ARRN’s Roundtable Meeting
How to develop technology and Guideline
for river restoration through networks

September 14, 2010(Tue.) 16:00-17:30
Seoul, KOREA

Asian River Restoration Network

P A R T I C I P A N T S
Chair:

Panelists:
Dr. Bart Fokkens-

President of European Centre
for River Restoration (ECRR)

Dr. Dongya Sun-

Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai-

Chairperson of Asian River Restoration Network(ARRN)
President of International Association for
Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research(IAHR)
Professor, Graduate School, Kanazawa Gakuin
University, JAPAN
Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo, JAPAN-

Secretary General of China
River
Restoration
Network(CRRN)
Professor, China Institute of
Water
ResourcesandHydropower Research (IWHR),
CHINA

Dr. Suk Hwan Jang-

Co-Chair:-Technical Committee of Korea
River Restoration Network(KRRN)
Professor, Daejin University,
KOREA

Dr. Naoki Shirakawa-

Dr. Bong Hee Lee-

2

Secretary General of Korea River Restoration
Network (KRRN)
Vice President, Saman Corp. KOREA

Technical Committee of Japan
River Restoration Network(JRRN)
Associate Professor, Universityof Tsukuba, JAPANASIAN RIVER RESTORATION NETWORK (ARRN)I N T R O D U C T I O N
Explanation of geographical features &Review of 7th ARRN International Forum[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]First, I’d like to show a couple of slides to sharecommon view on the geographical features of three
countries.

Next is Korea. And Korea is in the middle of China
and Japan, and the Korean Peninsula has thecharacteristics of both the continent and the island.
So, you can see clearly, the slopes of the Koreanrivers are rather steep. The Korean river’s length isabout 400 to 500 kilometers and the height is close
to 100 to 1000 meters.

First one, this is the scene of China. I’d like toemphasize that only seven large major rivers coverwhole China as you can see from the slide.

3

This slide shows Japanese rivers. So, similarly
Japanese rivers are quite steep, and they havealluvial fans and plains. 50% of the population and
75% of the national property are on these flood–prone alluvial plains. There are common
geographical characteristics in rivers of member
countries but also proper features in each country.

Before we listen to the opinion of the panelists, I’djust briefly summarize the session, the previous
session we had. It is the 7th International Forum of
ARRN, and we discussed and obtained several goodmodels in several countries.
The title of thesession is “Excellence in Engineering Practice inRiver and Waterfront Restoration”.
Inside our handout, we introduce the modern
examples of river restoration.
Basically, thesuccessful examples of river restoration works
mainly in the member countries,
including
European and American experiences.

Handout
http://www.a-rr.net/jp/info/letter/docs/ARRNguideline1-separatevol.pdf

4ASIAN RIVER RESTORATION NETWORK (ARRN)

R O L EO F

N E T W O R K

Role of River Restoration Network

ecologically, but secondly, also economicallybecause it is very important that you are costeffective in relation to the effectiveness of theecological results you want to achieve.
And the fourth one is, that in some way you need toreport about it. We have of course some database,but you should make available the information
about the best practices of river restoration in
relation to an ever-developing guidance tool.
Thank you very much.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Thank you, Dr.Fokkens. He mentioned about the
major four points. I think those are good points
for us and also for the audience to discuss later.
Let’s proceed to the second panelist, Dr. Dongya
Sun from IWHR.
[Dr. Dongya Sun (Secretary General of CRRN)][Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]In this roundtable meeting, the major topic, as I
mentioned, is Role of River Restoration Network,and through this network, I would like to pass off
technology and knowledge on river restoration to
the member countries and also to the world.
First, I would like to ask four panelists to give us
your opinion on what will be the role of riverrestoration network and your suggestions in the
future for river restoration network, probably in acouple of minutes, because I’d like to havesufficient time to discuss among panelists and also
the participants.
So, first, I’d like to ask Dr. Bart Fokkens for yourcomments and suggestions on the role of riverrestoration network.
[Dr. Bart Fokkens (ECRR president)]

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I willsummarize very briefly the role of network for riverrestoration, the one being as three or four
directives; first of all, bring people together who are
active in river restoration and let them share theirexperiences. And that is still the main objective,
to my personal opinion of network.
It is often up to the people themselves how theyshare it, but the network can of course serve as asource of exchange to a very high extent; that’s
number one.
Number two is that you go a step further, that’s
what you are doing by developing guidelines. We
found it extremely difficult in Europe to develop
guidelines, so we have different kinds of guidance
tool and it does not give exact guidelines how to
restore, but it guides you when you want to restore,
the objectives you want to achieve; that’s number
two.
Number three is when river restoration is going on,
trying to find what are the best practices, the riverrestoration project with the best results, first of allFirst, I would like to thank greatly to the ARRN
secretariat. You have done some memorable workfor this kind of symposium and also this roundtable
meeting. And also, I would like to thank the local
secretariat of Korea. For this meeting, in relation
to the role of river restoration network, I trust thething about that – I fully agree with Professor
Fokkens that we should organize the related people,
and we should organize the platform for people
from different fields to participate in our work anddiscussion.
Second is to develop some guidelines. We should
put forward suggestions to the government officials
on how to do the planning of river cleaning work,
how to do the flood control budget. This kind ofwork I think we should put forward not politicallybut technically, because in China now we have toplan flood control and also river cleaning works for
medium-sized and small-sized rivers, we have
many kinds of rivers.
But, if the technicalapproach is not appropriate, then we will makemistakes that the Europeans made maybe 30 years
ago. In some provinces, some people used theconventional methodologies for river cleaning, usedvery hard, concrete, revetment et cetera.
So, at this moment, I think for China, we should
learn from a platform for Asian countries, also
European, American countries, too. From theirexperiences, we can put forward suggestions to thegovernment official on how to do the work for the
future.
Also, I think – I just consider that if we have a very
effective platform, maybe we can discuss andorganize one or several international research
projects together all to do some demonstration
project in one country on several rivers.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Thank you Dr. Dongya Sun.
We had thesuggestions
tothedecisionmakers–
or5recommendation to decisionmakers. Then, I’d liketo move to Dr. Shirakawa.
[Dr. Naoki Shirakawa (Technical Committee of JRRN)]

I am thinking about two points, one is the meaningof networks in Asia. So, Professor Tamai showedsome characteristics of rivers in Asia, and some ofthem will be different from Europe, but somecomponents of river restoration will be common
between those European countries and Asian
countries. And, each country; Japan, Korea, andChina have different characteristics of rivers andalso the common characteristics.
So, I wonder which components in Europe can beapplied to these countries commonly, and whatkind of things we have to think different from those
European countries. And, the networking in three
countries will give some ideas about thecommonness of our rivers in Asia, but we cannot dothe same thing in Europe.
And another one is about the motivation,
motivation through restoring, for river restoration
and also the motivation for the network. In the lastsession, in the international forum, I was impressedby the lectures from Dr. Fokkens that he said in
Romania, the motivation for the river restoration
was the flood. And the flood is a very important
problem in Asian countries, maybe I think it’s more
important in Asia than it is in Europe. And, even in
Europe, there are floods which motivate those
governments to give such kind of funds for riverrestoration.
So, it can be thought as a good motivation for Asian
countries also. And I wonder what kind of othermotivation for the river restoration and also for the
network can be presented in our Asian countries.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Thank you Dr.Shirakawa.
In addition to thephysical aspects, he pointed out the problems withthe social or the cultural aspects of the motivationof river restoration. Then, Dr. Jang from Korea.
[Dr. Suk Hwan Jang (Technical Committee of KRRN)]

Thank you Professor Tamai. I’d like to say that thehost of the Asian River Restoration Network is togather some ideas or gather some common sensefrom the comparison of each country’s cases.
And, I wonder, the first thing is how we can
combine or find common sense among eachcountry’s restoration techniques. For instance,
the Korean Rivers are a little different as Prof.
Tamai has explained. So, we need some ideas forthe comparison among the countries. And, I had
some questions to the previous talks which, forinstance, Dr.Fokkens gave to us. I wonder how
the European countries they merge or incorporate
under different laws and regulations among thecountries which belong to one large basin, and how
to distribute the budget.
6

And the second one is, I would like to suggest to
add a supplement to an article in the guidelines ofeach country, on the regulations and the design
criteria, so then we could compare how the othercountries do. So, I think we should – if we can, I
would like to suggest that items or the articles ofthat kind.
And I would like to show one thing of the KoreanRiver Restoration Network, what we call is thetransition time because operating body waschanged and switched to a new system. Mr. Leeon the chair, he is the new chair of the Korean River
Restoration Network. It is decided that the KoreanRiver Restoration Network will be a special
committee in the Korean Water Resources
Association; that’s for my comments. Thank you.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Thank you Dr. Jang. He pointed out the importanceof scientific guidelines and suggested to add
supplements for complete understanding fromtechnical point of view. He raised a question about
responsibility for budget and technical matters of a
project among member countries in case ofinternational rivers. I think this problem is also
concerned with the management of international
networks, because we are involved in setting up theguidelines. Dr. Fokkens mentioned on riverrestoration of an international river. I'd like to pointout the importance of timing how to move ahead
through a couple of phases to the final phase ofriver restoration.
Now I’d like to introduce my co-chair, Dr. Lee Bong
Hee. He is from the Korean River Restoration
Network. So now, Dr. Fokkens, would you give youranswer or comment on the question raised byProfessor Jang in the case of a big river basin, how
to share responsibility to decide a common goal
among the members from different countries.
[Dr. Bart Fokkens (ECRR president)]

In relation to the responsibility and how to deal withthe project, except from the Danube Basin, there
are a few countries that are not listening to EU, butthey also consider by themselves. All countries
have the same European directives they should be
implementing.
What I did tell so far these days is that within these
directives it is also stated that when they are in one
basin, there is, to a certain extent, a common
responsibility, but they should agree about thecommon approach in the basin, but each country is
responsible for its own part in its country. So, forexample, in the Netherlands, with the climatechange, we face quite a lot of flooding, and that canbe done something in Switzerland, something inGermany, but we had the most difficult problem tosolve also in relation to sea level rise. We areresponsible for that. So, it’s not one budget for thewhole basin; it’s one plan for the whole basin, andASIAN RIVER RESTORATION NETWORK (ARRN)

each is responsible for his own; that’s the firstmechanism.
The second mechanism is that the EU is willing tofund in relation to the economic situation of thecountry. For each part of plan of the total river
basin, the country should make of course thebenefit analysis because when the analysis showsthat there will be great benefits, but they cannot
make the cost then they cannot apply. And thismeans that in case of The Netherlands, we are arich country compared to other countries, but wehave a fairly high cost in relation to this specificsituation that even based on the cost benefit
analysis, we cannot apply from someone. So,
that’s the mechanism. There’s always not enoughmoney.
That’s the other situation of course
because we want to implement, if possible,
everything within the 5 years; but if it is notpossible, make it 10 years or 15 years or 20 years.
That’s also a kind of political discussion, but I
explained, as far as I know, the mechanism used.
[Dr. Suk Hwan Jang (Technical Committee of KRRN)]

How about design criteria? Does each country haseach design criteria? How can that be as the meansatisfying to all?
[Dr. Bart Fokkens (ECRR president)]

Also in the Danube Commission, but also in the
Rhine
Commission,
and
there
are
other
international ones who are not existing, theirobjective is to come to common agreed guidelines.
This is not always possible. And then, the politics
comes to solve the problems between two or three
countries, but the process is such that they try to do
the – almost to come to common design principles.
And sometimes, there is not enough known how tocome to these principles, and more research isneeded. And, then you come in cyclic process andthen this research will not be done by one country
but that will be joint research because when you
make a joint research, you have also joint results
and joint principles.
So, now I’m talking about process in the Rhine
Commission for 50 years, for example, where this isquite common, but this needs to be developed in
the Danube basin, for example. So that’s why I
always talk about these two because they are in avery different stage of development.
So, I want to add one thing. You said also that there
should be done more about promotion for riverrestoration. I think there is a difference in thesecountries and in EU. EU makes more politicallobby and promotion maybe, and we make more
promotion through the people wanting to
implement awareness raising in the 27 countries
because we have the policies, we have thelegislation; the plans are also in all countries moreor less there.
But now, if you come to action, then you need toapproach all the different organizations involved.

So, our next campaign for the coming theme in EU
will be awareness raising to specific targets.
Thank you.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Thank you. So can I summarize the mechanism?
So target ,you say, should be common, among
members of international committee, but in theimplementation phase or the action phase, the cost
and technology applied, in certain sense, will bedecided by each country where the actual
implementation goes on.
Is that the majormechanism?
[Dr. Bart Fokkens (ECRR president)]

Yeah.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]So, dear panelists, do you have any other questions
to other panelists?
[Dr. Naoki Shirakawa (Technical Committee of JRRN)]

I have one question to Dr. Fokkens about common
goals or common objectives. For something likewater quality problem common goal can be set
easily, but for something like ecosystem
rehabilitation, I think it can be different. It can bea local goal, which can be set for each part of theriver when we think about very large river basin.
For the River Danube, for example, do you reallyneed a common goal for all the Danube? Can it bea local goal which can be set for each part of theriver?
[Dr. Bart Fokkens (ECRR president)]

I understood your question, I think. The common
goal is not a common goal for the very high level.
Of course there should be a kind of strategy andeverybody should agree with the strategy. But
finally, the common goal is an action plan for all thebasins, and the action plan should be built up in the
countries, not only in one country, but maybe on a
specific river stretch. But there should be first akind of vision and strategy that direct this certain
minimum requirements that you should fulfill.
Then, the countries themselves they make theirplans and that the plans altogether will be good forthe basin in one plan, and this plan has to be agreed
by the international committee, but it’s built up
bottom level that should fit in the strategy, that’s
why the process. And the European countries had
about 8 years’ time to fulfill this process to come tointegrated river basin management plan for theriver restoration.
And still, it has not added
optimum quality because they need to revise this
now to a certain extent every year, and there is a
cyclic process of 5 years. But it’s always better tohave a plan with a quality of 80%, commonly7

agreed plan. And in the future, you need toachieve better result of the plan as well. But as
bottom up and strategy top down that should beateach other in something.
And then, you come to quite other aspects, youcome to the stakeholder. How do you deal with thestakeholders? How do you guide such a progress?
You are talking about technical aspects, but when
you go to stakeholders, they are not aware of allthese technical aspects. They have their own
interests.
How do you value interest of
stakeholders? And that can only be done by costbenefit analysis, and we didn’t speak much about it
these days, but this is becoming very, very
important recently in our case, but I think also in
your countries. First you start on few projects andmuch research, then the investments are not sohigh. But when you look at all benefits in yourcountries, in our country and going on really toinvestinecologicalimprovement,
huge
investments are needed. The governments arewilling to finance when we have cost benefit
analysis and can show them that investing thatmoney is efficient, but we are just at the beginningof that process.

breadth of the channel, so make a wide channel.
It’s very, very difficult to purchase the land. So,
the other alternative is the use of space inside thechannel. So, we need dredging. After dredging
works, the normal water level should be draw down
and also ground water draw down together.
So, to protect the drawdown of the normal waterlevel and ground water level, we need to build someweirs to make water level high for the user of water.
So, we proposed to install several weirs, but the
distance between the weirs becomes shorter. The
weirs height will be decreased, but the distance isalso a problem. So, we usually use the distance
between weirs more than 15 kilometers, so theheight of weir should be decided under 15 meters.
Then, we proposed some mild slope for low flow
channel. This means the mild slope did not needsome embankments using the concrete, so we put
some vegetation in the mild slope of the river
channel. So, next one is some room for thevegetation or something like, planting trees. So,
we would like to enhance the ecologicalsustainability, and we did not make a shortcut, did
not.
Usually, we use some channel meander
naturally.
So, the river restoration network
project will be finished in the end of next year.

[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)][Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]I think Professor Jang mentioned how to approachto the final goal. And, in the Korean case, which
has the four major rivers, the first restoration work
is going on, and how the decisionmaker or thecentral government decided such process, forinstance, first phase, second phase and third.
Especially, how did you decide, for instance, theextent of intermediate goals of the first phase andthe second phase? What is the decision criteria
about the required time or the final goal in thisintermediate goal? Could you please explain yourexperience in four major river restoration projects
in Korea, Dr. Lee Bong Hee?
[Dr. Bong Hee Lee (Secretary General of KRRN)]

I understand, but Dr. Chang Wan Kim in the floor
answers your question. He used to be in charge ofmaster planning stage of four river restoration
projects.
[Dr. Chang Wan Kim (Former KRRN Secretary General)]

The four river restoration projects started 2 years
ago. At that time we had a new president. He
promised to make some navigation channel
through the four rivers, connecting four rivers.
The people did not support the navigation channel.
Actually, the environmentalists were strongly
against that project. So, the government had tochange the navigation channel project to a moresustainable project for the flood control, and wateruse, and ecology. So, flood control is the main
target of the river restoration project. But actually
the best way for the flood control is to enlarge the8

Thank you. So now, I’d like to open the discussion
to the floor to receive comments or opinions on therole of the river restoration network. First, I’d liketo ask Dr. Michel Leclere. You are from Canada,
and I think we have only one – say this one from
North America. So, could you explain your opinion
about – including your experience in riverrestoration and also the suggestions to the
network?
[Dr. Michel Leclere (Canada)]

I’m not really prepared to answer this question
about river restoration, but actually, when you lookat a river in Canada, the main restoration projectaddresses rather water quality. Because if I takeas an example, Saint Lawrence River, you canfigure out that this river drains between industrial
complex of North America, Great Lakes in Chicago,
Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, and all big cities. And,each of these cities release a lot of contaminants,
and there has been a major effort around the 90s to
improve water quality and almost 90% of thecontaminants, heavy metals, and also the nutrientshas been – not nutrients are 20%, but industrial
waste has been removed at 90% level, and this is amajor effort.
In some areas, some river that has been,channelized by concrete walls in the past, just to
make this river look like La Seine in Paris. Thesewalls have been removed.
Especially in the
Québec City, the river where these walls have been
removed, and the slopes of the banks have been
smothered and re-digitalized, but still there are

ASIAN RIVER RESTORATION NETWORK (ARRN)

some problems with use of water. Huge amount ofwater goes for drinking and then, we still havesome problem of minimum flow to maintainecological features. And, maybe by doing somediversion from neighbor basin to increase the flow
discharge, I don’t see any solution to improve
ecosystem or natural aspects of river without
diverting water from neighbor water basin.
But, in my mind, I’m trying to figure out some riverthat would have been artificialized as much as someof these rivers I saw; for example, the one here in
Seoul where the weir has been removed, that’smajor works, but this kind of, I cannot speak for
North America in general, understand, I don’t –North America is a continent but I don’t know
what’s happening elsewhere, but Canada is still acountry where nature is everywhere.
The
population lives in a diameter of 50 kilometers
north to the United States border and the rest is
wild forest.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]So, do you have any declarations from ecologicalpoint of view, do you have some, for instance,
central government has some rules, regulations
embodied in the view in Canada?
[Dr. Michel Leclere (Canada)]First of all, the federal government is deeply
involved in the improvement of river. But as I saidat the beginning, it addresses rather the water
quality problem. Because this is one way to
improve the ecosystem. I don’t know if my answer
corresponds to your expectation, but that’s the best
I can do.

States, and probably majority of the pollutantscome from the United States, so I would say undersuch….
[Dr. Michel Leclere (Canada)]

What I can say for a larger length, for example,
Saint Lawrence River, there is a mixed internationalrecognition formed by two countries, Canada andUnited States, and they meet several times a year
to achieve multipurpose management of river,flood control, and more recently, in the last 10
years, the management plan that let’s say was
firstly proposed in the 50s, so 60 years ago, that
was applied as is let’s say for 55 years. This plan
only has main goal to protect against floods andcontrol the floods. Second, to allow navigation as
muchas
possible,andmaximizealsohydroelectricity, but the ecosystem was notconsidered in this management plan.
So, 10 years ago, there has been an update of thismanagement plan, trying to incorporate objectiveof improving the ecosystem, wetlands specially,
and it’s been a huge work. My colleague worked a
lot in lobbying this effort, and he proposed several
measures to improve. And, mainly what I can say
is that the way to improve the ecosystem is to allow
higher variability of flow discharge, especially for
maintaining wetlands and areas that were in theprocess of drying without floods, that’s what
happened. So, wetlands now are being in theprocess of improving, but you can figure out thatthat’s a huge, huge economic concern, Saint
Lawrence River. So, it’s not easy to combine theseconflictual goals, but there is a will to make it, andit’s an international effort from both countries.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)][Dr. Bart Fokkens (ECRR president)]

Could you also answer the second part of thequestion? What’s your opinion about the network
you presented, the Asian one, the European one.
These are people who are active in river restoration
because the river restoration, the second part of
the question was how is the situation about riverrestoration in Canada, and what’s your opinion
about the additional value of such river restoration
network because that’s the objective of this
discussion.
[Dr. Michel Leclere (Canada)]Thank you.
[Dr. Suk Hwan Jang (Technical Committee of KRRN)]

I’d like to pose one problems. Let’s think about thedefinition
betweentheconservation
andimplementationor
improvementsinriver
restorations because it is very difficult to make adecision when we are doing some project, riverrestorations, some NGO insisted the river topreserve as it is, but the government wanted todevelop or the implement, so do you have any ideas
to make a decision between two?

We can share the experience that’s quite good
because that’s really complex to restore the river,and having this kind of network is certainly very
good.

[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)][Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)][Dr. Suk Hwan Jang (Technical Committee of KRRN)]

Well, as you mentioned, one good example is Saint
Lawrence which is an international river, and you
mentioned that the Great Lakes that is in the United

In some ecologies, some NGOs, always want to be
as it is. So it’s very difficult to make a decision andvery difficult to persuade them.

By preservation and conservation, you mean, no
action in some sense?

9[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Dear panelists orsuggestion on this?

floors,

do

you

have

any

[Dr. Zhang Yimin (China)][Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Thank you. I’m from China. I am pleased tocome here. I know the ARRN; but it is the firsttime to participate. I’m very interested in riverrestoration. I think, recently, we pay more
attention to large rivers, but it’s preferably in China,
we need to pay attention to smaller ones, especiallyfor rural or city rivers.
And in China, now we pay more attention toincrease the water quality of the river, and we takeso many measures to the pollution source control.
I think it’s the first for restoration of the river. And
then, I think there exist, so many techniques but
both effective and economic techniques, I think arevery important. It’s very important to share theexperience of the scientist. I think it is the best
way to communicate through our platform. The
ARRN I think is a good platform.
We can communicate through the conference draft,but I suggest, if we have opportunity to unite, toobtain some support from the government or somefund to have demonstration somewhere to solve
the local problem of some rivers. I think maybe
this is a useful way to co-operate. This is mysuggestion.

Thank you.

[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Thank you. So, I would like to return back to thequestion by Dr. Jang.
[Dr. Dongya Sun (Secretary General of CRRN)]

I want to say something about the panelists’ somequestions. Let’s in fact say something from riverrestoration concept. In China, just the meaning ofrestoration is not the very meaning as it is in
English. We cannot restore a river in the historicalstate, that’s amenable. But in Chinese, we got to
use words that’s similar in English the meaning of
rehabilitation. This is one aspect.
We can do. What we can do? We can do theconservation to keep its present state or condition.
And also, we can do some active measures. So
conservation is a kind of passive measure, but wealso can do some rehabilitation work from active
aspect. And that in turn we think that we haveconservation and also rehabilitation for river
ecological recovery and something.
And also, we have some other planning for
ecological conservation work. But, in my opinion,in this kind of rapidly developing country like China,
we need some hydropower. There are many urban
residents in the water supply farmland irrigation.
So, in turn, we cannot simply say that for the
purpose of river ecological conservation, we should10

not use water or take the water, it’s not eligible.
So, in China, the eligible way for us is to do work for
two purposes. One is for ecologic aspect and theother is for social aspect. We have to consider, atthe same time, these two aspects.

[Dr. Bart Fokkens (ECRR president)]

I would underline the approach very much because
also in our situation, I know it from many places on
the road. In most cases, you cannot restore thehistorical situation, but river restoration, in myopinion, is not to restore the historical situation.
River restoration is that you study maybe from thepast or you study from still a different situation thatare in certain countries how the processes are, andyou are able when you know the system, you know
how to restore the processes, and that is what wecall river restoration. Then you need not restore
the river as it was in the past and maybe wedevelop new techniques because we know much
more
about
geomorphology
and
about
ecohydrology et cetera , through conferences likethis.
We should use science and knowledge that all thescientists here can give. If we can use outputs thatare brought forward in this conference in riverrestoration we can restore ecological processes to acertain extent even when the conditions are very
poor. And when we are able to restore theprocesses, then we could contribute to – the habitat
restoration to contribute to the ecology. Thisshould fit in, of course, the kind of ecosystemapproach and ecosystem system. Being apartfrom restoration in China and even in Europe andmany places, if you consider in your situation thatyou can restore the river situation as it was 50
years ago, that’s not possible, but that is also notneedful. There are other possibilities, so I agreewith you very much.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Thank you. As for the restoration, usually, weneed to discuss about the goal of restoration. So,
as I mentioned, you see that the goal is to restore
river processes in, let’s say, 50 years ago or 100
years ago or more ancient state. We need, I think,in a certain sense the social consensus. I think thatthe goal would be determined through that. And
then, if we see that we have say the zone or therivers which are quite rich in nature, in that case,probably, no action; this solution will be selected.

ASIAN RIVER RESTORATION NETWORK (ARRN)G U I D E L I N E
How to develop
restoration

Guideline

for

river

the excellence in engineering practice. And this isco-located with the IAHR symposium on
ecohydraulic. During the symposium, these twomeetings were held. So what do you think about
this symposium? Can you hear about the newresearch outcomes on new technology or someinnovative
research
articles,throughthesymposium? So, in some sense, you see, to havethis meeting during this symposium is quite
beneficial to know the recent outcome of theadvanced research or technology. What do you
think? So maybe we can, in some sense, learn
quite a lot from new advanced technologies andthen adopt these new aspects or new concept andthe new technologies into river restoration.
[Dr. Bart Fokkens (ECRR president)][Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]

Next, I would like to ask your opinion about theguidelines, and also in relation to the guidelines,
probably the very important question or subject is
how to define, for instance, the ecologically soundcondition of the eco-system. We cannot evaluate
ecological soundness from technical point of view or
economical point of view. Probably this is difficult,but already it is mentioned that it’s a very
important subject in river restoration, and also toobtain the common guidelines for river restoration.
So let us consider at first the evaluation or the valueof ecological soundness or good, in some sense,
eco-system services. How do you think about theevaluation techniques or how do you consider onthese? Are there any comments or suggestions?
[Dr. Dongya Sun (Secretary General of CRRN)]

I would like to say something first for the guidelines.
Because this kind of guidelines are planned for the
public of different countries, I think guidelines
should show basic concept, make, common concept
clear. And then we can put forward some aspects
that we should totally work when we do the riverrestoration project. Some aspects we must list in
the guideline, we should do – from this aspect do
our work. We need general aspects we should carryout restoration works and data collection, includinghydro-morphological aspect. We should consider
some specific aspects, if the technique is very
successful concerning, such as, the environment,
vegetation et cetera. So, that’s my suggestion.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Thank you. So, in this roundtable meeting andalso in the previous forum, you know, we discussed

Yeah. I’d like to explain a little bit from therestoration, but it fits in into your question. As I
said before, it is very difficult to make proper
guidelines or a real guidance tool, but actually, theguidelines for –what I explained Thursday, thegood ecological status. And, this differs from place
to place and situation. For water quality, it ismuch more easy, but still it needs quite a lot ofintercalculation to find out what the good status isfrom a chemical point of view; from an ecologicalpoint of view, it’s much more difficult.
And then the things comes with this ecohydraulicconference because the more that can beunderstood of this type of processes and the action
between the biota and all these aspects, the better
we understand, the better we can formulate what
the good ecological status is. Still it’s dependingon the type of place where you are, and that’s why
we selected ecology. So, in the different ecologies,
the good ecological situation will already be
different.
So, the good ecological state is, at the moment,
related to the ecology a little bit fake in Europe, but
we have some guidance on how to develop but themore research and the better research is available
and the more techniques become available tointroduce the restoration technique, the better it isand the better we can define what the good
ecological status should be in a certain situation.
So this is scientific approach, a kind of minimum
level now, and the national government, they needto make sure that the situation from 2001 did not
get worse. We start off with what you should do all
favorite techniques to improve the situation and to
attest it. So, that’s our approach. It is not a
guideline. It’s an approach. It’s a concept. So, I
feel a little bit of difference in the approach in the
Asian region where they really develop guidelines.
It is quite different, but conceptual, there is also
some difference.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Thank you. So, what I want to say is, when we
think about some standard concept or say the11general concept, which we want to have in theguidelines, in that case, as Dr. Fokkens mentioned,in the initial version level, we need to start this on
the current knowledge. Then, we see the researchadvances, and then you know the revised version,and also we can introduce new findings to obtain
the revised version. At first we seek for thegeneral comments, and then in addition to thisfoundation the essential part will be developed, as
you already discussed, here’s each country has
difference to a certain level. Each river has its own
characteristics, so then, you see, some peculiar
characteristics of each region or each river can be
added to this foundation of common, generalparts…some comments?
[Dr. Suk Hwan Jang (Technical Committee of KRRN)]

To make the guidelines and to restore the rivers, it
is very important to assess and evaluate the rivers
at first. So, I think we should pay attention todevelop not only the physical indices but also theecological indices.
So, before restoration, we
should study current status, or we need astate-of-the-art report, and so this is the second or
third grade soundness of the eco-system. So,
there are some indices developed, I know, but it’s
not used commonly all over the world. So, I agree
that the condition is different in each country, buton the common, we should develop certain
guidelines in Europe or in Asia as such.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]

Could you mention your name and affiliation?
[Dr. Jin Yong Zhao (China)]

I am from CRRN. In the past years, we have donesome works, some restoring works for rivers andtheir regions. We applied basic theory and also
executed some demonstrative projects.
But,during the demonstrative project, some of themwent to court because many local governments
have no standards to evaluate the project. So, it isdifficult to get money or get funds from thegovernment or local foundation. So, I think, theguideline is a very useful tool for some people of theregion to get some opportunities.
But in China, there are some different situations
because in China, the project must be implemented
based on certain standards, certain national
standards. So if we have no standards, the projectis difficult to be implemented. But I think theguideline is in a primitive stage yet. After
introduction of the first version of guidelines andafter many prognosis, we can establish the national
standards probably.
On that the ruralpreservation will be widely implemented.

12[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]Thank you.
So, Dr. Zhao suggests that, theguidelines, when we prepare, in that case we needto revise with, say, 2-year interval.
[Dr. Michel Leclere (Canada)]

I have some thoughts maybe to add. When wetalk about river restoration, maybe we should
define what we mean by river restoration because
for sure, it’s most of the time, modification or
human impacts on rivers becomes more or lessirreversible. When you look at, for example, bigdams or – unless you remove the dams, it’s difficult
to envisage some restoration of the river as it was.
So we – I don’t know if it would be the good word,
but I will say that rehabilitation law or restoringsome features or some aspects, natural aspects of
the river is going in a good direction, but to restore
river as it was, it’s a new topic.
Concerning guidelines, I feel that we are at the
point in history where there are a lot of must dos
that can be figured out without any guidelines.
Because the situations are so different from a riverto another that if you look at a specific river,sometime we know that something must be done
and for sure, we will need some conceptual
framework to do the work on this river, but are
there some generic rules that could become general
guidelines. I’m not quite sure except maybe they
could be very general, for example, restore or
improve water quality or remove the walls or… For
example, in North America and in Europe too, there
is a huge effort to restore the connectivity of theriver, just to improve the migration of fish, that’s ina sense guidelines, that’s general objectives thatare generic everywhere, but we are still building
dams and weir.
Maybe the first rule will be
stopping degradation of rivers.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]

For instance, the terminology appears in theguideline, for instance, rehabilitation is applied to
local change, and also, it doesn’t improve therecovery of ecological function. So this is the firstlevel of environmental improvement. And thenrestoration includes, I think, as far as I know,
includes the recovery of ecological function.
And, for restoration if we’d say this covers thewhole river basin. So scale-wise and also action
wise, I think, we have definition of rehabilitation,
restoration or full restoration, for instance. So,
these terminologies have been usually attached to
the guidelines.
[Dr. Hong Wu Tan (China)]

I’m from IWHR, China. For the guidelines somesuggestions, firstly, I want to ask some questions.
Firstly, what can we learn from other countries? –Yes, others, in fact refers to the European UnionASIAN RIVER RESTORATION NETWORK (ARRN)

and the USA or Australia, because now we are AsianRiver Restoration Network. So, up to date, theriver restoration of Asia is not most advanced – itmust be the USA, European, or the Australian. So,
the most – first question to summarize, what can
we learn from other advanced countries? This is thefirst question.
The second question is what we can share among
ourselves; in China, in Korea, or in Japan? Japanis the most advanced in river restoration among
these because Japan has put forward the riverrestoration. And, I think to make the guideline weshould summarize by ourselves improvement inthis area.
And, the third question is, what is our special
program of Asian rivers is. And I think the mostdifference among other areas is perhaps the muchdenser population in Asia. For example, in China,
has the densest population. Japan has, also very,
very dense population. So, maybe, this is thedifference.

So, you might be right that you can may be learn
more, but still, I think, it is mutual, and it should bemutual.
[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]

So I think your first and second question depend on
the motivation of each individual how to utilize
network or knowledge accumulated so far, and thethird question, it is closely concerned with theguidelines. For instance, the guideline, we wish toprovide the basic concept of how we consider thenature or how we see the impact of the humanactivities change or modify the nature.
Suchknowledge or understanding forms the basis ofguidelines. So through guidelines, I think suchpart you can understand as fundamental common
knowledge or understanding of restoration. Do
you have any comments from panelists?

Thank you. So, the time is approaching to 5:30,
and this is the closing time of this session. So, I’dlike to summarize this session, the title of which is“how to develop technology and guidelines for riverrestoration networks”.
As all panelists mentioned, including participantsfrom the floor, the network for exchange oftechnology and concept and from the study clarifies,
you see, the difference from the physical, cultural,and historical point of view. There are such variety
and sometimes diversity, it is quite important. I
think that it’s a common understanding.
But still to do that, to deepen the understanding,we may have something that is still lacking, forinstance, the evaluation technique, for instance,
the economical value, how much good environment
is. This economical value is critical for project
evaluation for restoration for ecological soundness.
Such evaluation techniques are still unknown or in
the primitive stage, I think. So, still we need toenhance the advancement in research area and we
can reflect this advancement in research and also
discussions on the networks and also to real
implementation of the river restoration network.
So, the ARRN wants to make efforts corresponding
to these missing points and also the merit of the
networks. Thank you very much, especially I
would like to appreciate our panelists and also
participants here for lively discussion creating
deeper mutual understanding and successful
outputs in this roundtable meeting.

[Dr. Bart Fokkens (ECRR president)]

Thank you very much.

[Dr. Nobuyuki Tamai (ARRN Chairperson)]

May I make one remark? Again, you mentioned as
you say you should look to the most advanced
countries and learn from them. That might be true.
We are in a different position. On the other hand,
my experience is that still, when one country ismore affluent than the other, then the exchange of
information and learning from each other tends tobe mutual.
We can spread something that’s going on in thesecountries.
And as you said, your country isdensely populated, and there are circumstancesthat differ, but maybe, we might face problems you
have now already, in our country in the future. So,
when you find a solution in your country, we cantransfer this to our country.
That’s why weorganized joint projects I’ve already presented
about the cooperation between The Netherlands
and China. This was not only to learn in China fromwhat happens in Holland, but also to learn in
Holland what may we could have in Netherlands, tolearn from China.

13

Asian River Restoration Network[Secretariat]
Foundation for Riverfront Improvement and Restoration (RFC)
Shinkawa Chuoh Bldg., 7th Flr. 17-24, Shinkawa 1cho-me, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN,
104-0033
TEL: +81-3-6228-3862 FAX: +81-3-3523-0640
E-mail: secre@a-rr.net
Website: http://www.a-rr.net/

Japan River Restoration Network (JRRN) has a role of ARRN secretariat sinceNov. 2006. Secretariat of ARRN and JRRN is operated by Foundation forRiverfront Improvement and Restoration and CTI Engineering Co.,
Ltd. as joint study on development of international information network ofriver environment.
http://www.a-rr.net/jp/en/

January, 2011