IFRM; case study Room for the River

Rijke et al., (2012b) show that the Room for the River programme has an exceptionally high performance in terms of project output, stakeholder satisfaction, budget and time when compared with other large water programmes in the Netherlands (Taskforce HWBP, 2012), or with many large international infrastructure projects (Flyvjberg, 2007). The flood safety objective of increasing the river discharge capacity for riverine areas of the Rivers Rhine, Meuse, Waal, IJssel and Lek from 15.000m3/s to 16.000m3_{/s is being met, according to an}

independent evaluation of Deltares (PDR, 2011). The second objective of contributing to the improvement of the spatial quality of the riverine area is also being met (Hulsker et al. , 2011). In terms of budget, the Programme Directorate reported to Dutch Parliament that the total cost estimate for the programme was 2170.9 million Euro in 2011 compared with a budget of 2180.8 million Euro originally planned for in 2006 (PDR, 2011) As for the time planning, this progress report states that out of the 39 initial projects that were described in the policy decision in 2006, only 8 are expected to have a delay of approximately one year (completion originally scheduled for 2015). The results of the survey indicate that the actors involved are satisfied with the results of both the programme and the individual projects so far delivered, with 85% of survey respondents indicating that they were satisfied or very satisfied.

4.3.1 RftR integrated outputs

The question addressed here is if RftR has also delivered integrated output: in objectives, and across spatial and temporal scales. Integration in objectives is a direct consequence of the Programme’s two objectives of flood safety and spatial quality and of the concept of river widening. Hulsker et al. (2011) show how functions such as: agriculture, recreation, nature, cultural-historic values and housing are integrated into flood safety projects. For example in Nijmegen and Deventer, the projects have provided opportunities for urban development through better connection of both sides of the river. In Overdiepse Polder and Noordwaard, agricultural land was preserved in inundation polders or depoldered areas. The concept of river widening comprises measures, such as flood by-passes, excavation of flood plains, and dike relocation (Fig. 4.1), that have a stronger spatial component than traditional measures such as dyke reinforcement. Put differently, river widening is a spatial measure by definition and hence requires integration in land use planning.

76

Figure 4.1. ‘Measures that are applied in Room for the River (Source: Room for the River

Programme Office)`

From a hydraulic perspective, all measures in the programme are related because their effectiveness to increase discharge capacity are mutually dependent. They cover the Dutch rivers Rhine, Meuse, Waal, IJssel and Lek from the German border on the East to the IJssel Lake in the North and the North Sea in the West.

Integration in spatial scales has been commonplace during the Initiation phase when

a collection of measures have been selected along the length of the river system. Also, this integration is apparent, as during the later planning phases, 5 of the 39 projects were cancelled as being superfluous, because more water level reduction had been achieved than originally planned at several other locations. Also, in individual projects, such as the Veessen-Wapenveld river bypass project, solutions were sought outside the original project area to overcome hurdles in the planning process. For example, agricultural land that had to be sacrificed in a flood prone area was traded for a nature area outside the project area to be converted in agricultural land. However, this trade-off occurred only rarely. With regard to spatial quality, the measures along a river branch could have been designed more coherently to contribute to a uniform Dutch river landscape. New civil structures and by-passes have not all been designed consistently, but rather by regional project teams for each individual project (Hulsker et al., 2011).

In its essence RftR comprises integration across temporal scales. Increasing the river discharge capacity helps to prepare for higher peak discharges now and in the future. RftR set an example for countries upstream of the Netherlands. It supported international agreement on EU Water Guideline legislation, stipulating that these neighbouring countries could not take measures that pass increasing water flows downstream towards the Netherlands. Also, river widening inherently provides future flexibility to implement complementary measures because future dyke reinforcement or heightening measures can still be considered after the river

Attributes for integrated Flood Risk Management projects;

case study Room for the River

77

discharge capacity has already been increased. During the initiation phase of the programme, an evaluation was carried out to assess if RftR could accommodate the passage of 18.000m3_{/s in the river systems in the future instead of the}

16.000m3_{/s originally planned for. It was analysed if measures could retain their}

functionality and have a ‘no-regret’ performance, being useful under any future scenario, such as for a discharge of 18.000m3_{/s (Schut et al, 2010; Van Herk et}

al., 2012a).

4.3.2 RftR integrated process

How did the planning process deliver integrated outputs? Van Herk et al (2011a) provide a description framework that distinguishes three types of activities in IFRM processes: system analysis; planning, design and engineering; and governance. Here we distinguish 4 planning phases as shown in Figure 4.2. Table 4.1 summarises the activities per planning phase.

Figure 4.2. ‘The integrated process through the planning phases with decreasing design

freedom`

The Initiation phase for RftR started in 1999 with the national policy on Room for the River that merely prescribed the objective to create a river discharge capacity of 16.000m3_{/s by river widening measures. Solutions could be devised}

78

for the entire river system and from a long list of 700 possible measures, 39 were selected and approved by parliament in the Programme Decision Room for the River in 2006 (V&W, 2006). From the outset the design activites made a crucial contribution to integration by the choice of river widening as a solution and thus as the leading design concept for all measures. The concepts of river widening took shape in the individual measures proposed that combined multiple objectives. In the governance activities the Dutch Government set the objectives of both flood safety and spatial quality. The spatial quality objective was advocated by the Ministries of Housing, Spatial Planning & the Environment and of Agriculture, Nature and Fishery for whom spatial quality is their core interest in RftR. They jointly commissioned RftR with the Ministry of Public Works and Water Management who are responsible for flood safety. A related governance decision has been to provide regional governments design freedom to propose and design measures and to grant them leadership to implement these individual measures. Regional authorities themselves proposed the 700 possible measures, because there was something ‘in it for them’. The collaborative process is exemplified by the computerized hydraulic model/scenario planning tool called ‘box of blocks’ (blokkendoos in Dutch). The tool embodies system analysis, but also connected with design and governance activities for the entire river system. Schut et al. (2010) explain how the instrument evolved from first a tool used by hydraulic engineers (also Reuber et al, 2005) to ‘explore solution space’ and calculate the hydraulic consequences of a combination of river widening measures, to later supporting the design and selection of measures, facilitating dialogue, cooperation and eventually decision-making between politicians from different levels and regions. The tool was made available to all stakeholders to ‘play with’ and could demonstrate and visualise the effectiveness and interdependencies of measures to increase discharge capacity and thus reduce water levels.

The design freedom during the Design phase was limited to the ‘scope’ of each of the 39 measures as prescribed in the Programme Decision. It stipulated per measure: the type of measure such as lowering of a flood plain or creating a river by-pass (see Figure 4.1 for all types of measures); water level decrease aimed for; the national budget assigned; and the Initiatior, or leader, of the planning process. The designs of these measures could be developed freely by the Initiator and functions could be coupled, especially to enhance spatial quality. E.g. the design of the river by-pass at Lent included waterfront developments with recreational functions as proposed by the municipality and inhabitants, and nature development as proposed by the regional government. The collaborative design processes varied per project. The project team organised design sessions with the participation of various stakeholder groups, including the local inhabitants. The

Attributes for integrated Flood Risk Management projects;

case study Room for the River

79

Ministry periodically brought in an independent team of experts named the Quality-team, to suggest improvements to the plans and to inspire local project teams and decision makers. Following that example, local Quality-teams were installed and the project teams have been assisted by landscape architects. Design work was supported by system analysis. The Programme Directorate prescribed mandatory analysis of e.g.: soil quality, archaeology, cabling, compliance with local and regional land use planning. These analyses were required to avoid surprises later in the process such as encountering electricity cables or archaeological artefacts where soil is to be removed that could then delay the project. Governance activities mainly focused on the politics of discussing ambitions

and budgets for measures. The project team proposed these to the steering committees whose members brought them for formal decision making to their respective democratically elected parliaments. Such discussions were especially valuable as for some projects the regional governments provided up to 50% of funding to combine and integrate regional and local policy objectives, with the flood safety objective that was funded by the national government.

The realisation phase started during 2011 and beginning of 2012, depending on the progress on each project. By that time the design freedom had decreased considerably and was limited to the Project Decision. Contractors were, however, allowed some design freedom to select materials and optimize the construction process. Integrated outputs had been anchored in the tender contracts based on the final project design for each individual scheme. Politicians from the steering committees and civil servants from the project teams tried to streamline building permit requests across the various authorities. An example for one authority was that they would ideally have wanted construction planned at night to reduce traffic nuisance, whereas for ecological reasons work at night was not recommended. An important test for assessing the effectiveness of the IFRM process of RftR will be in the future operation and maintenance phase. Many interviewees indicated concerns about the lack of agreement on budgets and funding for operation and future quality controls of functions. E.g. the Munnikenland project has suffered delays in design and construction due to discussions about operational tasks and budgets for future maintenance. The municipality will own more hectares of natural land increasing the burden of maintenance, whilst in the national parliament there are talks of budget cuts for nature operation and decreasing funding for the State Forestry Agency that could support the municipality.

80

Table 4.1. Process integration applied for RftR

Activities Initiation Design Realisation* _Operation*

System analysis Analyse river

discharge capacity; and cost & effects of measures Assess hydraulic performance of measures. Analyse technical feasibility; financial feasibility; risk analysis; planning & costs. Analyse the construction process. Monitor performance of functions & values Collaborative planning, design & engineering Choose river widening concept. Propose 700 measures. Design alternative measures. Propose improvements by Quality-team and architects.

Select materials and devise construction process. Define operation plans partly depending on tasks & budgets

Governance Set two

objectives: flood safety and spatial quality. Select 39 measures and provide mandate for related Programme decision.

Discuss and decide on ambitions and budgets for measures.

Organise public- public-private tender processes and define contracts that embed integration. Coordination permit requests.

Decide on tasks & budgets (yet to be done)

*_{as planned, not observed}