The Scheldt Estuary is a unique cross-border estuarine system shared by Belgium (Sea Scheldt) and the Netherlands (Western Scheldt), where freshwater from the river meets saltwater from the North Sea.
It is one of Western Europe’s youngest and most natural estuaries, with major ecological value for biodiversity, Natura 2000 conservation, water quality, fisheries, tourism and cultural heritage. At the same time, it is a highly vulnerable flood-prone region due to its low-lying landscape, sea-level rise, storm surges, and increasingly unpredictable rainfall patterns caused by climate change.
Managing this estuary requires balancing flood safety, economic activities such as navigation to the Port of Antwerp, and nature restoration across multiple governance levels and across national borders.
Mark Wiering:
“The Dutch approach has its merits — transparency, honesty about the dilemmas.”
Problem statement
Flood risk management in the Scheldt Estuary has historically focused on hard infrastructure solutions such as dikes, barriers, and embankments. Following the catastrophic floods of 1953 in the Netherlands and 1976 in Flanders, the Dutch Delta Plan and the Flemish Sigma Plan were developed to improve flood protection. While these measures significantly reduced flood risks, they often came at the expense of ecological quality and natural river dynamics.
Today, climate change increases the urgency of adapting these systems. Rising sea levels, heavier rainfall, and changing river discharges create new risks that traditional hydraulic approaches alone cannot solve. At the same time, dredging for navigation, especially to maintain access to the Port of Antwerp, creates tensions with biodiversity and habitat conservation. The governance challenge lies in shifting from “fighting against water” toward integrated flood risk management that combines safety with nature-based solutions such as floodplain restoration, dike setbacks, and “room for the river” approaches. This transition is complicated by fragmented governance structures, different national priorities, and strong institutional dependence on traditional engineering-based solutions.
Impact
The project highlighted both barriers and opportunities for more integrated governance in the Scheldt Estuary. One of the main barriers is the persistence of hydraulic engineering traditions, where safety is prioritised over ecological restoration. Climate uncertainty and fragmented responsibilities across agencies and governance levels slow down institutional change even further. Differences between Dutch and Flemish planning cycles and funding systems also make cross-border coordination difficult.
At the same time, there are strong enablers. The Flemish-Dutch Scheldt Commission (VNSC) and the Scheldt Council provide an established platform for cross-border cooperation and joint decision-making. Integrated water management approaches and growing recognition of nature-based solutions support a more balanced strategy between flood resilience and ecological restoration. Publicly available climate data, predictive models, and long-term scenario planning also strengthen the capacity for adaptive governance. The case study shows that successful flood governance increasingly depends on combining technical expertise with stakeholder participation, scientific knowledge, and long-term strategic foresight.
Workshops
Workshop 1
Stakeholder insights on existing barriers
Workshop 2
Vulnerability Assessment
Workshop 3
Conflicts, Synergies and Future Governance Pathways
