Impacts of governance styles on river restoration in NW Europe

Restoring the naturalness of rivers is considered i mportant in many North-western European countries. In this paper, we address the impacts of governance styl s on three river management plans in Germany, France and the Netherlands. The comparativ e nalysis assesses the extent and means of involvement of different actor types at different p hases of the process. By linking these insights on the stakeholder participation to the project achievemen ts, the impacts of the governance styles on integrated river management planning is evaluated. This is characterized in terms of the connectedness of actors and issues, financial resources, policy l earning and the societal background, including the Zeitgeist. Introduction River restoration and conservation projects conduct ed in river systems in different North-Western European countries share comparable design and mana gement elements, but also exhibit strong differences. In this paper, we present three differ ent projects in the Netherlands, France and Germany . We identify the nature of the plans, the extent to which the projects could be implemented as planned and their follow up. Developing and implementing pl ans for natural resources inherently takes place in a multi-actor setting and the eventual plans and pr ojects can be regarded as the product of this netwo rk and its dynamics. Notions of actor-networks and the ir dynamics (e.g. Enserink and Mayer 2001, Hermans 2005, Klijn 2007) are closely related to wh at we here consider as ‘governance style’. Within actor-networks multiple actors gather around a poli cy issue in which they all have their own particula r interests, role and means of influence. Actors can enter or leave the policy process and multiple acto rs can co-operate or form alliances to gain influence or collect resources. The characteristic of multipl e actors each with their own means of influence throu ghout different stages of the policy process is recognizable in governance styles as well. In fact, governance style evolves from multi-actor involvement in policy and project processes as a wh ole and represents the joint impacts on the policy process of all potential actors. Governance styles generally are partly constructed and institutionali zed (e.g. through interdisciplinary teams, government a gencies) and partly evolving within the multi-actor context of particular policy and project processes. We assess the impacts of the governance styles on t he achievements in terms of river restoration in three steps. First, the effects of the different ri ver restoration plans are identified. Second, gover nance aspects of the projects are identified and characte rized in terms of the instance, degree and means of involvement of different actor types. Finally, a cr oss-comparison among the three plans provides insight on the relationships between the governance styl s applied and the outcomes achieved. The River Restoration Projects and their Effects The three policy plans compared in this paper inclu de the Integriertes Rhein Programm in Germany, Plan Loire Grandeur Nature in France and Waalweelde in the Netherlands. The effects of interest for this study are the actual implementation of the lar ger plan in multiple small projects, identified fol low up in other projects and plans, and changes in the initial design. We selected this level of assessmen t so 1 'IAIA08 Conference Proceedings', The Art and Science of Impact Assessment 28th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, 4-10 May 2008, Perth Convention Exhibition Centre, Perth, Australia (www.iaia.org) that the major differences between the policy plans become apparent and the potential impact of the governance styles can be distilled. At the internat io l level, the plans take place against the share d backdrop of European directives. The Integriertes Rhein Programm (IRP) was developed for the Rhine section in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany (Gewässerdirektion Südlicher Oberrhein/Hoch rein 1997). As a result of the construction of weirs, floodplain wetlands were cut-off from the ri ver and flood defence levels were reduced in this stretch of the Rhine. According to the plan, 13 for me floodplains would be reconstructed as retention areas. However, the first implementation in 1989 ha d major negative ecological impacts on the existing flora and fauna. Strong societal reaction to these impacts forced policy makers to adapt their strateg y of direct implementation of the thirteen retention are as, and to integrate ecological enhancement into th eir planning using an ‘Ecological Floods’ concept. The ‘Ecological Floods’ concept encompasses regularly (5-6 times per year) allowing small inflo ws to the retention area so that the flora and faun a can adapt to near-natural conditions (Gewässerdirek tion Südlicher Oberrhein/Hochrein 1999). After the first tests of this concept with positive results f rom an ecological point of view (in the Altenheimer Polder), it was decided that this strategy should b e applied to all other retention areas. The IRP was approved in 1996. However, implementation in the ot her areas has been delayed owing to the opposition that has arisen, primarily from citizens . Plan Loire Grandeur Nature (Etat, Agence de l’eau, EPALA 1994), covers the entire Loire basin in France. The first plan was approved in 1994 and it was initiated by local authorities who responded to a nationally developed plan for a dam in the Loire. T he main focus of the plans is to increase flood defence levels, thereby preserving the relatively n atural character of the river and the associated cultural heritage. The main methods include strengt hening and maintening the dikes, but also vegetation management, evacuation plans and spatial (re-)planning. Plan Loire shows clear follow up in terms of programs, since the third plan has rece ntly been approved for the period 2007-2013 (Comité de bassin Loire Bretagne, 2006). The planning can b e considered coherent since the entire river basin is included, but it also highly aggregated with few pr ojects specified concretely. Actual project implementation occurs on an ad hoc basis. Initial s eps are currently being taken to develop comparabl e plans for other French river basins. WaalWeelde is a regionally and locally developed pl an for the river Waal in the Netherlands with a focus on enhancing flood defence levels, the spatia l quality and the regional economy (Innovatienetwerk and WINN, 2007). It forms an alte rnative to the ‘PKB Ruimte voor de Rivier’; a nationally developed policy plan for increasing flo od defence levels and spatial quality (ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water, 2007). It was d eveloped in response to the PKB, because the regional and local actors viewed this less integrat ed, national plan as a missed chance for truly and specifically improving the quality of their river a ea. During its development it had no policy status , but after completion of the planning phase it has been introduced into the policy trajectory. The expectat ion is that it will function as an add-on to the PKB. Governance styles In describing governance styles, we assess the inst ance, degree and means of involvement of different types of actors throughout the policy process.. Th ese include the professional actors, often represen t d by governmental agencies orientated around the diff rent disciplines (e.g. state forestry), political and administrative authorities often representative of the prevailing political power, the public, includi ng NGO’s and citizens, and private organisations (e.g. industry). All of these actors can be involved in the policy process, but their involvement can change ov r time. For instance, some actors only become active at the moment of implementation, while other s are active in the planning stages. In addition, t he extent to which they are involved can differ; gener ally this is related to their interests and roles. Actors also have different means and channels through whic h t ey are involved. These three aspects determine the influence of each type of actor on the process as a whole. A governance style therefore does not result from a single-actor action, but evolves from multi-actor involvement in policy and project processes as a whole. Assessment of the three governance styles The governance style for each of the three projects are described in tables 1 to 3 in terms of the instance, degree and means of involvement of four c ategories of actors, that is the p 4i3 matrix format.