Adaptive co-management and network learning in the Room for the River programme
7.4 Learning outcomes in Room for the River
7.4.2 Design phase 2006-2011, adjusting interpretations, structures and practices.
A Management Team member of PDR explicitly highlighted the learning during RftR:
¨
We have continuously adapted and improved the organizational structures and processes based on lessons learnt and whenever opportune. The PDR started as a local train and whilst driving we converted it into a high speed train¨.The advantages and pitfalls of a ‘programmed approach’: 39 related projects within one programme became apparent to programme managers during the design phase. The ‘interpretation’ emerged that the programme’s success depended on the success of its’ individual projects. As one programme manager put it: “RftR is like a chain of pearls: beautiful individual projects that cannot be considered in isolation of each other.” Each individual measure is necessary to reach the overall objective of increasing river discharge capacity and in lowering
158
water levels along the river basin. Also, the satisfaction or dissatisfaction amongst stakeholders in an individual project could affect other projects. As a consequence the PDR emphasised to regional stakeholders the importance of their project in achieving the overall programme objectives and thus the flood safety of the Netherlands. Moreover, programme managers saw the potential that projects could learn from each other and create peer pressure amongst the group to stimulate progress and quality. These insights were exploited through ‘structures’ by explicitly naming frontrunner projects that were ahead of other projects in terms of planning. Lessons learnt from the leading projects were transferred to the slower projects by personnel exchange, guidelines, unifying management structures and network and training events. As an example, the project team for the ‘Noordwaard’ project, a frontrunner that had already entered the construction phase, started also working on another project ‘Ruimte voor de Lek’ and some team members started working part-time for yet another project in ‘Lent’. Guidelines were developed for: soil movement planning; planning for spatial quality; groyne information systems; consistent information requirements for hydraulics, vegetation, landscape mapping and planning; and asset monitoring and maintenance protocols (Van Herk et al., 2013c; 2013b). They were based on lessons from frontrunner projects, supported the delivery of slower projects within RftR and are being used and will be used for parallel and future programmes. The management structures were established uniformly amongst the 39 project teams to further stimulate the exchange of lessons between projects and their team members who had similar roles. Permit request coordination teams were established in all projects to coordinate and combine permit requests to the various authorities, having observed that multiple permit procedures could hamper the progress of projects. A variety of authorities are responsible for granting permits such as: nature permits, building permit, transport permits, etc. Politicians from the steering committees and civil servants from the project teams tried to streamline permit requests amongst different authorities and interacted with their independent permit departments. This was beneficial as all permits were then obtained together, instead of going through multiple formal procedures. This was to ensure that conflicting interests did not lead to a permit being granted on one aspect, but being rejected on another, possibly delaying the whole project. The interaction in the working groups increased understanding of mutual interests and supported the search for integrated solutions. The same learning approach of transfer and replication of lessons in subsequent projects has been applied to the individual projects. For example, a project that comprised the lowering of approximately 500 groynes along the Waal river was organised into 3 sequential tranches so as to learn from previous tranches in terms of: hydraulic;
Adaptive co-management and network learning in the Room for the River programme
159
morphologic and ecologic effects; construction time; market approach. ‘Practices’ for groyne designs were adapted after the first tranche, based on stakeholder feedback and new insights as to the effectiveness of the designs’.
The paradigm of ‘controlled trust’, no central government interference in individual projects championed by regional authorities, was adjusted during the design phase of RftR. The PDR observed from its monitoring activities that the progress and quality of the 39 projects often failed often due to similar issues. The PDR changed its ‘interpretations’ and decided to pro-actively support projects: i.e. the monitoring led to a culture of collaboration as the PDR facilitated and supported the individual projects to comply with the criteria that were monitored. Organisational ’structures’ governing the interface between PDR and regional projects were changed to embed the facilitation activity. Project managers contacted the Programme via stakeholder managers at the PDR that monitored the regional political support. However, many challenges that were encountered in projects were not political, but related to specific technical and project controlling issues. The PDR decided to reinforce the front-office (i.e. stakeholder managers), with so-called triangular meetings with representatives from 3 departments: stakeholder management; knowledge (eg soil quality, piping and cabling, hydraulics); and project controlling (budgeting, contracting). The PDR introduced a requirement for progress and risk management reports with criteria from these 3 departments. Where there were recurring issues covering several projects, these were addressed by specific task forces that in certain cases even managed to change national policies where they prevented progress, such as: land use in outer marches; precedents for dyke requirements; regulations on soil and water quality; regulation for redevelopment of lakes; and nature-oriented planning. This benefited all RftR projects and future programmes (Van Herk et al., 2013b). Also, the Q-team became more instrumental in supporting individual projects. The Q-team not only evaluated, but also supported and promoted attractive spatial designs and evaluated an individual project’s technical feasibility. They periodically visited projects and provided independent advice on project designs and the design process. The monitoring activities of the PDR have been converted into collaborative activities with regional stakeholders: ‘collegial monitoring’. Regional stakeholders requested permission to carry out or commission the monitoring activities themselves to increase their own learning experience.
The interpretations of the spatial quality objective changed over time. Instead of presenting river widening as an opportunity for delivering spatial quality and to incentivise regional stakeholders, this objective is now being seen as a luxury. The
160
political landscape changed significantly after the 2010 national and local elections. Political support for spatial quality decreased, in particular budgets for nature development and recreational development, whilst agriculture as economic activity gained relevance. Representatives of the Programme Directorate explicitly highlighted that a programme with a long duration needs to be able to adapt to changing context and be flexible. A respondent responsible for communication explained that the programme no longer used the word ‘nature’ in communication and focused on flood safety and agriculture. Moreover, solutions were sought to preserve or develop farmland. E.g. in the Veessen- Wapenveld project where a by-pass is proposed through farmland, stakeholders decided to acquire additional agricultural land outside the area to compensate nature development in the river IJssel by-pass (Van Herk et al, 2012b). Figure 7.2 summarises the learning outcomes in interpretations, structures and practices and their interdependencies during the Design phase.
Figure 7.2. The learning outcomes and their interdependencies during the Design phase
7.5 Governance arrangements for learning and adaptive
co-management in RftR
Several authors provide guidance on strategies or governance arrangements for learning based on extensive reviews of studies into adaptive co-management (e.g. Cook et al, 2004; Huitema et al, 2009, Berkes, 2009). Cook et al. (2004) present a list of experimental approaches that can foster learning in human-environment interaction. Huitema et al. (2009) devise 4 institutional prescriptions for adaptive co-management. Berkes (2009) lists strategies that have been used to facilitate or improve co-management. The strategies they advocate partly overlap and do not focus on individual programmes, but rather on physical and societal systems. However, we have found empirical evidence of how their strategies have been applied in the RftR programme.
Huitema et al. (2009) propose ‘polycentric governance’ with dispersed centres of power that tap into capacities at different geographical scopes. Polycentric
Adaptive co-management and network learning in the Room for the River programme
161
governance is inherent in integrated water management and at the core of the governance arrangements of RftR. The 39 individual projects are championed by regional authorities and monitored by the Programme Directorate (PDR) that operates at national level. Berkes (2009) refers to ‘fair and democratic distribution of power’ observed in RftR by regional stakeholders getting the design freedom to (learn to) devise measures that combine flood safety with spatial quality. The regional leadership required a justification cycle to monitor progress and quality of projects by the PDR. Dutch parliament requested progress updates and the Ministry commissioned independent audits by scientists and consultants. These are expressions in RftR of ‘downward accountability’ and ‘collaborative monitoring’ (ibid) that fostered learning. In general RftR fostered a culture of transparency and accountability that was operationalized in a wide range of audits, evaluations and monitoring assessments (Rijke et al., 2012b) from which many lessons were drawn. Technical and political hurdles have been observed and could be overcome jointly. For this, the PDR was instrumental in ‘bridging knowledge’ (ibid) in mobilising knowledge, skills and capacities of actors at different levels. The governance arrangement of central boundaries, with decentralised leadership was considered an important success factor in RftR (3.84/5) and survey respondents scored the importance of clear objectives and strict project management at 3.99/5. The effect of these governance arrangements extended beyond the programme. Room for the river has had a strong influence on greater collaboration between different authorities in water management: 3.84/5. As such RftR has provided a positive example for the national commission Elverding, that had urged managers for large infrastructure projects in the Netherlands in 2008 to apply improved planning processes for faster and better results; especially through earlier participation of stakeholders (Commissie Elverding, 2008). The survey results presented here also indicate that RftR has had a major influence on the (future) application of programme directorates (3.86/5). A senior government official confirmed that: ¨the Delta- Programme is currently considering the creation of Programme Directorates, following the example of Room for the River¨.
Huitema et al. (2009) propose ‘public participation’ to support decision making
amongst multiple stakeholders and increase democratic legitimacy of the decision- making process. Berkes (2009) presents various facets of public participation that stimulate learning that have been observed in RftR. The box of blocks that was used during the initiation phase of RftR to devise and select river widening measures is an example of ‘participatory scenario building’ (ibid). Interviewees have stated their increased insight in: the functioning of the river system; in the mutual dependence of measures to reduce water levels in the river; and hence in
162
the need for a river-basin approach or ‘watershed approach’ (Cook et al, 2004) or need for a ‘bioregional perspective’ (Huitema et al., 2009). ‘Co-production of knowledge’ and ‘participatory research’ (Berkes, 2009) have been observed mostly in the 39 individual projects. Van Herk et al. (2012a) describe the social learning processes in RftR that combine: system analysis, collaborative planning, design and engineering; and governance, to implement the individual measures. Local farmers and inhabitants have contributed to the analysis by providing local knowledge. In the project Overdiepse Polder they have provided the design concept for the spatial plan. Another example is the joint collegial monitoring by regional and national authorities that has been stated as a learning experience. Berkes (2009) also lists ‘cooperation building tactics’ that have been observed in RftR through: stakeholder managers of the PDR that foster regional political cooperation; the Q-team regularly visiting projects to advise on design work to increase spatial quality considering ecology, hydrology: morphology and landscape architecture; personnel exchange between projects.
Huitema et al. (2009) propose ‘experimentation’ as a form of trial and error learning and Cook et al. (2004) evaluate a range of approaches for experimentation. Learning at a programme level can be considered ‘Adaptive Management’ (ibid) as it has been a ‘learning by doing’ process, at least partly ‘directed at policy and management modification’. As such RftR can be considered as one ‘large-plot experiment’ (ibid). The governance arrangement that was mentioned most by interviewees to stimulate learning was the so-called programmed approach with projects having different timings compared to each other. The experimentation and replication of lessons between different individual projects can be classified as ‘adaptive experimentation’ (ibid). The sharing of lessons between projects has been facilitated by the PDR. The sequential phasing within individual projects, such as applied in the groyne-lowering project, can be considered a ‘small-plot experiment’ (ibid) that enabled replication within the same project.
None of the abovementioned authors refers to the importance of a culture of learning and the network to share lessons. In RftR we found the PDR deliberately creating a ‘community’ of involved professionals and politicians that documented lessons in guidelines and disseminated them through training and network events. The very existence of the PDR as ‘lead-organisation’ has stimulated community building. From this analysis it has been concluded that the RftR programme can be considered a lead organisation-governed network with high goal consensus (Provan and Kenis, 2007). The programme Directorate has been the lead organisation that, according to Graddy and Chen (2006), generally assumes most
Adaptive co-management and network learning in the Room for the River programme
163
strategic and operational decisions. Folke et al. (2005) stress that the nodes (such as PDR) within the larger network of co-managers seem to be the main vehicle by which learning-by-doing occurs. Examining structural issues of a network (Provan et al, 2007) from the egocentric perspective of the PDR as lead organisation, we observed that the PDR has had a high and increasing: ‘degree centrality’ with many direct links to other organisations that participated in the programme such as municipalities and water boards; ‘closeness centrality’ having short paths to all other organisations in the network to spread knowledge; ‘betweenness centrality’ as a gatekeeper between other organisations such as between the national government and projects and amongst projects; ‘multiplexity’ with different types of links such as political, administrative, technical ties, research ties and shared personnel; and ‘broker relationships’ as the PDR could span gaps in the network. No examples have been found of PDR being connected to ‘cliques’ or clusters. Huntjens et al (2011) concluded that water management requires balancing between bottom-up governance (decentralisation) with top-down governance (decentralisation) for e.g.: facilitation, capacity building, cooperation across boundaries. The PDR provided a vehicle for this.