Management measures analysis and comparison

Expected impact on beneficiaries
The results of the ecosystem services assessment regarding different beneficiary groups can be taken from table 27.
The expected measure impact for indirect and future use of ES is neutral to very positive. More measures are expected to be very positive in view of future use meaning that they generate a more long term positive expected impact. Since there is almost no impact on the provisioning services, no expected impact on direct ES use has to be stated.
Regarding the local, regional and global use of ES, neutral to very positive impact for local and regional use is expected while the anticipated impact for global use of ES is neutral or slightly positive.

The expected impact of the TIDE measures on the different beneficiaries is very similar (mainly indirect and future and mainly local and regional). This is also a consequence of the measures selection (s.a.), but moreover of the list of ES considered. The selected list of the 20 most relevant ES for estuaries consists of 1 habitat service, 3 provisioning services, 12 regulating services and 4 cultural services. Hence, the overall expected impact on the beneficiaries is dominated by the regulating services (which is mostly linked to indirect and future use and to local and regional use). If -for instance- the regulating services would be more clustered and provisioning services would be split up into more categories, this would also change the global image of the expected impact.

5.2.1.3 Conflicts and synergistic effects regarding to uses

The indication of conflicts and synergistic effects regarding uses that occurred in the course of measure planning and implementation was estimated on a case-by-case level based on expert judgement (insider perspective). The results for the TIDE measures can be taken from the measure surveys (chapter 3.1) and the measure analysis results (chapter 3.2).
In 13 out of 39 measure examples the main conflicts that derived from the measure implementation were specified.
Most of the conflicts (~60%) that were observed during the implementation of the examined measures, occurred between the new management targets of the site and former uses that were now impossible or restricted (e.g. agricultural use, hunting, recreation). Regarding the realignment sites were new dykes had to be build safety concerns of the local inhabitants were seen as conflicts.
Additionally the insufficient attainment of the stated development targets because of too high sedimentation rates on the sites was seen as a conflict.

The synergistic effects that can be high-lighted in almost every measure are the combination of flood protection, nature conservation and recreational purposes. In four measure examples synergistic effects between maintenance dredging (sediment management) and nature conservation can be observed.

5.2.2 Results of execution of additional evaluation criteria in view of EU environmental law

5.2.2.1 Conflicts and synergistic effects regarding WFD

The aim of this part of the measure analysis was to roughly estimate possible measure effects in view of WFD aims in order to map potential benefits and conflicts that can be expected due to the implementation of management measures in estuaries.

First step: Pressures screening
The estimation of potential conflicts and synergistic effects of measures in view of WFD aims was based on the identification of the main pressures the estuary zones of the TIDE estuaries are affected by (pressures screening). To identify the main pressures, a survey was developed by NLWKN and filled in in the course of expert meetings (Regional Working Group meetings) held at the four TIDE estuaries. The survey can be taken in detail from annex 10.2 (Table 38 - 42). As a result, the main pressures indicated in table 28 were identified.

Table 28: Results of expert meetings held at the TIDE estuaries to identify main pressures regarding different salinity zones (f = freshwater zone, o = oligohaline zone, m = mesohaline zone, p = polyhaline zone). Relevant main pressures for the TIDE estuaries highlighted in grey

State Indicators		Main pressure for
Code*	Indicator	Humber	Scheldt	Elbe	Weser
1.1	Habitat loss and degradation during the last 100 years: Intertidal	+ (m,p)	+ (f,o,m,p)	+ (f,o,m,p)	+ (f,o,m,p)
-	Habitat loss and degradation during the last 100 years: Subtidal	-	-	+ (f,o,m,p)	+ (f,o,m,p)
1.4	Gross change in morphology during the last about 100 years	+ (o,m)	-	+ (f,o,m)	+ (f,o,m)
1.5	Gross change of the hydrographic regime during the last 100 years	-	+ (f,o,m)	+ (f)	+ (f,o,m)
3.1/3.2	Decrease of water and sediment chemical quality	+ (o)	+ (f,o,m,p)	+ (f,o,m,p)	+ (p)
3.3	Increased chemical loads on organisms	-	+ (p)	-	-
3.4	Decrease of microbial quality	-	-	-	-
3.8	Aesthetic pollution	-	-	-	-
Driver Indicators		Main pressure for
Code*	Indicator	Humber	Scheldt	Elbe	Weser
1.3	Land claim during the last about 100 years	-	+ (f,o,m)	+ (f,o)	+ (f,o,m)
1.7	Relative Sea Level Rise	+ (m)	+(f,o,m,p)	+ (p)	+ (f,p)
2.3	Discharge of nutrients and/or harmful substances	-	-	+ (f,o,m,p)	+ (p)
2.6	Capital dredging	+ (p)	+ (p)	+ (f,o,m,p)	+ (f,o,m,p)
2.4	Maintenance dredging	+ (m,p)	+ (f,o)	+ (m)	+ (o,m)
2.5a	Relocation of dredged material	+ (m,p)	-	-	-
2.9	Aquaculture	-	-	-	-
2.10	Fisheries activities	-	-	-	-
2.8	Wind farm development	-	-	-	-
2.11	Marina developments	-	-	-	-
2.12	Port developments	+ (m,p)	+ (m,p)	-	-
-	Industrial development	-	-	-	-
2.13	Installation of pipelines and cables	+ (m)	-	-	-
2.14	Oil and gas exploration and production	-	-	-	-
2.16	Tourism and recreation	-	-	-	-

*Codes for EII according to Aubry and Elliott 2006; EII without indication of code were added in the frame of TIDE

The results of the pressures screening as represented in table 28 show that the range of potential main pressures in view of the TIDE estuaries was well covered by the EIIs given. This statement can be underpinned by the fact that the option of introducing additional EIIs was not seized at the four TIDE estuaries.

Second step: Estimation of measure effects
For each TIDE measure, potential effects in view of the main pressures identified for the estuary zone where the measure is situated were indicated according to a simple valuation system (very positive, positive, no effects, negative effects, very negative effects) and additionally briefly described. A potential positive measure effect in view of a main pressure is interpreted as an indication of effectiveness in view of WFD objectives respectively in view of WFD quality elements. A potential negative effect is interpreted as an indication of conflicts in view of WFD requirements respectively in view of WFD quality elements. This interpretation is based on the hypothesis that a measure is the most effective if it tackles the main pressures the respective estuary zone is affected by and consequently in that case also has positive effects in view of the WFD quality elements. The results of the estimation of measure effects for all TIDE measures are compiled in table 29.

Table 29: Indication of measures with very positive and positive effects on main pressures of the TIDE estuaries (classification by measure categories). Measures without indication of effects in view of WFD aims not included; measures assigned to more than one measure category highlighted in grey.

Measure category	No.	Estuary	Measure example	Number of pressures positively effected by measure	Percentage of pressures positively affected by measure (%)
Hydrology/Morphology	01	Elbe	Spadenlander Busch	5/7	71
	02	Elbe	Medemrinne Ost	3/7	43
	03	Elbe	Current deflection wall	0/7	0
	04	Elbe	Bunthaus	0/7	0
	05	Elbe	Sediment trap Wedel	0/7	0
	13	Scheldt	Lippenbroek	5/6	83
	19	Scheldt	Sediment relocation Ketelplaat	1/6	17
	20	Scheldt	Walsoorden 2004	1/6	17
	21	Scheldt	Walsoorden 2006	1/6	17
	22	Scheldt	Sandbars 2010	3/6	50
Average percentage (%)					21*
Biology/Ecology	01	Elbe	Spadenlander Busch	5/7	71
	06	Elbe	Hahnöfer Nebenelbe	2/7	29
	07	Elbe	Wrauster Bogen	2/7	29
	08	Elbe	Hahnöfer Sand	2/7	29
	09	Elbe	Spadenlander Spitze	1/7	14
	10	Elbe	Reed settlement Haken	2/7	29
	13	Scheldt	Lippenbroek	5/6	83
	14	Scheldt	Groynes Waarde	1/6	17
	15	Scheldt	Ketenisse wetland	4/6	67
	16	Scheldt	Paddebeek wetland	6/6	100
	17	Scheldt	Paardenschoor wetland	6/6	100
	18	Scheldt	Heusden LO wetland	6/6	100
	23	Scheldt	Fish pond	2/6	33
	24	Weser	Tegeler Plate	5/6	83
	25	Weser	Rönnebecker Sand	5/6	83
	26	Weser	Vorder- und Hinterwerder	5/6	83
	27	Weser	Kleinensieler Plate	5/6	83
	28	Weser	Cappel-Süder-Neufeld	3/6	50
	29	Weser	Werderland	5/6	83
	30	Humber	Alkborough	2/2	100
	31	Humber	Paull Holme Strays	2/5	40
	33	Humber	Chowder Ness	6/6	100
	34	Humber	Welwick	6/6	100
	35	Humber	Klinsea Wetlands	6/6	100
	36	Humber	South Humber Gateway Roosting	6/6	100
Average percentage (%)					67*
Physical/ Chemical Quality	11	Elbe	METHA	1/7	14
	12	Elbe	Managing Reiherstieg sluice	1/7	14
	05	Elbe	Sediment trap Wedel	0/7	0
Average percentage (%)					14*

*Calculation of average percentage does not include measures assigned to more than one measure category (highlighted in grey)

Summarising, the vast majority of measures originally was not designed to meet WFD requirements. However, multiple very positive or positive measure effects in view of main pressures were indicated and described or neutral effects were stated while an indication of negative effects did not take place. Thus, in many cases several potential synergistic effects in view of WFD requirements can be stated although the measure design did not specifically consider these. This especially refers to measures assigned to measure category ‘Biology/Ecology’ (67% of the pressures are positively affected, Table 29).

Conflicts and synergistic effects regarding Natura 2000

In order to map possible conflicts and synergistic effects of management measures in view of Natura 2000 aims, potential measure effects on available conservation objectives were estimated.
Since large parts of the TIDE estuaries are designated as Natura 2000 sites, most TIDE measures are situated within protected areas according to the Birds and the Habitat Directive (Table 30, Figure 8). This also means that Natura 2000 requirements necessarily will have to be considered in the course of future measure planning and implementation processes.

Table 30: Measures situated and not situated in Natura 2000 sites with indication of geotype (area, point, line), measures outside of Natura 2000 sites highlighted in grey

No.	Estuary	Measure example	Geotype	Measure situated in Natura 2000 site(s)?			Site code(s)
				yes		no
				HD	BD
01	Elbe	Spadenlander Busch	Area	x	-	-	DE 2526-305
02		Medemrinne Ost	Area	x	x	-	DE 2323-392; DE 2323-401
03		Current deflection wall	Line	-	-	x	DE 2526-305
04		Bunthaus	Point	-	-	x	-
05		Sediment trap Wedel	Area	x	-	-	DE 2323-392
06		Hahnöfer Nebenelbe	Area	x	x	-	DE 2018-331; DE 2424-302; DE 2424-401
07		Wrauster Bogen	Area	-	-	x	DE 2526-305
08		Hahnöfer Sand	Area	x	x	-	DE 2424-302
09		Spadenlander Spitze	Area	x	-	-	DE 2526-305
10		Reed settlement Haken	Area	-	-	x	-
11		METHA	Point	-	-	x	-
12		Managing Reiherstieg sluice	Area	-	-	x	-
13	Scheldt	Lippenbroek	Area	x	x	-	BE 2300-006; BE 2301-235
14		Groynes Waarde	Line	x	x	-	NL 9803-061; NL 9802-026
15		Ketenisse wetland	Area	x	x	-	BE 2300-006; BE 2301-336
16		Paddebeek wetland	Area	x	-	-	BE 2300-006
17		Paardenschoor wetland	Area	x	x	-	BE 2300-006; BE 2301-336
18		Heusden LO wetland	Area	x	-	-	BE 2300-006
19		Sediment relocation Ketelplaat	Area	x	-	-	BE 2300-006
20		Walsoorden 2004	Area	x	x	-	NL 9803-061; NL 9802-026
21		Walsoorden 2006	Area	x	x	-	NL 9803-061; NL 9802-026
22		Sandbars 2010	Area	x	x	-	NL 9803-061; NL 9802-026
23		Fish pond	Area	-	-	x	-
24	Weser	Tegeler Plate	Area	x	x	-	DE 2316-331; DE 2617-401
25		Rönnebecker Sand	Area	x	-	-	DE 2516-331
26		Vorder- und Hinterwerder	Area	-	x	-	DE 2918-401
27		Kleinensieler Plate	Area	x	-	-	DE 2316-331
28		Cappel-Süder-Neufeld	Area	x	x	-	DE 2306-301; DE 2210-401
29		Werderland	Area	-	x	-	DE 2817-401
30	Humber	Alkborough	Area	x	x	-	UK 0030-170; UK 9006-111
31		Paull Holme Strays	Area	x	x	-	UK 0030-170; UK 9006-111
32		MudBug	Area	x	x	-	UK 0030-170; UK 9006-111
33		Chowder Ness	Area	x	x	-	UK 0030-170; UK 9006-111
34		Welwick	Area	x	x	-	UK 0030-170; UK 9006-111
35		Klinsea Wetlands	Area	x	x	-	UK 0030-170; UK 9006-111
36		South Humber Gateway Roosting	Area	-	x	-	UK 9006-111
37		Trent falls	Area	x	x	-	UK 0030-170; UK 9006-111
38		Donna Nook and Skeffling	Area	x	x	-	UK 0030-170; UK 9006-111
39		Turnstall Realignment	Area	-	-	x	-

First and second step: Effectiveness regarding conservation objectives for defined spatial units and overall conservation objectives
The results of the measure effect estimation regarding Natura 2000 conservation objectives for all TIDE measures are compiled in table 31.

Table 31: Overview on measures with potential very positive or positive effects on Natura 2000 conservation objectives (classification by measure categories)

Measure category	No.	Estuary	Measure example	Number of conservation objectives positively effected by measure	Number of conservation objectives very positively effected by measure	Percentage of conservation objectives very positively or positively affected by measure (%)
Hydrology/Morphology	01	Elbe	Spadenlander Busch	5/6	0/6	83
	02	Elbe	Medemrinne Ost	1/6	0/6	17
	03	Elbe	Current deflection wall	0/6	0/6	0
	04	Elbe	Bunthaus	0/6	0/6	0
	05	Elbe	Sediment trap Wedel	1/8	0/8	13
	13	Scheldt	Lippenbroek	0/2	2/2	100
	19	Scheldt	Sediment relocation Ketelplaat	0/1	0/1	0
	20	Scheldt	Walsoorden 2004	1/5	0/5	20
	21	Scheldt	Walsoorden 2006	1/5	0/5	20
	22	Scheldt	Sandbars 2010	6/11	0/11	55
Average percentage (%)						16*
Biology/Ecology	01	Elbe	Spadenlander Busch	5/6	0/6	83
	06	Elbe	Hahnöfer Nebenelbe	4/8	0/8	50
	07	Elbe	Wrauster Bogen	4/6	0/6	67
	08	Elbe	Hahnöfer Sand	6/8	0/6	75
	09	Elbe	Spadenlander Spitze	4/6	0/6	67
	10	Elbe	Reed settlement Haken	0/6	0/6	0
	13	Scheldt	Lippenbroek	0/2	2/2	100
	14	Scheldt	Groynes Waarde	2/3	1/3	100
	15	Scheldt	Ketenisse wetland	1/27	9/27	37
	16	Scheldt	Paddebeek wetland	1/1	0/1	100
	17	Scheldt	Paardenschoor wetland	10/27	0/27	37
	18	Scheldt	Heusden LO wetland	1/1	0/1	100
	23	Scheldt	Fish pond	2/7	0 of 7	29
	24	Weser	Tegeler Plate	11/24	11/24	92
	25	Weser	Rönnebecker Sand	16/22	5/22	95
	26	Weser	Vorder- und Hinterwerder	15/22	4/22	86
	27	Weser	Kleinensieler Plate	16/24	4/24	83
	28	Weser	Cappel-Süder-Neufeld	9/24	2/24	91
	29	Weser	Werderland	14/22	6/22	91
	30	Humber	Alkborough	0/1	1/1	100
	31	Humber	Paull Holme Strays	0/1	1/1	100
	33	Humber	Chowder Ness	1/1	0/1	100
	34	Humber	Welwick	1/1	0/1	100
	35	Humber	Klinsea Wetlands	1/1	0/1	100
	36	Humber	South Humber Gateway Roosting	1/1	0/1	100
Average percentage (%)						78*
Physical/ Chemical Quality	11	Elbe	METHA	0/6	0/6	0
	12	Elbe	Managing Reiherstieg sluice	2/6	0/6	33
	05	Elbe	Sediment trap Wedel	1/8	0/8	13
Average percentage (%)						37*

*Calculation of average percentage does not include measures assigned to more than one measure category (highlighted in grey)

Summarizing, the vast majority of measures originally was not designed to meet Natura 2000 requirements. However, especially for measure of category ‘Biology/Ecology’, various potential positive or very positive effects in view of the available conservation objectives were stated and described.

Crux of the matter

The results of this part of the measure analysis on a case-by-case basis can be taken from the measure surveys or the measure analysis results available via www.tide-toolbox.eu.

In summery it can be stated that within every estuary comparable experiences were made. In the context of the executed management measures (almost realignments) it is announced very often that unpredictable changes in the persistence of the new-built sides occur (e.g. through high sedimentation rates on the side). A conflict of aims between targeted habitat type and the idea of self-preserving nature occurred then very often. A recommendation that is given in a lot of measure examples is, that an adaptive management is needed (measures no.14, 16, 26 & 08) in order to react on changing conditions and additionally accept that some habitats could not exists without management, especially on realignment sides where a lack of natural dynamics occurred (measures no.30, 31 & 05). It may be necessary to consider the creation of compensatory mudflat or shallow water area, as a temporary solution which may not persist forever (measures no 31, 30 & 06). If the management targets were formulated with a wider perspective favourable conditions could evolve without a lot of management effort (measure no 09). Positive experiences like the self-preserving creek system at the Tegeler Plate (measure no 19) as well as the Walsoorden examinations (measures no 19-22) should be analysed in detail to make it possible to transfer the experiences to other projects within the estuary and among other estuaries. To enhance the success of a measure an early stakeholder involvement is necessary (measure no 01).

In almost every “crux of the matter” description the necessity of the enhancing knowledge on estuarine functioning and the development of side specific conditions for a beneficial measure implementation is highlighted.