” if it is able to cope with a discharge occurring once

every 1,250 years. However, a T=1,250 situation will never occur at the same time in all parts of the Rhine

basin. In fact, a T=1250 situation in the Netherlands and lower parts of Germany will build up in the

theoretical situation that a T=50 discharge takes place at the same time in large parts of the Rhine basin. In

other words: a T=50 discharge in large sections of the middle mountains, will translate itself in a T=1,250

situation (even worse) in the lower parts of the Rhine basin. During a T=50 occurrence the 5 valleys

included in this research generate a combined discharge of approximately 500 m3/s.

The maximum discharge of all tributaries combined, would result in a total discharge of approximately

17,000 m3/s (table 3) in the downstream parts of Germany and Netherlands. In reality the maximum

discharge (Lobith) was never higher than 12,600 m3/s. There are two reasons for this. First, the peaks of the

tributaries will never coincide with the peak in the mainstream. Second, a flood peak in the main stream

will gradually collapse when travelling downstream by 25%. This also means that, in order to decrease a

flood peak at the Dutch/German border with 1,000 m3/s, a 25% higher amount of water (1,250 m3/s) must

be stored higher upstream.

If the total length of 40,000 km of suitable valley could be used to store a discharge of 1,250 m3/s, and if in

those valleys a zone of (on average) 50 meters would be available, this would result in a sponge area of

2,000 sq km. This is close to the outcome of the rough estimate of the area needed (see 4.4).

5.6 COSTS

What would be the costs of a strategy based on the restoration of natural storage? There are several

answers and within the framework of this brief report we will explore two of them. Is should be borne in

mind that restoring natural sponges in itself does not require huge amounts, since it only involves removal

the removal of drainage.

5.6.1 PURCHASE OF LAND

One possibility is to purchase land for water storage. Depending on the region and taking into account

where possibilities exist (fig. 6) prices per ha vary. The average amounts to approximately € 12,000 per

hectare (fig 6).



37

Fig 6. Land prices in Germany vary between Bundesländer. In brackets the development of prices against the situation

in 2011. Source AMI. The purchase of 2450 sq km (245,000 ha) would require € 2,94 billion.

5.6.2 COMPENSATION PER M3 STORED

Land purchase is not the only possible strategy to implement a restoration strategy. It is also possible to

provide landowners with a “storage fee”. If an amount of € 3 billion would be used and if one would

assume an interest rate of 3%, this would be allow for a total annual storage fee of € 90 million i.e. € 350

per hectare.


38


5.6.3 COMPARISON WITH ‘TRADITIONAL MEASURES’

Comparison with ‘traditional measures’

An amount of € 3 billion spent on the restoration of natural sponges – be it in the form of land purchase of

as a fund paying for storage fees – is lower than the cost estimate (€ 3.7 – 5.0 billion) for the next round of

river safety measures along the Rhine included in the Deltaprogramme. It should be borne in mind that:

the lower estimate (€ 3.7 billion) relates to monofunctional measures only (dike strategy), so comparing

the costs of restoring natural storage with this lower figure would be comparing apples and pears;

the higher estimate (€ 5.0 billion) relates to a multifunctional approach;

up till 2021 Germany wil invest € 5.7 billion in river safety, including € 2.8 billion for retention polders.

Since both the Netherlands and Germany would benefit form the restoration of natural sponges, the

budget of flood control measures in both countries should be brought into the equation.



39

6 Stakeholder analysis

6.1 BACKGROUND

This chapter describes the initial stakeholder analysis. This stakeholder analysis explores which partners

would profit most from lowering peaks as a result of restoring sponges and might become strong allies

and might be willing to join Rhine Corridor in the commissioning step. This chapter also describes a first

indication of costs and benefits in a qualitative manner. The stakeholder analysis focusses on the German

and Dutch stakeholders. As mentioned before, CBAs also act as an instrument to facilitate dialogue and

negotiations between various stakeholders. The results from this CBA helps to build the case to take the

next step in this study for the stakeholders that benefit most from the sponges. Chapter 6 concludes that

the sponges in the middle mountains are most effective to reduce peak high flows and are less effective in

affecting low flows. Nevertheless, the stakeholder analyses points out all the potential benefits, but with

an emphasis on the benefits of reducing high peak flows.

6.2 APPROACH

As a first step a long list of stakeholders (Annex 2) was made based on our expert judgement and various

calls with our Dutch and German offices. The type of stakeholder and, in the case of water managers, their

main task is described briefly. An estimation of the interest of the stakeholder in restoring sponges in the

middle mountains is presented in Annex 3. Also the significance of the interest is estimated. A first

indication of the specific role the stakeholder can play in restoring sponges in the middle mountains is

presented in annex 3. Since the stakeholders were not analysed in more depth or spoken to, their potential

role is a best guess only.

To conclude this stakeholder scoping, recommendation are given for the stakeholder analyses and

management for the next phase of the project.

6.3 RESULTS OF STAKEHOLDER SCOPING

In Annex II and III please find two tables consisting of the results based on a first analysis.

The table in Annex II shows a long list of potential stakeholders is provided with a brief description. The

distinction is made between a water manager, a water user or others such as research programmes or

funding instruments. The smaller cities, individual people and individual companies (including farms)

have been left out. These are important stakeholders later in the process. The focus was on those

stakeholders that may play a role in the further research phase.

Based on this table a second table is included in Annex III to deepen and broaden the description and

categorization of each stakeholder. In Annex III a short description of the interest of each stakeholder is


40


presented, together with the significance of the interest. There is a vital and crucial connection between

those two issues. The significance of the interest can be “low”, “moderate” or “high”. Stakeholders with a

moderate or high interest are likely to play a crucial rule in the further project phase. The significance of

the interest was estimated at this point of the study; it needs to be further investigated in a next phase. The

interest of the stakeholders is for example:

High/low interest in reducing flood risk and/or cost for flood defence measures.

High/low interest in maintaining a good base flow for cooling water, drinking water, navigation, etc.

High/low interest in improving water quality and biodiversity.

Again, smaller cities, individual people and individual companies (including farms) were left out. We

have focused on those stakeholders that may play a role in the further research phase. The type and

significance of the interests of the stakeholders with regards to the study is the basis for the potential role

they can play in the next study phase. This potential role is further discussed in the next paragraph.

6.4 SPECIFIC ROLE OF A STAKEHOLDER IN THE NEXT PHASE

In this chapter the different potential roles of each stakeholder are described, using the widely known and

proven categories:

Inform: those stakeholders with low or indirect interest with regards to the scope of this study. Keep

them informed via well placed articles and presentations, but do not include them in the study phase;

Consult: those stakeholders have a moderate interest and often have specific knowledge regarding the

subject. Nevertheless, they are within a certain distance to the issue with just little power or financial

means. Consult them during the study phase with interviews and surveys;

Involve: those stakeholders with moderate to high interest and often specific knowledge regarding the

subject. Nevertheless, they are within a certain distance to the issue with just little power or financial

means. Involve them during the study phase with dialogue or workshops;

Cooperate/co-finance: Stakeholders with a high and direct interest with suitable resources (knowledge

and financial). These stakeholders are interesting partners for the study for either knowledge or financing

(or both);

Decision making: those stakeholders with a lot of power and a direct high interest. They are directly

involved in the decision-making process for different reasons. These decision makers should be allowed to

steer key aspects of the study, for example via a steering committee.



41

Figure 7: Pyramid of stakeholder involvement

6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT FOR THE NEXT PHASE

We suggest to initially focus on a short list of stakeholders. Those with a high interest and a select few

stakeholders with moderate interest are priority. It is important to realise that the stakeholder interests and

influence is not static. These will change during the phases of the study towards implementation.

Therefore, roles will change also. Stakeholders that are not important during the study phase may become

relevant during the implementation phase, such as the land owners and future sponge managers.

6.5.1 DUTCH STAKEHOLDERS WITH HIGH INTEREST:

Department for Infrastructure and Environment (I&M):

The potential benefits for I&M are:

Reduction in costs for flood defences, although that would require lowering the Hydraulische

Randvoorwaarden (Hydraulic conditions) and that may prove to be a difficult political decision.

Improved conditions for the ecology all along the Rhine due to the more natural river dynamic. There

might be an interesting connection to Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive programs.

However, it is also necessary to assess if there are negative impacts to the ecology.

Reduction of number of days that the Rhine is not or poor navigable due to a reduction of low and

high peak levels.

Slightly improved conditions for discharging cooling and waste water due to reduced number of days

with low flows. That is beneficial for the water quality.

Waterboards (Waterschappen): e.g. Rijn en IJssel, Rivierenland, De Stichtse Rijnlanden, Rijnland,

Hollandse Delta, Unie van Waterschappen (Dutch Water Authorities)

The potential benefits for Waterboards along the Rhine are:


42


Reduction in costs for future flood defence (dikes) improvements and for their maintenance (small

repairs). The assurance of the adequate functioning and future management of the sponges may prove

a difficult political issue.

Reduction of days with limited or no intake from the river for the water users of the water boards

(farmers, industries, energy)

Increase in days for safe discharge of the sewage water from their water treatment plants due to

reduction of peak low water levels.

Department of Waterways and Public Works (Rijkswaterstaat)

The potential benefits for Rijkswaterstaat are:

Reduction in damage to their assets in the river and flood plain due to peak flows.

Reduction in costs for future flood defence improvements and for their maintenance (small repairs).

Regards the structures that are under the responsibility of Rijkswaterstaat.


high peak levels


with low flows. That is beneficial for the water quality.

Improved conditions for the ecology all along the Rhine due to the more natural river dynamic.

Big cities: Arnhem, Utrecht, Rotterdam

The potential benefits for Rijkswaterstaat are:

Less damage / risk for the inhabitants and businesses located in the areas outside the flood defences.

Reduction of flood risk and damage in these cities.

Better availability of water during drought for the urban waters.

In potential more space for development/redevelopment with acceptable flood risk.

Improved accessibility of these cities over the Rhine.

Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma

Potential cost reduction for future improvement works on flood defences. Longer lifecycle of current

dikes.

Netherlands Water Partnership (NWP)

More opportunities created for Dutch companies in the field of water issues in Germany through the

involvement in the study (network and presentation/visibility). Export of Dutch water knowledge and

services.

6.5.2 GERMAN STAKEHOLDERS WITH HIGH INTEREST

District governments: Baden Württemberg, Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Köln

The potential benefits are:


Reduction of flood risk and damage in these regions.

Better availability of (drinking and process) water during drought for the urban waters.

In potential more space for development/redevelopment with acceptable flood risk due to a reduction

of regions which are currently in a high-risk zone.

Improved accessibility of these cities over the Rhine, which relates to stable and safe navigability. This

on the other hand is beneficial for the economic situation.



43

Federal Institute of Hydraulic Engineering (BAW)


Reduction in costs for maintaining and improving the condition of the waterways.

Reduction in costs for making the waterways resilient against extreme weather events.

Reduction of flood risk and damage in these regions (including repair work related to the waterways).

National Office for Environment and Forests (Umweltministerium für jedes Bundesland)

(region Rheinland-Pfalz)


Reduction in costs for flood defences (keeping in mind the safety standards).




Positive impact on the drinking water quality which leads to less additional costs in extreme situations.

National Office for Environment and Agriculture (region Nordrhein-Westfalen)


Reduction in costs for flood defences (keeping in mind the safety standards).





with low flows. That is beneficial for the overall condition of the water quality.

Department for Water and Navigation (WSV)



high peak levels. This is beneficial for the economic situation.

Improved accessibility of cities over the Rhine.

Reduction in costs for maintaining the quality of the waterways and its facilities.

Reduction in costs for repair work after an extreme weather event.

Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG)



high peak levels. This is beneficial for the economic situation.

Improved accessibility of cities over the Rhine.

Reduction in costs for improving, maintaining and repairing the waterways.

Big cities: Strasbourg, Karlsruhe, Mannheim, Ludwigshaven, Mainz, Wiesbaden, Koblenz,

Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Duisburg



This is directly related to the economic situation.

Reduction of flood risk and damage in these cities.

Better availability of water during drought for the urban waters.

In potential more space for development/redevelopment with acceptable flood risk.

Improved accessibility of these cities over the Rhine.


44


Waterboards (Wasserverband): e.g. Ruhrverband, Emschergenossenschaft, Wupperverband

Rhein-Sieg-Kreis, Bergisch-Rheinisch


Positive impact on the drinking water quality which leads to less additional costs.


repairs). The assurance of the adequate functioning and future management of the sponges may prove

a difficult political issue.

Increase in days for safe discharge of the sewage water from their water treatment plants due to

reduction of peak low water levels.

Improved conditions for the ecology all along the Rhine due to the more natural river dynamic and

less flooding in specific areas.

Associations guarding the dykes (Deichverband): e.g. Duisburg, Krefeld, Rhein-Erft-Kreis,

Bonn



repairs).

Climate waterways (KLIWAS)


Participation in a programme set up to improve the condition and the resilience of the waterways

against changing environmental conditions.

International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (Internationale Kommission zum

Schutze des Rheins IKSR)


Improved conditions for the ecology all along the Rhine due to the more natural river dynamic and

less flooding in specific areas.

Best practices and lessons learnt for further research.

6.5.3 THE MOST INTERESTING STAKEHOLDERS WITH MODERATE INTEREST

Vitens Evides International: Drinking water company with an interest in a good base river flow. The have

funding for studies and an international interest.

Climate KIC: Provides funding to international partnerships that benefit adaption to climate change.

Arcadis is core member and can therefore bring projects forward in this program. Climate KIC requires an

innovative product or service to be a result.

ISOCARP: Has an interest in good international planning practices and could be an interesting partner for

its knowledge and network.

SwissRe or GDV: Reinsurer and a German insurance association. Organisations in the insurance business

can be interesting, since they have an interest in lowering flood and drought risks. GVD has a tool on the

internet (Zürs public) to assess risks (flood and other risks).



45

7 Next steps

This scoping study concludes that sponges can be very effective and may prove valuable as a climate

adaptation measure. The first results in this study favour further exploration. In this chapter we have

provided the next steps for the study phase. These steps are meant to:

First find partners and finance;

Secondly, conduct meaningful further research.

7.1 PREPARE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR POTENTIAL PARTNERS AND CO-FINANCERS

We recommend that you, as the initiator, prepare a list of selection criteria for the selection of potential

partners and co-financers. A partner and/or financer will also influence the project, so it is important to

have some thoughts on what influence you prefer. Some questions you may ask to prepare selection

criteria are:

What knowledge or capability would complement your organisation in this project?

What accents do you find important for this study: for example ecology/nature, urban, climate

adaptation, reduced flood risk?

What kind of financing do you prefer?

What can you offer potential partners/financers?

How important are existing working relationships?

7.2 CONTACT MOST INTERESTING PARTNERS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

It is our recommendation to contact potential partners/co-financers for exploratory meetings as soon as

possible. These meetings are beneficial for further scoping of the study.

We have pre-selected the top 3 interesting partners to approach first: the cities Dusseldorf and Rotterdam

and the Waterboard Rivierenland. It would be interesting to continue research with these partners to

determine the costs and benefits for these stakeholders. These partners can provide input on the

opportunities and constraints they see specifically for their area and for their interests and responsibilities.

Opportunities and constraints can be technical in nature, but also political, cultural, financial, legal, etc. A

few examples of interesting discussions to explore further are:

Dike failure is calculated based on legally defined Boundary Condition. Lowering these Boundary

Conditions may prove to be a difficult political discussion.

A proper functioning of the sponges depends on the correct management by the German sponge

manager. To reduce flood protection measures in the Netherlands based on this dependence may also

prove to be a difficult legal issue.


46


Who should pay for the implementation and management of the sponges (German share vs. Dutch

share)? Is the stakeholder who is currently responsible for financing flood protection responsible? Or

are the stakeholders who gain the most obliged to finance the necessary flood protection? Again, an

interesting discussion to explore.

Why would people living in cities (and therefore its voters) be inclined to pay for measures in

Germany? With what benefits can these voters be persuaded?

Financial support may also be obtained from the research budgets of Unie van Waterschappen,

Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma, Netherlands Water Partnership and Ministry of I&E due to the fact

that the measure may be beneficial for multiple stakeholders and the Netherlands in general.

Dusseldorf, Rotterdam and the Waterboard Rivierenland

Dusseldorf

Flood risk, damage and protection are important topics for the city of Düsseldorf. Every year local

newspapers elaborate on the issue following a series of days with a high water level. In 2013 the

environment minister Peter Altmaier has reacted to Germany’s record floods by calling for rivers to be

given more room to buffer their floodwaters. Clearly, the city is very active in this field.

The partial transformation of Düsseldorf’s old Rhine harbor into a modern business and residential district

is an important urban planning project to position the city as a center for the creative industries, including

advertising, art and media, in Europe. Sustainable urban renewal and development are crucial to the city.

Mainly third sector businesses were attracted to move to the harbor: media companies, but also fashion

and design offices.

Hence, it can be considered one of the main focus points of the city of Düsseldorf to providing a stable

environment to live and work in. Sufficient drinking water and safe water levels for the citizens now and

in the future are necessary to guarantee that the goal will be reached. Resilience of the city and its citizens

against floods and drought events has to be reached.

Responsible for flood risk, damage and protection:

City of Düsseldorf (Stadtregierung);

Government directorates (Bezirksregierung);

The Ministry for Climate Protection, Environment, Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Consumer

Protection of the German State of North Rhine-Westphalia (province level).

However, in Germany flood protection is not solely the responsibility of the city government. Due to the

nature of the subject, the State of North Rhine-Westphalia has a prominent role in water management and

its relating topics.

Nevertheless, it is crucial to include two more parties in the discussion. The associations guarding the

dykes are important players. In the region of Düsseldorf, the association Neue Deichschau Heerdt is

active. The second additional stakeholder is the regional waterboard (Wasserverband) who has important

tasks, as mentioned earlier in the report.

A list of stakeholders to partner with in Düsseldorf can be found in the annexes (Annex 4).

Rotterdam

Rotterdam portrays itself as a safe city and port to live and work. With one of the world’s largest ports ,

Rotterdam is connected to the water. The city is proud to be the safest delta city of Europe and would go

through great lengths to maintain that title. Rotterdam has the vision to be the innovative water

knowledge city in the world and to be an inspiring example for other delta cities. However, the climate is

changing and that has consequences for Rotterdam. On the long term Rotterdam may have to deal with

sea level rise and river levels that are too low or too high.



47

Both within and outside the flood defences, Rotterdam is taking measures to become more climate proof.

Examples are floating living areas and multipurpose flood defences.

In areas outside Rotterdam there is an open relationship with the river and the sea, and lack of protection

by dikes. There is therefore a greater chance of flooding than inside the dike. Floods are however, due to

the mostly high altitude of short duration and flood depths (inundations) remain relatively limited.

The responsibility for the areas outside the flood defences lies primary with the municipality, the

residents and users of the area.

The Rotterdam Climate Initiative is a cooperation of the partners: City of Rotterdam, Port of Rotterdam,

Deltalinqs and DCMR Environmental Service Rijnmond.

The most interesting decision makers in Rotterdam are:

Ahmed Aboutaleb (PvdA), mayor (president of the college and the council): Annual citizen, public

order and security, integrated security, communications and external relations, legal affairs,

international and external relations;

Joost Eerdmans (LR), City Counsel Member safety, enforcement and outdoor space;

Pex Langenberg (D66), City Counsel Member sustainability, mobility, port, management and

organization;

Ronald Schneider (LR), City Counsel Member urban development and integration.

H. Zeller, City Counsel Member international business.

The policy director for climate adaptation is Arnoud.

Arcadis and Rotterdam are partners in a Climate KIC project.

Waterboard Rivierenland

Waterboard Rivierenland has many river dikes and currently several large dike reinforcement projects on

the High Water Protection Programme. In addition, this waterboard increases the flood safety level by risk

management and spatial solutions. The waterboard has an interest in providing enough fresh water for the

functions of their area, like agriculture, nature, urban water. Waterboard Rivierenland has a

ClimateActionProgramma (KAP) with actions, projects and initiatives that contribute to the goals of the

Climate Agreement (Klimaatakkoord).

The dijkgraaf of Waterboard Rivierenland is ir. R.W. (Roelof) Bleker. The director for the programme

Flood Defences is Jacob Knoops. The Director for the programmes Water systems and Water Chain is Kees

Vonk. Kees is also a member of the ENW (Expert Network Water safety). Incidentally, the ENW is also an

interesting knowledge partner for Green Rhine Corridor. The president of the Working group Rivers is

Prof. dr. ir. Huib de Vriend. The coordinator for international cooperation is Erik Kuindersma. A good first

contact for flood defence policy is Evert Hazenoot. The coördinator for Delta Plan Fresh Water is Ton

Drost.

7.3 PERFORM A CBA TO INVOLVE AND CONVINCE DECISION MAKERS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

This report contains a scoping study to a CBA for the Green Rhine Corridor. An actual CBA is a logical

next step in the process of achieving the goals of the Green Rhine Corridor, with the restoration of sponges

as an example of an integrated Room for the River solutions on a river scale. A more detailed analysis

must be conducted on the effectiveness and efficiency of restoring sponges in the middle mountains in


48


terms of relations between needed surface and the peak-flow reduction in different parts of the Rhine

River. The associated costs can then be put in relation with corresponding benefits in different parts of the

Rhine. From there stakeholders can be convinced easier because the effects can be shown on a more

accurate base. Lessons learned from our analysis on former CBA’s can be taken into account.

7.4 DETAILED STUDY ON RESTORATION OF SPONGES

This report describes a best guess on the effectiveness of the sponges. The outcomes of this study are based

on rough calculations and some assumptions. In order to be more precise about the benefits for certain

stakeholders a more detailed study is suggested. Within this depth study there must be a focus on the

physical aspects of such a restoration. What does such measure entail? Besides only the purchase of land,

does soil preparation to accelerate the process of areas becoming suitable for sponges apply? Other aspects

such as spatial planning or maintenance, for example, can also be taken into consideration for further

research.

7.5 PREPARE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS AND IMPLEMENT A PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

For the next study phase we suggest to prepare a more detailed stakeholder analysis and prepare and

implement a stakeholder participation strategy. We recommend the following approach:

1. Interviews with the key stakeholders;

a. Assess in more detail the interests and power of the key stakeholders;

b. Collect key criteria for success, opportunities and threats from the stakeholders;

c. Assess with the stakeholders how they can contribute to the study (knowledge/data, capacity,

funding, network);

2. Develop a participation and communication process for the study;

a. Select and develop the partnerships;

b. Define the cooperation with the key decision makers;

c. Select key stakeholders to consult or involve and start this process;

3. Final framing and scoping of the study based on the stakeholder results

4. Implement the stakeholder participation and communication.

We recommend a broad stakeholder participation to explore not only the technical potential, costs and

benefits of the sponges, but also political, legal and financial issues, future protection and management of

the sponges, opportunities for nature development.

7.6 PREPARE AN ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION MAKING

A decision on the implementation of the sponges needs to be taking within an international context with

different legal systems, different financing structures, and different polities and (political) priorities. We

recommend exploring the opportunities and constraints in:

Laws, policies and international agreements;

How to finance the restoration of the sponges?

How to manage and maintain the sponges. Who? What condition? Who pays? How to guarantee the

sponge function legally?



49

Annex I: Context and scope for this quick

scan

Background

Green Rhine Corridor is a broad, international coalition aiming to develop the Rhine as an ecological and

economic backbone of Europe. The partners and supporters share common targets on:

Longitudinal connectivity: primarily fish migration.

Migratory fishshould once again be able to migrate freely up and down the river.

Lateral connectivity: Room for the Rhine.

A Room for the River approach should be fully embraced for the whole river basin.

These targets can only be achieved in international cooperation among NGO’s and with governments,

businesses and other relevant players. Non-conservation partners have been (successfully) invited to join

Green Rhine Corridor and others may follow. Green Rhine Corridor is not “ready” but “ready to go”.

Initial work focused primarily on salmon and on ICPR and its Ministers Conference of 28 October 2013.

The initiators of Green Rhine Corridor propose to continue the cooperation and revamp Green Rhine

Corridor as a 3-year program, with concrete activities and external (e.g. EU) funding.

Cost- benefit analysis of a Room for the River approach

The vision of the Rhinecorridor network is that a Room for River approach applied all along the river is

benificial for the economy ánd the ecology of the Rhine basin.

One issue that may well be less expensive to solve when thinking on a river-scale instead of locally is the

control of floods and droughts. The river Rhine is shorter and narrower than it was before: meanders were

cut off and dikes narrow down the winter bed. ICPR states that the Rhine lost 85% of its original flood

plain. As a consequence water travels faster downstream than ever before, causing higher flood peaks and

longer periods of drought. Not all developments should be turned back, but some of them can. Rivers can

be granted more access to floodplains, thus increasing the rivers capacity and lowering flood peaks. The

target should be to at the same time also restore the marshes in the middle mountains which feed the

tributaries to the Rhine. Almost all of them were drained and developed as agricultural lands. Modern

farming however is not economically feasible in these remote and sloping areas and many lands have been

abandoned in recent years.

Restoring access to floodplains and restoring marshes in the middle mountains would help to store water

during times of plenty rainfall, thus reducing flood peaks and securing a prolonged supply of water

during droughts.

Profitability: The potential is high. In the Netherlands alone € 1,9 billion was spent to prepare the Rhine to

accommodate an expected extra 1000 m3/s: a financial injection of € 6 million per km. Channelling part of

this money to integrated solutions (incl. further upstream), i.e. linking flood control to habitat restoration,

is a major opportunity for restoration of riverine habitats. Reducing flood peaks and droughts will not

only bring profits for water managers, but for all those who are faced with the impact of regular high

waters and droughts like those who live and work in areas with regular inundations as well as those who

are dependent from the river. Like for transport or the withdrawel of water (drinking water for civilians,


50


processing and cooling water for the industry, irrigation water for agriculture) etc. Normally the costs and

benefits of different scenario’s for water management are not calculated, the decision making is a political

process with little interference of other stakeholders. Rhinecorridor partners are in favour of a more

transparant process, based on the comparison of different scenario’s with calculations of the costs and

benefits for different stakeholders. It is convinced that such an integrated approach will bring more

benefits for the economy and ecology than the current approach which mainly focusses on water safety

and water quality within strict boundaries. Rhinecorridor wants to demonstrate the added value of such

an integrated approach by calculating the costs and benefits of a defined measure that is not yet on the

agenda of the Rhinecommission, namely the costs and benefits of restoring sponges in the middle-

mountains.

Goal of the co-operation under the MoU

The MoU Partners agree to take the first steps towards a cost-benefit analysis as described under 3 as a

common effort. The results will be presented to the Rhinecorridor partners for approval and can serve as a

basis for a more comprehensive analysis to be submitted for external funding by the Rhinecorridor

coalition member responsible for this topic, Erik van Zadelhoff (Platform BEE).

Approach

The MoU Partners agree to follow a phased approach, consisting of the following steps.

A brief analysis of the current status of cost benefit analyzes within or related to the current Rhine

Action Program (including scenario studies), resulting in a report with an evaluation of the program

in this respect.

An overview of cost-benefit analyzes in river management (report + powerpoint

presentation).

A ‘best guess’ of the effectiveness of sponges in terms of lower peaks and less droughts in the River

basin of the Rhine in the shape of a brief report with explanation of the assumptions.

A stakeholder analysis; which partners would profit most from lowering peaks as a result of restoring

sponges and might become strong allies (for instance cities, harbours, but possibly also private

companies) and which might be willing to join Rhinecorridor in commisioning step. Also this should

result in a report.

An elaborated ToR for a comprehensive cost-benefit analyzes based on the first four steps granting a

contract for a comprehensive analysis.



51

Annex II: Long list of stakeholders with

description

Category

Name stakeholder

Description of stakeholder

Government

NL Department for Infrastructure and

Environment (I&M)

Water manager

Protection against flooding; maintaining a stable, clean and

secure environment for the citizen.

Provinces:

Gelderland, Noord-Brabant, Utrecht,

Zuid-Holland

Water manager

Implement national and EU policies and programmes.

D Provinces:

Baden Württemberg, Rheinland-

Pfalz, Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen

Water manager

Implement national and EU policies and programmes.

District government:

Baden Württemberg, Hessen,

Nordrhein-Westfalen, Köln

Water manager

Implement and guiding various policies and programmes;

maintaining a stable, clean and secure environment for the

citizen.

Federal Institute of Hydraulic

Engineering (BAW)

Water manager

Technical and scientific federal authority of the BMVI; central

providers of consultancy and expert opinion services to the

BMVI and the WSV relating to their waterways engineering

tasks. Improving the waterways in Germany so that they meet

ever tougher technical, economic and ecological demands.

National Office for Nature,

Environment and Consumer

Protection (LANUV)

Water manager

Maintaining and improving the quality of the surface water and

the groundwater, the standards of wastewater technology,

sustainable flood protection and the assessment s on climate

change impacts.

National Office for Environment

and Forests (region Rheinland-Pfalz)

Water manager

In every province in Germany there is an Environmental

Department responsible for clean drinking water, flood

protection, a stable water level, etc..


52


Category

Name stakeholder



and Agriculture (region Nordrhein-

Westfalen)

Water manager

Responsible for soil conservation, water management (water

conservation, flood protection, wastewater management) and

overseeing different departments and associations related to

water.

Department for Water an

Navigation (WSV)

Water manager

Maintaining quality of the waterways; responsible for the

expansion and construction of federal waterways; maintaining

and operating lock chambers, weirs and lighthouse, as well as

water traffic centres.

Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG) Water manager

Realization of an efficient and sustainable transport system.

Local authorities/

big city level

NL Arnhem

Utrecht

Rotterdam

Water manager/ user

D Strasbourg

Karlsruhe

Mannheim

Ludwigshaven

Mainz

Wiesbaden

Koblenz

Bonn

Cologne

Düsseldorf

Duisburg

Water manager/ user

Other water managers

NL Waterboards (Waterschappen): e.g.

Rijn en Ijssel, Rivierenland, De

Stichtse Rijnlanden, Rijnland,

Hollandse Delta

Unie van Waterschappen (Dutch

Water Authorities)

Water manager

Managing water barriers, waterways, water levels, water quality

and sewage treatment in their respective regions. Safe water

levels for citizens, nature, transport now and in the future.

Department of Waterways and

Public Works (Rijkswaterstaat)

Water manager

Executive agency of the Department of Infrastructure and

Environment (I&M). Responsible for the management of the

main waterways (sea, rivers); warning function for authorities in

time of flood or storm.



53

Category

Name stakeholder


D Federal authorities, District

governments

Water manager

Waterboards (Wasserverband): e.g.

Ruhrverband,

Emschergenossenschaft,

Wupperverband Rhein-Sieg-Kreis,

Bergisch-Rheinisch

Water manager

Managing irrigation, drainage, the restoration and protection of

ecosystems to water resources monitoring, water barriers, dams,

waterways, water levels, water quality and sewage/ wastewater

treatment in their respective regions. Guarantee safe water levels

for citizens, nature, transport now and in the future.

Associations guarding the dykes

(Deichverband):

e.g. Duisburg, Krefeld, Rhein-Erft-

Kreis, Bonn

Water manager

Flood control: implementing measures to guarantee and

maintain a safe water level.

Drinking water companies

NL Vitens

Brabant Water

Oasen

Evides

Water user

Drinking water companies

D Waterboards (Wasserverbände) Water manager/ user

Managing water quality and sewage/ wastewater treatment in

their respective regions; protection of ecosystems to water

resources monitoring. Providing the citizens with sufficient

drinking water.

Privat company Gelsenwasser AG Water user

Providing the citizens with sufficient drinking water. Minimize

risk of disruption in continuous supply which can cause financial

consequences.

RheinEnergie AG Water user

Providing the citizens with sufficient drinking water. Minimize

risk of disruption in continuous supply which can cause financial

consequences.

NL

D

Agricultural sector Water user

Industrial sector

NL Port of Rotterdam

Port of Moerdijk

Port of Nijmegen

Water user

Transport/ navigability


54


Category

Name stakeholder


D Rhine-Ruhr region

Rhine-Main region

Rhine-Neckar region

Bayer-Leverkusen

Wesseling

Water user


Transport sector/ ports

NL Shipping companies located at

large-scale ports:

Port of Rotterdam, Port of Moerdijk,

Port Rijnhaven Wageningen

Water user


D Shipping companies located at

large-scale ports:

Port of Duisburg, Port of Mannheim,

Port of Ludwigshaven, Port of Köln,

Port of Baden-Württhemberg

Water user


(Independent companies)

Energy providers

NL Essent

EON

Nuon

GDF Suez

Rijnmond Energie

Water user

Energy production (cooling water, process water, hydropower)

D EON

RWE

EnWB

Water user

Energy production (RWE: cooling water, process water, EnWB

(until Baden-Württhemberg): hydropower)

(Inter)national programs

NL Hoogwaterbeschermings-

programma

Other: flood protection program

Water boards in the Netherlands and the Ministry of

Infrastructure and Environment (Rijkswaterstaat) implement

various measures to achieve compliance, to the safety norms,

now and in the future. The Flood Protection Programme is part

of the national Delta Programme. Their program includes several

cross-project explorations.

Climate KIC Other: research program

Initiative for climate change innovations. Spurring innovation

and entrepreneurships across Europe, bringing together leading

higher education institutions, research labs and companies.



55

Category

Name stakeholder


Netherlands Water Partnership Other: partnership

Partnership, consisting of 200 members from private companies,

government, knowledge institutes and NGOs; acting as a centre

of information on water expertise, policy developments and

market opportunities; initiating, coordinating and executing

projects for its members.

D Climate waterways (KLIWAS) Other: research program

Assessment of climate-induced changes of flows and

water levels in navigable inland waterways; providing

decision-makers with a set of relevant indicators enabling

them to find appropriate strategies for adaptation to

changed environmental conditions.

International Commission for the

Protection of the Rhine

(Internationale Kommission zum

Schutze des Rheins IKSR)

Other: international cooperation

Members of the International Commission for the Protection of

the Rhine (ICPR): Switzerland, France, Germany, Luxemburg,

Netherlands and the European Commission successfully

cooperate with Austria, Liechtenstein, the Belgian region of

Wallonia and Italy. Focal points of work: sustainable

development of the Rhine, its alluvial areas and the good state of

all waters in the watershed. Working- and expert groups with

clearly defined mandates work on all relevant technical issues

arising from the implementation of the Convention on the

Protection of the Rhine and from European law.

Interreg EuRegio Maas-Rhein

(Netherlands-Germany)

Other: international cooperation

Advises municipalities, government agencies and organizations

on opportunities for subsidy and cross-border cooperation;

provides support in finding suitable partners in the neighboring

country; guides projects from the moment the application is

submitted to the financial settlement.

Various focus areas, including water related issues faced by the

two countries.


56


Category

Name stakeholder


Life + Other: funding instrument

EU’s funding instrument for the environment and climate action.

General objective is to contribute to the implementation,

updating and development of EU environmental and climate

policy and legislation by co-financing projects with European

added value. LIFE projects support the management of water

resources in the EU and the implementation of water policy,

notably the EU Water Framework Directive, by addressing a

wide range of issues including river basin management, water

scarcity, water/ wastewater management (households and

industry) and improving groundwater quality.

EFRE (European Regional

Development Fund)

Other: funding instrument

Fund allocated by the EU, which is to ensure the economic

growth of poorer regions. To achieve this, under more medium-

sized companies are supported to create permanent jobs, execute

infrastructure projects and apply technical measures.

Organization (privat/ NGO)

NL Forestry Commission

(Staatsbosbeheer)

Other: public organisation

Commissioned by the Dutch government and manages a sizeable

amount of the nature reserves in the Netherlands; maintain,

restore and develop our natural and cultural landscapes;

including water areas.

Society for the Preservation of

Nature monuments

(Vereniging Natuurmonumenten)

Other: public organisation

The organisation has more than 400 sites under management,

with a total area of more than 1200 km². The largest is De Wieden

(58.47 km²) and the smallest is Fort Ellewoutsdijk (0.01 km²). The

organisation also owns buildings, provincial or national

monuments.

Het Gelders Landschap & Kastelen Other: public organisation

Organisation managing various habitats and regions; managing

and repairing the landscape and its biodiversity (more than 100

natural areas, castles and rural estates in Gelderland).

Het Utrechts Landschap Other: public organisation

Organisation managing forests, polders, castles etc. safeguarding

the nature and landscape in the province of Utrecht.



57

Category

Name stakeholder


D WWF

Regional NGO’s

Other: NGO

Safeguarding the natural world, helping people live more

sustainable and take action against climate change. Protect and

restore species and their habitats; strengthen local communities'

ability to conserve the natural resources they depend upon;

ensure that the value of nature is reflected in decisions made by

individuals, communities, governments and businesses.

Int. International Society of City and

Regional Planners (ISOCARP)

Other: NGO

The ISOCARP is a global association of experienced professional

planners. Although ISOCARP members work in many different

fields they share a common interest in the spatial and

environmental dimensions of urbanisation. They advise key

decision-makers, proposing and supporting projects for

intervention in a spatial context through general or specific

actions.

Knowledge institutions

NL Alterra

UNESCO-IHE

Deltares

University of Wageningen

TU Delft

Foundation of Applied Research

Water Management (Stichting

Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer

STOWA)

Other: Knowledge institution

D Water Technology Center Karlsruhe

IWW (Rheinisch-Westfälisch)

Institute for water research

University of Aken

University of Kaiserslautern

Karlsruhe Institute for Technology

Other: Knowledge institution

D Insurance companies

SwissRe Other: insurance

Global company. Re/insurance creates stability. By managing

risks and covering losses, they aim to protect investments and

enable economic growth.

NL

D

Tourism sector/ recreation Water user


58


Annex III: First indication of interest

Category

Name stakeholder

Description of interest Significance of

interest

Government

NL Department for Infrastructure and

Environment (I&M) Minimizing extreme river levels.

Climate adaptation against minimal costs.

Protection of livelihood and economy

against extreme river levels.

Minimizing costs to the tax payers.

Maximizing days of good navigability.

Good water quality in the Rhine.

High

Provinces:

Gelderland, Noord-Brabant,

Utrecht, Zuid-Holland

Safe water levels for the citizens now and in

the future;

Sufficient drinking water;

Protection of the citizens in case of extreme

weather events.

Moderate

D Provinces:

Baden Württemberg, Rheinland-

Pfalz, Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen


the future;



weather events.

Moderate

District government:

Baden Württemberg, Hessen,

Nordrhein-Westfalen, Köln


the future;



weather events.

High

Federal Institute of Hydraulic

Engineering (BAW) Maintaining and improving the waterways;

Making the waterways resilient against

extreme weather events.

High

National Office for Nature,

Environment and Consumer

Protection (LANUV)

Safeguarding the environment;

Guaranteeing a stable quality of the surface

and groundwater;

Protection against extreme weather events.

Moderate


and Forests (Umweltministerium

für jedes Bundesland) (region

Rheinland-Pfalz)

Providing sufficient drinking water;

Protection against flooding.

High


and Agriculture (region Nordrhein-

Westfalen)

Safeguarding the environment;

Protection against flooding;

Management of the wastewater.

Moderate

Department for Water an

Navigation (WSV) Managing the quality of the waterways and

its facilities;

Keeping the water level stable.

High

Federal Institute of Hydrology

(BfG) Maintaining a functioning transport system;

Keeping the water levels stable.

High



59

Category

Name stakeholder


interest

Local authorities/

big city level

NL Arnhem

Utrecht

Rotterdam

Providing a stable environment to live and

work in.


the future;


Resilience of citizens against floods and

drought events.

Sustainable urban renewal and

development.

Management of disasters thru the Safety

Regions (Veiligheidsregio’s).

High

D Strasbourg

Karlsruhe

Mannheim

Ludwigshaven

Mainz

Wiesbaden

Koblenz

Bonn

Cologne

Düsseldorf

Duisburg


work in.


the future;


Resilience of citizens against floods and

drought events.

Sustainable urban renewal and development

High

Regional water managers

NL Waterboards (Waterschappen): e.g.

Rijn en Ijssel, Rivierenland, De Stichtse

Rijnlanden, Rijnland, Hollandse Delta

Unie van Waterschappen (Dutch

Water Authorities)

Maintaining an optimal water level in their

waterways and groundwater. A good water

quality.

Sufficient amount of water intake from the

Rhine during drought.

Achieving the legal safety norms for their

dikes against floods, while minimizing costs

for the tax payers.

High

Department of Waterways and Public

Works (Rijkswaterstaat)

Keeping the main waterways navigable;

Maintain the flood defences under their

responsibility up to the legal safety norm.

Minimal damage of flood and drought to

their assets.

Minimizing costs for tax payers.

High

D Federal authorities, District

governments


thrive in.

Preventing damage due to extreme river

level events.

Moderate


60


Category

Name stakeholder


interest

Waterboards (Wasserverband): e.g.

Ruhrverband, Emschergenossenschaft,

Wupperverband Rhein-Sieg-Kreis,

Bergisch-Rheinisch

Maintaining a well-functioning water- and

ecosystem;

Keeping safe water levels and a good water

quality

Provide safe water levels for citizens, nature,

transport now and in the future.

High

Associations guarding the dykes

(Deichverband):

e.g. Duisburg, Krefeld, Rhein-Erft-

Kreis, Bonn

A safe river water level.

High

Drinking water companies Providing the citizens with sufficient

drinking water.

Managing nature surrounding the real

estate of the companies.

NL Vitens Evides (drinking water

company)

Brabant Water (drinking water

company)

Oasen (drinking water company)

Providing the citizens with sufficient clean

drinking water.

Moderate

D Waterboards (Wasserverbände) (see above) Moderate

Privat company Gelsenwasser AG Providing the citizens with sufficient clean

drinking water.

Minimizing risk of disruption in continuous

supply which can cause financial

consequences.

Moderate

RheinEnergie AG Providing the citizens with sufficient clean

drinking water.

Minimizing risk of disruption in continuous

supply which can cause financial

consequences.

Moderate

NL

D

Agricultural sector Appropriate water levels for land use.

Sufficient irrigation water.

Moderate

Industrial sector

NL Port of Rotterdam

Port of Moerdijk

Port of Nijmegen

Minimizing flood risk and damage due to a

flood.

Sufficient water for industrial processes and

cooling.

Safe and navigable water level.

Moderate

D Rhine-Ruhr region

Rhine-Main region

Rhine-Neckar region

Bayer-Leverkusen

Wesseling.

Minimizing flood risk and damage due to a

flood.

Sufficient water for industrial processes and

cooling.

Safe and navigable water level.

Moderate

Transport sector/ ports



61

Category

Name stakeholder


interest

NL Shipping companies located at large-scale

ports:

Port of Rotterdam, Port of Moerdijk, Port

Rijnhaven Wageningen

Navigability.

Maintaining a regular water level suitable

for transport.

Moderate

D Shipping companies located at large-scale

ports:

Port of Duisburg

Port of Mannheim

Port of Ludwigshafen

Port of Cologne

Navigability.

Maintaining a regular water level suitable

for transport.

Moderate

Energy providers

NL Essent

EON

Nuon

GDF Suez

Rijnmond Energie

Minimizing impact of changing water

levels to guarantee continuous energy

provision. Sufficient availability of

cooling water.

Minimizing damage to assets in the flood

risk areas.

Moderate

D EON

RWE

EnWB

Minimizing impact of changing water

levels to guarantee continuous energy

provision. Sufficient availability of

cooling water. Minimizing damage to

assets in the floodplain.

Moderate

(Inter)national programs Improving knowledge about and

connecting stakeholders regarding water

issues towards a more sustainable water

management (climate change, flood &

drought prevention)

NL Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma Protecting against flooding by

implementing various measures;

Compliance to the safety norms;

Minimizing budget required for flood

protection measures.

High

Climate KIC Research and implementation;

Connecting various parties regarding

water related issues.

Moderate

Netherlands Water Partnership (NWP) Support the water sector with export

and international cooperation.

More impact aboard by working

together with other Dutch profit and

non-profit organisations.

High

D Climate waterways (KLIWAS) Research on climate-induced changes

of flows and water levels in navigable

inland waterways;

Participating in finding strategies for

adaptation to changed environmental

conditions.

High


62


Category

Name stakeholder


interest

International Commission for the

Protection of the Rhine (Internationale

Kommission zum Schutze des Rheins

IKSR)

Protection of the water areas and their

adjoining habitats;

Assess technical issues arising from

the implementation of European law.

High

Interreg EuRegio Maas-Rhein Protection;

Stimulating, financing and supporting

projects related to water issues.

Moderate

Life + Protection;

Stimulating, financing and supporting

projects related to water issues.

Moderate

EFRE (European Regional Development

Fund) Protection;

Funding.

Low

Organization (privat/ NGO)

NL Forestry Commission (Staatsbosbeheer)

Society for the Preservation of Nature

(Vereniging Natuurmonumenten)

Het Gelders Landschap & Kastelen

Het Utrechts Landschap

Natural water levels.

Ecosystem development and protection.

Landscape protection and restoration.

Moderate

D Regional NGO’s for nature protection and

management (NABU, BUND, Wassernetz

NRW)

Natural water levels.

Ecosystem development and protection.

Landscape protection and restoration.

Moderate

Int. International Society of City and Regional

Planners (ISOCARP)

The improvement of planning practice

through the creation of a global and active

network of practitioners. Restoring

disturbed waterways to create focus for

renewal. Restoration of water resources to

support cities and regions.

Moderate

Int. WWF Wetland restoration, ecosystem

development, increased habitat for flora

and fauna.

Moderate

D Insurance companies

SwissRe

Allianz

Municre

GDV (Zürs)

Minimizing flood and drought risk and

its resulting financial impact. Minimizing

payment of indemnities.

Moderate

Knowledge institutions

NL Alterra

UNESCO-IHE

Deltares

University of Wageningen

TU Delft

Foundation of Applied Research Water

Management (Stichting Toegepast

Onderzoek Waterbeheer STOWA)

Gaining, sharing and

‘implementing/using’ knowledge.

Low



63

Category

Name stakeholder


interest

D Water Technology Center Karlsruhe

IWW (Rheinisch-Westfälisch) Institute for

water research

University of Aken

University of Kaiserslautern

Karlsruhe Institute for Technology

Gaining, sharing and

‘implementing/using’ knowledge.

Low

NL/

D

Tourism sector/ recreation Minimizing flood risk and damage

after a possible flood.

Reducing the days companies are out

of service due to extreme water

levels.

Low


64


Annex VI: List of stakeholders to partner

with in Dusseldorf

Field of expertise Department/ Position Contact person

Mayor of the city of Düsseldorf Thomas Geisel (SPD)

Minister for Environment Johannes Remmel (Grüne)

Approvals and permits under

water law

Environmental issues; Environmental

department; Germany

Ruth Meyer (89-26847);

[email protected];

Holger Stürmer (89-26850);

[email protected]

Flood areas, permits Environmental issues; Environmental

department; Germany

Elke Korn (89-25062);

[email protected]

Flood protection: application

for approval by the dyke

supervision authorities within

the dyke protection zones (up

to 100 m away from the base

of the dyke) on the Rhine and

the backwater dykes pursuant

to the Dyke Protection

Ordinance (DSchVO)

Building approval municipal water

treatment company; Germany

Kristian Lütz (89-92771);

[email protected]

Water supervision of surface

water

Environmental issues; Environmental

department; Germany

Elke Korn (89-25062);

[email protected]

Water, surface: protective

zones

Environmental issues; municipal water

treatment company; Germany

Kristian Lütz (89-92771);

[email protected]

Water management Government directorates

(Bezirksregierung) - Water

Management, including equipment-

related environment protection

(Dezernat 54: Wasserwirtschaft -

einschl. anlagenbezogener

Umweltschutz)

Axel-Walter Sindram (0211 475 3141);

[email protected]

Water management Government directorates

(Bezirksregierung) - Water

Management, including equipment-

related environment protection

(Dezernat 54: Wasserwirtschaft -

einschl. anlagenbezogener

Umweltschutz)

Matthias Börger (0211 475 2445);

[email protected]

Ministry of Climate Protection ,

Environment, Agriculture, Conversation

and Consumer Affairs of the State of

North Rhine-Westphalia;

IV Waste Management, Soil

Head of division Hans-Jostef Düwel

(337338);

Gerhard Odenkrichen (337330)

http://www.duesseldorf.de/buergerinfo/19/index.shtml


mailto:[email protected]


















65

Field of expertise Department/ Position Contact person

Conservation, Water Management ;

Unit IV-5 Water management policy,

surface and ground water quality, water

supply

Ministry of Climate Protection ,

Environment, Agriculture, Conversation

and Consumer Affairs of the State of

North Rhine-Westphalia;

IV Waste Management, Soil

Conservation, Water Management;

Unit IV-6 River Basin Management,

Ecohydrology, Flood protection

Head of division Hans-Jostef Düwel

(337338);

Monika Raschke (337912)


66


References

Bureau Stroming, 2014. H2O-online, 24 September 2014.

Emeritus, 2012. Natural water retention measures. In Science for Environment Policy, DG Environment

News Alert Service. Thematic Issue, Issue 32. May 2012.

CPB (2005): MKBA Ruimte voor de Rivier.

ICPR, 2012. Evaluatie van de effectiviteit van maatregelen ter verlaging van de hoogwaterstanden in

de Rijn. Uitvoering van het Actieplan Hoogwater in de periode 1995-2010 en vooruitblik naar 2020 en

2020+. Rapport nr. 199.

ICPR, Abstract ICPR tool, received 10-10-2014.

IRMA, 2002. IRMA-Sponge. Towards sustainable flood risk management in the Rhine and Meuse River

basins. Proceedings of IRMA-SPONGE final working conference. NCR-publication 17-2002.

JRC, 2012. JRC scientific and policy reports. Evaluation of the effectiveness of natural water retention

measures. Support to the EU Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Waters. Report EUR 25551 EN.

Province of Gelderland, 2012. Water shortage and climate adaptation in the Rhine Basin. Inspiration

document. Based on the International Rhine Basin Conference. 29-31 October 2012, Kleve.

Aalbers, R., 2009. Discounting investments in mitigation and adaptation, A dynamic stochastic general

equilibrium approach of climate change, CPB Discussion Paper, No 126

CAP-NET, 2008. Economics in Sustainable Water Management, Training Manual and Facilitator’s

Guide, In partnership with Global Water Partnership, EU water Initiative and UNDP

Deltares, 2011. Maatschappelijke Kosten-Baten Analyses Waterveiligheid 21e eeuw, commisioned by

RWS, report No. 1204144-006-ZWS-0012

Dubgaard, A. 2003, Cost-benefit analysis of wetland restoration, Paper presented at the conference:

Towards Natural Flood Reduction Strategies. International Conference under the auspices of the

European Union’s 5th Framework Programme, Warsaw, 8-10 September, 2003

Dubgaard, A., Kallesøe, M.F., Ladenburg, J. and M.L. Petersen, 2003, Cost-benefit analysis of the

Skjern river restoration in Denmark, in: R. Brouwer & D. Pearce (Eds.): Cost-Benefit Analysis and

Water Resources Management, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK

Ecorys, 2009, Werkwijzer MKBA van integrale gebiedsontwikkeling, commissioned by VROM

Eijgenraam, C.J.J., 2005. Veiligheid tegen overstromen, Kosten-batenanalyse voor Ruimte voor de

Rivier, deel 1, CPB report No 82, ISBN 90-5833-212-8 ISBN 90-5833-212-8

Emerton, L., Bos, E. Value. Counting Ecosystems as an Economic Part of Water Infrastructure, IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 88 pp.

IUCN, 2003, Tana River, Kenya: integrating downstream values into hydropower planning, Case

Studies in Wetland Valuation, no 6

Kuhlman, T., Michels, R. and B. Groot, 2010, Kosten en Baten van Bodembeheer: Maatregelen tegen

winderosie, veen afbbraak en ondergrondverdichting, LEI-rapport 2010-058

van der Flier, A. and F. Rosenberg, 2009. MKBA Drentse beken, Een onderzoek naar de effecten van

beekherstel, commisioned by Province Drenthe, report no. P12080

Rhine Corridor, 2013. A Green Rhine Corridor, Future Proofing Western Europe’s Largest River for

People, Nature and the Economy

Ruijgrok, E.C.M., Brouwer. R., and H. Verbruggen, 2004. Waardering van Natuur, Water en Bodem in

Maatschappelijke Kosten-batenanalyses, Aanvulling op de Leidraad OEI, commissioned by Dutch

ministries of LNV, V&W, VROM

Witteveen&Bs, MBKA-kengetallen voor omgevingskwaliteiten: aanvuling en actualisering; in opdracht

van en in samenwerking met DVS/SEE Rijkswaterstaat

Zwarts, L., van Beukering, P., Kone. B, and E. Wymenga, 2005. The Niger, a Lifeline: Effective Water

Management in the Upper Niger Basin, Wetlands International Publication, 304 pages



67

Colofon

SCOPING STUDY: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS GREEN RHINE CORRIDOR

OPDRACHTGEVER:

Mr. F.J. van Zadelhoff

Ministry of Economic Affairs

AUTEUR:

Henrico de Groot (ARCADIS)

Iris de Jongh (ARCADIS)

Wim Braakhekke (Stroming)

Alfons van Winde (Stroming)

Arnold van Krefeld (Stroming)

Frank van Weert (Wetlands Int.)

Chris Baker (Wetlands Int.)

GECONTROLEERD DOOR:

Niek Reichart (ARCADIS)

VRIJGEGEVEN DOOR:

Henrico de Groot (ARCADIS)

18 december 2014

078122124:A

ARCADIS NEDERLAND BV

Mercatorplein 1

Postbus 1018

5200 BA 's-Hertogenbosch

Tel 073 6809 211

Fax 073 6144 606

www.arcadis.nl

Handelsregister 09036504

©ARCADIS. Alle rechten voorbehouden. Behoudens uitzonderingen door de

wet gesteld, mag zonder schriftelijke toestemming van de rechthebbenden niets

uit dit document worden verveelvoudigd en/of openbaar worden gemaakt door

middel van druk, fotokopie, digitale reproductie of anderszins.

SCOPING STUDY: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS GREEN RHINE …

Documents

Transcript of SCOPING STUDY: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS GREEN RHINE …