A transition to IFRM and the role of projects

Many scholars call for a transition of the societal system and change of its regime4

from having a limited focus on flood protection: ‘fighting against water’, to actively managing flood risk that in addition to flood protection aims to reduce flood impacts and accommodate floods: ‘living with water’ (e.g.; White, 2010; Newman et al., 2011; Dawson et al. 2011; Zevenbergen et al., 2013b). Transition literature defines a transition as a fundamental change in the structures (the formal, physical, legal and economic aspects of functioning restricting and enabling practices), cultures (the cognitive, discursive, normative and ideological aspects of functioning involved in sense-making of practise) and practices (the routines, habits, formalisms, procedures and protocols by which actors, which can be individuals, organisations, companies, etc., maintain the functioning of the system) of a societal system, profoundly altering the way it functions (e.g. Rotmans and Loorbach, 2006; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009; Van Raak, 2010).

The research presented in this thesis does not only provide guidance to deliver IFRM projects. In doing so it also addresses the governance challenges related to delivering a project in a regime that is yet ‘unsympathic’ to IFRM and provides understanding on the contribution of projects to a regime change to IFRM. A transition is needed to enable and facilitate a widespread uptake and delivery of IFRM projects (e.g. Pahl-Wostl, 2007; van der Brugge and Rotmans, 2007). The transition to IFRM is an already on-going process in various countries. In recent years, the implementation of policies such as the EU Floods Directive (EC, 2006) has stimulated the adaptation of the societal system in various EU countries by introducing new governance and institutional arrangements (Klijn et al., 2008). Governance experiments in Australia have stimulated learning amongst stakeholders that also contributes to changes of the societal system (Farrelly and Brown, 2011; Bos and Brown, 2012).

The transition to IFRM in the Netherlands, the geographical scope of the case studies in this thesis (Section 1.3.1), has started in the 1980s (Van der Brugge et al., 2005) and is still on-going (Zevenbergen et al., 2013b). In the Netherlands, traditional flood management focuses on hard structural flood protection measures and has clearly defined regulatory objectives and mandates and an aligned institutional context. To manage coastal and fluvial flood risk, the waterboards are responsible for operation and maintenance of the dykes, whilst the National Government sets related standards for dykes to withstand specific return periods of water levels and funds the investment costs of flood protection.

4 _{The societal subsystem that dominates the functioning of the system (De Haan and Rotmans,}

10

To manage pluvial flood risk in urban areas, the water boards operate the regional water system and water treatment plants, whilst municipalities operate the sewage systems and public space. IFRM plans can only be developed and implemented provided that these and other stakeholders are involved and that they can consider a wide range of possible options. Overarching policy that stimulates IFRM such as multi-level safety (V&W, 2008) or adaptive delta management (Deltacommissaris, 2011) is being developed in the Netherlands, but its implementation faces multiple barriers in the incumbent cultures, structures and practices of the societal system. The implementation of the multi-level-safety concept is hampered by current regulation and funding that favours flood protection measures (Ministry of Infrastructure & Environment, 2011) and by several experts that contend the effectiveness of the approach (WaterForum Online, 2012; Kolen and Kok, 2011). Approaches, methods and practices need to be developed or adjusted for adaptive delta management to address future uncertainties and develop adaptation pathways comprising a sequence of policy actions over time (Haasnoot, 2013). The integration of flood risk management into the way Dutch cities are planned, requires new skills and competencies in all of the stakeholders concerned (LMW, 2010).

Transition theories (e.g. Rotmans and Loorbach, 2006; De Haan and Rotmans, 2011) help describe how societal systems change, but do not focus on the role of projects during a transition. The hypothesis is posed here that projects that adopt an IFRM approach to deliver the project would also contribute to a regime change to IFRM. By their implementation, such projects will not only deliver on their objectives (outputs), but would also generate outcomes that have an impact beyond the scope of the project and that are sustained after the delivery of the project. Projects that take place during; are part of; and are a demonstration of a transition to IFRM, such as the case studies of this research (Section 1.3.1), need to be monitored and evaluated by practitioners and researchers alike. They are to document case studies and draw lessons on how projects can be delivered in an ‘unsympathetic’ regime and how projects can contribute to a transition by generating outcomes and organise for a wide uptake of the outcomes. This would provide guidance to practitioners on managing projects and would contribute to scientific theories on transitions. The research presented in this thesis aims to provide empirical evidence of how the transition from flood protection to IFRM has occurred in practice and analyse how projects that adopted an IFRM approach have contributed to the transition. It builds upon and enriches existing frameworks from transition literature (notably: De Haan and Rotmans, 2011) that to date have not been applied to analyse the impact of individual projects, nor to flood management. It concludes with lessons on governance arrangements that

Introduction

11

are to stimulate the delivery of projects within their present societal system, and that also stimulate the generation of outcomes to change the flood management regime.