Constructed Wetlands and Flood Control
A Synthesis of Four Baltic COMPASS Case Studies
Part I: Background Report – September 2012
Anuschka Heeb
SWEDISH BOARD OF AGRICULTURE & HELCOM
With input from the case study authors:
Kati Berninger, Kim Andersson, Waldemar Mioduszewski and Åse Johannessen
and other Baltic Compass colleagues
1
Author contact:
Anuschka Heeb
Swedish Board of Agriculture & HELCOM
[email protected]
Cover photo:
Constructed wetland in Åby, Östergötland, Sweden
/Anuschka Heeb, Länsstyrelsen Östergötland
Acknowledgments
My special thanks go to the case study authors Kati Berninger, Kim Andersson, Waldemar Mioduszewski
and Åse Johannessen, for their valuable inputs, comments and corrections on the manuscript as well as to
Malgorzata Przychodzka, ITEP, for translating help from Polish, and to Linda Johansson, HELCOM, for
valuable comments.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this synthesis are those of the main author, and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the contributing case study authors or institutions
2
Index
Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 3
The four case studies ....................................................................................................................... 3
Background..................................................................................................................................... 3
Summaries of the Case Studies................................................................................................................ 7
Constructed Wetlands in Finnish Agricultural Environments: Balancing Between Effective Water
Protection and Multi-functionality.................................................................................................... 7
Multifunctional Wetlands and Stakeholder Engagement - Lessons from Sweden................................. 8
Water Management in Cross-Boundary River Valley in the Light of Limiting of the Flood Impact on
Water Quality - The Case Study of the Bug River, Poland ..................................................................10
Integrating Flood and Nutrient Management – Opportunities for Addressing Multiple Benefits for
Urban Development, Wetland Values and Agriculture? The case study of Kristianstad, Sweden ..........12
Construction of Wetlands – Lessons Learned...........................................................................................14
Enabling factors for construction of wetlands ..................................................................................14
Barriers that restrict the construction of wetlands............................................................................15
Flood Protection and Water Quality Management, Preservation of Natural Buffers – Lessons Learned.......16
Enabling factors for flood protection and water quality management................................................16
Barriers to implementation of flood protection and water quality management measures .................17
Key Points and Future Challenges for Further Discussion at the Workshop................................................19
Acknowledgment of ecosystem services ..........................................................................................19
Cooperation between sectors .........................................................................................................19
Financial support............................................................................................................................20
Flexibility for local adaption ............................................................................................................20
Planning measures in a larger context .............................................................................................21
Part II Dialogue Report: Regional Wetlands and Flood-Control Workshop, 25-26 September 2012 in
Kristianstad, Sweden..............................................................................................................................21
References ............................................................................................................................................22
3
Introduction
This synthesis report summarizes and compares lessons learned through four case studies on wetlands and
flood control conducted within Baltic COMPASS. The report (Part I) is prepared as background reading for
the “Regional Wetland/Flood control Dialogue Workshop” 25-26 September 2012 in Kristianstad,
Sweden, and will be completed with outputs from the workshop (Part II). The report may also be used in
future dialogues between stakeholders discussing the need for and use of wetlands for flood control,
nutrient retention, biodiversity, recreation, irrigation and other benefits.
The aim of Baltic Compass is to contribute with solutions to reduce eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.
Through dialogues with national and regional stakeholders, Baltic Compass Work package 6, “Governance
and Policy Adaptation”, tries to identify ways to improve the dialogue and policy development between the
agricultural and environmental sectors. (Baltic Compass Report 2012: Heading towards finish line). At all
levels – local, regional, national and international – ensuring good cooperation among interested parties is
essential.
The four case studies
 Constructed Wetlands in Finnish Agricultural Environments: Balancing Between Effective Water
Protection and Multi-functionality
 Multifunctional Wetlands and Stakeholder Engagement: Lessons from Sweden.
 Water Management in a Cross-Boundary River Valley in the Light of Limiting Flood Impact on Water
Quality - The Case Study of Bug River, Poland.
 Integrating Flood and Nutrient Management - Opportunities for Addressing Multiple Benefits for
Urban Development, Wetland Values and Agriculture? The Case Study of Kristianstad, Sweden
Background
Wetlands, especially constructed wetlands are an agri-environmental measure (AEM) proposed in several
national Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) of the EU Member States, mainly in order to improve
nutrient retention and biodiversity in intensive agricultural areas. The use and implementation of these
measures and the level of subsidies for construction and/or management, vary greatly between the
countries (see, for example, Baltic Deal 2011, p.129, or Salomon et al. 2012).
During the current RDP period, 2007-2013, there is financial support available for construction and
management of wetlands, as well as for management of buffer zones, extensive grassland production and
grazing of meadows. The latter are mentioned here as they can be flooded during some times of the year,
and then to a certain extent have comparable functions to wetlands.

Sweden
o Construction of wetlands: up to 90% of the actual costs (high-priority projects 100%), but a
maximum of ca. €20,000/ha of wetlands, or ca. €30,000/ha for small phosphorus (P)
sedimentation ponds.
4
o
o
o


Management of wetlands: maximum of ca. €400 /ha per year for wetlands located on
former arable land, and ca. €150 /ha per year for wetlands located on former pasture or
other land. Some projects might get additional payments due to high land prices or special
management such as grazing.
Management of buffer zones up to 20 meters wide: ca. €300-400 /ha depending on the
year the measure was implemented. In 2012, payments for new buffer zones were
eliminated.
Extensive grassland production: ca. €30-55/ha per year; grazing of meadows: ca. €130280/ha; payments differ between regions and based on the grasslands’/meadows value
(Baltic Deal 2011; Johannessen 2012).
Finland
o Construction of wetlands: maximum of €11,500 /ha or €3,226 per wetland for 0.3-0.5-ha
wetlands, or lower if actual constructions costs are lower.
o Management of wetlands: maximum of €450 /ha per year, or lower if cost estimate in
management plan is lower (Berninger et al. 2012).
o Management of buffer zones of 15 meters’ width or more: maximum of €350 or €450 /ha
per year, depending on the location (Berninger 2011a).
o Extensive grassland production: €49-55 /ha per year depending on geographic area, grazing
of meadows: maximum of €450 /ha per year; payment depending on management plan,
only “valuable” meadows qualify (Berninger 2011b; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
2007).
Poland
o Construction of wetlands is not supported in the agri-environmental programme. However,
construction of small, shallow ponds is supported in the “water retention” program me.
These ponds are usually initiated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the past 10
years, around 300 ponds have been constructed (Mioduszewski, pers. comm.).
o Support for construction/management of buffer zones has been planned in the agrienvironmental programme, from €10 to €300 per 100 meters for construction/
management of 2- to 5-meter-wide buffer zones. The total length of buffer zones is about
250 km, compared with more than 350,000 km of rivers and ditches in Poland
(Mioduszewski, pers. comm.).
o Management: Payments for extension use of grassland have been planned. The payments
are €120 EUR/ha per year. Meadows and pastures, including Natura 2000 areas, which
have high natural value, are eligible for payments as well. The payments vary from €125 to
€200/ha per year depending on the character of the ecosystem. Most of them are wetland
ecosystems (mainly organic soils) with a high water table. At present more than 150,000 ha
are supported with payments (2% of grassland) (Mioduszewski, pers. comm.).
The differences in measures and payment levels in the national RDP programmes may partly be reflected in
the number of measures implemented in the different countries or even regions within countries (see case
studies below). However, comparisons are sometimes difficult to make, as different countries use different
measures and methodologies.
It is important to remember that Belarus and Ukraine belong to a certain extent to the Baltic Sea Regioncatchment, even though they do not have a coastline facing the Baltic Sea. The Bug River (see case study
below) partly marks the border between Belarus, Ukraine and Poland. As Belarus and Ukraine are not EU
5
Member States they do not have the RDP programmes, agri-environmental measures, financial support and
control systems that EU Member States have. However, Belarus is an associated partner in Baltic Compass,
and contributed therefore with some information concerning the Bug Valley.
Fig 1 Main river basins of the Baltic Sea Region
Source: Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), SNF and CEI (http://www.ccb.se/newsletters/2005/07/map_final.jpg)
Natural wetland ecosystems are endangered all around the world. Wetland ecosystems are important for
biodiversity, but also function as buffering systems for water flow, both during flooding events and
drought. In river valleys with agricultural production, nutrients that leach from fields can negatively affect
water quality during floods. On the other hand, when wetlands or meadows with extensive grassland
production are exposed to flood, they can retain sediments and nutrients from upstream areas and thereby
act as natural buffers against eutrophication in downstream rivers, lakes and coastal waters.
6
In Poland, Sweden and Finland, the most valuable still-existing wetland ecosystems are protected by law.
Four national parks have been established in Poland, to protect wetland areas, swamps and peat bogs.
Across the region, many bogs have been partially drained, and now they are used for agricultural purposes.
Large parts of natural wetland ecosystems were drained in Finland and Sweden, mainly during the past
century, to gain productive arable land. Thus the multiple functions of wetlands were lost, biodiversity
decreased, and the natural buffers during floods and droughts disappeared. The retention capacity for
sediments and nutrients was reduced, and some of the wetlands/valleys are not flooded anymore. Current
trends also do not bode well. Global demand for food and bioenergy is creating pressure to further expand
and intensify agriculture (supported by the EU agricultural policy), which threatens the protection of
wetland ecosystems. In addition, a growing population is concentrating in urban areas and will demand
protection from floods, which are expected to become more frequent as a consequence of climate change.
This development will compete for land with both agriculture and natural ecosystems. Therefore, it is
crucial to raise awareness of the multiple benefits of natural or constructed wetlands, flooded meadows
and similar ecosystems, to protect the remaining ones, enable the construction of new ones where
needed, and engage new actors. That is the focus of the case studies presented here.
7
Summaries of the Case Studies
Constructed Wetlands in Finnish Agricultural Environments: Balancing Between Effective
Water Protection and Multi-functionality
Kati Berninger, Jari Koskiaho and Sirkka Tattari, 20121
This case study analyses the potential for implementation of constructed wetlands in Finland. It explains
the function of wetlands for water purification processes and touches on some of the other benefits, such
as biodiversity, recreation (hunting, swimming, bird-watching), landscape restoration and flood retention.
The study is based on a review of scientific knowledge on wetlands and key documents on wetland
incentives in Finland, plus interviews with key persons involved in wetland construction projects or their
administration.
Areas with a high share of agricultural land, slopes and fine (clay) soil types are identified as “hot spots”
suitable for wetland construction. The P-content of eroded soils depends also on its fertilization history,
and in areas with intensive agricultural (or horticultural) production, the need of wetlands for nutrient
retention is high. The purification processes in wetlands, physical, biological and chemical, need time to
function efficiently. Therefore the residence time of the water in the wetland is a crucial factor. For
placement and dimensioning of wetlands, simple rule-of-thumb recommendations are made based on a
wetland-to-catchment area ratio: the literature suggests a minimum ratio of 0.5% is needed for
satisfactory performance; a 2% ratio is recommended in the USA, and a Finnish wetland monitoring study
(of the Hovi wetland in Vihti) found that a 5% wetland-to-catchment ratio gave 60-70% sediment- and Pretention. It is also emphasized that maximum retention efficiency per hectare of wetland is often reached
in small wetlands, but in order to retain the large quantities of nutrients leaching from upstream
agricultural areas, large wetland areas or chains of many small wetlands would be needed.
In the current RDP program in Finland there is support for building wetlands as “non-productive
investments” and there are also agri-environmental payments available for managing wetlands. The
support is restricted to areas where arable fields cover more than 20% of the catchment area. It can be
used for wetlands or wetland-like flooding areas, and for restoration of a natural streambed. Wetlands
eligible for support need to be at least 0.5% of the upstream catchment area. Support will be paid after
the construction, based on receipts proving the real costs. This means that landowners bear all the costs
during the project and sometimes need to take out loans for financing bigger tasks. This also means that
the applicant takes the risk of paying the planning costs in advance before knowing if th e project will be
accepted for support or not. Landowners’ own work and use of their own machinery is not compensated.
Depending on the location and potential effects of the wetland on a water course, a legal construction
permit might be needed. If so, the application procedure will be even more complicated and time consuming.
Different stakeholders are involved in the construction of wetlands, including:



1
Landowners/farmers who are motivated to apply for a wetlands project;
Neighbours whose consent may be needed;
Planners and advisors with specialized knowledge for construction, and who may also help to guide
applicants through the bureaucratic process;
http://www.balticcompass.org/_blog/Project_Reports/post/Case_study_on_constructed_wetlands_in_Finland/
8




Administrators at the local, regional and national levels, responsible for environmental issues,
agriculture and regional economic development;
Researchers, studying wetlands and influencing decision-making through expert groups;
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which is responsible for agri-environmental payments,
and the Ministry of the Environment, which is responsible for water permits and for the
implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive;
Non-governmental organizations that promote wetlands through public discussion and projects.
Cooperation between all these different stakeholders is crucial for success. Regional civil servants in
particular play a key role in the RDP incentive system, and need to have the motivation and resources to
process applications and follow through with projects. If not, the financial support will not reach its
intended beneficiaries.
Finland had set a national target of 1,626 new wetlands for this RDP period, but at the end of 2011 only 165
positive decisions on investment support had been made (about 10% of the target). At the same time
several projects driven by NGOs or private foundations have constructed wetlands much faster and with
less bureaucracy for landowners. These wetlands were mainly on sites that did not meet the strict eligibility
criteria for RDP investment support. Motivated landowners and projects find other ways and sources to
finance construction of wetlands.
Multifunctional Wetlands and Stakeholder Engagement - Lessons from Sweden
Kim Andersson, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) 2
This case study analyses the reasons why Sweden did not achieve its national target of constructing 12,000
ha of wetlands between 2000 and 2010. By the end of 2010, only about 7,300 ha of wetlands had been
established through different financial support schemes. The report also aims to explain why there are
remarkable regional differences in both the extent of wetlands construction and in the share of wetlands
with high nutrient removal efficiency. It emphasizes the need take a broader perspective of wetlands’
multiple benefits, going beyond nutrient retention to also include biodiversity, flood control, irrigation,
recreation and landscape restoration benefits. The study is based on interviews with key stakeholders in
different organizations and administrative levels, who are involved in wetlands implementation, as well as a
literature review.
The study summarizes different functions of wetlands: For nutrient retention an estimated potential of 34
– 654kg N/ha wetland per year and 4 - 12 kg P/ha per year is reported. For specially designed Psedimentation ponds, the Norwegian experience shows retention potential of as much as 440 kg P/ha per
year. The Swedish Board of Agriculture has set a target for nitrogen reduction through wetlands to 2,100
tonnes per year by 2020. This would require an average reduction capacity of 175 kg N/ha per year. As
nutrient retention efficiency of wetlands varies greatly, location, design, wetland-to-catchment-ratio and
management of wetlands are important factors to consider if these targets are to be reached.
2
http://www.balticcompass.org/_blog/Project_Reports/post/Multifunctional_wetlands_and_stakeholder_engagement
_Lessons_from_Sweden/
9
During the last centuries as much as 90% of the natural wetlands ecosystems in the agricultural plains of
Sweden have been drained, whereby important habitats for wetland-bound species have disappeared. It
was suggested that increased biodiversity can be achieved even with wetlands mainly designed for nutrient
retention. Design and management need to be adapted, such as slopes, islands, shallow and deep sections,
vegetation and variation of water levels. As a result of the extensive drainage of land to gain highly
productive agricultural land, water flows nowadays are directed rapidly through drainage pipes and straight
ditches to downstream natural water courses, rivers and lakes, without considerable retention. The drained
water also transports sediments and nutrients efficiently downstream, thereby contributing to
eutrophication. When precipitation events increase in frequency and intensity (which can be expected with
the projected climate change) the bottlenecks in the constructed drainage system become visible: floods
indicate where wetlands’ buffering capacity would be needed.
Climate change may also increase periods of drought, and in order to sustain agricultural production,
irrigation will be crucial. Today Swedish authorities are not willing to support wetlands as a “productive”
investment, but the combined multiple functions for flood control, nutrient retention, biodiversity and
irrigation reservoir would justify such support. Landscape restoration and recreation, fishing and hunting
are often initial motivating factors for landowners to be willing to construct wetlands. Advice for design and
management is needed to obtain a diversity of wetlands for different purposes. A yet unexplored pote ntial
is the use of wetlands for production of biomass for energy through biogas production. This would today
be classified as a “productive” investment as it would mean an alternative income, and needs further
consideration both for practical implementation and financial support.
In the Swedish RDP there is support for construction of wetlands as “non -productive investments” and
there are agri-environmental payments to support wetlands management. In some Swedish counties even
“special-interest” and Leader budgets are used for financial support of wetlands and stream restoration
projects. Apart from RDP budgets, since 2009, national LOVA (i.e. local water conservation projects) grants
have been used to support wetland projects involving multiple actors. They have even been used in
combination with the RDP support.
The County Administrative Boards (CAB) decide which projects will get support and how much. The criteria
are mainly based on the potential of the wetland to contribute to nutrient retention and biodiversity. This
estimation is quite vague, as no strict guidelines apply. As a rule-of-thumb a wetland-to-catchment area
ratio of 1% is applied in some counties, and priority is given to wetlands with a catchment area of at least
50 ha, and at minimum 70% agricultural area. As for biodiversity, location in “highly intensive agricultural
areas” is used to justify support for small wetlands in some counties. Priority may be given to wetlands
close to downstream watercourses, lakes or sea shore that need protection, big wetlands and inexpensive
projects. Investment support is paid for actual costs, based on receipts, but a part of the total costs for a
project can be reimbursed already during construction. A few years ago it also became possible to apply for
reimbursement of planning costs, especially in prioritized projects when legal water permits need to be
applied for at the Land and Environment Court (Miljödomstolen). Even if the court does not approve the
permit, the planning costs will then be paid through the RDP.
As in Finland, the wetland implementation process in Sweden involves many stakeholders at different
levels, and good cooperation is crucial for a smooth procedure from initial idea to constructed wetland.
Also as in Finland, regional CABs play a key role in the process, as they on one hand are involved in giving
the legal permit for a construction, and on the other hand are prioritizing and approving financial support.
10
Sufficient resources, knowledge, personal interest and motivation at this level can speed up the process
significantly. To facilitate the initial phases, i.e. rough evaluation of a projects effect, needs and feasibility at
a certain location, there is free advisory service for wetland construction and management available
through the national initiative “Focus on Nutrients”.
The Swedish case study identifies four trajectories for wetland projects: initiatives by individual farmers, by
organized groups of farmers, by municipalities, or CABs. Today’s RDP schemes are only set up to support
individual farmer initiatives, but the results to date have been generally quite weak and scattered.
Initiatives by organized farmers, normally led by motivated and knowledgeable key persons or by NGOs,
have shown high potential to achieve large-scale projects. There are also successful examples with
municipality-led initiatives, taking a river basin approach. CAB-led initiatives are less common and may put
CAB officials in conflicting roles.
Water Management in Cross-Boundary River Valley in the Light of Limiting of the Flood Impact
on Water Quality - The Case Study of the Bug River, Poland
Waldemar Mioduszewski, ITEP3
The aim of the Bug River study was to evaluate the impact on water quality of flooding in agricultural areas
in the valley. The study included the analysis of events of nutrients leaching from agricultural soil as well as
threats resulting from the activities carried out on the flood terrace in the valley. At the same time the
possibility of retaining nutrients on the flood terraces during flood has been considered.
Because the Bug River is part of the border between Ukraine, Belarus and Poland, this study also explores
trans-boundary cooperation.
The Bug River catchment is characterized by a natural river bed, with 14% of the catchment on the Polish
side protected by law because of its high natural values. The valley of the Bug River, where natural
ecosystems still exist, is not typical for Polish rivers. The Bug valley is filled with sandy deposits, and the
ground water table decreases rapidly after flood events – in contrast to other valleys, where soils contain
much more organic matter. The biggest cities in the catchment are Chełm (Poland, 70,000 residents), Lvov
(Ukraine, 760,000 residents) and Brest (Belarus, 300,000 residents). Smaller cities in the investigated area
are Terespol (15,000 inhabitants) and Włodawa (28,000 inhabitants), both in Poland. Altogether about 3.7
million people live in the Bug River catchment area.
Forty-five percent of the catchment is arable land. On the Polish side there are mainly small farms ( 44%
smaller than 5 ha, only 15% larger than 50 ha, with fewer than 50 animals in most cattle breeding farms).
The valley is used for extensive grassland production and not protected from floods. The Bug River
catchment is one of the poorest regions in Poland. In contrast, on the Belarus side, big state-owned farms
(larger than 1,000 ha) dominate, and embankments protect the valley from floods. The use of mineral
fertilizers in the catchment is rather low (less than 50 kg N/ha and less than 20 kg P/ha). There is some
cattle and poultry breeding on the Polish side, but animal density is low, around 0.5 animal units/ha.
Information from Belarus for this study is limited to what was available through the Baltic Compass
cooperation. Information from Ukraine is not included as that section of the river is upstream from the
investigated section.
3
www.balticcompass.org (published in near future)
11
The impact of flood disasters in the Bug valley has been modest compared with other Polish rivers, as there
are not many buildings and agriculture is extensive.
In the area investigated in this case study, protection against floods is performed in different ways. As
noted above, on the Belarus side, there are constructed embankments protecting the valley and high land
areas, where intensive large-scale farming takes place. Forests cover the lowland terraces between the
embankments and the river, and inhabitants are not allowed to access the area without permission. On the
Polish side, there are only a few embankments (roughly 10 km, or 2.7% of the studied section), mainly
protecting single sites, such as parts of Terespol. On this side of the river there are mainly extensively
farmed meadows and pastures of outstanding natural value, and a great biological diversity has been
preserved. Environmentalists would like to keep the valley in its present state, and so far it has been
planned to start construction of embankments only for some selected settlements. Seasonal floods, mainly
occurring during the snow melt in March and April, cover almost the entire area of the low-lands in the
valley, and result in temporary inundation of meadows and pastures, as well as isolation of single
settlements. Most of the buildings are located on the plateau and therefore are not affected by floods. Only
farm buildings and some storage sites are situated on the flood terrace. Some of these small settlements
are interesting examples of how to adjust to the flood episodes: The farms are built on small land
elevations and during flood episodes they are surrounded by water. Farmers have been living in these
settlements since long ago and are adapted to the conditions – they just accept the annual floods even
though they make their lives more difficult.
Water depth during floods is shallow (0.2-1.0 meters) and soil erosion is not a problem. In the valley, most
of the soils are sandy and poor in nutrients. Sedimentation of silt soils has been noted where flow rates are
low. The analysis done within the case study does not show any significant influence of the flood events on
leaching and transport of nutrients from agricultural land to water. On the contrary, there are areas with
very low water flow rate e.g. in land depressions. In such areas sedi mentation of deposits brought by the
river is observed. Therefore it is assumed that the slowdown of the water flow rate in the wide parts of
the valley contributes to improved water quality. N and P were measured at four stations once a month,
and loads were higher during flood events, but concentrations varied mainly seasonally. Some hot spot
areas have been identified: farms with manure and slurry storage tanks, and local wastewater treatment
plants and graveyards in Terespol and Włodawa, which are located at the edge of the low-land. These can
be flooded with 100-years floods events (i.e. 1% probability).
On the Belarus side, downstream from Brest, there are huge wastewater lagoons on the edge of the flood
zone. This study was not able to obtain any information on the technical state of the tanks or the
embankments protecting them. In order to implement measures for limiting the risks of flood events,
spatial flood risk and management plans are needed. Nowadays, there is a growing awareness that
environmental protection against floods should include non-technological measures. Appropriate
location of buildings and settlements should be identified in flood risk management plans. However,
there is no general agreement on this: most of the farmers would like to be protected by embankments.
Because of the high natural value of the occasionally flooded terraces, the study finds that construction of
embankments and retention reservoirs should be restricted to specific cases (e.g. protection of key
infrastructure). On the valley slopes, meanwhile construction of summer houses is proliferating. Even
though the houses are located outside the flood risk areas, they can have a negative impact on water
quality as they often lack proper sanitary installations.
12
Local authorities play an important role and should seek solutions to limit the economic burdens for area
residents. Local authorities are responsible for water management (including risk management during
flooding events), with help from the experts in planning and development issues. The responsible
authorities for embankments are located at the regional level. At present the water management system is
under reconstruction, but there is a lack of information on the direction of changes. Cooperation between
different governance levels would improve planning and management at the local level. Water
management in the Bug River strongly depends on trans-boundary cooperation, which to this date has not
functioned properly. Local authorities on both sides of the river have rather good contacts, and some
cooperation exists, e.g. mutual assistance in case of flood events and water quality measurements, but they
are depending on their respective regional and national authorities. There is no agreement between Poland
and Belarus, at the national level, concerning water issues. Belarus and Ukraine are not members of the EU
and therefore do not need to implement and follow EU directives in their nati onal legislation, such as the
Water Framework Directive, which demands River Basin Management Plans, or the Flood Directive and
Nitrate Directive. In the local and regional strategies for the development of the region, flood protection
issues are hardly mentioned. Flood protection seems to be viewed as less important than economic and
social issues.
Integrating Flood and Nutrient Management – Opportunities for Addressing Multiple Benefits
for Urban Development, Wetland Values and Agriculture? The case study of Kristianstad,
Sweden
Åse Johannessen, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) 4
The aim of the Kristianstad case study was to investigate potential synergies from multiple ecosystem
services relevant for flood and nutrient management. Stakeholders were engaged to explore opportunities
for taking a more holistic approach that addresses the linkages. Furthermore, the study aimed at
contributing to the development of tools, such as principles for a flood risk framework and the sharing of
information with local as well as regional stakeholders.
The city of Kristianstad (25,000 inhabitants) is the most flood-exposed municipality in Sweden, situated in a
low-land surrounded by wetlands. In the last few decades, the Kristianstad wetlands area has gained
national and international recognition for its biodiversity, becoming part of the Ramsar Convention, the
UNESCO Man and Biosphere reserve, and the Natura 2000 networks, with support from the EU Bird and
Habitat Directive.
The flood risk of the city is mainly due to the slow drainage to the sea, as the lowest point lies -2.41 meters
below sea level. Historically the wetlands served as a protective barrier, and in 1614 a fort was established
which later developed into a city. During the 19th century the surrounding lakes and wetland areas were
drained in order to gain productive land for agriculture and forestry, and embankments were built to
protect the expanding city.
In the last few decades the flood risk for the city has been reduced with the hel p of several new
embankments and pump stations, as well as measures for storm water management. The current ongoing
strengthening of the embankments will be finalized in 2015. However, as the city continues to develop
behind the embankments and depends on their constructions capacity, this strategy could exacerbate its
4
www.balticcompass.org (published in near future)
13
vulnerability. When the embankments were planned, alternative actions to mitigate floods, such as
wetlands and flooded meadows, were considered inadequate or controversial. However, these types of
natural ecosystems may provide an important complement to embankments, apart from other multiple
services they can provide (as described above). In order to maintain these ecosystem services there is a
need to retain the water in the landscape. Variability of water levels is a characteristic of wetland areas and
as such an element of nature conservation.
Farmers can receive subsidies for management of flooded meadows, mainly as a measure to maintain
biodiversity. However, the rules for subsidies do not take into consideration that flood events vary in space
and time. Historically floods occur in late winter and early spring, and sedimentation of soil particles on
meadows contributes as a natural fertilizer to the grass production. However, recently floods have occurred
during late spring and summer, with a negative impact on the vegetation and animals. The management of
the meadows by grazing or harvest is difficult or impossible in such cases, and as the areas that can be
managed vary from year to year, farmers who sign a contract risk not being able to fulfil their duties. If so, a
farmer would be forced to pay back one or several years´ subsidies. Therefore the current subsidies are not
really attractive for the farmers and more flexibility in the regulations would be needed.
In urban areas waste water treatment plants and storm water drainage systems are the main sources for
nutrient leaching, especially during flood events. However, looking at the whole catchment, agricultural
production is one of the main sources of nutrient input into water bodies and one of the main causes of
eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. When arable farmland is flooded, nutrients leach out of the fertilized soils.
Nutrient leaching from agriculture is partly enhanced by the substantially drained and canalized water
system.
The District River Basin Authority therefore suggests construction of wetlands, breaking up of existing
culverts and reshaping of straightened channels so they meander again – all to slow down water flows and
achieve the desired nutrient retention. These changes would possibly also impact the flood risk in
Kristianstad city. The case study identifies here a possibility for cooperation between different sectors:
The use of preventing measures in the river basin, such as wetlands, is not traditionally considered by the
rescue service or the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency (MSB), which is responsible for flood mitigation, but
cooperation could provide the dual benefit of nutrient retention and flood risk mitigation in Kristianstad
city. The Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (Boverket) could also broaden its
thinking in terms of resilient cities, and support approaches that do not only rely on embankments. The
way forward is to take a more integrated view on flooding in the municipality and cooperate between
sectors, which already has started through different initiatives.
14
Construction of Wetlands – Lessons Learned
Enabling factors for construction of wetlands
The Finnish and Swedish case studies on wetland implementation identified the following factors
supporting the construction of wetlands:








Authorities and NGOs support construction of wetlands, and the issue is clearly prioritized politically.
Investment support for large wetland projects covers both planning and construction costs (including
the possibility/flexibility to combine different funds).
Financial risk is taken by the support system, not just the individual landowner.
Resources and key persons at the local administration level support and follow the projects from start
to end.
General wetland plans are designed for key catchment areas and, if existing, are included in River
Basin Management Plans.
A strong knowledge base is developed and used in the projects:
o Local knowledge is explored through discussions with local actors on potential wetland sites ;
o There is a network of regional wetland experts (e.g. in Sweden “Focus on Nutrients”);
o Advisory services are provided to participants during the entire project period;
o Information strategies are used to build interest in wetlands, e.g. through demonstration sites
and field visits;
o Research on the effects of wetlands is carried out from several perspectives: water protection,
biodiversity, flood protection, etc.
A common understanding of the multi-functionality of wetlands is created through cooperation
between different sectors: environment, agriculture, spatial planning, etc., and cooperation between
different levels: landowners, the common public, NGOs, administration, etc.
Collaborative projects involving several landowners can get special support
After the publication of the Finnish wetland case, a national round table discussion with different
stakeholders was organized (18 April 2012, Helsinki). Invited speakers highlighted two further
situations when the construction of wetlands should be considered:


Drainage projects in the agricultural landscape are often highly regulated collective actions that
involve several landowners. The discussion suggested that there is a great potential for wetland
construction in connection with drainage cooperation. We should perhaps broaden our thinking to
cover all measures slowing down the water flow, for example levelling of ditch banks, construction of
flooding terraces or meandering. It was also emphasized that good drainage reduces nutrient leaching
from fields, since it increases productivity. Drainage projects that include environmental measures
could therefore be examples of win-win situations.
Land consolidation projects could be opportunities to construct wetlands: The main purpose of land
consolidation is to get larger parcels that are easier to cultivate. During the evaluation potential
wetland areas could be identified. Several problems related to wetlands could be solved through land
consolidations: landowners not interested in cooperation could get a land parcel outside the wetland
area, wetland areas could follow the landowner’s borders, and if the water covers productive fields,
they could be compensated with an equal parcel elsewhere.
15
Barriers that restrict the construction of wetlands
Key factors that have been identified as limitations in the wetland implementation in both Finland and
Sweden include:






In high-priority locations, maximum investment support is too low for construction, and management
support cannot compete with alternative income from agricultural production.
The financial (and sometimes legal) risk/burden of a project falls on the landowner.
Non-productive investment support does not allow multiple uses of wetlands that can bring income or
production benefits (e.g. irrigation, biomass production, fishing, hunting).
Complex water legislation is sometimes mentioned as a restriction to we tland implementation.
However, the legal process in order to get a construction permit is not an obstacle in itself, rather a
guaranty for the involved landowners. The restriction lies often in lack of human resources at the
administrative and court level and in lack of knowledge by project owners and supporters on how to
go through the legal process.
There is a lack of
o Key persons at local administration level with enough resources to actively participate in the
projects from beginning to end;
o Advisors with experience and knowledge to guide landowners through the whole process;
o Knowledge dissemination on efficient locations, design and management, from research to
practitioners and vice versa.
There are conflicting goals between different sectors (public, environmental, community planning,
etc.).
16
Flood Protection and Water Quality Management, Preservation of Natural
Buffers – Lessons Learned
Enabling factors for flood protection and water quality management
The Polish Bug River case study on flood protection and preservation of natural buffers (i.e. flooding
meadows) concluded that:



In most cases, including the Bug valley, river valleys are valuable ecosystems with significant
biodiversity. The Bug valley must be flooded due to sustaining its valuable ecosystems. Development
of monitoring and warning systems is necessary to limit the negative impact of flooding on farming
and other land uses.
One reason why extensive farming is practiced in the Bug valley is that the soils are sandy and poor,
resulting in rather low yields. In many cases farmers abandon parts of the fields. Therefore, it is
possible to subordinate agriculture to the needs of environmental protection. Only an extensive way
of land use is recommended – mainly as meadows and pastures with small numbers of animals.
Protection against flood through embankments is only applied in particular areas, such as urban zones.
Local development plans limit opportunities to construct buildings on the flood terrace, as aimed for
in the Flood Directive. Building in flood-exposed areas requires consulting with the Regional Water
Management Board.
To improve the most significant problems the following supporting factors were identified:






There is a need for closer cooperation between organizations on land use planning and flood
protection, e.g., Regional Water Management Boards, water authorities, local authorities (districts
and municipalities), environmental NGOs and Drainage and Water Facilities Management Boards
(which are responsible for conservation of the embankments).
There is a need for development and expansion of the monitoring, forecasting and warning systems.
Trans-boundary cooperation, and cooperation between different organizations should be fostered in
the realm of water management planning during floods.
Citizens and land-owners need training on the scope of measures available for flood protection.
There is a need for assistance in cleaning up after floods.
Payments are needed for farmers operating in the flooded areas, to compensate them for the
economic losses resulting from limitations imposed on their land use (extensive farming only).
The Swedish Kristianstad case study on flood protection and preservation of natural buffers recommended:



To start investigating the connection between flooding and nutrient management, as impacts of
climate change and development will require knowledge and tools to use ecosystem services.
To work with an integrated and holistic approach in municipal planning on a river-basin-level.
To apply adaptive measures which ensure more resilient systems in the future.
The Kristianstad case identified the following supporting factors:

Willingness to take an integrated approach:
17
o


On the municipality level: other solutions than embankments are considered for protection of
the city.
o On river basin level: synergies between measures for improved water quality (based on the
Water Framework Directive) and measures to mitigate flood risk (according to the Floods
Directive) are recognized.
Political drive is needed to reach the necessary changes in the financial and legal system.
Knowledge and information is crucial to support stakeholders at all levels. An open dialogue between
stakeholders is required to find strategies in light of sea-level rise. Research results (e.g. more
quantitative estimates of the water holding capacity of the landscape, possible contributions of more
wetlands, etc.) are needed as a base for decision-making.
Barriers to implementation of flood protection and water quality management measures
As noted above, the Bug River case study found construction of protective installations (i.e. embankments)
for flood protection (excluding the selected areas) should be seen as a last resort, since these can have
negative impacts on water regulation in the river basin. The problem of flood protection in the Bug valley is
not the most important issue for local governments, however. Citizens, particularly farmers, should be
prepared for flood episodes.
The most significant barriers identified in the study, which are true for other river valleys in Poland as well,
are:









Lack of trainings for farmers and federal support on how to adapt buildings and lifestyles to the
demands of the flooded area.
Lack of legal regulations stimulating cooperation between different organizations – particularly
between local authorities and water authorities.
Lack of financial support for small farms to secure manure storage tanks and for single households to
improve wastewater treatment.
Lack of implementation of results from research projects.
A growing bureaucracy that inhibits decision-making.
Shortage of specialists in water economics and technology.
Lack of understanding between engineers and ecologists and between farmers and ecologists.
Weak cross-boundary cooperation, exchange of information and coordination of water management.
Lack of an agreement at the national government level makes local cooperation more difficult.
18
The Swedish Kristianstad case study identified the following problems:



Paradigms at work:
o Based on the old paradigm, dating from a time when the state paid to dredge forests and
wetlands to gain productive farmland by embankments in order to feed a growing population,
legislation protects these draining facilities. At the same time, other legislation protects nature.
An integration of different interests would be necessary: the new paradigm acknowledges the
multiple ecosystem services of wetlands.
o Today, city planning relies on the construction of the new embankments, but the expanding
city becomes increasingly vulnerable to floods. Solutions that adapt to, and deal with
occasional floods are required.
The flooding problems in Kristianstad are usually seen as a unique situation in Sweden. Therefore the
municipality is often left to solve its own problems instead of getting national-level support.
However, in light of future climate change, the lessons learned in Kristianstad could be of high value
for other parts of Sweden.
In Sweden, a considerable responsibility and decision-power is delegated from the national to the
local level. Municipalities are expected to take initiative, but at the same time, national legislation
often is not tailored for local adaptation. A closer coordination and integration between national and
local authorities is necessary to tailor solutions to better fit the environmental realities.
19
Key Points and Future Challenges for Further Discussion at the Workshop
Acknowledgment of ecosystem services
A broad acknowledgment of ecosystem services is needed: Protection of biodiversity, retention of
nutrients and protection from floods are different effects of the same measures: protection or reconstruction of flooding space, flooded meadows and wetlands. Both financial and legal support is needed,
based on knowledge obtained through research and spread through advice.
By looking at multiple benefits we add value to a measure, and solutions that might not be perfect from
only one point of view, gain importance. A study on the N retention capacity of flooded meadows showed
that 400 ha can capture about 1% of the N flowing out from the catchment to the sea in the Kristianstad
catchment. If we extended the studied area to a total of 1,600 ha of flooded meadows in the catchment,
maybe 4% of the total N flow could be captured. Even then the nutrient retention effect is limited, and
other measures in agricultural production are needed on-field, in order to decrease nutrient losses.
However, apart from the nutrient retention capacity, these 1,600 ha of meadows contribute to increased
biodiversity, buffer flood peaks and droughts and create an exceptional recreational environment. – What
is the additional value of these ecosystem services? How large an area of flooded meadows and wetlands
could be financed, and how would the costs compare with the cost of construction of embankments and
risk management in the city of Kristianstad?
Cooperation between sectors
In order to set priorities and balance between different interests, agriculture, environmental protection,
water management and urban planning sectors need to cooperate on all levels: ministries, departments,
local authorities, organizations and NGOs. Agricultural food (and energy) production will continue to be
important, at the same time as cities expand, and natural ecosystems are endangered.





Can agricultural fields in flood-prone areas be taken out of intensive production and used in a more
extensive way in order to avoid erosion, nutrient leaching from fertilized soils and destroyed crops?
– How could farmers be paid for ecosystem services as an alternative income source?
Instead of building even bigger embankments and increasing the capacity of drainage systems, other
flood protection solutions should be sought. – Can the use of protective measures such as
embankments be restricted and treated as a last resort, in order to avoid negative impact on the
natural environment?
A dialogue demands equal partners. – How can stakeholders from different sectors, with different
interests, views and goals (e.g., individual farmers, citizens, NGOs, local and national authorities) learn
to understand one another? - How can respect be created in order to develop solutions?
The advisory service “Focus on Nutrients” in Sweden has developed an efficient collaboration including
authorities, civil organizations and private sector, and ensures training and spreading of knowledge
among farmers, e.g. on construction and management of wetlands. – How can the advisory system be
developed, both within Sweden and in other countries around the Baltic Sea, in order to reach out to
the majority of farmers, creating value for both the environment and the farm enterprises?
The new EU Flood Directive is now being implemented and the CAP is being reformed, which creates
opportunities for improved coordination between different sectors and with the Water Framework
20

Directive. – How can we ensure that new water and nutrient management efforts in a water basin
perspective are coordinated to achieve long-term solutions?
The studies carried out in the Bug valley show that flooding of the sandy valley has a positive impact on
water quality because of the water flow rate decrease and sedimentation of the particulate matter.
Extensive farming, unfertilized meadows and pastures with small numbers of animals are not threats to
the water quality of the river. – How can we limit the risk of water pollution by sources such as manure
storing sites? Is liquidation of such sites or their protection with use of technical measures , e.g.,
embankments the right way to go?
Financial support
In the current Rural Development Programmes, payments for measures (e.g., wetlands) are generally based
on construction costs and management cost. However, even compensation for lost income can be a
question to solve. The combination of different funds, as well as the possibility to combine income (e.g.
harvest of biomass, use of irrigation) with ecosystem services (e.g. provision of a habitat for birds and
insects, extensive flooded meadows) should be supported. The state/public should bear financial risks, not
the individual landowner.



How can farmers be compensated for providing ecosystem services (e.g., buffering, biodiversity,
nutrient retention by flooded meadows and wetlands), instead of using land for more intensive
agricultural production?
Current RDPs are mainly targeted to single farmers and measures on single farms. – How can holistic
large-scale projects that take a catchment approach be supported?
Unlike in Sweden and Finland, officials in Poland say they cannot afford payments to cover the
economic losses of all farmers operating on thousands of hectares of extensive meadows and pastures
situated on environmentally valuable areas. But can Poland afford the upcoming costs resulting of an
intensification of agriculture and the possible negative impacts on water quality, flooding, etc.? – If
payments to cover economic losses are not feasible, how can farmers still be attracted to extensive
management instead of intensification?
Flexibility for local adaption
Measures are most effective if they are adapted to local conditions and needs, as well as to meet specific
goals. Therefore regulations should set a framework and leave space to optimize measures according to
local conditions.


In Poland there are still big areas with natural wetlands and flooded meadows under extensive farming.
– Could future RDPs support their maintenance, in order to avoid making the same mistakes as Sweden
and Finland, and problems caused by lower flood buffer capacity, higher nutrient leaching, and lower
biodiversity?
Is there an alternative way of rural development for Poland, allowing 5 to 50 ha farms to exist and
keeping a relatively high rural population, or is it necessary to follow the Western European trend
toward bigger farms, run by few people, and rural areas losing their population? – With forecast
climate change, peak P, etc., could it be a competitive advantage to keep smaller units?
21

Restrictive interpretation of guidelines (for wetlands) by local authorities limits the diversity of
wetlands and reduces the flexibility for functions and use, which does not benefit biodiversity and may
also discourage farmers from implementing measures. – How can we ensure and promote the diversity
of wetlands, both regarding their type and the ecosystem services they provide?
Planning measures in a larger context
In order to get the best result from investments in farmer supports, the right measures should be
implemented in the right places. This might be easier if a single measure can be seen in relation to other
measures in a catchment area. River Basin Management Plans could include wetlands-to-catchment-ratios,
monitoring, modelling cumulative effects of different measures, measures in several sectors (e.g.
wastewater treatment, rainwater management, nutrient management in agriculture), etc.


How can we adapt the governance system to ensure the development of projects with a river basin
approach to generate optimal siting for the construction of wetlands?
Wetlands initiatives should promote multiple benefits, not focus less narrowly on nutrient retention. In
general, the agriculture sector (and society as a whole) should focus more on reuse and recycling of
nutrients, and efficient on-field (both management and technical) measures to prevent nutrient
leakage. This way, different stakeholders can be involved by considering the multi-functionality of
wetlands (e.g. flood prevention). – Can payments for ecosystem services be a promising way forward to
generate a platform for a broader stakeholder approach?
Part II Dialogue Report: Regional Wetlands and Flood-Control Workshop,
25-26 September 2012 in Kristianstad, Sweden
As noted in the introduction, this paper was prepared as background reading for a workshop to be held on
25-26 September. After the workshop, a second part will be added to this report, drawing on discussions
from the workshop about how to support and develop enabling factors, how to remove barriers, and
various conclusions and policy recommendations.
22
References











Andersson, K. et al, 2012. Multi-functional Wetlands and Stakeholder Engagement - Lessons from
Sweden. Baltic Compass Project Report. Available at: http://www.balticcompass.org/_blog/Project_
Reports/post/Multifunctional_wetlands_and_stakeholder_engagement_Lessons_from_Sweden/
Baltic Compass. 2012. Heading towards finish line. Baltic Compass Report. Available at:
http://www.balticcompass.org/PDF/Reports/BC_towards_finish_line_2012.pdf
Baltic Deal. 2011. Agri-environmental measures in the Baltic Sea Region – advisory services, legislation
and best practices. Baltic Deal Report. Available at: http://www.balticdeal.eu/documents/agrienvironmental-measures-in-the-baltic-sea-region-advisory-services-legislation-best-practices/
Berninger, K. 2011a. Overview of agri-environment payments and water protection measures in
selected EU countries. English summary of the TEHO project report 7/2011, Part I. Available at:
http://www.balticcompass.org/PDF/AEpayments_comparison-TEHO.pdf
Berninger, K. 2011b. Biodiversity measures in agri-environment payment schemes in selected EU
countries. English summary of the TEHO project report 7/2011, Part II. Available at:
http://www.balticcompass.org/PDF/Reports/AEpayments_biodiversity.pdf
Berninger , K., Koskiaho, J. & Tattari, S. 2012. Constructed wetlands in Finnish agricultural
environments: Balancing between effective water protection and multi -functionality. Baltic Compass
Project Report. Available at: http://www.balticcompass.org/_blog/Project_Reports
/post/Case_study_on_constructed_wetlands_in_Finland/
Johannessen, Å. et al. 2012: Integrating flood and nutrient management – opportunities for addressing
multiple benefits for urban development, wetland values and agriculture? The case study of
Kristianstad, Sweden. Baltic Compass Project Report. (soon to be found at www.balticcompass.org)
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland. 2007. Rural Development Programme for Mainland
Finland 2007-2013, accepted 10.8.2007, amended 7.6. 2010. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
Mioduszewski, W. et al, Water management in cross boundary river valley in the light of limiting of the
flood impact on water quality - The case study of Bug River. Baltic Compass Project Report. (soon to be
found at www.balticcompass.org)
Salomon, E. & Sundberg, M. 2012. Implementation and status of priority measures to reduce nitrogen
and phosphorus leakage – Summary of country reports. Baltic Compass Project Report, WP3. JTI.
Available at: http://www.balticcompass.org/PDF/Reports/SummaryOfCountryReports.pdf
18 April 2012, Helsinki, meeting notes from the National Roundtable Finland, Kati Berninger, pptpresentation Helena Äijö, Field Drainage Associaltion & ppt-presentation Suvi Kattainen and Karin
Kolis, Aalto University. The event material is available at:
http://www.balticcompass.org/_blog/Event_Materials/post/Finnish_National_Round_Table/
Personal communication with the case study authors
Andersson, Kim: [email protected]
Berninger, Kati: [email protected]
Johannessen, Åse: [email protected]
Mioduszewski, Waldemar : [email protected]
23
Baltic Compass
Baltic COMPASS promotes sustainable agriculture in the Baltic Sea region. The region’s 90 million
inhabitants anticipate both high quality food produced in the region and a healthy environment,
including a cleaner Baltic Sea. Baltic Compass looks for innovative solutions needed for the future
of the region and its agriculture, environment and business.
Baltic Compass has a wide approach to the agri-environmental challenges, covering agricultural
best practices, investment support and technologies, water assessment and scenarios, and policy
and governance issues.
Baltic Compass is financed by the European Union as a strategic project for its support to
investments and policy adaptation. The 22 partners represent national authorities, interest
organizations, scientific institutes and innovation centres from the Baltic Sea Region countries.
Baltic Compass is a three year project running until December 2012.
www.balticcompass.org