Summary
The Tullstorpsån Rural Development Project is a long-term, landowner-driven initiative implementing multiple Natural Water Retention Measures to improve aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, retain nutrients, and enhance recreation. Since 2009, the project has restored over 25 km of river channel and created or restored more than 50 wetlands (> 200 ha), combined with riparian vegetation planting and riverbed re-meandering. These measures, supported by local landowners, regional authorities and consultants, have reduced nitrogen loads by about 30 % and phosphorus by about 50 %, improved the ecological status of the stream, and increased fish and bird populations.
Recent developments under “Tullstorp Stream 2.0” focus on multifunctional wetlands for both nutrient retention and water storage, enabling irrigation during dry periods. Since 2021, the project has also piloted large-scale controlled drainage systems (48 ha) to further reduce nutrient leakage while supporting crop yields. Continuous monitoring of water quality, hydrology, and biodiversity underpins adaptive management and knowledge transfer across the Baltic Sea region.
Photo gallery
Overview
| Authority type | Authority name | Authority role | Comments | Authority responsibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private property owners | Tullstorpsån Economic Association (TSEA) | Initiation of the measure | Landowner-led association responsible for planning, coordination, stakeholder engagement, and on-the-ground implementation. Also oversees maintenance and monitoring in cooperation with partners. | Responsible |
| Local water authority | Trelleborg Municipality | Other | Promoted Tullstorpsån as part of sustainability project “Kretsloppet” and hired a project manager | Supporting |
| National water authority | Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket) | Financing | Provide grants (e.g., LOVA) for nutrient reduction measures. | Supporting |
| Other | European Union | Financing | — | Supporting |
| Architects / Engineers | Naturvårdsingenjörerna AB | Determination of design details of the measure | Provides engineering designs, environmental assessments, and technical guidance for wetland construction, channel restoration, and controlled drainage. | Supporting |
| Regional / sub-national water authority | County Administrative Board of Skåne | Other | Regulatory oversight & permitting. Issues necessary permits and supports alignment with regional water management objectives | Supporting |
| National water authority | Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (HaV) | Financing | Provide grants (e.g., LOVA) for nutrient reduction measures. | Supporting |
| Other | Baltic Sea Action Plan Fund (NEFCO & Nordic Investment Bank) | Financing | Supported the prestudy and implementation of controlled drainage systems. | Supporting |
Site Information
Design and Implementation
Financing
Policy and Governance
| Directive | Relevant pressure |
|---|---|
| WFD identified pressure | 2.2 Diffuse Agricultural |
| WFD identified pressure | 4.1.2 Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore of water body for agriculture |
| Other EU | Habitats directive |
| Directive | Relevant impact |
|---|---|
| WFD identified pressure | Nutrient Pollution |
| WFD identified pressure | Altered habitats due to morphological change |
| Requirement directive | Specification |
|---|---|
| WFD-achievement of good chemical status | Reduction in N and P export |
| WFD-achievement of good ecological status | Habitat restoration |
Impacts and Monitoring
Monitoring System
Maintenance
Socio-economic Impacts
Biophysical impacts: Hydrology
Biophysical impacts: Biodiversity
Bird diversity and abundance have increased around wetlands; several new species recorded in the catchment.
Re-meandering and riparian vegetation planting have enhanced habitat heterogeneity for aquatic invertebrates and plants.
Biophysical impacts: Water & Soil Quality
Despite nutrient load reductions, ecological status remains “moderate” (based on diatom index), with persistent high nutrient enrichment and signs of organic pollution.
Wetlands and vegetated riparian zones also trap sediments, improving water clarity locally (qualitative observation in project reports).
Biophysical impacts: Others
Lessons Learned
Another lesson is the value of multifunctionality. Designing wetlands not only for nutrient retention but also for water storage and irrigation has increased their relevance to farmers, especially under changing climate conditions. This has strengthened local engagement and broadened the benefits beyond biodiversity alone.
The project also shows the importance of long-term monitoring and adaptive management. Continuous data collection on water quality, hydrology, and biodiversity has provided evidence of successes and areas needing improvement, such as the persistent high nutrient levels despite significant load reductions. This information is essential for refining measures and justifying ongoing investment.
Finally, Tullstorpsån demonstrates the benefits of diversified funding and partnerships. Combining national grants, municipal support, and international funding sources like the Baltic Sea Action Plan Fund has allowed the project to evolve from initial restoration into innovative measures such as controlled drainage. The mix of technical expertise, local knowledge, and sustained financial backing has been critical to its resilience and scalability.
| Driver type | Driver role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Legal obligations | Secondary driver | WFD and Baltic Sea nutrient reduction commitments |
| Organisation committed to it | Main driver | — |
| Success factor type | Success factor role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Attitude of decision makers | Main factor | governance framework supported discussion and consensus |
| Attitude of the public | Main factor | Commitment of the local farmers and riparian land owners. |
| Attitude of relevant stakeholders | Main factor | involving landowners, farmers and other businesses was key to success |
The Tullstorpsån project has shown that land conversion to restore the natural water retention capacity of the landscape can succeed when farmers and other land owners play an active role in the decision making process and feel a sense of ownership of the project.