- General(active tab)
- Site information
- Monitoring maintenance
- Performance
- Design & implementations
- Lessons, risks, implications...
- Policy, general governance and design targets
- Socio-economic
- Biophysical impacts
General
National Id
France_03
Site name
Scarpe river, Arras
Light or indepth?
Light
RBD code
FRA
Transboundary
0
Data provider
Elia Desmot, OIEau
NWRM(s) implemented in the case study
Longitude
2.7818
Latitude
50.293
Site information
Climate zone
cool temperate moist
Mean rainfall
618
Mean rainfall unit
mm/year
Average temperature
10
Type
Case Study Info
Monitoring maintenance
Monitoring impacts effects
1
Monitoring parameters
Checking of vegetation's health
Performance
Performance impact estimation method
Unknown
Design & implementations
Application scale
River
Installation date
2012
Lifespan
100
Age
2
Performance timescale
< 1 year
Constraints
River banks protected by grey infrastructure
Favourable preconditions
Population favourable to the change
Design contractual arrangement
| Arrangement type | Responsibility | Role | Comments | Name |
|---|
Design consultation activity
| Activity stage | Key issues | Name | Comments |
|---|
Design land use change
| Land use change type |
|---|
Design authority
| Authority type | Role | Responsibility | Name | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Communauté Urbaine d'Arras (CUA)
|
||||
|
Agence de l†™eau Artois-Picardie
|
||||
|
Fédération départementale des associations agréées pour la pêche et la protection des milieux aquatiques du Pas-de-Calais
|
Lessons, risks, implications...
Key lessons
The revitalisation of the Scarpe River led to an improvement and a diversification of its related aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Therefore, this project participated in enhancing the ecological status of the river, expected to be good by 2021. The perception of the population was very positive thanks to the amenity space provided. However, the fact that the work took place from the river made its realisation difficult and a population of gooses is now disturbing the growth of the planted vegetation.
Success factor(s)
| Success factor type | Success factor role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
Attitude of relevant stakeholders
|
Financing
| Financing type | Comments |
|---|---|
|
National funds
|
Barrier
| Barrier type | Barrier role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
Expected maintenance needs
|
Driver
| Driver type | Driver role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
Organisation committed to it
|
Financing share
| Financing share type | Share | Comments |
|---|
Policy, general governance and design targets
Policy description
Protection of riverbanks
Part of wider plan
1
Policy target
| Target purpose |
|---|
|
Improved Biodiversity
|
|
Peak-flow reduction
|
|
Pollutants Removal
|
|
Oher Societal Benefits
|
Policy pressure
| Pressure directive | Relevant pressure |
|---|
Policy area
| Policy area type | Policy area focus | Name | Comments |
|---|
Policy impact
| Impact directive | Relevant impact |
|---|
Policy wider plan
| Wider plan type | Wider plan focus | Name | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
|
WFD - good ecological status (country)
|
Policy requirement directive
| Requirement directive | Specification |
|---|
Socio-economic
Costs investment
132277
Costs operation maintenance
1189032
Costs total
1321310
Costs total information
preliminary studies and operational costs
Ecosystem improved biodiversity
1
Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity
New fish species
Ecosystem provisioning services
1
Information on Ecosystem provisioning services
Amenity space, improvement of water quality
Ecosystem impact climate regulation
No specific impact
Information on Ecosystem impact climate regulation
Not mentioned
Biophysical impacts
Water quality overall improvements
N/A info
Information on Water quality overall improvements
The riparian area associated to the river has been improved and therefore the pollution is better managed
Soil quality overall soil improvements
N/A info
Information on Soil quality overall soil improvements
Biodiversity enhanced