Bertrand Morandi

How is success or failure in river restoration projects evaluated? Feedback from French restoration projects.

Since the 1990s, French operational managers and scientists have been involved in the environmental restoration of rivers. The European Water Framework Directive (2000) highlights the need for feedback from restoration projects and for evidence-based evaluation of success. Based on 44 French pilot projects that included such an evaluation, the present study includes: 1) an introduction to restoration projects based on their general characteristics 2) a description of evaluation strategies and authorities in charge of their implementation, and 3) a focus on the evaluation of results and the links between these results and evaluation strategies. The results show that: 1) the quality of an evaluation strategy often remains too poor to understand well the link between a restoration project and ecological changes; 2) in many cases, the conclusions drawn are contradictory, making it difficult to determine the success or failure of a restoration project; and 3) the projects with the poorest evaluation strategies generally have the most positive conclusions about the effects of restoration. Recommendations are that evaluation strategies should be designed early in the project planning process and be based on clearly-defined objectives.

Diverse Approaches to Implement and Monitor River Restoration: A Comparative Perspective in France and Germany

River restoration is a main emphasis of river management in European countries. Cross-national comparisons of its implementation are still rare in scientific literature. Based on French and German national censuses, this study compares river restoration practices and monitoring by analysing 102 French and 270 German projects. This comparison aims to draw a spatial and temporal framework of restoration practices in both countries to identify potential drivers of cross-national similarities and differences. The results underline four major trends: (1) a lag of almost 15 years in river restoration implementation between France and Germany, with a consequently higher share of projects in Germany than in France, (2) substantial similarities in restored reach characteristics, short reach length, small rivers, and in “agricultural” areas, (3) good correspondences between stressors identified and restoration measures implemented. Morphological alterations were the most important highlighted stressors. River morphology enhancement, especially instream enhancements, were the most frequently implemented restoration measures. Some differences exist in specific restoration practices, as river continuity restoration were most frequently implemented in French projects, while large wood introduction or channel re-braiding were most frequently implemented in German projects, and (4) some quantitative and qualitative differences in monitoring practices and a significant lack of project monitoring, especially in Germany compared to France. These similarities and differences between Germany and France in restoration application and monitoring possibly result from a complex set of drivers that might be difficult to untangle (e.g., environmental, technical, political, cultural).