1. Is an ecologization of the territory without actors and territory possible? The case of La Bassée floodplain Silvia Bruzzone José-Frédéric Déroubaix LEESU-ENPC Crisan, 20 – 21 april 2013

2. Ecological restoration and ecological flooding Ecological restoration of rivers and dynamic management of the floods are historically linkedEcological restoration of rivers and dynamic management of the floods are historically linked  Integration of the environmental NGO’s in the public policies conducted by the Ministry of Environment since the seventies (Lascoumes, Le Bourhis, 1997)  Ecology as the dominant expertise in the elaboration of a regulatory framework (WFD and Flood Directive) (Stayeart, Ollivier, 2007)

3. Ecological restoration, what are we talking about? Typology of de restoration projects (IWRM-Net Forecaster, 2009)

4. The political unfeasibility of an ecological flooding project ? The project of ecological flooding in the La Bassée floodplain Main actor of the flood management in the Seine River Basin : EPTB (Etablissement Public Territorial de Bassin) Seine Grands Lacs as contracting authority The La Bassée floodplain project 2 objectives: 1. hydraulic: to reduce the risk of flooding in Paris (combination of the Seine River and the Yonne River overflows) 2. rehabilitation of the ecological environment in the floodplain (500 hectares)

5. The Seine river basin and its flood defenses Source: EPTB SGL

6. “Restore and maintain the La Bassée ecosystems characterised by their recurrent submersions” Reduce the flood probability by slowing down the overflow with retention basins

7. What is this project about? The construction of water retention basins Source: EPTB SGL Particularity of the site and challenge of the project: the flood plain is flat and the water has to be pumped (in and out)

8. Current uses and environmental protection 250 ha are strictly protected (ZPS) and 830 ha are included in a Natura 2000 area 70 % is private estate 555 owners The biggest owners are gravel producers. 30 % is public estate, 18 owners (municipalities + Water Authority

9. Some figures 2300 hectares for stocking water2300 hectares for stocking water stockable volumes of water: 55 millions m3stockable volumes of water: 55 millions m3 58km of low embankments to be used for different uses58km of low embankments to be used for different uses Cost: 500 M€Cost: 500 M€ Reduction of the vulnerability of the Greater Paris: 15 cm in the centre of Paris for a 100 year return period eventReduction of the vulnerability of the Greater Paris: 15 cm in the centre of Paris for a 100 year return period event Operational:Operational: –15 days every 5 years to prevent flooding –every spring for the renaturation of humid zones (ecological management)

10. Public Debate: to inform the public and to increase the political support November 2011- February 2012November 2011- February 2012 14 thematic meetings in different towns concerned by the project14 thematic meetings in different towns concerned by the project main topics: environment, expertise, agriculture, economic development, etc.main topics: environment, expertise, agriculture, economic development, etc. BUT the way the debate has been held failed to obtain local supportBUT the way the debate has been held failed to obtain local support  Lack of support from the environmental protection associations  Opposition of the landowners and the local elected representatives  Controversial costs/benefits analysis (in comparison to other planning projects such as fluvial transportation)

11. Difficulty to build a political support Weak mimetism: lack of comparable experiences (the Rhine Valley, Parc Naturel Regional Foret d’Orient, etc.)Weak mimetism: lack of comparable experiences (the Rhine Valley, Parc Naturel Regional Foret d’Orient, etc.) A project which comes out of the blue!A project which comes out of the blue! No trace of previous negotiations (1990-2001: preliminary studies and negotiations with local stakeholders) Very low integration in the local context: lack of proposals for agricultural, touristic, economic development, etc.Very low integration in the local context: lack of proposals for agricultural, touristic, economic development, etc. Absence of local stakeholders who could represent the territorial assets and negotiate a sharing of environmental resources (water, biodiversity, land and landscape, gravel, shale gas, etc)Absence of local stakeholders who could represent the territorial assets and negotiate a sharing of environmental resources (water, biodiversity, land and landscape, gravel, shale gas, etc)

12. A “technical project” without story, territory and actors Gap between a technical solution and its political and social feasibility Gap between a technical solution and its political and social feasibility A project which is not understood and imagined in the local contextA project which is not understood and imagined in the local context ► Ecological flooding requires the elaboration of local practices embedded in a territorial (institutional) framework

13. « Ecological flooding » requires: Collective action (representatives, procedure(s) of coordination)Collective action (representatives, procedure(s) of coordination) Fabrication of a heritage (invention of new environmental practices)Fabrication of a heritage (invention of new environmental practices) Ecological flooding has nothing to do with restoration and the search of a previous “natural” system.Ecological flooding has nothing to do with restoration and the search of a previous “natural” system.

14. Thank you for your attention ! Thank you for your attention !

15. Zones Protégées Une ZPS de 250 haUne ZPS de 250 ha Une zone de 830 ha faisant partie de projet européen Natura 2000 composée de:Une zone de 830 ha faisant partie de projet européen Natura 2000 composée de: –Eaux douces intérieures 20 % –Eaux douces intérieures 20 % –Cultures céréalières extensives 20 % –Cultures céréalières extensives 20 % –Forêts caducifoliées 20 % –Forêts caducifoliées 20 % –Forêts mixtes 20 % –Forêts mixtes 20 % –Forêts artificielles en monoculture 10 % –Forêts artificielles en monoculture 10 % –Autres terres (incluant les Zones urbanisées et industrielles, Routes, Décharges, Mines) 5 % –Autres terres (incluant les Zones urbanisées et industrielles, Routes, Décharges, Mines) 5 %