Conference Agenda

The aim of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) is to achieve a “good” chemical and ecological status for all waters by 2027. Achieving this aim however is no easy task. The Greek philosopher Thales of Milete already argued that in the end everything is water. This may be a bit over the top, but it is fair to argue that water quality stressors are manifold. They range from point source waste water discharges to diffuse run offs from land, sediments and atmospheric deposition to water bed modifications and the introduction of invasive species. Each stressor may be addressed by different agents and different modes of governance may be manifest. Aim of this paper is to develop an empirically grounded model on the governability of biodiversity in surface waters. The model will emphasize the conditions under which different modes of governance will result in ecologically beneficial synergies. By reviewing academic literature we will identify factors that stimulate or hamper a successful performance of a mode of governance. We will make a distinction between centralized, decentralized, public-private, interactive and self-governance. In a next step we will argue under which conditions these modes may reinforce each other. The resulting model will be used in an empirical assessment of several case studies on the (successful) implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands. In each case we will identify in what way governing actors have addressed water quality stressors, what results have been booked and what factors have influenced this. The analysis is based on in-depth review of national Dutch guiding documents for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, regional policy documents and expert interviews. The case study findings will be synthesized into a model for successful governance of biodiversity in surface waters in the Netherlands. We will extrapolate our results and conclude the paper with some suggestions for a good meta-governance of water quality in Europe and beyond.

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are ecosystem-based approaches that address societal challenges while simultaneously benefiting people and nature [1]. NbS have seen an increase in popularity recently thanks to its benefits to support climate adaptation and increase climate resilience, including heat stress mitigation or flood control. While ecological benefits are clear, the literature also acknowledges the negative impacts on already vulnerable communities such as deepening exclusion and green gentrification due to the interaction between NbS with existing social processes of inequalities or segregation [2]. Questions of social justice are still to be addressed [2,3].

In this paper, we aim to understand how NbS interact spatially with existing inequalities in the city by taking a socio-ecological approach. The interactions between people and nature are represented using the concept of ecosystem services. The ecosystem services concept captures the links between nature and human well-being, offering ways to understand where and when nature-based solutions deliver these benefits [3]. The concept also accounts for disservices and, thus, enables the assessment of trade-offs between social and ecological (dis)services associated with NbS [3]. Our case study focuses on the city of Cape Town, South Africa. The city has suffered from intense drought periods and is currently engaging with NbS measures to increase drought resilience. Cape Town also faces challenges associated with historical segregation processes.

Using a data-driven approach, we estimate the spatial scope of NbS across Cape Town. By mapping the spatial distribution of NbS ecosystem (dis)services against existing social inequalities, we identify areas of socio-ecological synergy and exposure. In synergy areas, NbS have the potential to address ecological (climate) challenges and social inequalities simultaneously. In contrast, exposure areas present the risk of intensifying both ecological and social issues due to NbS implementation. We also explore areas of trade-off, in which the enhancement of one ecosystem service leads to the reduction of another. These results contribute to (1) a comprehensive spatial understanding of the trade-offs between ecosystem services and disservices and (2) the development of evidence-based NbS planning and policy that incorporates social justice.

Nature-based solutions (NBSs) can play an important role in adaptation to climate change in river systems. River restoration, space for water, and other strategies to enhance the natural water storage capacity of river systems may play an important role in both drought and flood management. Differently from grey infrastructure, NBSs may also contribute to other agendas, such as nature development and biodiversity restoration. This paper presents the results of in-depth research on the implementation of NBSs within a cross-border river system, the Vechte-Dinkel river system shared by Germany and the Netherlands. Document analysis, in-depth interviews, and workshops revealed major challenges of coordination across (1) policy sectors, such as water management, spatial planning, nature policy and agriculture, (2) levels of government, such as EU, national and regional governments, and (3) national borders. In the paper it is first shown how both institutional and discursive factors hinder the coordination needed for the implementation of NBSs in the Vechte-Dinkel river system. Institutional factors concern the differences in planning systems, planning cultures, procedures and accustomed practices. Discursive differences concern the different meanings given to (the role of nature in) climate change adaptation within Germany and the Netherlands. Secondly, it is shown how a selective group of policy entrepreneurs managed to overcome these differences and coordination issues by initiating pilot projects with NBSs, seizing windows of opportunity, using discursive strategies, building networks and generating financial resources for their implementation. By doing so they not only managed to set up pilot projects but also contributed to the internal growth of these pilots.

River systems naturally contribute to territorial valorisation through ecological continuity and reticularity. Developing policies and governance tools is however necessary to define ecological projects at the regional and local scales. Over the last 10 years, in France and Italy, many experimentations have been developed to strengthen the role of nature in cities and territories, enhance resilience and biodiversity, and meet United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). On the one hand, Italy has developed methods and guidelines and implemented planning actions to encourage the development of rural and urban ecological networks (for example, in 2014, the Province of Turin approved the “Linee Guida per la Rete Ecologica” - Guidelines for the Ecological Network within the framework of the provincial plan). Meanwhile, other governance tools, such as the River Agreements, were promoted to guide the development of nature-based solutions (NBS). On the other hand, France has developed a set of strategies (called “Trames Vertes et Bleues”), through different levels of government and spatial scales to promote and valorise biodiversity, starting from the river landscape. Ecological valorisation occurs through ecological patterns (the “trame”), but, additionally, other methods exist to evaluate the ecological functionality of territories (for example, River Agreements are functional to valorise water quality). From this perspective, we aim to compare different models by highlighting positive and critical aspects and measuring their effectiveness in terms of ecological restoration. In addition, the paper discusses how governance tools, guidelines and planning actions may contribute to coordination across governance levels and territorial scales, thus overcoming these as possible implementation barriers.