UNCERTAINTY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

UNCERTAINTY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SCHELDT RIVER BASIN IN THE NETHERLANDS

12 April 2007

W.L. OOSTERWIJK 1049224 / [email protected] TU Delft; Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management Master: Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management Section: Policy Analysis

COMMITTEE: Professor 1st Supervisor 2nd Supervisor External supervisor:

Prof.dr.ir. W.A.H. Thissen Dr.ir. B. Enserink Dr. J.F.M. Koppenjan Drs. M.A. Menke (ARCADIS)

UNCERTAINTY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

Preface Many researchers pay attention to uncertainty that can be assessed in a quantitative way, such as uncertainty in data or model results. However, less attention is given to qualitative and abstract uncertainties, even though these uncertainties are apparent in all kinds of projects and processes and cause many unexpected and unwanted events or results in a project. This research gives an integrated overview and analysis of all of the uncertainties in the development of a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for the Scheldt River in the Netherlands. The research was carried out at ARCADIS Ruimte & Milieu. The term uncertainty can be a very vague term, as many different interpretations exist on what uncertainty exactly is. Many people are not used to thinking in terms of uncertainties even though uncertainty is an inherent aspect of human life. It is furthermore a term that many managers and policymakers do not like to use or address as it can create distrust, doubt and even stagnation in a project. I would like to share two expressions that I came across during the interviews held for this project that illustrate this attitude: “Everything is uncertain” “The only certainty in human life is death”. Even though the focus of this research is primarily on uncertainties, it is important to note that uncertainties should always be viewed in relation to the certainties and probabilities of a project. My graduation committee, my colleagues at ARCADIS, my friends and my family helped me during this research by discussing, reading and commenting on the ideas and earlier versions of this report. I really enjoyed all of these working sessions, informal and formal discussions and I would like to thank all of these persons for their contributions and help. Willemijn Oosterwijk Delft, 13 April, 2007

ARCADIS & TU Delft

2


Contents Summary _______________________________________________________________________ 5 1

Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 7 1.1 Motivation for research ____________________________________________________ 8 1.2 Goal and research questions ________________________________________________ 9 1.3 Methodology ___________________________________________________________ 10 1.4 Scope and demarcation of research_________________________________________ 12 1.5 Set up of the report ______________________________________________________ 14

2

Exploring RBMP development________________________________________________ 15 2.1 Description of the WFD ___________________________________________________ 15 2.2 Important aspects of RBMP development ____________________________________ 17 2.3 Quick scan of the actors involved___________________________________________ 21 2.4 The problem owner; project bureau PKS_____________________________________ 21 2.5 Conclusions of the problem exploration _____________________________________ 23

3

Conceptual model___________________________________________________________ 24 3.1 Conceptual model of policymaking _________________________________________ 24 3.2 New conceptual model for RBMP development _______________________________ 25 3.3 Conclusions of the conceptual model _______________________________________ 29

4

Theoretical framework for uncertainty analysis in RBMP development __________ 30 4.1 Types of uncertainty______________________________________________________ 30 4.2 The W&H Framework for integrated uncertainty analysis _______________________ 31 4.3 Analysing uncertainty ____________________________________________________ 32 4.4 Location of the uncertainty ________________________________________________ 33 4.5 Nature of uncertainty_____________________________________________________ 35 4.6 Level of uncertainty ______________________________________________________ 36 4.7 Range of Consequences and chance of occurence ____________________________ 37 4.8 Time dependency ________________________________________________________ 37 4.9 How to incorporate perspectives into this objective analysis? ____________________ 38 4.10 Conclusions of the uncertainty analysis ______________________________________ 38

5

Theoretical framework for managing uncertainty in RBMP development ________ 39 5.1 Prioritisation of uncertainty in RBMP development_____________________________ 39 5.2 Approaches for uncertainty management ____________________________________ 41 5.3 Current approach of PKS__________________________________________________ 47 5.4 Conclusions of managing uncertainty in RBMP development ____________________ 47

6

Case study: structuring and managing uncertainty in the Eastern Scheldt________ 48 6.1 The Eastern Scheldt ______________________________________________________ 48 6.2 Way of working in the Case study __________________________________________ 50 6.3 Overview of uncertainty in RBMP development for the Eastern Scheldt ___________ 51

ARCADIS & TU Delft

3


6.3.1 Analysis of uncertainty in the natural system ___________________________ 52 6.3.2 Analysis of uncertainty between the policy and the natural system_________ 54 6.3.3 Analysis of uncertainty in the policy system ____________________________ 56 6.3.4 Analysis of uncertainty between the societal and policy system____________ 58 6.3.5 Analysis of uncertainty in the societal system___________________________ 60 6.3.6 Analysis of uncertainty between the societal and the natural system _______ 61 6.3.7 Analysis of uncertainty in the external system __________________________ 63 6.3.8 Uncertainty related to measures _____________________________________ 64 6.3.9 Relations between groups and between challenges in WFD implementation 64 6.4 Adding perspectives to the uncertainty analysis _______________________________ 66 6.5 How to deal with this long list of uncertainties? ______________________________ 66 6.6 Managing uncertainty in the Eastern Scheldt _________________________________ 70 6.7 Management of measure related uncertainties _______________________________ 73 6.8 Several quick wins for the project bureau ____________________________________ 75 6.9 Conclusions of case study _________________________________________________ 76 7

Discussion of case study results ______________________________________________ 78 7.1 Translation of case study results to Scheldt River basin _________________________ 78 7.2 Discussion of the experience with the theoretical framework____________________ 84 7.3 Conclusions of the discussion of the case study results _________________________ 87

8

Uncertainty analysis and management in practice _____________________________ 88 8.1 Using the research in practice ______________________________________________ 88 8.2 Translation of the research into practical recommendations for PKS ______________ 90

9

Conclusions and recommendations ___________________________________________ 92 9.1 General conclusions of this research ________________________________________ 92 9.2 Overview of the recommendations _________________________________________ 95

Annex 1

Literature_____________________________________________________________ 97

Annex 2

Project planning ______________________________________________________ 101

Annex 3

Actor analysis ________________________________________________________ 102

Annex 4

W&H framework for integrated uncertainty analysis ________________________ 106

Annex 5

List of interviewed persons and organisations _____________________________ 107

Annex 6

Interview questions ___________________________________________________ 108

Annex 7

Interview reports _____________________________________________________ 110

Annex 8

Uncertainty in measures _______________________________________________ 111

Annex 9

Selection based on four aspects _________________________________________ 113

Annex 10 List of uncertainties in the Eastern Scheldt ________________________________ 114

ARCADIS & TU Delft

4


Summary PKS (Project bureau, KRW (WFD)), Scheldt is currently coordinating the development of a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for the Scheldt River basin. This plan is one of the main products required by the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). The most important aspects in RBMP development are the innovative character of the WFD, the strict time path and rules set by the EU, the many links to other legislation (e.g. Natura-2000), the many parties that are involved, the dependency on upstream river basins and the boundary problems that occur. In the development of a River Basin Management Plan many uncertainties come up that complicate the development process. The analysis of uncertainties is a decision support activity for the problem owner of this research, PKS. The goal of the research is to improve the implementation process of the WFD in the Scheldt River, by giving PKS better insight in uncertainty in RBMP development. To reach this goal, the main research question is formulated as following: what uncertainties occur in the development of a River Basin Management Plan for the Scheldt River basin in the Netherlands and how can these uncertainties be structured and managed? First, a theoretical framework is presented, then a case study is performed for the Eastern Scheldt area, for which uncertainties are identified and analysed with help of interviews with stakeholders and policymakers involved in RBMP development. Finally, the results of this case study are discussed for the whole Scheldt River basin in the Netherlands.

Theoretical framework To be able to analyse the uncertainties a new conceptual model is developed based on the concept of Integrated Water Management. The uncertainty analysis is carried out in four steps, based on Risman (2007). In one of these steps, the theoretical framework for Integrated Uncertainty Analysis by Walker et al. (2003) is used. This framework identifies three dimensions of uncertainty. The framework is slightly adjusted for use in this research. For selection purposes, two extra dimensions are added to the framework. Uncertainty is a subjective term and is always linked to the perception of the actor that identifies the uncertainty. Therefore, subjectivity is incorporated into the analysis as well. Based on the analysis, a choice can be made for a focus on one of the two main management approaches discussed in this research. This theory is based on Koppenjan and Klijn (2004). The first approach is the traditional approach, including methods such as research and firm leadership. Second is the network or process approach that entails methods, such as public participation and the joint commissioning of research. In addition, there are several methods that cover aspects of both approaches, such as real options or adaptive policymaking. The management approaches should be used together in a process, as they complement each other. The theoretical framework was applied to the Eastern Scheldt case study area.

Case study and conclusions In the interviews, many uncertainties were identified for the Eastern Scheldt e.g. uncertainty in the effects of measures on the natural system, uncertainty in reaching the deadline and uncertainty in sources of pollution. The identification of uncertainties from different perspectives gave PKS insight in several new uncertainties. After grouping all the uncertainties, a model of uncertainty groups is presented (Figure 0.1). With the model, the uncertainties are also structured. The model visualises the location of an uncertainty and the relation between groups of uncertainties. In the discussion of the case study results, it was

ARCADIS & TU Delft

5


verified that the model is also applicable in other parts of the Scheldt River and even in the development of Natura-2000 plans in that area. The model can not only be used as a starting point for identifying uncertainties in a specific area, but also as a checklist in uncertainty updates and for communicating uncertainties with stakeholders. Figure 0.1 Model of uncertainty groups

Performing uncertainty analysis and management as a research activity, differs from doing these activities in the practice of policymaking. Therefore, practical recommendations were formulated for PKS. An uncertainty analysis plays an important role in the design of the RBMP development process, as it can point out the potential problems in a process and should therefore be carried out as part of the regular decision support activities. Uncertainties should be identified by performing personal interviews with actors so the perspective of the actor will be incorporated in the analysis. This will enhance trust and mutual understanding, which are important in the RBMP development process and gives new insights. The model of uncertainty groups can help to visualise uncertainties, as actors are not used to thinking in terms of uncertainties. Besides identification, prioritisation is important. The determination of an order of priority is a subjective activity and should be assessed with help of the interested parties. For determining the management approach, the nature (ambiguity or lack of knowledge) of an uncertainty is very important. Currently, PKS should focus more on the network approach including methods such as process design and joint commissioning of research. PKS should also focus on those uncertainties considered important from the perspectives of other parties involved. Furthermore, the spending of the research budget can be based on an uncertainty analysis: the priority uncertainties caused by a lack of knowledge and the uncertainties requiring joint commissioning of research, should receive more research budget than other uncertainties (mainly caused by ambiguity). Several aspects of the research need further elaboration. It is recommended to better validate the results of this research, as only one case study was carried out. From the case study, it became clear that the use of the steps of Risman in combination with the W&H framework and the management approach of Koppenjan and Klijn (2004) form a good method for structuring and analysing uncertainty. The method gives a good objective and complete overview, allows for both qualitative and quantitative uncertainties and is flexible in use. However, several aspects of the theory need more attention, such as the introduction of perspectives, the relations between uncertainties, the relation between the analysis and the management approach and the detailing of the management approaches.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

6


CHAPTER

1

Introduction

“In almost all decision situations not all information is available that would be desirable to have. (.. ) There is a need for guidelines and support on how to deal appropriately and responsibly with uncertainty. This need exists particularly for public decision makers who should act in the ‘public interest’.” (Klauer and Brown, 2004, p. 124)

PKS (Project bureau, KRW (WFD), Scheldt), a project bureau of both Rijkswaterstaat Zeeland and the Province of Zeeland, faces this problem of ‘decision making under uncertainty’. Currently PKS is coordinating the development of a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for the Scheldt River basin in the Netherlands. A RBMP is one of the main products required by a new European Directive: the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). This Directive is viewed by scientists as one of the most ambitious and significant environmental Directives from Europe in the past years (Carter and Howe, 2005; Mysiak and Sigel, 2005; Refsgaard et al., 2005). The WFD’s main goal is to safeguard and improve water quality and water resources in Europe. The WFD focuses not only on water quality and water resources but also on ecology in the river basin. The Scheldt River in the Netherlands is part of the Dutch Delta, an area with a long history of water management, where many natural, cultural and economical values are present. In such a complex and changing environment, the development of a plan for the ambitious WFD is surrounded by uncertainties. Uncertainty is apparent in different aspects of RBMP development, for example in the organisation and behaviour of the different parties involved and in the possible effects of measures for the Scheldt River basin. In addition, the fact that the policies and objectives introduced by the framework are new to water managers brings uncertainty into RBMP development. All these uncertainties make it difficult for authorities in the basin to prepare the first RBMP. This could harm the achievement of the objectives of the Directive, which might ultimately result in receiving penalties from the EU. It is thus very desirable for water managers and policymakers that this uncertainty is structured and analysed in more detail in order to make clear where the uncertainty exists and how this could affect decisionmaking. This need ‘to conceptualise what is not known’ is also recognised in several scientific contributions (Klauer and Brown, 2004; Krayer von Krauss et al., 2005). This research is performed at ARCADIS Ruimte & Milieu, an engineering and consultancy company and is carried out for the project bureau PKS (Project bureau, KRW (WFD), Scheldt) that is responsible for the implementation and coordination of the WFD in Zeeland and that is staffed by both the Province of Zeeland and Rijkswaterstaat Zeeland. In the research a case study is carried out for the Eastern Scheldt, a sub basin of the Scheldt River.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

7


1.1

MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH In a complex and large project such as the implementation of the WFD, policymakers prefer a focus on the certainties and probabilities. 1 This prevents stagnation of the project and creates an overall positive attitude towards the project. However, in order to avoid unexpected events or possible risks it is important to not just consider the certainties, but to view them in relation to the uncertainties in a project. 2 By doing this, the policymaker shows a clear awareness of the possible risks and flaws of the project, which will help decision makers in balancing certainty and uncertainty and thus making the right choices. However, too much focus on uncertainties might also unsettle the involved actors as it increases the complexity that actors have to grasp and process. Newig et al. (2005, p. 341) formulates this dilemma for a competent authority as following: “while the communication of uncertainties might result in a short term reduction of trust of the parties involved, the noncommunication of the former might lead afterwards to the accusation of holding back uncertainty information.” The right balance between a focus on certainty and uncertainty is thus important. In this research, not the certainties but the uncertainties will be addressed, thereby trying to fill in the uncertainty side of the balance. The big issues in water management in the Netherlands, such as climate change, sea level rise, land subsidence, population growth and urbanisation ask for clear considerations of the positive and negative effects of projects such as the WFD implementation (ARCADIS, 2006a). Analysing, structuring and assessing uncertainty will help in making the dilemmas and choices for RBMP development more clear. Analysing uncertainty is useful in WFD implementation as it can assist policymakers in increasing their insight and awareness of uncertainty. An uncertainty analysis will furthermore help policymakers in finding ways to manage uncertainty, so the WFD will be implemented on time and penalties can be avoided. These advantages are also recognised in several sections of the WFD that mention uncertainty. Moreover, the guidance documents explicitly emphasize that an uncertainty analysis should be performed. Nevertheless, the documents do not specify how to do so (Refsgaard et al., 2005), which is why in this research a case study is performed to gain experience with how to perform an uncertainty analysis in the practice of RBMP development. Besides the above reasons, uncertainty management is considered functional as the Precautionary Principle that was adopted by the EU in 2000, strongly points towards the assessment of uncertainty in environmental policy processes. This principle says that if the consequences of an action are uncertain, but are judged to have some potential for negative consequences, then it is better to avoid that action (European Commission, 2000a). It raised the interest for uncertainty modelling and risk assessment in the European Union and especially for the WFD as the consequences of measures proposed in light of this Directive are often uncertain (Krayer von Krauss et al., 2005). A clear example of this is that the European Commission started the HarmoniRiB research program on the assessment and use of uncertainty information in Integrated Water management and specifically in the WFD.

1

Interview W. Oorthuijzen, RWS Zeeland, 17-8-2006

2

Interview J. Schoot Uiterkamp, RIZA 7-11-2006

ARCADIS & TU Delft

8


The goal of HarmoniRiB is to provide concepts, methodologies and tools to deal with uncertainty in practice (HarmoniRiB, 2006) 3 . The Precautionary Principle and the WFD guidance documents thus emphasize the importance of a scientific assessment of uncertainty in environmental policy processes. However, science lacks good methods to manage this uncertainty, as is stated by several scientists: “uncertainty management lacks a toolkit, which would enable us to identify and address salient uncertainties in an adequate manner as a key activity in policy analysis” (Asselt et al. 2001, p 13) and “more research is needed on how to use and embed uncertainty information and quality assessment in policy processes.” (Krayer von Krauss et al., 2005, p. 2). By studying the uncertainties in Zeeland, this research project will contribute with practical experience to the science of uncertainty management in policymaking.

1.2

GOAL AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS The goal of the research is to improve the development process of the RBMP for the Scheldt River, by giving the project bureau PKS better insight in the uncertainties in RBMP development. This is done by identifying, structuring and assessing the main uncertainties in RBMP development for the Scheldt River and by giving recommendations on how to manage this uncertainty. The main research question is:

What uncertainties occur in the development of a River Basin Management Plan for the Scheldt River basin in the Netherlands and how can these uncertainties be structured and managed?

The use of the word ‘managing’ implies not only reducing uncertainty but also accepting or using uncertainty. This question is split up in several sub questions, whose answers together will form an answer to the main research question:

Background 1. What is the current situation in the Scheldt River basin with regard to the WFD and uncertainty management? 2. What are the challenges surrounding the development of a RBMP in the Scheldt River basin? 3. What are the parties involved in RBMP development in the Scheldt River basin? 4. Can the different aspects of the RBMP development process in the Scheldt River basin, Netherlands be described and explained with help of a conceptual model and what does this conceptual model look like?

Theoretical framework on uncertainty analysis and management in RBMP development 5. What is uncertainty and how can uncertainty best be analysed and structured for RBMP development in the Scheldt River basin, Netherlands? 6. What are possible ways to manage uncertainty in RBMP development in the basin?

Case study; Eastern Scheldt 7. What uncertainties occur in the development of the River Basin Management Plan for the Eastern Scheldt and how can these uncertainties be structured and managed?

3

This research refers to authors affiliated to this HarmoniRiB program. Cited publications are;

Refsgaard et al, 2005; Brouwer, 2005; Mysiak and Sigel, 2005; Klauer and Brown, 2004

ARCADIS & TU Delft

9


What uncertainties can be identified in the Eastern Scheldt? What are the implications of these uncertainties for the project bureau? How can these uncertainties be managed by the project bureau?

Reflection and validation 8. Is it possible to derive a more general concept from the Eastern Scheldt case study to deal with uncertainty in the development of the RBMP for the greater Scheldt River basin? 9. Based on the case study, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the theoretical framework used? 10.What is the practical usability of the theoretical framework, the management recommendations and the general concept for the project bureau? The research consists thus of five phases: background, theoretical framework, case study, reflection & validation and conclusions & recommendations. The last three phases were performed in an iterative way. In every phase, different methods were used. These methods were: interviews, desk research, workshops carried out together with ARCADIS, presentations and discussion with involved parties. In Appendix 2, the initial planning for the research and the realisation of this planning can be found.

1.3

METHODOLOGY The general approach used for structuring and managing uncertainty in this research is based on the steps associated in literature with an ‘uncertainty analysis’. Van der Klis (2003) states that in general an uncertainty analysis consists of the following steps: a.

making an inventory of the uncertainties involved

b. identifying the uncertainties that have a relatively large effect on the model results and quantifying them c.

quantifying the effect of those uncertainties on the model results

d. interpreting the uncertainty in the model results. The above steps focus mainly on a quantitative uncertainty analysis in modelling activities, which does not directly apply to this research, as many of the uncertainties in RBMP development cannot be quantified. Actually, only step 1 and part of step 2 can thus be carried out in this research. The approach by van der Klis (2003) is thus not the right type of uncertainty analysis for this research. Another method that is more applicable for the purpose of this research is called the Risman method. This method is originally meant for a risk analysis in civil-technical projects and distinguishes four steps as well (Risman, 2007): 1. Setting of the goal 2. Identifying and mapping the (risks) uncertainties 3. Prioritising the (risks) uncertainties 4. Choosing management methods for dealing with the risks and uncertainties This general approach is better applicable, as it can handle quantitative as well as qualitative uncertainties. Moreover, this method integrates the risk analysis into the process of managing uncertainties and focuses specifically on uncertainties in projects. The steps of the Risman method are thus chosen as the general outline for structuring and managing uncertainty in this research. The first two steps of Risman are here called uncertainty analysis (however, this analysis will thus only cover the first step of van der Klis (2003)) and the last two steps uncertainty management. Because the Risman method focuses on risks

ARCADIS & TU Delft

10


and not uncertainties and is developed for risk management of very straightforward civil technical projects, the Risman method was only used as a general outline. It was expected that the policymaking process of RBMP development was too abstract to use Risman. To perform the analysis and management of the uncertainties, several other theoretical concepts were used that are better suited for this high level of abstraction. These are discussed below. The concept of systems thinking plays a central role in this research. To be able to understand the complexity of the development of a RBMP, this development process is viewed as a system in which the policymakers, the society and the natural system interact and are interdependent of each other. This means that the single elements of RBMP development are not described individually but as an entire system that consists of technical (natural) and process elements. From this system a conceptual model is made, which will be described in Chapter 3. The uncertainty analysis (the first two steps of Risman) is carried out using the theoretical framework for integrated uncertainty analysis (often called the W&H framework) developed by Walker et al. (2003) and a typology developed by Koppenjan and Klijn (2004). This first method is chosen, as the aim of this method coincides with the objectives of this research: the aim of both the W&H framework and this research is to make a systematic and integrated (both qualitative and quantitative) assessment of uncertainty. The framework is based on three dimensions; location, level and nature. A conceptual model, (which is developed using systems thinking), is used to determine the location of an uncertainty. The theory for managing uncertainties is based on Koppenjan and Klijn (2004), who incorporate network thinking in their research as a new approach to uncertainty management, next to traditional uncertainty management methods such as research. Network theory is thus used to develop management strategies to deal with uncertainty. An example is to use process management concepts to manage uncertainty. Network theory also incorporates the subjective character of uncertainty in uncertainty analysis and management. Figure 1.2 Overview of methodology; four steps of Risman and other

Uncertainty analysis 1. Goal setting

theoretical concepts

Goal & demarcation

Conceptual model (Systems thinking)

2. Identification & mapping Typology: process and content (Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004) W&H framework: 5 dimensions (Walker et al. 2003)

Uncertainty management 3. Prioritising

Selection (for practical purposes)

4. Management

Management approach based on nature of uncertainty (Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004) & (Network theory)

Figure 1.2 shows the four steps of Risman (Risman, 2007) and the related theoretical concepts used in those steps. In the theoretical framework (Chapter 4 & 5) the theory will be adjusted for use in RBMP development in the Scheldt River basin, Netherlands.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

11


1.4

SCOPE AND DEMARCATION OF RESEARCH It is important when dealing with uncertainty to define the level of scale and the time frame for which uncertainties are identified. Looking at a different time or scale can generate other uncertainties or reframe the existing uncertainties. It could also give new insights and new directions for solutions. Below the demarcations for this research will be described in detail. In this research, there is a functional demarcation, meaning that when talking about organisations, regions, sectors in this research, only that part of the area or organisation is meant that has a role or a function or a stake in RBMP development of the Scheldt River. The boundary of a river basin is determined by its watershed. A river basin includes thus the entire land area that is drained by the river. For the Scheldt River this is the entire land area from the source of the river in northern France to the mouth of the river in the Netherlands (Figure 1.3). The geographical scale that is focused on in this research is the Scheldt River basin in the Netherlands. The level of scale is chosen as PKS, the problem owner, is responsible for the coordination of RBMP development in this area. Since this level of scale is still quite large, a case study will be addressed to be able to assess uncertainty in more detail. For the case study the sub river basin Eastern Scheldt is used, as this area has special natural and historical values. The results of this case study will then be discussed in perspective to the level of scale of the Scheldt River.

Figure 1.3 The boundaries of the Scheldt River basin in Europe and in the Netherlands (Kaderrichtlijn water, 2007)

The major part of the Scheldt River basin in the Netherlands is situated in Zeeland, a very small part in Noord-Brabant and an even smaller part in Zuid-Holland, as can be seen in Figure 1.4. This means that the major part of the North Sea and upstream areas of the Scheldt River are not included. The major water bodies in the area are from North to South; Grevelingen, Krammer Lake, Zoommeer, Eastern Scheldt (which will from the case study of this research) and Western Scheldt. The main players in the RBMP development process are the governmental parties situated in Zeeland, together with the Water board Brabantse Delta. The provinces of Zuid-Holland and Brabant play such a small and different role that they are considered outside the scope of this research. An example of this different role is the Brabantse Wal, which is the part of the Scheldt River that is situated in Noord-Brabant. It has different types of water bodies and thus also different problems and measures than the rest of the Scheldt River and can thus be looked at separately from the Scheldt River (PKS, 2006). For ease of reading, when speaking about the Scheldt River basin, this points towards the entire Scheldt River basin in the Netherlands.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

12


Figure 1.4 The Scheldt River basin in the Netherlands (Kaderrichtlijn water, 2006) Provincial boundary River basin boundary Water board 1 Water board 2 Water board 3 Rijkswaterstaat

Next to a functional and geographical demarcation, it is also necessary to explain the scope of the uncertainties that will be taken into account in this research. The uncertainties that come up during the development of a RBMP are not all of the same type as uncertainties that engineers and scientists are used to deal with in mathematical or computer models or experimental results, such as sampling and measurement errors. “The term uncertainty in this research refers to any situation in which the object of study is only partially described or not described at all. Scientific knowledge is thus absent, incomplete, scattered, ambiguous etc. (Krayer von Krauss et al., 2005, p. 1)”. This definition follows the definition of Brouwer (2005) that says: “uncertainty is defined as limited (incomplete or imperfect) knowledge or information about current or future conditions, states or outcomes and about the implications or conditions of these future conditions, states or outcomes.” The distinction between uncertainty and risk is based on the assignment of a probability to the uncertain states or outcomes. To define a risk the possible outcome and the associated probability for (reaching) this outcome needs to be known. However, in the case of an uncertainty the knowledge of the possible outcomes and probabilities is thus incomplete, scattered, imperfect or even fully unknown, which is the extreme case of uncertainty, called total ignorance (Brouwer, 2005). Uncertainty can thus be apparent in situations with an information overload (e.g. when the information is scattered, ambiguous etc.) as well as in situations with an information shortage (e.g. when the information is incomplete). Uncertainty is a subjective term, as every person has his or her own view on uncertainty. “What one person sees as a threat will be called an opportunity by another person” (Gevers and Hendrickx, 2001, p. 8). Uncertainty is thus always related to a certain perspective. The uncertainties analysed in the case study of this research are discovered in interviews with various parties involved in RBMP development. Since they have formulated the

ARCADIS & TU Delft

13


uncertainties each from their own point of view, you could also say that it was an inventory of perceptions and not of uncertainties. For the project bureau, it is very interesting to know what the other parties in the process consider uncertain or risky and these uncertainties can be managed as well. Therefore, the uncertainties will be put forward in this research in the same way as identified by the different parties to include the subjectivity of the uncertainty in the formulation. However, with help of the theory to analyse uncertainty from Walker et al. (2003), the analysis itself will be carried out as objective as possible. The identification of uncertainties can never be fully complete. The uncertainties in this research were identified by interviews and literature analysis between September and December 2006. Consequently, during the course of the total research it is possible that existing uncertainties will be solved and new uncertainties can come up that cannot be found in this research. The uncertainties are only taken into account if they play a role in the RBMP development process between the end of 2006 and 2009, when the RBMP needs to be ready. However, the consequences of these uncertainties could come up afterwards, in the implementation period.

1.5

SET UP OF THE REPORT The outline of this thesis is presented in a block diagram, see Figure 1.5. In the next chapter more background information is given on the present situation in Zeeland, the challenges of the WFD and the actors involved. Chapter 3 gives more insight in RBMP development by explaining RBMP development as a system, thereby creating a conceptual model. In Chapter 4 and 5, a theoretical background is given on uncertainty analysis and management suitable for RBMP development. Chapter 6 describes the case study of the Eastern Scheldt Area. Chapter 7 reflects on the theory and the case study findings and validates the usability of this research for the problem owner PKS. Chapter 8 translates the outcome of this research towards the practice. The final chapter highlights the conclusions and recommendations from this research.

Figure 1.5 Research outline

Phase 1 Background

Phase 2 Theoretical Framework

Chapter 1, 2 Introduction and background

Chapter 4 Uncertainty analysis

Chapter 3 Conceptual model

Chapter 5 Managing uncertainty

Phase 3 Case Study

Chapter 6 Case study: Eastern Scheldt

Phase 4 Reflection and validation

Chapter 7 Discussion of results

Chapter 8 Dealing with uncertainty in practice

Phase 5 Conclusions

Chapter 9 Conclusions & Recommendations

ARCADIS & TU Delft

14


CHAPTER

2

Exploring RBMP development Before a start can be made with identifying, analysing and structuring uncertainties in the caste study area, Eastern Scheldt, it is important to explore the background of RBMP development in the total Scheldt River in the Netherlands. Therefore, in this chapter the WFD is briefly explained, followed by a description of the current situation in the Scheldt River basin and some of the challenging aspects of RBMP development in this River basin. These aspects could be important indicators for uncertainty in the Eastern Scheldt. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the actors involved and the problem owner PKS to increase insight in the social network surrounding RBMP development.

2.1

DESCRIPTION OF THE WFD The WFD was signed by EU members in 2000 to ensure the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater in such a way that the quality of the surface water and groundwater in Europe would reach a high standard (with respect to ecology and chemical water quality, and (related to ecology) morphology) by the year 2015. In 2005 a detailed description (containing a characterisation of the water body type, an analysis of characteristics, a review of the impact of human activity on the status of the water and an economic analysis of water use in the basin (European Commission, 2000b, Article 5)) was sent to the EU. Currently the focus is on the development of the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP). For this plan, each member state needs to formulate a program of goals, measurements and monitoring plans before 2009. The plan is developed on different levels of scale. The goals of the first RBMP need to be obtained in 2015, however under conditions postponement until 2027 or a lowering of the goals is possible (European Commission, 2000b, article 1). In what respect the goals of the WFD are met, will be judged by measuring certain water quality parameters (prioritary substances and non prioritary substances) and for judging the ecological requirements, by looking at physical parameters such as visibility, oxygen levels and biological parameters or indicator species such as certain kinds of algae, aquatic plants, benthic animals and fish. The morphodynamical goals of the WFD are implicitly measured as morphodynamics determine the habitat and thus the characteristics and species in that habitat.

Description of the current situation in Zeeland In the description of the Scheldt River basin of 2004 the following main problem was identified for the Scheldt River (Projectgroep IKS, 2004, chapter 8): “continuation of just the current policy will lead to a ‘stand still’ situation with respect to the situation in 2000 of the

ARCADIS & TU Delft

15


water quality and ecological status of surface and groundwater bodies in 2015”. Continuation of current policy includes the implementation of the nitrate guideline and manure regulations and is on itself already considered a challenge by governments. This means that without extra measures the requirements of the WFD will not be met in 2015. In the description of the characteristics according to Article 5 of the WFD, all the surface water bodies in the Scheldt River were categorised as artificial or heavily modified. Many of these water bodies border on other water bodies in Belgium or the Netherlands. The most important sources of pollution for the surface water in the Scheldt River basin are: inflow from other river basins or other Scheldt sub-basins, agriculture, atmospheric deposition, leaching out of building materials and traffic. Salt seepage, sewage overflows, industrial effluent and waste water treatment plants are also sources of pollution (Projectgroep IKS, 2004, chapter 3 and 5). In 2004, none of the water bodies in Zeeland fulfilled the chemical water quality requirements set by the WFD (for this assessment the principle of ‘one out, all out’ was used). This means that not one water body fulfilled the norms (set by the EU) for prioritary substances or the norms for other substances 4 . Also, a future analysis showed that the water quality of water bodies in the Scheldt River was projected ‘at risk’ for 2015, meaning that the goals of the WFD would not be met. For the groundwater bodies this situation was better as the dune and sandy groundwater bodies were projected to be in good state in 2015. However, the other bodies were also ‘at risk’ for 2015 (Projectgroep IKS, 2004, chapter 7). Next to the water quality requirements, the ecological requirements of the WFD were assessed in 2004 with help of physical-chemical parameters, biological and hydromorphological quality measures. For assessing the ecological status of a heavily modified or artificial water body, the ecological status of a similar natural water body served as a reference. This reference status was adjusted for the changes made in the water body so the MEP (Maximum Ecological Potential) of the artificial water body could be defined. In all the ground and surface water bodies the MEP was not met in 2004 and will not be met in 2015 either (Projectgroep IKS, 2004, chapter 7). For the RBMP, the ecological goals for each water body still need to be defined by the authorities. These goals will be measured in relation to the MEP and are called GEP (Good Ecological Potential). Currently, the characteristics of the river basin of 2004 are updated as new information and insights are becoming available. The boundaries of the water bodies have been defined differently and two pilot studies (PKS, 2006) have been carried out to gain experience in implementing the WFD. One pilot study was carried out for Schouwen Duiveland and one for the Eastern Scheldt. An overview of the regional process in the Scheldt River basin is given in Figure 2.6. The international Scaldit project in the international Scheldt River basin is also coordinating several pilot projects and collecting information and experience with WFD implementation (Scaldit, 2007). Furthermore, RIZA together with ARCADIS carried out a risk analysis for Rijkswaterstaat of the major risks in the WFD implementation process in the Netherlands (ARCADIS, 2006c). In this research, the results of that analysis were added to the list of uncertainties, if applicable and furthermore used by the researcher to gain insight in uncertainty that plays a role on a national level. 4

However, these norms have been adjusted since, which might lead to a small improvement of the

current situation (Platform Mineralen en Middelen Meester, 2006).

ARCADIS & TU Delft

16


Figure 2.6

Update of river basin

June – Dec 2006

Time table of the regional

boundaries, description,

RBMP process. (Translated

characteristics and status

from PKS, 2006)

Sep – March 2006

Goals

Measures

National, regional,

for all sub river

hydro morphology

basins

Regional Nov 2006 - Apr 2007

Societal Cost Benefit Analysis

Dec. 2006 - Jun 2007

June - Dec. 2007

2008 – 2009 (public consultation procedures)

Feasible goals and measures (June 2007)

Concept RBMP (Dec 2007)

RBMP (Dec. 2009)

In the next paragraph, several aspects of the WFD that complicate RBMP development are described.

2.2

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF RBMP DEVELOPMENT The WFD has many different aspects that complicate the implementation process. Several of these aspects that play an important role in the Scheldt River basin will be briefly discussed below, as they are indicators for uncertainties in RBMP development.

Innovative character of measures Some of the measures that can be taken to solve the issues addressed by the WFD have never been used before and are thus new to water managers. Also, for some problems there are no solutions or measures available yet. Many of the measures proposed in a RBMP will thus be innovative in a certain way (the measure itself is new, the technology used is innovative, the cooperation that is required for the implementation of the measure is new etc.). This innovative character of possible measures clearly complicates the choice for measures that has to be made to establish a RBMP. In addition, it is expected that uncertainties will occur in the impact or effects of these innovative measures.

Time path and rules set by the EU are strict The WFD can be seen as a project rather than a process, because it was imposed on member states and has strict deadlines and a very clear time path. However, in order to achieve the results intended by the WFD, it needs to be implemented in a more process oriented manner, involving stakeholders and governmental organisations on all different levels (NRC Handelsblad, 2004a). Besides this contrast between ‘process’ and ‘project’, the WFD also brings an obligation to show results at fixed points in time (NRC Handelsblad, 2004b). In the Netherlands, water managers are much more accustomed to an obligation to show

ARCADIS & TU Delft

17


effort, not results. This will thus require a change in attitude of the parties involved. The WFD is furthermore a Framework Directive, meaning that there is room for different interpretations and ideas. Stakeholders pro and against WFD implementation can also use this freedom in a strategic way to create a WFD implementation that suits their preferences. This strict project character of the WFD thus put water managers responsible for the establishment of a RBMP under time pressure, while other actors involved in the process might not feel this pressure at all. This indicates towards uncertainty in the consequences and possibility of not reaching the deadline for policymakers. Also uncertainty in the behaviour of other actors can be expected.

WFD has many links to other legislation Some of the goals of the WFD can be linked to other EU Directives or national legislation. This means that in the implementation of the WFD the goals of these other Directives should be taken into account and some sort of prioritising between directives might be necessary. One of the directives that is closely linked to the WFD is Natura-2000, formerly called the Wild Birds and Habitats Directive. Natura-2000 obligates members of the EU to end the decline of biological diversity before 2010. Many areas in the Scheldt River basin, such as the Eastern Scheldt and Grevelingen are assigned as Natura-2000 areas. The goals of the WFD related to morphology of a water body can be linked to the preservation of habitats required by Natura-2000 and the ecology goals set in the WFD to the preservation of species (Ministerie LNV, 2006). At first sight, implementing the Directives at the same time seems logical, however there are some important differences in timeline and goal setting that could complicate this, see Box 2.1. Box 2.1 Differences Natura-2000 and WFD (RWS Zeeland, 2006)

WFD: • • •

Setting of measurements and goals in RBMP at the same time Ambition: Realisation of goals in 2015, ultimately in 2027 Reconsideration of measurements possible every 6 years

Natura-2000: • First setting of goals, then measurements • Ambition: stop decline of biological diversity in 2010 • Reconsideration of goals every 10 years

The RBMP of the Scheldt River also has links with WB 21 (Bill Water management 21st Century) (Nederland leeft met water, 2006). This bill was created in 2000 to assure safety and better control water quantity in light of the structural changes surrounding the water system such as climate change, increased urbanisation, sea level rise and land subsidence. It is important to look at WB 21 when describing uncertainty in the RBMP for the Scheldt River, as for example changes in morphology (proposed to improve ecology) might also affect the safety of the area. Historically, water management and safety are very important issues in Zeeland (Provincie Zeeland, 2006b). In 2003, a general agreement between different levels of government was signed, in which process agreements were made on how to create a good water system (with respect to water quantity issues) in 2015. The deadline of this agreement is thus the same as the deadline of the WFD (ARCADIS, 2006b). Other legislation that could also come up during the implementation of the WFD is for example the Nota Ruimte (Spatial development Bill), as the appointed use of certain spaces might conflict with the goals of one of the above laws and needs to be discussed or adjusted to reach the water quantity and quality goals mentioned above (Ministerie van VROM,

ARCADIS & TU Delft

18


2006). In the Nota Ruimte, special emphasis is laid on integral assessment in the development of the Delta area and this is also considered important for the setting of the goals for the WFD and Natura-2000. By setting goals for the Delta as a whole there will be more room for optimisation and differentiation between sub river basins (PKS, 2006). Other relevant EU guidelines are the Directives concerning the protection of groundwater, the quality of bathing water, urban wastewater treatment, the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, legislation concerning pesticides etc. In Zeeland there is also currently a plan drawn up for the Volkerak-Zoommeer, to deal with the heavy bloom of (blue green) algae in that fresh water lake. It is among others investigated if turning the lake in to a salt-water lake is a feasible solution for the water quality problems there. The choice for a fresh or salt solution in this lake will affect the characteristics of this basin and adjacent water basins such as the Eastern Scheldt and will affect the starting points and requirements for which the RBMP is made (Projectorganisatie waterkwaliteit Volkerak-Zoommeer, 2004). Other studies or activities that might interfere with the measures drawn up in a RBMP are: the deepening of the Western Scheldt and the effects of that deepening on the ecology in the area, the further reopening of the Veerse Meer and the Grevelingen for salt water and tidal influences and the Delta program; an integral project for sustainable development of the Delta including, topics such as ecology, safety, economy, attractiveness and uniqueness of the Delta area (ARCADIS, 2006a; Provincie Zeeland, Zuid-Holland en Noord-Brabant, 2006). Uncertainty can thus arise from the challenges related to the interference, overlap and prioritising between the WFD and related legislation.

Many parties are involved The social lay out of the preparation of a RBMP is quite complex, as different government levels are responsible for different parts of the RBMP for the Scheldt River (Table 2.1). The RBMP for the Scheldt River Zeeland will thus consist of different RBMPs: RBMPs from the municipalities on the local water issues and sewage systems, RBMPs from the water boards on the regional waters, a RBMP from the province on groundwater and provincial responsibilities and a RBMP from Rijkswaterstaat on the national water bodies. For reasons of completeness, also the national RBMP and the International RBMP are included in the table, however they fall outside the scope of this research. The national RBMP for the Scheldt River is the same as the regional RBMP for the Scheldt River, as the Scheldt River basin only flows through one region in the Netherlands. Next to the competent authorities, many other parties have a stake in a RBMP. These stakeholders are for example organisations for nature protection, farmers, the fishing or shell animals sector, industry, tourism, transportation sector and drinking water companies. These parties are fully involved in the project as the WFD requires active participation of stakeholders in the establishment of a RBMP (European Commission, 2000b, Article 14). All these parties enter the RBMP development project from different frames, different backgrounds, different values etc. They also have different viewpoints and interests, different resources and different dependencies. These differences between parties involved could also indicate uncertainties, such as uncertainty in behaviour and tuning. Outside of the scope of this research also the national government, the regional governments of other

ARCADIS & TU Delft

19


river basins and the EU play an important role in setting the boundaries for RBMP development in Zeeland. All these parties will be discussed in more detail in paragraph 2.3. Table 2.1 Competent authorities for the RBMP Scheldt River

Level of scale

Explanation

Municipality (17)

Within Scheldt River basin

Responsibility in RBMP Scheldt River Management Plan Municipal waters (Integrated in ‘Urban water plan’ or only a ’raadsbesluit’)

Water board (3)

Water board Zeeuwse Eilanden,

Management Plan Water board

Water board Zeeuws-Vlaanderen

district (Integrated in

and Water board Brabantse

‘Waterbeheerplan’)

Delta Province of Zeeland

Management Plan Provincial waters (Integrated in ’Integraal Omgevingsplan’)

Rijkswaterstaat Zeeland

Management Plan for the Rijkswateren (Integrated in ‘Beheerplan Rijkswateren’)

PKS (Project bureau

Problem owner

Scheldt River) Ministry of Transport,

Scheldt River Netherlands Secretary of state is responsible

Public Works and Water

RBMPs of four main River basin districts (incl. Scheldt River which

Management International

Coordination of RBMP for the

overlaps with the task of PKS) International coordination

RBMP of the total Scheldt River

Committee of the Scheldt River

Dependency on upstream river basins and boundary problems Zeeland is dependent on upstream parties, such as parties in other parts of the Scheldt River basin or in the adjacent Maas river basin. The measures and goals taken upstream will strongly influence the water quality and ecology in the Scheldt River Netherlands, which lies at the mouth of the river basin. This aspect can directly be related to uncertainty as the upstream policy and goals are still uncertain. The different RBMPs within the basin cannot be made separately on the different levels of scale because actions taken in a regional water system will affect other water systems in the basin, as these are connected to each other. For example, Schouwen Duiveland, which falls under the responsibility of the Water board Zeeuwse eilanden, drains into the Eastern Scheldt, which falls under the responsibility of Rijkswaterstaat. This means that pollution of nutrients is shifted from one scale level to another, which is called the shifting problem. Besides the shifting problem the river basin district boundaries for the Scheldt River are not based on the current political and administrative boundaries of the water boards and other authorities but on the hydrological unit of the Scheldt River (Carter and Howe, 2005). This river basin approach thus requires a change in organisation and attitude from the water boards and other government parties. The above aspects indicate towards a kind of uncertainty in organisation and responsibilities in RBMP development. It is important that the different aspects of the WFD, as discussed above, not only point towards uncertainty for policymakers and responsible authorities but also towards uncertainty for other parties involved, such as the farmers or industries in the area. To show the relation between the above aspects of the WFD and uncertainty, the above aspects will also be briefly connected to the uncertainties discovered in the Eastern Scheldt area in the case study in Chapter 6.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

20


2.3

QUICK SCAN OF THE ACTORS INVOLVED A quick actor scan has been made of the actors active in RBMP development of the Scheldt River to increase the insight in the network around RBMP development. This is important because of the subjective character of uncertainty. More information about the different actors involved can be found in the tables of Appendix 3. For reasons of completeness, several actors outside the scope of this research are included in this list. Since the list is very long, a division is made between actors that are critical with respect to budget and between actors that are critical with respect to public support. The critical actors with respect to budget are the ones that PKS especially needs cooperation from in order to realise the goals of the WFD. An actor is considered critical with respect to budget if the actor is formally responsible for a part of the RBMP or if the actor might have to ‘pay’ in some way because of the WFD implementation. The critical actors with respect to public support are the actors that are not critical with respect to budget or formal responsibility but that do have blocking power or special interest in the realisation of the WFD. All the critical actors with respect to budget can also be critical for public support. However, this is not taken into account for in this overview. An overview of this division is given below (Table 2.2). Some actors are both defensive as well as positive towards the WFD implementation as within these organisations a variety of opinions exists.

Table 2.2

Positive attitude

Defensive attitude

Critical actors

towards WFD

towards WFD

Critical actors with

PKS, RWS Zeeland, Province,

Province, Municipalities,

respect to budget

Water boards, Municipalities,

Agriculture, Fishery, KvK,

Ministry LNV, Recreation, KvK,

Recreation, Industries, Shipping

Fishery Critical actors with

Nature organisations, National

Zeeland seaports, MMM,

respect to public support

Park Eastern Scheldt, Consultative

Consultative councils,

councils, Steering committees,

Steering committees

Drinking water companies, MMM, NOB (diving)

The division between critical actors could play a role in uncertainty management. Uncertainties identified by critical actors with respect to public support might be managed differently in the process of RBMP development, than uncertainties identified by critical actors with respect to budget.

2.4

THE PROBLEM OWNER; PROJECT BUREAU PKS The project bureau is staffed by both the province and RWS Zeeland and consists in total of seven employees. Its main task is to coordinate the implementation of the WFD for the Scheldt River in the Netherlands (mostly Zeeland), thereby assisting the River basin coordinator of the Scheldt River. The River Basin coordinator is responsible for the national and international coordination within the basin. The main goal of the PKS entails a combination of realism and ambition. PKS is looking for realism in the possibilities for implementation (feasibility, cost effectiveness etc.), but at the same time wants to try to reach the highest level of ambition as possible to reach the goals set by the Directive. A guarantee of safety in the area is considered as more important than

ARCADIS & TU Delft

21


water quality and ecology and is therefore seen as a goal that cannot be touched. This main goal and accompanying sub goals are visualised in the goal tree of Figure 2.7. Figure 2.7 Realistic implementation of WFD in Zeeland, with ambition

Goal tree for the problem owner, project bureau PKS

High cost effectiveness of measures

Low costs of measures

High effectiveness of measures

Maximal realization within deadline

Limited negative societal effects

No negative effects on safety

Maximal meeting of ecological requirements

Maximal meeting of water quality requirements

High Feasibility of goals and measures

Maximal meeting of morphological requirements

High technical feasibility

Increased positive societal effects

Limited negative effects for stakeholders/users High positive effects for users and stakeholders

Positive effects up/ downstream

Increased synergy with goals of other directives and policies

From the end branches of this goal tree, the criteria can be derived to judge whether the policy chosen fits the goals of the PKS. The following criteria are thus taken into account: Costs (the lower the better) Meeting ecological, water quality and morphological requirements (the more the better) Realisation within the deadline No negative effects on safety (cannot be touched) Effects for users and stakeholders (more positive and fewer negative effects) Effects up and downstream (the more positive, the better) Synergy with goals and measures of other Directives (the more the better) Technical feasibility (requirement for implementation) These criteria that are derived from the goal tree, match quite well with the criteria used to judge measures proposed in the pilot study for the Eastern Scheldt. These criteria were: Costs Meeting the WFD and Natura-2000 requirements Societal consequences (including safety consequences) Opportunities for the Delta and the Eastern Scheldt area Feasibility (ARCADIS, 2006a) The criteria from the goal tree will be used to describe the possible outcomes or range of consequences of uncertainties for PKS (Paragraph 4.7).

ARCADIS & TU Delft

22


2.5

CONCLUSIONS OF THE PROBLEM EXPLORATION In this chapter, background information was given on RBMP development in the Scheldt River basin. It can be concluded that the project bureau PKS is facing a challenging task. The development of a RBMP not only poses an organisational challenge but it also poses a challenge concerning the content of a RBMP. Many different actors, operating on different levels of scale, are involved in RBMP development. To formulate measures to improve the water quality and ecology that will fulfil the EU requirements, the PKS requirements and the societal expectations will be very difficult. The most important aspects in RBMP development identified in this chapter are: The innovative character of the WFD The strict time path and rules set by the EU The many links to other legislation (e.g. Natura-2000) The many parties that are involved The dependency on upstream river basins Boundary problems The aspects described in this chapter can be linked to uncertainties that are apparent for many of the different actors involved in RBMP development (this will be done in the case study, Chapter 6). To better understand all the aspects of the WFD implementation in Zeeland in relation to the uncertainties in WFD implementation, it is useful to establish a conceptual model of the RBMP development system of the Scheldt River as it currently exists. In the next chapter, the complex process of RBMP development is put forward in a more clear way by using a conceptual model. Later in this research, the conceptual model is used also to describe the location of the uncertainty and to visualise the implications of uncertainties for RBMP development.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

23


CHAPTER

3

Conceptual model

To further explain the goal and scope setting of this research and better understand the complexity of RBMP development a conceptual model is developed, based on systems thinking. This model is part of step 1; goal setting but will also be used in step 2 (Figure 3.8). Figure 3.8

Uncertainty analysis

The four steps of Risman performed in this research; focus on step 1

2. Identification & mapping

1. Goal setting

Typology: process and content (Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004)

Goal & demarcation


3.1

W&H framework: 5 dimensions (Walker et al. 2003)



4. Management


CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF POLICYMAKING Walker et al. (2003) have developed a conceptual model for policymaking processes, which is shown in Figure 3.9. In this model, the role of a system model in a policymaking process is explained. They define the system model as “an abstraction of the system of interest” (Walker et al., 2003, p. 7). The system model also represents the cause-effect relationships of the system. The definition of this system model is important, as the W&H framework for uncertainty analysis (which is explained further in the next chapter) is especially developed for model based decision making, meaning for decision making with help of such a system model. The conceptual model can be explained as following: the policymaker develops a policy that will influence the system (defined by the system model), the stakeholders will judge the outcomes of interest of this system model and will then try to influence the policymakers to change these outcomes. There are also external factors that can influence the system, such as economical or technological developments. Walker et al. (2003) define the system model thus as a model of in this case the natural water system. The cause-effect relation of policies on the water system and the impact on stakeholders are included in the system model. The policymakers and stakeholders are kept outside of the system model, as they reflect and act on the results of the model.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

24


Figure 3.9 Conceptual model for policy processes, showing the role of

Stakeholders

the system model (Walker et al. 2003, p. 8)

Goals objectives, preferences

Policy makers

Policies

Context: natural, sociopolitical, economic, technological circumstances

System model

Outcomes of interest

Input

3.2

NEW CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR RBMP DEVELOPMENT For the purpose of uncertainty analysis and management in RBMP development, it was chosen to develop a less theoretical and more applied conceptual model that can be linked more directly to the practice of RBMP development, but is based on the model of Walker et al. The reasons for doing this will be described below, after the brief explanation of this new conceptual model. The model is shown in Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.10 Conceptual model of RBMP development for the Scheldt River Blue = natural system Green = policy system Orange = societal system Grey = external system

The development process of the RBMP Scheldt River is seen in this model as a system with a geographical boundary of the Scheldt River Netherlands, indicated by the black line. Within this model three sub systems can be distinguished; the natural system (in blue), the policy system (in green) and the societal system (which Walker et al. (2003) calls the stakeholders) in orange. Outside the model, the external system (grey) is found that will influence the

ARCADIS & TU Delft

25


system model (and thus all the subsystems and the relations between the subsystems). In the subdivision of the systems, you can still see the clear distinctions that Walker et al. (2003) also make in their conceptual model, between the natural system, the policymakers and the stakeholders. By doing this, it can be made visible how the different actors influence the water system and how uncertainties in or between the different subsystems can influence the processes in the other subsystems. The problem owner PKS is situated in the policy system. The conceptual model is developed from a helicopter point of view. There are several reasons for developing this different and more applied conceptual model. The first reason is that this different way of defining and delineating the system model corresponds with the concept of Integrated Water Management. In Integrated Water Management (IWM) the entire water system in Zeeland is seen from a helicopter view including the water system as well as the policymakers and the users. IWM focuses thus on the integration of the water system; the policy and management system and the user system, see also Figure 3.11. The use of IWM as a basis for the system model used in this research can be justified because the principles of IWM are considered essential in current and future water management practice and stand at the basis of the WFD, as the WFD promotes an integrated river basin management approach (Refsgaard et al., 2005). Other actors also have IWM as one of their goals, for example the province of Zeeland that mentions IWM in the Provincial Plan on Water, Space and Environment (Provincie Zeeland, 2006a, p. 24). Figure 3.11 Integrated Water Management (ARCADIS, 2006a) Blue = natural system Green = policy system Orange = societal system Grey = external system

The second reason is that the stakeholders and the policymakers belong to the abstraction of the system of interest for an uncertainty analysis and thus also to the system model: many uncertainties are identified not only in the natural system, but also in the dynamics of the processes between actors and between actors and the natural system. In the new conceptual model, the stakeholders and the policymakers are thus included in the system model. Another advantage is the helicopter view of the total system. The conceptual model is drawn form the perspective of the analyst, but it can be valid for uncertainty analysis from different perspectives; uncertainties can be visualised with this model from the perspective of the analyst, the stakeholders and from the perspective of the policymakers. In the interviews held with parties from both the policy and the societal system, this conceptual model was recognised as an abstraction of the process of RBMP development in the Scheldt

ARCADIS & TU Delft

26


River (see Appendix 7 for interview reports). The model of Walker et al. was mainly valid for the perspective of the analyst providing information to support policy decisions (Walker et al. 2003, p. 8). Furthermore, the system model of Walker et al. does not incorporate all of the dynamics that exist between the stakeholders, the policymakers and the natural system as this new model does. The interaction between the actors and the water system is vital in water quality and ecological issues. The actors in the system not only cause the water quality problems, they are also the ones that can solve them. The interaction between the policymakers, the stakeholders and the natural system is an interaction that works in both and not just in one direction. Finally, communication and visualisation is very important in an uncertainty analysis. Since this model is more applied and closely resembles the practice of RBMP development in the Scheldt River, it is easier to use in interviews with the different parties. In these interviews, the conceptual model will be used to help them in identifying uncertainties. The term uncertainty is already a very abstract and vague term for many people, so a more practical conceptual model will help in the communication of uncertainties. Below, each subsystem of the conceptual model in RBMP development for the Scheldt River will be briefly described.

Natural system The natural system can also be called the water system of the Scheldt River basin. However, by naming it natural system emphasis is given to the broad definition of a water system that is used in this research. The natural system includes the water bottom, the water itself as well as the air directly above the water. It furthermore consists of the physical elements of the water systems (banks, bottom etc,), the biological elements (species that live in the water or use the water etc.) and the chemical elements (dissolved elements etc.). Several main problems that can be found in the natural system of the Scheldt River influence the ecology and water quality and might be solved or mitigated by the WFD implementation. These are: Eutrophication; the excessive growth of aquatic plants, stimulated by an excess level of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus (Bolier, G. 2005) (especially by nitrogen, phosphate is of less importance in salt-brackish water) Pollution of the water by heavy metals, pesticides, copper, chromium, TBT and PAKs Decrease of the inter tidal area (a process that is called ‘Sand hunger‘ ) Decrease of fresh- salt water transition areas and corresponding flora and fauna Influence of (salt) seepage (Provincie Zeeland, 2006c)

Policy system The policy system consists of the governmental organisations that are together responsible for developing the RBMP for the Scheldt River Zeeland. These are RWS Zeeland, the province, three water boards and seventeen municipalities. The project bureau PKS that is set up for the WFD implementation in Zeeland is also mentioned because they have commissioned this research. PKS will try to influence the means of other parties in the policy, societal or external system to reach the goals of the WFD. The governmental parties have been separated from the societal system to make a difference in parties with a formal responsibility and parties with an interest in the WFD. It also helps in keeping the

ARCADIS & TU Delft

27


subsystems small and easier to understand. Most of these parties operate within the province of Zeeland, however one water board and one municipality is situated in the province of North Brabant.

Societal system The parties in the societal system here encompass the stakeholders and the users of the Scheldt water basin. Most of the users are represented in the RBMP development process by a party that stands up for their wishes and rights. Users of the natural system are for example recreational companies (represented by the Hiswa, Recron etc.), fishery sector (represented by PO Mosselcultuur), nature, represented by the nature organisations, drinking water companies etc. In paragraph 2.3 these actors have been described in more detail. The public is also part of the societal system. However, in the case study they have not been interviewed.

External system The external system consists of both the natural system and the policy and socio -economical system that can be found outside of Zeeland. Since the water system of Zeeland is part of the international river basin Scheldt River, the natural systems upstream (and downstream) of Zeeland will influence RBMP development, but are outside the scope of this research. These are therefore put in the external system. Also, as was described in paragraph 2.3, there are many other governmental and non governmental parties outside of Zeeland (e.g. International Scheldt Committee, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, RIZA, Noord Brabant, LTO etc.) that will have some sort of influence on RBMP development in Zeeland. All these parties set boundary conditions and starting points for the Scheldt river region in the Netherlands that will form an input for RBMP development. There are major changes taking place in the natural system that need to be included in RBMP development, even though the timescale of these forces is much longer than the timescale considered in this project. These changes are part of the external system as none of the actors in Zeeland alone will be able to change these forces. These are climate change, land subsidence and sea level rise. Other socio-political, economic or technological circumstances are also considered external or background circumstances of RBMP development in the Scheldt River.

Implications and relations in the system model As is indicated with the big arrows in the new conceptual diagram of Figure 3.10 the different subsystems in the system model are all related to each other as well as to the external system. Some of these arrows are labelled as implications; actions taken in the policy system, such as measures to improve the water quality will have implications for the natural system. Actions from the societal system (such as the usage of the natural system) will also influence the status of the natural system. The arrows between the two actor groups are labelled ‘influence and implications’ as actors in the societal system will influence the actors in the policy system and the other way around by lobbying, discussions, information exchange, use of the media etc. Changes in the natural system will act as signs, such as the variety in species that are present in the natural system, the occurrence of fish mortality, to the societal and policy system. Several of these signs are monitored to discover changes or trends in the natural system, hence the labels ‘monitoring‘ and ‘signs’.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

28


The relation between the external system and the system model is not defined in as much detail as the relations between the sub-systems in the system model. This is done on purpose as the developments and actions in the external system will influence all the subsystems and thus the entire system model. The arrow between the external system and the system model represents thus actually an arrow to all the different subsystems and to the relations between the subsystems. The external systems also consist of the same subsystems as the system model. This is visualised in Figure 3.12. Here the smallest system is the system for the Eastern Scheldt, which will be used as a case study for describing uncertainties later on in this research. Of course, all the different scales are related to each other and influence each other. The scale of the Scheldt River basin Netherlands is the main focus of this research. Figure 3.12 The system model in relation to the external world Blue = natural system Green = policy system Orange = societal system Grey = external system

3.3

CONCLUSIONS OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL This chapter shows that the different aspects of the RBMP development process in the Scheldt River basin, Netherlands can be described and explained with help of a conceptual model. The new conceptual model described above is thus based on both Walker et al. (2003) and the concept of Integrated Water Management and is specially developed for the purpose of uncertainty analysis and management in the development of a RBMP. For this purpose the dynamics between the sub subsystems are considered important as well as the fact that the model is drawn from a helicopter view, meaning that it can be used for uncertainty analysis from different perspectives. It will furthermore be used to describe, visualise and analyse the possible consequences of an uncertainty for the different sub systems in the conceptual model. The model increases the understanding of the RBMP development process by visualising the different aspects involved in the process. It will be used in the theoretical framework for uncertainty analysis, to discover the locations of uncertainties as is explained in the next chapter.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

29


CHAPTER

4

Theoretical framework for uncertainty analysis in RBMP development Figure 4.13 shows that the uncertainty analysis in this research covers step one and two Risman. Step 1 has been covered in Chapter 1 and Chapter 3, as the goal of this research (which was to improve the RBMP development process by identifying, structuring and managing uncertainties in RBMP development for the Scheldt River) and the conceptual model were explained. The theory necessary to perform step 2 will be described below. Most of the theory will focus on the mapping of uncertainties. This is done by structuring and describing uncertainty with help of a typology developed by Koppenjan and Klijn (2004) and the W&H framework by Walker et al. (2003). Figure 4.13


The four steps performed in this research: focus on step 2

2. Identification & mapping

1. Goal setting

Typology: process and content (Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004)

Goal & demarcation


4.1

W&H framework: 5 dimensions (Walker et al. 2003)



4. Management


TYPES OF UNCERTAINTY In RBMP development, we can distinguish two different types of uncertainty. These two types are based on Koppenjan and Klijn (2004): Uncertainty about the content of RBMP development. Content uncertainty covers uncertainties about the natural system or in possible measures. Lack of knowledge about the working of the natural water system, dissension on the working of the natural water system, uncertainty about effects of measures and uncertainty about the overlap with Natura-2000 are all examples of uncertainty related to the content of a RBMP. Uncertainty about the process of RBMP development.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

30


Process uncertainty covers for example lack of knowledge about the way actors in the process will behave (possible strategic behaviour), about the organisation of the project (power of the actors, influence, trust etc.) or about the rules and regulations. Koppenjan and Klijn, (2004: p. 6,7) split this type of uncertainty in institutional (organisational) and strategic (process) uncertainty, however in this case these two are so much interwoven that this is not further taken into account. It is important to note that the type of uncertainty refers to the topic that the uncertainty is about and not to the source that the uncertainty stems from. The distinction between the two types of uncertainty is not always clear, as content and process are often closely related. For example, uncertainty in cost prediction can be viewed as both content and process uncertainty. You could see uncertainty in cost prediction as content uncertainty as it is related to the solutions that can be taken in the water system, you could also see it as a process uncertainty as costs play a vital role in the decision making process. It is however useful to distinguish these two topics and place them in one of the two categories to create more clarity in the long list of uncertainties in RBMP development and to be able to group uncertainties that deal with the same topic.

4.2

THE W&H FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATED UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS In this research, an integrated analysis needs to be made of the uncertainties in RBMP development. Integrated analysis means that all different types of uncertainties are incorporated in the analysis. Walker et al. (2003) developed an elaborate framework (called the W&H framework) to analyse uncertainty in model based decision support. In Appendix 4, this framework is shown and explained briefly. The aim of the W&H framework is: “to promote systematic reflection on a wide range of types and locations of uncertainty, in order to minimise the chance that relevant key uncertainties are overlooked, and to facilitate better communication among analysts from different disciplines as well as between them and policymakers and stakeholders (Krayer von Krauss, 2006, p. 90)”. This framework has been used by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency in a Guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication (Janssen et al. 2005). Also, Krayer von Krauss and Janssen (2005) discuss the use of this framework with non-initiated experts based on a risk assessment on genetically modified crops. The use of the W&H framework for uncertainty analysis in policymaking activities has many documented advantages. Both Krayer von Krauss and Janssen (2005), Norton et al. (2006) and Janssen et al. (2005) acknowledge that first of all, the W&H framework is useful for structuring a problem, by forcing the analyst to clearly mark the boundaries of the system of interest and for classifying the uncertainties involved in the project. Second, the framework can also assess the full spectrum of uncertainty as it includes both statistical and non statistical uncertainties. Third, the transparency of the uncertainty analysis is very high, which stimulates the understanding of the analysis. Furthermore, the framework can be used at various stages in the project; at the beginning, in the middle of the project or as an evaluation tool at the end of the project. Finally, an uncertainty analysis based on the W&H framework can be used to develop a strategy for adaptive policymaking as decision schemes can be developed for all the different uncertainties. Given these many strengths of the W&H framework and the fact that it is applicable to model based decision support activities that involve many actors and have a high

ARCADIS & TU Delft

31


complexity, it seems logical to also use this framework in RBMP development. However, there are also several documented weaknesses of the framework, which means that several adjustments have to be made to the W&H framework for use in RBMP development. Unfortunately, not all weaknesses could be addressed in this research. This was partly due to time limitation and partly because several of the comments were found in a later stage of the research process. The first limitation of the framework was identified by Norton et al. (2006) and entails the fact that the W&H framework is developed for a modeller’s view instead of for a decision maker’s view. The second weakness is that in the W&H framework, the relationships between the uncertainties are overlooked, because the uncertainties are assessed individually. Norton et al. (2003, p. 87) state that: “the classification by Walker et al. undermines the possibility that interactions between different sources of uncertainty are obscured or overlooked. (..) The effects of different sources are not always additive but they can through complex interactions amplify or dampen one another. Rather, once those uncertainties have been identified and classified, they must be analysed and their implications for decision making evaluated as a whole.” Krayer von Krauss and Janssen (2005) discovered that the practical usability of the concepts of the W&H framework is rather low. The final weakness of the W&H framework, described by Norton et al. (2006) is that no link exists between the uncertainty analysis and the management of uncertainties. This link had to be established in this research. Besides the W&H framework, several other approaches to uncertainty analysis and management are available. The Netherlands Environmental Agency (RIVM) embedded the W&H framework in an uncertainty guidance system (Janssen et al., 2003). Part of this system is a toolkit with many different tools for uncertainty analysis and management (NMP, 2007). Besides, van Asselt gave an overview of methods to address uncertainties (Asselt et al., 2001). However, these tools did not match the aim of this research or were not suited for the abstract level and high diversity of uncertainties in RBMP development. In the following paragraphs, the W&H framework is further described. Because of the limitations put forward above and the special characteristics of RBMP development, several adjustments were made to the framework. For RBMP development, no system model existed, so for the uncertainty analysis in RBMP development the new developed conceptual model of Chapter 3 will be used as a system model.

4.3

ANALYSING UNCERTAINTY As was explained in Appendix 4, in the W&H framework three dimensions of uncertainty are distinguished; location, level and nature. These three dimensions describe precisely the uncertainty itself and help in identifying all uncertainties in an integrated way.

Figure 4.14 Uncertainty: a three

Location Nature

dimensional concept (Walker et al., 2003, p.9)

Level

This analysis will be linked to different management approaches for uncertainty management from the perspective of a policymaker in Chapter 5. However, before this can be done, a selection is necessary, as there are too many uncertainties in RBMP development to be able to manage them all. In order to select uncertainties or to distinguish what

ARCADIS & TU Delft

32


uncertainties are the most important ones to manage, more information is needed. For the purpose of management, thus two other dimensions are added to the W&H framework: The range of possible consequences of an uncertainty. In the dimension ‘level’ it is made clear how uncertain the uncertainty is, however the possible consequences (including the chance of the occurrence of the uncertainty) are not described, only assessed. Also, in RBMP development external factors such as climate change can have a large effect on uncertainties in the system. This needs to be taken into account when analysing the possible consequences of an uncertainty. Time dependency of the uncertainty. Some of the uncertainties identified will have a fixed point in time on which they will be resolved. Often this point in time is set in the timeline for the WFD process. Figure 4.15

Level

Uncertainty: a five dimensional concept

Nature Location

Consequences Time dependency

The theory to analyse an uncertainty with help of the different dimensions will be described below in relation to RBMP development. The use of these dimensions can be seen as an objective approach to uncertainty analysis. Afterwards, it will be discussed how the perspectives on uncertainty can be brought back into this objective analysis.

4.4

LOCATION OF THE UNCERTAINTY Walker et al. (2003) use their conceptual model of the general process of policymaking, to determine the location of an uncertainty. Possible locations are in the context of the system model, in the model itself, in the inputs, in the parameters and in the model outcome. Instead of the model defined by Walker et al. (2003), the conceptual model from Chapter 3 is used to describe the location of the uncertainty. This means that in this research the dimension ‘location’ is used in a flexible way, as the locations used here are different and more directly related to the practice of RBMP development than the locations described in the W&H framework. The use of this conceptual model also visualises the relations between uncertainties and allows for different perspectives in the analysis, thereby solving two of the limitations of the W&H framework. Each uncertainty is assigned to a subsystem based on its connection to one of the parties or systems in that subsystem. This connection is based on the general process of policy-making as described by Walker et al. (2003): problems that occur in for example the natural system affect the users of this system (these users are located in the societal system). These problems can be caused by the use of the natural system. The policymaker designs a policy to solve the problems. This policy will have an effect on both the natural and the societal system. Based on the monitoring of these effects and the influencing by the societal system, the policy is adjusted and the process starts all over again. An uncertainty is thus assigned to a subsystem if that uncertainty is related to the task, interest or occupation (with respect to RBMP development) of the party or the system in the subsystem. These sub-systems can be seen as the ‘owner’ of the uncertainty. The allocation of uncertainties is thus done from the perspective of each of the actor groups in a subsystem. Uncertainties can also be located in between one of the three systems, if both subsystems are affected by or involved in the

ARCADIS & TU Delft

33


uncertainty. This means that there are in total eight locations of uncertainty and two types of uncertainty in RBMP development. The different locations of uncertainty are graphically shown in Figure 4.16. Figure 4.16 Locations of content and process uncertainties in the conceptual model

There is an important notion about a possible third dimension to this 2D system, which is time. During the progression of the project, some uncertainties will be resolved, some will stay and new ones will appear. It is therefore possible that this system with all its uncertainties will look different on different periods within the project. This third dimension is not taken into account in this scheme, as the demarcation of the research was limited to the uncertainty identified between Sep. 2006 and Dec. 2006. For every location Figure 4.16 shows, what types of uncertainty can occur in that system. In the natural system only uncertainty about the content will play a role, as there is no (decision making) process of actors in this system. In between the natural system and the policy and societal system, only content uncertainties can be found because no process between actors is found in these locations. In and between the policy and societal system both types of uncertainty come up. Content related uncertainty in the policy system is for example the uncertainty about the costs of measures or about the feasibility of measures. Process related uncertainties in the policy system are for example the uncertainty related to reaching the deadline or uncertainty about the sense of urgency or willingness of the parties in the system. An example of a content related uncertainty in the societal system is the uncertainty in continuation of the activities in the fishery sector. An example of a process uncertainty in the societal system is that representatives do not know how to inform their party about the WFD. The uncertainties that are situated outside of the system model, in the external system consist of both process and content type of uncertainties. For ease of working, no distinction is made in the external system between process and content. These uncertainties will just be called external uncertainties. For example, the uncertainty of what water quality measures will be taken by the national government is an external uncertainty, as this directly influences the water quality measures of the RBMP in the Scheldt River basin.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

34


4.5

NATURE OF UNCERTAINTY 5 Walker et al. (2003), van Asselt (2000) and several other authors distinguish two general

sources or natures of uncertainty; variability (also called ‘ontic’ by Walker et al., 2003) and lack of knowledge which is also called ‘epistemic’ by Walker et al. (2003). These two sources are not completely independent of each other as a lack of knowledge is partly caused by variability. An overview of the sources of uncertainty and the relation between them is given in Figure 4.17. Inexactness

Figure 4.17 Overview of sources of uncertainty (Asselt, 2000, p.

Lack of observation/ measurements

87)

Unreliability

Practically immeasurable

Uncertainty due to lack of knowledge

Natural randomness Conflicting evidence

Value diversity Behavioural variability

Uncertainty due to variability

Ignorance

Structural uncertainty

Societal randomness Indeterminacy Technological surprise

The source variability can be further split up into five smaller sources: inherent randomness of nature, value diversity, behavioural variability (variety in human behaviour), societal randomness (social, economical and cultural dynamics) and technological randomness (van Asselt, 2000, p. 86). In the complex RBMP development process, value diversity and behavioural variability play an important role because there are so many parties involved. Technological, natural and societal randomness can also play an important role in the ecology and water quality of the water system in Zeeland, however these developments are not likely to occur within the time span of RBMP development. They will thus only be considered as background or external uncertainties, outside the scope of this research. This means that in this research the main sources of variability are the sources that are related to human aspects: value diversity and behavioural variability. Koppenjan and Klijn call this limited form of variability ‘ambiguity‘ (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004, p. 35). From now on, we will do the same. Ambiguity is here defined as the summation of value diversity and behavioural variability. It points towards more fundamental differences than just a difference in opinion between parties. An example of ambiguity as a source for uncertainty is the uncertainty in monitoring. This uncertainty stems from the behavioural variability of the many organisations, which results in different methods for monitoring water quality and different interpretations of the results. The source lack of knowledge (or limited knowledge), covers for example inexactness or measurement errors, lack of observations or measurements, structural uncertainty, including conflicting evidence, data that cannot be measured, unknown natural processes etc. (van Asselt, 2000, p. 86). An example is the uncertainty in the effect of the decrease of inter-tidal area on the ecology in the Eastern Scheldt. There is not enough data available

5

Weening, 2006; Newig et al., 2005; Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004

ARCADIS & TU Delft

35


(lack of measurements, observations, unknown natural processes) to fully understand these effects. Since ambiguity and lack of knowledge are not fully independent (ambiguity can also be caused by a lack of knowledge, as was visualised in Figure 4.17) it is not always easy to make a strict distinction between the two natures. Ambiguity is usually apparent in situations with an overload of information, while lack of knowledge is apparent in situations with a shortage of information. Janssen et al. (2003, p. 21) states that: “In practice it is the active choice of the researcher which often determines the distinction between epistemic and ontic, rather than that it is an innate and fundamental property of reality itself. (…) This choice can be decisive for the outcomes and interpretation of the uncertainty assessment. Still, using the distinction can render important information on the (im)possibility of reducing uncertainties.” Due to variability (and in a more limited form; ambiguity) and lack of knowledge, the understanding of the processes and the past and present states in the natural, policy, societal and external system are thus limited (van Asselt, 2000, p. 88). It is important to note that the type of an uncertainty is not related to the nature of an uncertainty. Both types of uncertainty (process and content) can have both natures of uncertainty. This can be illustrated by an example of two process type uncertainties, of which one stems from ambiguity and one from a lack of knowledge: uncertainty if the WFD is implemented according to the EU rules (this stems from ambiguity in the interpretation of these rules) and the uncertainty in sense of urgency of parties (this stems from a lack of knowledge of the values of these parties).

4.6

LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY To describe the level of the uncertainties in more detail the progression from known till unknown described by Walker et al. (2003) and adjusted by Brown (2004) and Brouwer (2005) (See Figure 4.18) is used. This progression explains how uncertain the uncertainty is with respect to the possible consequences or outcomes and the associated probability of occurrence of that outcome.

Figure 4.18 Levels of uncertainty, ranging

Certainty

Total ignorance

from certainty to total ignorance. (Adjusted from Walker et al. (2003, p. 11)

Statistical

Qualitative

Scenario

Recognised

uncertainty

uncertainty

uncertainty

ignorance

Walker et al. (2003, p. 11, 12) and Brouwer (2005, p.2) together distinguish six levels: Certainty; there is certainty about the chance of occurrence as well as the consequences or outcome of an action. Statistical uncertainty; there is uncertainty that can be described in statistical terms: all outcomes and all probabilities are known. This means that the full range of consequences can be described together with the chance of occurrence. Examples are uncertainty in data and measurements, for example due to sampling error or the uncertainty of the outcome when throwing a dice.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

36


Qualitative uncertainty; some outcomes and some probabilities are known. It is not possible to describe the uncertainty in statistical terms but there is information available on some of the consequences and some of the associated probabilities. Scenario uncertainty; for this event some outcomes are known, however not all probabilities are known. There is an indication of what might happen if the uncertainty prevails, this means for example that the range of possible outcomes is known, however not all outcomes in between. Scenario uncertainty is often related to the future of the external environment surrounding the system. Recognised ignorance; no outcomes known. There is no scientific basis for developing scenarios or plausible outcomes. Total ignorance; “we do not even know what we do not know” It is important to realise that examples of this full progression from certainty to total ignorance are more likely to occur in uncertainty due to lack of knowledge. For uncertainty due to ambiguity (value diversity or behavioural variability), the level of statistical or qualitative uncertainty is not very likely to occur, as probabilities of occurrence cannot be determined for the expected behaviour or values of people. The level of uncertainty is thus also partly related to the nature of the uncertainty.

4.7

RANGE OF CONSEQUENCES AND CHANCE OF OCCURENCE Depending on the level of uncertainty, it is possible to say something more about either the consequences that can result from the uncertainty or the chance of occurrence of the uncertainty. This will play a role in the selection of uncertainties. It is important to try to find out what the possible consequences of an uncertainty can be with respect to the development of the RBMP and how likely it is for these consequences to occur. Of course, it will not be possible to describe all the possible consequences of each uncertainty. Therefore, only the range between the best and worst consequences will be put forward. In addition, the consequences will be described using the criteria for a successful WFD implementation that were derived from the goal tree of the project bureau PKS, see Paragraph 2.4 for a list of these criteria. If an uncertainty is of the statistical uncertainty level then also a probability will be put forward for the chance of occurrence of the uncertainty. Most uncertainties in RBMP development will be of the qualitative, scenario uncertainty or recognised ignorance level, meaning that not much can be said about the chance of occurrence of the uncertainty. This lack of information on probabilities is an inherent characteristic of uncertainty that is apparent in policy-making processes. Some uncertainties will be strengthened by external factors such as climate change, land subsidence etc. but it is uncertain to what extent. These external factors increase the uncertainty of the uncertainty and thus also the necessity to look at it in more detail from a management perspective.

4.8

TIME DEPENDENCY Time dependent means here actually process time dependent, meaning that the uncertainty will be resolved in short time, as it already has a place in the WFD planning. Time dependence is an important dimension as the uncertainties that are dependent of the process time are less uncertain than others for which time will not provide the answer. This will influence the management options for this uncertainty. This dimension will thus play a

ARCADIS & TU Delft

37


role in the selection of uncertainty. To distinguish the temporal uncertainties form the structural uncertainties a timeline could be made. The outcome of the study of the VolkerakZoommeer is an example of a temporal uncertainty, as the results of this study are expected in the beginning of 2007.

4.9

HOW TO INCORPORATE PERSPECTIVES INTO THIS OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS? The analysis of an uncertainty as described above is carried out as an objective activity. However, uncertainty is subjective and since that aspect is not taken into account by the W&H framework, it needs to be included. In the analysis, therefore, it is made visible who named the uncertainty: the project bureau PKS, the other parties in the policy system, parties in the societal system or a combination of these parties. This is based on whether the party mentioned the uncertainty in the interview or in one of the studied documents. This information can be very interesting for other parties as it can explain the behaviour of other parties in the process and can provide new uncertainties that have to be dealt with in the project. If the actor did not mention the uncertainty, then this does not mean that the actor does not know that the uncertainty exists. However, it does say something about the awareness of the uncertainty or about how important the actor considers the uncertainty.

4.10

CONCLUSIONS OF THE UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS This first part of the theoretical framework describes what uncertainty is and how uncertainty can be analysed and structured for RBMP development in the Scheldt River basin. From this chapter we can conclude that: There are two main types of uncertainty in RBMP development: uncertainty about the content of a RBMP and uncertainty in the process of the development of a RBMP. Uncertainty can be analysed in an objective manner with help of five dimensions; • Location; the location of the uncertainty in the conceptual model of Chapter 3. An uncertainty is assigned to a subsystem, if that uncertainty is related to the task, interest or occupation of the party in the subsystem, with respect to RBMP development. • Nature; the source of the uncertainty; ambiguity or lack of knowledge. • Level; the level of uncertainty ranging from certainty to complete uncertainty. • Consequence; the possible range of consequences and chance of occurrence • Time dependency; some uncertainties are temporary while others have a more structural character. Uncertainty is a subjective term and is always linked to the perception of the actor that identifies the uncertainty. Therefore, the perspectives need to be incorporated into the analysis of the uncertainties. This is done by describing who identified the uncertainty. The theory described covers step 1 and 2 of the Risman framework. After these two steps two more follow. These are prioritising the uncertainties and choosing management methods for dealing with the risks and uncertainties. In the next chapter, the theory to perform these last two steps will be described.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

38


CHAPTER

5

Theoretical framework for managing uncertainty in RBMP development After the inventory and objective assessment of uncertainty, the question remains what to do with the uncertainties. Uncertainty is subjective and so are the management strategies that can be used. This means that depending on the perception, position and means of the coordinating actor, a different approach might be chosen. Here the perception of the problem owner PKS is chosen. In the chapter on uncertainty analysis, it was already said that different types of uncertainty require different management methods. Part of the management strategy is also the prioritising of the uncertainties. The selection and the choice for a management method will be discussed further below.

5.1

PRIORITISATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN RBMP DEVELOPMENT According to the Risman steps, prioritising is part of the management strategy to manage uncertainty (see Figure 5.19). This part of the management strategy is added to the theory from a practical point of view: it is not possible to manage or control all uncertainties in a project.

Figure 5.19 Four steps performed in this research: focus on step 3


Goal & demarcation





4. Management


Uncertainties are subjective and consequently, the choice for the order of priority of uncertainties in RBMP development is subjective as well and should be made by the problem owner itself or put forward by the involved parties. This means that there is not one best order of priority. Prioritisation results in a static list of uncertainties, while uncertainties are dynamic. Therefore, it is important to reconsider the order of priority during the project as this is subject to changes. Uncertainty prioritisation is thus an iterative

ARCADIS & TU Delft

39


process that needs to be performed several times during a project. Also, in the selection process not only uncertainties that can be managed or solved should be selected, but it is important to furthermore identify uncertainties that should be monitored closely as they can become important in the future. There are several ways to select the most important uncertainties. One way is by using expert judgement, another is by asking for an order of priority during the identification of the uncertainties in interviews or workshops. To help in determining the order of prioritisation in interviews and in discussions with experts, several aspects of an uncertainty can be used to judge the importance of an uncertainty. The list of aspects put forward here is not complete, but contains aspects that the researcher considers important to keep in mind when selecting uncertainties for management and for monitoring. In practice, the list can be expanded or changed. For each aspect, a different selection of important uncertainties can be put forward. In this case, four different selections can thus be made. The judgement of the uncertainties based on these (or other) aspects should be done by expert judgement. The four aspects are: Subjectivity; it is important to take into account who identified the uncertainty. By putting an uncertainty on top of the priority list, this actor is helped. This can improve the decision making process around RBMP development. A selection can thus be made based on who mentioned the uncertainty. Time dependency; several uncertainties are identified as temporal uncertainties. This means that somewhere in the process an outcome is scheduled for this uncertainty. This uncertainty is thus less uncertain than structural uncertainties. The temporal uncertainties should be selected for monitoring purposes, to make sure that the outcome will be put forward as expected. Influence; it is vital to take into account if it is possible (for the actor of interest) to influence the uncertainty at all. Can the actor of interest manage the uncertainty or can he manage the consequences? If an uncertainty cannot be managed than selecting this uncertainty to try to mitigate it, is of no use. An example is the uncertainty if a major water quality accident occurs, which cannot be controlled. Of course, the consequences of this uncertainty can be monitored or mitigated. This aspect results in a list of uncertainties that should not be selected. Impact (if known) and level of the uncertainty; based on Janssen et al. (1990) an overview can be made of the impact and uncertainty level of an uncertainty (see Table 5.3). If the uncertainty itself is considered high (this depends on the level of the uncertainty) and the impact of the uncertainty is also considered high then the uncertainty is of more interest to the researcher. If the uncertainty is high, but the impact of the uncertainty is very low, then this is a good reason to give this uncertainty a lower priority. Unfortunately, the impact of an uncertainty is not always known so the filling in of this matrix might be difficult and should be based on expert judgement and experience in policy processes. Table 5.3 Uncertainty itself

Table of uncertainty level and

Low

impact level, based on Janssen et al. (1990)

Expected impact of the

Low

uncertainty

Uncertainty 4

Uncertainty 2

Uncertainty 6 Uncertainty 9

Uncertainty 5 High

High

Uncertainty 1

Uncertainty 3 Uncertainty 7 Uncertainty 8

ARCADIS & TU Delft

40


The next step is then to weigh the importance of each aspect to come to a final selection. After making different selections, based on the above-described aspects, a workshop or expert judgement session is needed to decide on the importance of each aspect and to determine the final selection or order of priority of the uncertainties. Next to using one or more of the above-described aspects, also the intuition or experience of an expert can be a good reason to select an uncertainty, as these people have years of experience in the area.

5.2

APPROACHES FOR UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT In this paragraph, the theory is discussed on how to manage the selected uncertainties, see Figure 5.20.

Figure 5.20


Four steps performed in this research: focus on step 4

1. Goal setting

Goal & demarcation





4. Management


The description of possible management approaches is done for the viewpoint of a competent authority. Weening (2004) describes two possible reactions to uncertainty. She states that there are many ways to deal with uncertainty but there are two dominant rationales that lie behind the strategies for dealing with uncertainty (Weening, p.35): The product rationale – controlling uncertainty to realise goals in an efficient way. By using management and making the right choices, uncertainty can be reduced and controlled. Process rationale- utilising uncertainty to enrich the content and stimulate innovation. The choice of a management method is related to the two possible rationales described above and is mainly based on the nature of an uncertainty. In Chapter 4, two possible natures of uncertainty: ambiguity and lack of knowledge were described. Based on the nature of the uncertainty, there are according to Koppenjan and Klijn (2004) two general approaches to manage an uncertainty (Koppenjan and Klijn describe these approaches only for content uncertainties, however they can also be applied to process uncertainties, as these uncertainties have the same main two causes). A lack of knowledge might be solved with the more traditional methods of information gathering, research and expert consultation. This approach corresponds to the project rationale of Weening and is here called the “traditional approach”. The traditional approach contains methods that are goal fulfilling, goal oriented methods. Ambiguity requires a management response that is focused on creating joint action in the complex network of actors. This approach corresponds to the process rationale of Weening and is called the “network approach”. This approach contains methods that are related to goal seeking and learning.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

41


An overview of the characteristics of the two approaches is given in Table 5.4. Table 5.4

Traditional approach

Network approach

Characteristics of the two

Product rationale

Process rationale

management approaches

Controlling uncertainty

Utilising uncertainty

Reactive methods

Proactive methods

Goal fulfilling methods

Goal seeking methods

For uncertainty caused by lack of knowledge

For uncertainty caused by ambiguity

The two possible natures of an uncertainty are not independent of each other (see Paragraph 4.5) and thus it can happen that some uncertainties will originate from two sources at the same time and for others it is difficult to find the exact source. Therefore, one should not just choose one of the two strategies described by Koppenjan and Klijn (2004). To manage uncertainties effectively, the two approaches need to be alternated or used at the same time. This can also be explained with help of the two rationales. When only working from a product rationale the process can be obstructed and delayed by stakeholders who are not involved. However when only using the process rationale it is difficult to come to a decision on time, because all the stakeholders need to be involved. Each approach contains different methods (see Table 5.5 for an overview). Table 5.5 Two main management approaches and accompanying methods


Network approach

Research / Information gathering

Joint commissioning of research

Expert consultation

Exchanging values and opinions

Central norms and regulation

Package deals

Structured consultation

Public participation

NPM: transferring the risk

Integrated Design Approach

Build in contingencies

Process design

Monitoring

Compensation

Pilot projects

Process management (facilitator) Real options Adaptive policymaking

Some methods such as public participation can fall under both approaches, depending on how this is carried out. A focus on one approach does not mean that the other should not be used at all: the approaches are complementary. An example is that the use of public participation (a method from the network approach) could also help in solving knowledge deficits. Another example is that structured consultation of a selected group of stakeholders (a method from the traditional approach) might be more successful to overcome problems of ambiguity than the public participation method of the network approach as this entails the involvement of the broad public and their stakes are not as clear and well substantiated. Below, the two approaches will be discussed separately.

The traditional approach (product rationale) In the traditional approach, uncertainty can be reduced, controlled or accepted. For a public actor this means that the main idea behind this approach is central steering or top down control. The justification for this approach is that the government party acts in the best interest of the public (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004, p.111).

The traditional approach is

characterised by closedness, as the process is not open to all stakeholders and actors. De Neufville (2001) calls this type of management approach a reactive approach towards uncertainty. Other characteristics are a focus on getting proposals accepted (faith in political support and quality of solutions), sequential ordering of steps (followed by test moments

ARCADIS & TU Delft

42


and a correction) and simplifying procedures. This means reducing rules and separating tasks and responsibilities to reduce the number of dependencies and thus the uncertainty and complexity of a project (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004, p. 244). Competent authorities mainly use or combine three different management responses to uncertainty that all fall under the traditional approach (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004): The usage of central norms and mandated science. This approach is mainly focused on content uncertainty. The main methods in this response are the setting of norms and regulations, information gathering, commissioning research and expert consultation. The advantage of expert consultation over research and information gathering is that it will take less time, a disadvantage is the subjectivity of the expert. Structured consultation. This response allows the involvement of limited groups of stakeholders in the policymaking process. By allowing a limited group, the process remains manageable; however, process uncertainties (such as strategic behaviour) will be limited due to the involvement of the most important parties. This approach implies also involving parties only based on expertise and competence, not interest. New Public Management; this response separates the policymaking from the implementation process, thereby transferring uncertainties and risks related to the implementation to other parties. This is a market-based approach. Transferring an uncertainty can be done by making an agreement, for example by contracting out a certain activity. The risks and uncertainties in that activity will then be carried by another party. Another method is hard steering or firm management, meaning that another person or firm is made responsible for a certain uncertainty. However, there are also several other separate traditional methods to control or reduce uncertainties are (Gevers and Hendrickx, 2001 p. 51): To build in contingencies (safety margins). Especially in the budget of a project, contingencies are often built in to cover unexpected costs. In the time planning of a project some slack is usually taken into account. Contingencies do not control the uncertainty itself but will reduce the consequences in time and money of the uncertainty. To monitor the uncertainty. By keeping track of budget and time during the project the project leader is warned when uncertainties have caused the project to run out of budget or time. To prevent the risk or uncertainty from happening by using pilot projects or tests or other preventive measures and to implement the lessons learned in the actual design or plan. To accept the uncertainty. Some uncertainties cannot be controlled or reduced and just need to be accepted. In RBMP development the uncertainty of an occurrence of an ecological disaster in Zeeland, the sinking of an oil tanker is an example of such an uncertainty. Scenario analysis. To construct several future scenarios to gain insight in the possible outcomes of a project. The advantage of the traditional approach is that a relative certainty is created as the scope of the project is kept limited. The process can thus be carried out rather fast and goal oriented. A disadvantage is that the traditional methods can work counter productive, when there are many parties involved as different parties will value the results of the research differently (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004, p. 38). Also many of the methods in the traditional approach are focused on just one uncertainty or one actor, leaving other, often related

ARCADIS & TU Delft

43


uncertainties and other actors outside of the process. This means that for these actors there is no incentive to reduce uncertainty (de Bruin and ten Heuvelhof, 1999).

The network approach (process rationale) In contrary to the traditional approach, the network approach requires a much more proactive attitude towards uncertainty. In the network approach, the actors use the aspects of a network to utilise uncertainty and create possibilities for innovation. There are four major characteristics of a network: pluriformity, interdependency, closedness and dynamics (de Bruin and ten Heuvelhof, 1999). The first two characteristics of a network make interaction between actors necessary, as actors need to be able to understand each other and realise their goals together. The last two characteristics, closedness and dynamics influence the interactions between actors. Examples are that closedness of an actor can be a barrier for interaction and dynamics can cause a change in the lay out of the network, which changes the pluriformity and the interdependencies of that network. The use of traditional top down management methods in a network will not result in efficient uncertainty management. For example, the pluriformity of actors will cause a difference in response to a norm or regulation, especially when this norm is focused on one actor and one uncertainty (de Bruin and ten Heuvelhof, 1999). The management response in a network focuses on participation of actors, on perceptions of actors, on the behaviour of actors and / or on the processes and arrangements between actors (Weening, 2004 p. 35). The main idea behind the network approach is horizontal steering (coordination between actors) and cooperation to enhance support (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004, p. 108). Both content as well as process uncertainties can be managed with the network approach. “Uncertainty can be managed by searching for a ‘common ground’ , a minimal basis for communication that enables further interaction and common learning” (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004, p. 183). Below a short explanation of several tools and methods within this approach are put forward: Goal intertwinement (learning, understanding and acknowledging the goals of the different actors involved to find common goals) is essential and can be reached by for example joint commissioning of research, searching for negotiated knowledge instead of the absolute truth, exchanging of values and opinions, prevention of an early fixation of goals and problems, protection of core values of actors, using an integrated design approach, package deals and compensations (Koppenjan and Klijn, p. 246). The organisation of research, experts and science thus needs to be set up in such a way that it supports the learning process between stakeholders. This increases the understanding of uncertainties seen by different actors in the project and the behaviour of actors based on that. Also, it can resolve uncertainties as knowledge. Public participation is also a good tool as it will enhance the variety in perceptions and opinions and thus enrich the policymaking process (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004 and de Bruin and ten Heuvelhof, 1999) and it is also required by the WFD. Newig et al (2005, p. 339) argue that: “participation is useful to profit from local knowledge, to gain insight in the societal system, to profit from information about possible acceptance of alternatives and to mediate interests and goals.” The first three reasons for using public participation help in solving a lack of knowledge, while the last reason focuses on uncertainty due to ambiguity. In this last case, the actors involved should have a clear interest or stake in the issue, while in the first three cases also the general broader public can be involved. A

ARCADIS & TU Delft

44


competent authority has to realise that involving stakeholders might also create new uncertainties or a reframing of the issue. Participation is not only important between stakeholders and governmental organisations, but also between governments. Rijkswaterstaat Zeeland for example plays in higher level decisions the role of an interested party; it has no authority on that level, but wants to be informed and involved as the results of the decision will affect them (Newig et al, 2005, p. 339). Process design and management, meaning that the process of RBMP development is explicitly designed before and during RBMP development and managed by a facilitator during the process. For RBMP development, this means that the start-up situation, the rules of the game, the (independent) facilitator of the process etc. need to be designed and agreed upon by the parties involved. Subsequently, during the process, the actors will stay committed towards the joint goal and unexpected behaviour of actors is less likely to occur. An example of the process rules are entry and exit rules for parties involved and the start-up situation entails the common goal of the project, the reference situation, which might include the outcome of current policy and the timeline of the project. PKS could serve as a facilitator as they are the official coordinators of RBMP development. In addition, the institutional arrangements surrounding the different actors can be (re-) designed to create a common frame of reference, common rules and guidelines for all parties involved (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004 and de Bruin and ten Heuvelhof, 1999). An example of a possible redesign of institutions related to WFD implementation in the Netherlands is the redesigning of the administrative boundaries of water boards to overcome the difficulties that arise from the mismatch between the river basin and administrative boundaries. No further attention will be paid to the redesign of institutional settings, as it is outside the scope of this research. When using the network approach to manage both content and process uncertainties it is thus important to ensure that the process is dynamic and innovative solutions, new problems and different actors will come up and inspire the process. Tolerance for changing, broadening and intertwining of goals, redundancy and serendipity are very important to be able to use uncertainty and benefit from it in the process (de Bruin and ten Heuvelhof, 1999, p. 139).

Other management techniques It is important to note again that the traditional and network approach should be seen as complementary approaches. Obviously, the two described approaches and accompanying methods are not the only tools available for uncertainty management. Not only should the above strategies be used in combination or alternation, also several other interesting concepts could be added to the management strategies that contain elements of both of the described approaches. One of those is the introduction of flexibility into a policy design to manage or use uncertainty in a proactive way. Two methods for introducing flexibility in policymaking will be discussed below: real options and adaptive policymaking.

Real options The concept of real options, developed by de Neufville (2001) is a proactive uncertainty strategy based on economic principles and is about including flexibility into a design or solution. By including unused options in a design (such as leaving room in a tunnel for an extra railroad track) designers give system managers the right to change the system and the design, without imposing it as an obligation. “All elements of a system that provide flexibility can be considered “real options” (Neufville, de, 2001, p. 9). The real options

ARCADIS & TU Delft

45


concept recognises the fact that “uncertainty adds value to options and can thus be seen as a positive element” (Neufville, de, 2001, p. 12). This concept has been applied mostly in engineering practices. This strategy might also be used to add flexibility into a policy design such as the development of a RBMP. In order to find real options in policy development an analysis needs to be made to identify, select and monitor the options (Neufville, de , 2001). In the case study (Chapter 6), an example will be given of a possible option in RBMP development, where a real option could be included. Real options can be seen as part of the network approach or process rationale as uncertainty is seen form a proactive point of view, namely as an option that can add value. However, when carrying it out it is also a very practical, goal-oriented tool and therefore it can be put under the traditional approach and project rationale as well.

Adaptive policymaking Adaptive policymaking combines the traditional hard steering methods with flexibility. “A flexible or adaptive policy takes some actions right away and creates a framework for future actions that allows for adaptations over time as knowledge accumulates and critical events for implementation take place” (Marchau and Walker, 2003, p. 35). “Adaptive policies are devised not to be optimal for a best estimate future, but to be robust across a range of plausible futures“ (Marchau and Walker, 2003, p. 38). This approach can also not be pinpointed to one of the two approaches as the flexibility and room for adjustments is more part of the process rationale or network approach and the hard steering can be linked to the traditional approach. In RBMP development, this adaptive policymaking is already included in the design process as goals and measures have to be reconsidered every six years. Also, in Natura-2000 some form of adaptive policymaking in included as measures need to be evaluated every 10 years. Adaptive policymaking is closely related to ‘backcasting’, as the basic line of thinking in adaptive policymaking is to reason back from a particular set of policy outcomes through the actions and events that can lead there. It acknowledges thus the fact that the ability to forecast in complex policy problems is limited, because the future cannot be constructed in a problem that includes so many different actors and uncertainties (Walker et al. 2001).

Other tools Besides the nature of an uncertainty, other aspects play a role in uncertainty management. For example the subjectivity of the uncertainty, which determines for who the uncertainty is managed and the subjectivity of the uncertainty management method, which for example may be a preference for the process rationale. Another example is the type of uncertainty (process or content) that is important to consider when choosing a management strategy. Process uncertainties can for example never be fully controlled, as the process itself remains a game of many different and unpredictable actors. The influence of these and other aspects on the management of uncertainties will not be discussed further in this research. In literature other methods to manage uncertainties can be found, which will not be discussed or used in this research, due to time limitations. An example is ‘transition management’ by Brugge et al. (2005) or several more practical management approaches from the theory on risk analysis, such as the theory by Gevers and Hendrickx (2001) on risk management in projects.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

46


5.3

CURRENT APPROACH OF PKS After the interviews, the analysis of documents and several meetings with PKS the main impression is that currently PKS (Project bureau) is using mostly traditional methods to deal with uncertainty. Four examples are: They focus first on the no regret measures that will not cause trouble. They are carrying out a pilot project to test the effects of sand suppletion, a possible measure against sand hunger. They transfer some of the uncertainties to a later period in time, by phasing the project until 2027, instead of 2015. They only invited a limited group of stakeholders to participate in the process. Maybe after the analysis of the uncertainty in the Eastern Scheldt the conclusion can be drawn that some uncertainties will be better managed using the network approach?

5.4

CONCLUSIONS OF MANAGING UNCERTAINTY IN RBMP DEVELOPMENT In this second part of the description of the theoretical framework, the central question addressed was: what are possible ways to manage uncertainty in RBMP development in the Scheldt River basin. The focus of the management approach in this research lies at the perspective of the competent authority, PKS. The management of an uncertainty entails selecting, accepting, controlling, reducing and or utilising uncertainty. From a practical point of view, it is necessary to prioritise or select uncertainties. This can be done by using expert judgement. However, uncertainties are dynamic and therefore the prioritisation should be performed several times during a project. In addition, some uncertainties that are not selected should be monitored closely, as they can become important in the future. There are two main approaches to uncertainty management that are discussed in this chapter: the traditional approach and the network approach. Another important management technique is the introduction of flexibility. Building in flexibility can be done by using real options and by the use of adaptive policy-making. Since PKS is primarily focusing on management methods from the traditional approach, the other network approach could give PKS new insights. To come to a choice of a management method in RBMP development, first the nature of the uncertainties needs to be analysed. If the nature of the uncertainty is ambiguity (information overload) then a focus should lie on methods from the network perspective. If the nature of an uncertainty is lack of knowledge, than the focus should be more on the traditional methods of knowledge gathering. However, the network perspective should still be incorporated in this approach. The use of the flexibility methods is complementary to the above main strategies as these supply extra room to cope with future uncertainties.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

47


CHAPTER

6

Case study: structuring and managing uncertainty in the Eastern Scheldt The Eastern Scheldt is chosen as a case study area because of its special natural, historical and cultural values and because this area was used as a pilot project for WFD implementation in Zeeland. This study forms an important source of information and experience for uncertainties in WFD implementation.

6.1

THE EASTERN SCHELDT The natural values of the Eastern Scheldt include the salt marshes, shoals and mudflats that form a special and unique habitat for flora and fauna (see Figure 6.21). In these inter tidal and shallow areas live many small animals (benthic animals, (in) vertebrates), that form an important source of food for birds and larger sea animals. Many birds use the Eastern Scheldt as a stopover in their migration to the south or as a safe place during high tides. Also, special salt-water vegetation can be found here, such as eelgrass (NPOS, 2001). Because of the above values the Eastern Scheldt was appointed a National Park in 2002. The Eastern Scheldt is a popular recreational area with around ten recreational harbours. It is also an important area for fishery; it has around 4000 hectare of mussel and oyster beds (ARCADIS, 2006a). The Eastern Scheldt falls under the responsibility of Rijkswaterstaat as it is a Rijkswater, however since it is a National Park the consultative body of the National Park is responsible for the functioning of the Park.

Figure 6.21 The Eastern Scheldt barrier and landscape (Ecologisch herstel, 2007 & Nationaal Park Oosterschelde, 2007)

To increase the safety of the area after the major floods that occurred in 1953, the estuary of the Eastern Scheldt was closed off in 1986 by the Eastern Scheldt barrier. During the building of the Eastern Scheldt barrier, the environmental concerns in society became more and more important and heavily influenced the final and innovative half-open design of this

ARCADIS & TU Delft

48


barrier. The design of the Eastern Scheldt can be seen as a turning point in the way of thinking about water management. To maintain the tidal dynamics after the building of the barrier, the estuary had to be closed off from the fresh water supplies as well. The Philipsdam (between the Grevelingendam and St. Philipsland) and the Oesterdam (between Tholen and Zuid-Beveland) were built and enclosed the fresh water lakes: Krammer, Volkerak, Zoommeer and Markiezaatsmeer (see Figure 6.22). As a result, the Eastern Scheldt does not exchange fresh water with the upstream rivers, but only salt water with the North Sea (Deltawerken, 2006). Figure 6.22 Map of the Eastern Scheldt and the barriers (VVV Zeeland, 2007).

2 3 1

4 1) Eastern Scheldt barrier 2) Grevelingendam 3) Philipsdam 4) Oesterdam

1

The plan was that the innovative half-open design of the barrier in combination with the compartment dams would retain the dynamics and thereby the special natural character (of inter-tidal areas) of the Eastern Scheldt. Currently, a new problem is threatening the existence of these inter tidal areas. Despite the compartimentalisation dams, the tidal volume of the Eastern Scheldt decreased after the installation of the barrier. This caused a decrease in the flow velocity of the water, which heavily affected the transport of sediment through the channels and gullies and decreased the sand supply to salt marshes, mudflats and shoals. Rather than a net supply of sediment towards these inter tidal areas, there is now a net erosion of these areas. The wide channels and gullies are filled up with sand from the salt meadows, mudflats and shoals. This process is called ‘Sand hunger’ and decreases the inter tidal areas in the Eastern Scheldt. Next to the sand hunger, also the silting up of the (natural) channels is an important process. Originally, these channels were made up of hard sand, but now silt from the sea is deposited in the channels, causing a weak bottom and thus a less stable channel (NPOS, 2001). The morphodynamical problems described above can be linked directly to the ecological goals of the WFD and Natura-2000 as a loss of inter-tidal area means a loss of food and habitat in the area. Good water quality and stable natural morphodynamical processes should provide the basis for a healthy ecosystem in the Eastern Scheldt. The recreational,

ARCADIS & TU Delft

49


fishery, agricultural and other sectors in this area will also benefit from this healthy ecosystem. Many of the stakeholders that were identified for the Scheldt River, Netherlands also play a role in the Eastern Scheldt. The conceptual model of Chapter 3 can be applied to the Eastern Scheldt area, as can be seen in Figure 6.23. This model is used in the next paragraph to structure the uncertainties and to visualise the relations between uncertainties. Figure 6.23 Conceptual model for the Eastern Scheldt Blue = natural system Green = policy system Orange = societal system Grey = external system

6.2

WAY OF WORKING IN THE CASE STUDY After the assessment of literature documents of the WFD, a list of uncertainties was found that were apparent in the Eastern Scheldt and / or the rest of the Scheldt River basin. (The reviewed documents are marked with an asterisk in the Literature of Appendix 1). The list of uncertainties was further expanded and updated by interviewing stakeholders in the RBMP development process for the Eastern Scheldt. These stakeholders were selected from the sounding board of the Eastern Scheldt. The goal was to interview at least the critical stakeholders with respect to budget, as identified in paragraph 2.3. From these actors only the shipping sector was not interviewed and the industry was represented by the Chamber of commerce. Some of these actors were already interviewed for another project on risk management carried out by ARCADIS. The uncertainties derived from these interviews were also added to the total list. From the actors that were identified as critical for public support the National Park and a nature organisation (Natuurmonumenten) were interviewed. Also, several interviews were held with people outside of the scope of the Scheldt River Netherlands, namely with the national coordination bureau of river basins (CSN) and with the research institute RIZA. These interviews were used to improve the formulation of uncertainties and to gain more insight in general uncertainties that appear in the WFD implementation in the Netherlands. All of the interviews had a very open character. The questions asked were related to identification, analysis and management of the uncertainties, also the conceptual model was discussed. The interview reports were verified by the interviewed persons. An overview of the questions asked to the different parties and a list of the parties and people interviewed can be found in Appendix 5 and 6. The reports of the interviews can be found in the separate document, Appendix 7. Many interviewed parties did not formulate the uncertainties specifically for the Eastern Scheldt, however they all agreed that the uncertainty was also apparent in the Eastern Scheldt. The parties in the societal system brought up several process uncertainties that were not identified earlier in documents etc. This is because they formulated the uncertainty from

ARCADIS & TU Delft

50


their point of view. The final list of uncertainties is thus not necessarily complete, as it only contains the uncertainties identified in interviews and literature. After the collection, the uncertainties were analysed with help of the five dimensions of Chapter 4. Also, the subjectivity was introduced to this analysis. In Appendix 10, a total overview of all uncertainties and their analysis is given. The level of scale on which the uncertainties are formulated, differs from a very high level of scale (e.g. ‘the effects of measures are uncertain’) to a very detailed level of scale (e.g. ‘it is uncertain where the sand for sand suppletion in the Eastern Scheldt should be collected’). The list was therefore structured by formulating groups. In the next paragraphs, the analysis of the uncertainties from this list will be described and explained in more detail per group. Then a selection is made between the uncertainties. The chapter finishes with suggestions for management of these selected uncertainties based on the theoretical framework of Chapter 5.

6.3

OVERVIEW OF UNCERTAINTY IN RBMP DEVELOPMENT FOR THE EASTERN SCHELDT To be able to give a better overview of the uncertainties in the Eastern Scheldt the long list of uncertainties needed to be structured further. The list was sorted by location of the uncertainty, according to the conceptual model and by type, i.e. whether the uncertainty dealt with the process or with the content of RBMP development. The uncertainties were assigned to locations by looking at the tasks, actions, responsibilities and interests of each of the subsystems with respect to RBMP development. This structuring was partly based on information given in the interviews and partly done by the researcher. After sorting, the uncertainties could be grouped and these groups were given a more general name. The reason behind the formulation of these groups is that the uncertainties identified in RBMP development for the Scheldt River can now be assigned to one of these groups of uncertainty. This will help water managers in grasping the full complexity of the uncertainties apparent and the relations between those uncertainties. In Figure 6.24, the seventeen uncertainty groups are visualised per location.

Figure 6.24 Model of uncertainty groups in the Eastern Scheldt Blue = natural system Green = policy system Orange = societal system Grey = external system

Table 6.6 gives a more detailed overview of these groups together with an example of an uncertainty that can be found in a group. The C or the P refers to content or process uncertainty.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

51


Table 6.6 Overview of groups and types of uncertainty in the Eastern Scheldt

Location

Topic

Uncertainty group

Examples

Natural system

C

Natural processes

Sand hunger, morphodynamics

PolicyÆNatural

C

System response

Response of natural system to sand

C

Monitoring

system Natural ÆPolicy

suppletion

system

appears in the water in many different forms

C= content type uncertainty P= process type uncertainty

How to measure phosphate. Phosphate

Policy system

C

Goals

Ecological goals overlap with Natura-2000

Policy system

C

Costs and benefits

Costs of measures

Policy system

C

Feasibility

Execution of measures (where to get the

Policy system

P

Finance

Who will finance the measure

Policy system

P

Reaching the WFD

Reaching the deadline of WFD

sand for sand suppletion)

requirements Policy system

P

Internal organisation

Power differences, internal conflicts

Societal Æ Policy

P

Influence

How and when to influence the RBMP

C

Impacts

P

Reliability

Information transfer, recall of decisions

Societal system

C

Continuity

Continuity of the company or of nature

Societal system

P

Representation

How to inform the party, late resistance

Societal Æ Natural

C

Sources

Historical sources, effects of the usage by

C

Usability

P

External uncertainties

system Policy Æ Societal

process

system Policy Æ Societal

Direct impacts of measures on local economy

system etc.

system Natural Æ Societal

the societal system

system External system

Is the system suitable for the user functions; for agriculture, for nature Political, natural dynamics

An explanation of the analysis of the uncertainties from the list of Appendix 10 will be discussed in more detail per location and per group in the next paragraphs. These next paragraphs can be understood more easily when Appendix 10 is looked at simultaneously. After the explanation, more attention will be paid to the relations between the groups and the relation between the challenges formulated in Chapter 2 and the uncertainties discovered. It is important to note that the subjectivity of the uncertainty is not yet included in the groups. In Paragraph 6.4, the perceptions of the stakeholders will be included as well.

6.3.1

ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE NATURAL SYSTEM All the uncertainties that occur in the natural system can be grouped under ‘uncertainties in natural processes’, examples are uncertainty in the morphodynamical processes or the biological processes. Uncertainty in the natural system is always of the content type. A general lack of knowledge of processes in a natural system exists, as these are too complex and dynamic to fully understand. Examples are the morphological dynamics, the water movement, the seasonal influence, the resilience of the ecosystems etc. The level of uncertainty varies from statistical uncertainty to recognised ignorance as many different types of uncertainties occur in the natural system. It is clear that there are uncertainties, but exactly what the consequences or possible outcomes of these uncertainties are, is hard to determine. Besides lack of knowledge, some of the uncertainty in the natural system is also caused by ambiguity; people have different opinions on what uncertainty in the natural system is. This ambiguity however is caused by a lack of knowledge, which is why lack of

ARCADIS & TU Delft

52


knowledge is considered as the main nature of natural uncertainties. The uncertainties in the natural system are heavily influenced and strengthened by uncertainty in the external system such as climate change, land subsidence and sea level rise. All parties interviewed recognise the uncertainty in the natural system. They focused on two main uncertainties; the uncertainty in the equilibrium state and the uncertainty of the timeline when this equilibrium state is met. Figure 6.25 Focus on the natural system

Uncertainty in the equilibrium state Because of changes that occurred in the past, the natural system of the Eastern Scheldt is going towards a new equilibrium. However, in combination with the natural uncertainty, climate change and sea level rise it is uncertain what this new equilibrium will look like and when it will be reached. These two uncertainties about the equilibrium state are very important as they will determine the necessity and effectiveness of possible interventions in the system and will have an influence on all the success criteria, as defined by the goal tree of PKS. One of the most important changes that occurred was the building of the Strom surge barrier and the compartmentalisation dams. The building of the barriers created the following changes to the system: Decrease of the tidal volume of 30% Decrease of the average tidal range (3.70 m to 3.25 m at Yrseke) (the compartment dams were build to prevent this range from dropping even further, as they decreased the size of the ES) Decrease of the flow velocity with 30-40 % Decrease of the size of the Eastern Scheldt Disappearance of one third of the inter tidal area (NPOS, 2001) A natural process related to the uncertainty in the equilibrium state in the Eastern Scheldt is the morphodynamical process called ‘Sand hunger’, or the decrease of the area of mudflats, shoals and salt meadows in the Eastern Scheldt. Another one is the silting up of the gullies and channels (see Paragraph 6.1 for an explanation). The uncertainty in both these morphodynamical processes lies in the fact that there are many influences causing these processes. These influences are for example, flow velocity, tidal movement, climate change etc. These influences increase or decrease the morphodynamical processes, and can work against each other, thereby causing uncertainty in the working and effects of the processes. The timeline for these processes is also uncertain. The decrease between 1983 and 2001 is estimated at 50 ha per year, however it is uncertain at what rate the decline of inter tidal area will continue (ARCADIS, 2006a). Uncertainty is also apparent in the consequences of

ARCADIS & TU Delft

53


these processes, which will possibly affect all of the user functions in the Eastern Scheldt. Especially the effects on the ecology and natural system of the Eastern Scheldt are important for both WFD and Natura-2000. It is uncertain if these effects follow the morphodynamical processes in a continuous way or if they show discontinuous behaviour, for example a stepwise reaction. Several other uncertainties related to the uncertainty in equilibrium were mentioned in literature or interviews that will not be further discussed. These were the rate and consequences of the development of the Japanese Oyster, the effect of increased flora growth and roughness of the salt marshes, the decrease in mussel seeds, the depletion of eel grass, the effect on ecology and water quality of the use of asphalt on the basis of levees and the influence of seasons on the natural processes in the Eastern Scheldt.

6.3.2

ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTY BETWEEN THE POLICY AND THE NATURAL SYSTEM The next group, uncertainty in ‘monitoring’ focuses on how to measure or describe natural processes and on what should be measured exactly. This group is related to the policy system, as this system requires information about the natural system for its tasks and to the natural system that supplies the information and is thus located between the natural and the policy system. Uncertainty in ‘system response’ is the other group that can be found between the policy and the natural system (see Figure 6.26). This group covers uncertainty in the response of the natural system to a measure or policy from the policy system, for example, the uncertainty in what effect a measure will have on the water quality.

Figure 6.26 The measure-effect relation forms a link between the policy and the natural system

Both groups of uncertainties in this location are of the content type, as they concern the content of the RBMP; namely, the measures that will be taken or the monitoring information on which is decided to create new policy.

System response uncertainty There are three main system response uncertainties found in the Eastern Scheldt: -

Uncertainty in the effects of current policy on natural system

-

Uncertainty in the effects of (new) measures on the natural system

-

Taking measures might create new problems

The nature of these uncertainties depends on the measure, but the level can be described as scenario uncertainty for the first two and as recognised ignorance for the last uncertainty. All three uncertainties are heavily influenced and strengthened by natural dynamics, such as sea level rise and climate change. Most important consequences of these uncertainties will

ARCADIS & TU Delft

54


be that the requirements of the WFD will not be met or the deadline is not met. These uncertainties are thus vital for the success of the project. Almost all interviewed parties mentioned these uncertainties and they are acknowledged in the documents studied. The uncertainty in the effect of a proposed measure depends thus on the measure itself. In Paragraph 6.3.8 more attention is paid to the measures proposed and the associated uncertainties. The uncertainty in effects of current policy is related in the interviews to the delayed implementation of agricultural policies on the use of manure and the nitrate guideline. It is thus not yet known how these policies will improve the status of the natural water system. Other current policy is for example Plan Tuureluur and EHS (ecological main corridor) or the protection of shoals at Schelphoek and Rammegors. These nature development and protection projects will probably have a positive effect on the WFD requirements. Also several water quality policies are being carried out of which the effects are not yet fully known, such as the use of waste water tanks in the recreational shipping (ARCADIS, 2006a). The range of consequences of the uncertainty is that the current policy can either turn out to be useless for reaching the WFD requirements or will have such a big effect that no other measures need to be taken. For the defensive parties in the societal system it is very important to know what the effect of current policy is, because it might indicate that less far fetching extra measures are needed to fulfil the WFD requirements. Uncertainty in the general use of taking measures came up during one of the workshops with the sounding board for the WFD implementation pilot in the Eastern Scheldt. When looking at the recent history of the Delta, it becomes clear that many of the morphological problems that exist now are caused by measures taken in the past. The Delta Works have increased the safety in the area, but created changes in the morphodynamics of the area causing changes in the sand balance, ecology and water quality. The uncertainty that exists is thus related to the question will history repeat itself. This uncertainty is in the first place of the content type, but it will also have an effect on the long-term WFD implementation process. It stems form a lack of knowledge on what the new problems will be and is analysed as recognised ignorance, as no possible consequences are known.

Monitoring uncertainty Monitoring uncertainty entails both the questions what to measure and how to measure and is caused by ambiguity. Different parties have different ideas and values on how to monitor and what to monitor, which is caused by their different institutional backgrounds and cultures. An example is phosphate, which is apparent in the water in different forms. There is particulate phosphate (adsorbed to clay, peat, humid acids, inorganic particles or bounded in organisms) and there is dissolved phosphate (such as ortho-phosphate, poly phosphate and organic bounded phosphate) (Bolier, G., 2005). The question is what forms of phosphate should be measured to determine the phosphate level? At EU level these problems have been recognised, however not all of the problems with monitoring have been resolved yet and the uncertainty remains. Monitoring uncertainty has the level of scenario uncertainty. It is possible to find out what all the different measurement possibilities are and to compare them. The possible outcomes can thus be determined. The main consequence of this uncertainty is that there is no level playing field within Europe or even within Zeeland. If measures do not portray the actual natural status of the system then how can the effects of measure be judged properly and compared to other regions? PKS did not mention this uncertainty in interviews, while some stakeholders and other governmental institutions marked it as a very important uncertainty.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

55


6.3.3

ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE POLICY SYSTEM In the policy system, uncertainty groups are found related to the tasks and interests of the parties in that system (e.g. policy-making) with respect to RBMP development (Figure 6.27).

Figure 6.27 Uncertainty groups in the policy system

Three uncertainty groups are found that deal with possible measures proposed in a RBMP; uncertainty in ‘costs and (quantification) of benefits’, uncertainty in ‘feasibility’ (both groups contain content uncertainties) and uncertainty in ‘finance’ of measures (containing process uncertainties). Besides these uncertainty groups about measures, the group uncertainty in ‘goals’ of the WFD can be found in the policy system. Since this uncertainty in goals contains both content uncertainties and process uncertainties, this category was split up in uncertainty in goals content wise (here named uncertainty in ‘goals’) and uncertainty in goals process wise (here named uncertainty in ‘reaching the WFD requirements’). The ecological goals themselves and the possible interference or synergy with the goals of Natura-2000 are examples from the content group: uncertainty in goals. Uncertainty in reaching the deadline, and reaching the goals are examples of the second process group; uncertainty in reaching the requirements. Uncertainty in the ‘internal organisation’ of the policy system is the final uncertainty group located in the policy system. An example is the uncertainty that internally conflicting goals can occur within and between governmental parties. Each group will be briefly discussed below. The uncertainty groups about measures are further explained in Paragraph 6.3.8, where the uncertainties are discussed in relation to possible measures.

Uncertainty in goals (WFD and other legislation) One of the main uncertainties in this group concerns the ecological goals of the WFD that have not been determined yet by the region. The water quality goals are clearer as these have been set by the EU (however, a definitive list of prioritary substances is not yet made available). Content wise there is a certain overlap of the WFD with other legislation such as Natura-2000, this creates uncertainty in goals and accompanying measures for the WFD. Also by combining different plans and frameworks, the goals of the frameworks themselves could become less important. For example, Natura-2000 is developed for short term, low dynamic systems, while the Eastern Scheldt is a more long term and highly dynamic natural system. Sometimes the goals of the WFD and Natura-2000 even directly conflict for example when the WFD requires a decrease in nutrients in a water body and Natura-2000 requires the existence of a certain species, which cannot survive without the nutrients in the water.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

56


Also, the results of several planning studies such as for the Volkerak-Zoommeer (VZM) will increase uncertainty in goals, as these goals are dependent on the results of the study. For the VZM, the study will determine if the water will stay fresh or will become salt again. This will influence the dynamics in the Eastern Scheldt and creates new possible solutions for implementing the WFD. The nature of the uncertainty in goals is often ambiguity. Different organisations and people with different backgrounds formulate goals from a different perspective, which can then conflict or overlap, thereby creating uncertainty. Sometimes also a lack of knowledge about what the preferred goal is, is also apparent, for example the ecological goals for the Eastern Scheldt. The level of this uncertainty group is scenario uncertainty, as possible outcomes can be described for different levels of ambition. The possible consequences of the uncertainty in goals are very significant; it will affect the realisation of the requirements, the deadline, the synergy with other legislation and the effects for the up and downstream parties and users.

Uncertainty in (the quantification) of costs and benefits The group costs and benefits of measures groups uncertainties about the exact costs of measures and uncertainties on how to quantify the benefits of measures. This is important for policymakers as a cost benefit analysis of the measures is required for a RBMP. The uncertainty in what the benefits of certain measures or policies are does not belong in this group, but is found in other groups: uncertainty in system response and uncertainty in impact. For the uncertainty in costs and benefits of measures a high level of uncertainty is appointed; for the uncertainty in costs a scenario uncertainty level (from a high cost scenario to a low cost scenario) and for the uncertainty in benefits a recognised ignorance level, as no outcomes are known. There exists ambiguity in whether to use yearly figures or investment cost and what depreciation rate to use. These last uncertainties are from the level of qualitative uncertainty as the possible outcomes are known (yearly figures versus investments and a range between low depreciation rate and high depreciation rate) and the probability that this uncertainty is recognised and solved is high. The possible consequences of this group of uncertainties are related to the necessary budget of governmental institutions and on the acceptance of measures. It can have effect on stakeholders and users for example through an increase in taxes. These uncertainties are not mentioned by all interviewed parties. This implies that they are not yet considered very significant uncertainties by these parties.

Uncertainty in feasibility Many uncertainties exist in the execution of the proposed measures of a RBMP. This group covers uncertainties related to the technical feasibility of measures, the societal acceptance of measures or the sequential nature of certain measures. For example, for the measure of sand suppletion it is uncertain where the sand should come from, if it will stay in the area, what the quality is or if there is enough sand. Another example is that the success of the planting of eelgrass depends on other measures such as the re-establishment of the fresh-salt transitions in the area. Causes are thus related to a lack of knowledge, but also ambiguity is apparent. Value diversions about the expected societal acceptance of a measure and about who will claim the responsibility for a measure also plays an important role in the feasibility of a measure. The execution of some measures is divided among different parties with different values and ideas. When a measure is not feasible, the consequences can be very significant. Feasibility will influence the deadline and the societal acceptance of the RBMP. Uncertainty related to feasibility was mentioned by almost all parties. Some of these

ARCADIS & TU Delft

57


uncertainties were already foreseen and given special attention in the planning of the WFD process. These are thus analysed as (process) time dependent.

Uncertainty in finance The financing of measures is a group of process uncertainties in the policy system, as the major part of the financing of the measures in a RBMP lies in this system. Often it is uncertain from what organisation the money for execution of the measures should or will come from. This will influence the decision making process. This uncertainty stems from ambiguity about who is responsible and who has to pay for what parts of the WFD. The relation with Natura-2000 and other legislation complicates the financing of the WFD. This uncertainty can be described as scenario uncertainty as different scenarios for financing can be put forward. However, no information is available on the chance of occurrence of a scenario. Possible consequences range from not enough budget to time delay and not being able to meet the WFD requirements. Economical and political dynamics such as a recession will influence the possible financing of the WFD implementation.

Uncertainty in reaching the WFD requirements This group of process uncertainties is apparent in the policy system as the formal responsibility for the implementation of the WFD lies here. There is uncertainty about whether the ecological and water quality goals will be met and whether they will be met on time. These uncertainties stem from a lack of knowledge. Ambiguity also plays a role in this category as there exists differences in opinion on how to explain the possible delay or lowering of a goal to Brussels and on whether the goals of other related legislation will be met, as the timeline of the WFD and Natura-2000 are different. The level is scenario uncertainty as the possible outcomes are known, but no probabilities are known. These uncertainties will have consequences on the criteria of increased synergy with other legislation, meeting the deadline and meeting the requirements.

Uncertainty in internal organisation The group internal organisation contains process uncertainties related to the behaviour and interests of the parties in the policy system. Many parties exist of multiple people and these people do not all have the same knowledge, opinions etc. Internally conflicting values, power games and dualistic behaviour are all examples of uncertainty in internal organisation. With dualistic behaviour is meant that the critique on upstream policymaking is not in balance with the parties’ own efforts. Cooperation with the Scaldit project is not always good. Division of tasks at borders can be uncertain too as the geographical borders of the river basin are not the same as the managerial borders. The many levels of management also increase uncertainty in internal organisation as many of the discussions are taking place on each level of management. All of these examples of uncertainty in internal organisation are caused by ambiguity (value diversity and behavioural variability) and most of them can be described by the level of recognised ignorance, as no possible outcomes are known. Political dynamics can heavily influence the uncertainties mentioned here. Most of these uncertainties are recognised by the governmental parties, but not all of them. This group of uncertainties can also be found in the societal system. There it is named uncertainty in representation.

6.3.4

ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTY BETWEEN THE SOCIETAL AND POLICY SYSTEM Between the policy system and the societal system the groups ‘uncertainty in impacts’ and ‘uncertainty in reliability’ of the government parties can be found. The first group

ARCADIS & TU Delft

58


encompasses the direct impacts of a measure taken or a decision made in the policy system on the societal system, meaning on the local economy, safety etc. The second group deals with uncertainties in trust and reliability between parties in the policy and the societal system. An example is the possible recall of a decision. Finally, the uncertainties related to how to influence the decision making process and when to influence this process are grouped ‘uncertainty in influence’. Figure 6.28 Influence, reliability and impact are the three main uncertainties between the policy and societal system

Uncertainty in influence There are different kinds of uncertainties that play a role when societal parties try to influence the policymakers. First of all, it is uncertain how to influence the decision makers. What are the best methods, when are the major decisions taken and is it necessary to put forward your own ideas and views? Second, the societal system has a clear knowledge deficit about the WFD. It is uncertain for them what measures and consequences come with the choice for a certain ambition or goal. Also, there is a lack of insight in the consequences of the different choices that they are asked to take. The final uncertainty is related to the two above and is the uncertainty that the opposition or protest against a plan or measure will only come up in a late stage of the process, when all the consequences are known. In this late stage the possibility to influence the process has decreased. The source of these uncertainties in influence is ambiguity or more specifically behavioural variability and value diversity. The level is recognised ignorance and no outcomes can be predicted. However, it is certain that these uncertainties will have consequences on the societal acceptance of the RBMP and thus on the societal effects, the deadline and the feasibility of the WFD. It is important to note that this group of uncertainties was only mentioned by parties in the societal system.

Uncertainty in impacts Uncertainty in impacts on the societal system is related to uncertainty in the direct effects of current policy and measures proposed by the policy system on the societal system. It does not cover the effects of measures on the natural system, as these fall under the group ‘system response’. Of course, the actual effects of measures will only become clear after the implementation of the measures, as a lack of knowledge exists about the future. However, in trying to find indications for the effects of the measures proposed there is ambiguity (value differences) about whether the measures will affect for example the competitive position of farmers and businesses in the Scheldt area and whether it will further restrict the fishery sector. The direct effects of measures on the economy in the area are considered very important and uncertain. This stems partly from a lack of knowledge (for example, some innovative measures have not been researched yet on possible influences on the economy of the area) but also from ambiguity about the effects. This ambiguity and lack of knowledge is

ARCADIS & TU Delft

59


further increased by the uncertainty in natural and economical dynamics in the external system. The level of uncertainty varies between scenario uncertainty and recognised ignorance depending on whether the possible outcomes are known or not. The worst outcome is that the businesses in the societal system are not able to deal with the impacts and will disappear. This will influence the meeting of the requirements of the WFD and the deadline, the societal acceptance and the feasibility of the WFD. In Paragraph 6.3.8 the uncertainty in impacts on the societal system will be further discussed per measure.

Uncertainty in reliability For the societal system, it is very important that the policy system is reliable and preferably predictable in its actions 6 . This creates security and certainty in the dynamic and changing societal system. However, it is uncertain if the governmental parties will actually behave in such a way. A recall of a decision and the combination of several guidelines and policies cause uncertainty in the reliability of the parties in the policy system. In the process around the deepening of the western Scheldt such a recall of a decision was made, which influences the trust between parties in the Scheldt River basin. Also, an information shortage about the WFD implementation in the Eastern Scheldt at the district organisation creates uncertainty in reliability, as they are the contact point for questions from the societal system. The uncertainty in reliability is mainly caused by ambiguity, as governmental institutions are very diverse organisations. The level is scenario uncertainty as the range of possible consequences varies between very reliable and unreliable. An unreliable government will lead to stagnation of the process and threatens the realisation of a RBMP. This uncertainty was noted mainly by parties from the societal system.

6.3.5

ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE SOCIETAL SYSTEM Parties in the societal system are (with respect to the WFD), uncertain about the continuity of their activities (agriculture, fishery, nature etc.), which is grouped together as uncertainty in ‘continuity’ and also the internal organisation or representation of parties in the societal system (named uncertainty in ‘representation’) is a group of uncertainties in this system (e.g. how can a representative inform its party?).

Figure 6.29 Uncertainty groups in the societal system

Uncertainty in continuity Uncertainty in continuity entails a variety of different content uncertainties. The most important uncertainties are the uncertainty related to the continuity of the agricultural, commercial, fishery etc. businesses or continuity of the natural values in the Eastern Scheldt 6

Interview J. Bruurs, Kamer van Koophandel, 15-12-2006

ARCADIS & TU Delft

60


sub basin. The parties and individuals in the societal system all use the natural system in their own way. The fishery sector uses the natural system for food production; the agriculture uses the water in the system for their production. The use of the natural system by flora and fauna is defended in this system by parties that stand up for the natural values of the Eastern Scheldt. It is important for parties in the societal system that measures taken in light of the WFD will not harm the continuity of their activities. Sand suppletion might harm the mussel production and turning the Volkerak-Zoommeer into a salt-water lake might harm the fresh water supply to the islands thereby affecting the drinking water and agricultural water supply. In addition, the industry could have trouble in adjusting their activities to stricter wastewater laws. There exists ambiguity (value diversions, behavioural variability) in whether certain measures will cause these problems or not. This also related to other uncertainty groups as will be described in paragraph 0. The level of this uncertainty is scenario uncertainty ranging from possible consequences as the disappearance of activities to the increasing of activities in the social system. The uncertainty in continuity is influenced by external dynamics such as economical, political and natural dynamics.

Uncertainty in representation There is also an important uncertainty group in the societal system, called representation that contains process uncertainties. Many uncertainties come from the relation between the spokesperson of the different users and the members or stakeholders themselves. For the spokesperson or organisational representative, it is difficult to inform the party and for the party it is difficult to trust the representative. In interviews with the agriculture, the fishery and the nature organisations, this uncertainty played an important role. In the Easter Scheldt the representatives of different groups have been involved in the process in a very early stage (through the sounding board), however most of the people they represent are not concerned with the WFD yet. Also, some users are not organised at all. The uncertainty in representation manifests itself as uncertainty in how much time there is for negotiation, uncertainty in how to inform and educate the party about the WFD as water quality problems are often not very visible for the greater public and uncertainty about how the societal system will value the solutions. The nature of these uncertainties is ambiguity or in other words the variability and diversity apparent in the societal system. Consequences are that the party behind the representatives will not accept the solutions put forward and negotiated by the representatives, which will cause delays in the process. Uncertainty in representation was mainly mentioned by the parties in the societal system.

6.3.6

ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTY BETWEEN THE SOCIETAL AND THE NATURAL SYSTEM Between the societal system and the natural system there is an uncertainty group named ‘uncertainty in usability’. This group encompasses uncertainties in the indirect effects of policies on the societal system. These indirect effects work through the natural system to the societal system, thereby influencing the status of the natural system. The direct effects of policies on the societal system are collected in the group ‘uncertainty in impacts’ (see Figure 6.30). The uncertainties related to the source of changes or pollution in the natural system (labelled ‘uncertainty in sources’) is the other group between the two systems as parties from the societal system use the natural system for their activities and thereby affect this system.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

61


Figure 6.30 Sources of pollution and uncertainty in usability form a link between the societal and the natural system

Uncertainty in sources It is uncertain what the implication is of activities performed in the societal system on the natural system. The first example of uncertainty in a source is that it is unclear what the share of the agricultural sector is in the (nitrogen) pollution of the water. This uncertainty is important for eutrophication of the water (although specifically in the Eastern Scheldt this is not considered a big problem). It is important for policymakers to realise that this is a very important issue for the agricultural sector. It is vital for the credibility of the WFD policymakers to address this uncertainty before blame is given to the agricultural sector or any other water user. The ZLTO emphasizes also the importance of making a difference between historical pollution and present pollution. The farmers can only be held responsible for the pollution that they cause now and not for what other farmers before them did in the past (Interview ZLTO, see Appendix 7). Another important source of pollution is atmospheric deposition. It is unknown what the routes are of this deposition and where this deposition exactly comes from. The sources causing atmospheric deposition are diffuse and partly unknown and it is thus difficult to design measures to reduce atmospheric deposition. The time lag of pollution is the next uncertainty in this group. It is unclear how long a source of pollution will have a significant effect on the water system and thus is it hard to determine how useful it is to reduce a historic pollution. Most of these uncertainties stem from the lack of knowledge on the relation between a source and the ecological or water quality status of a water body. Possible consequences are that the requirements of the WFD will not be met. All of the parties interviewed, recognised the importance of the uncertainty in sources.

Uncertainty in usability The uncertainty in usability is closely related to the uncertainty in natural processes, in system response, in impacts and the uncertainty in continuity. Two examples are that by taking certain measures, the usability of the natural system for parties in the societal system might be affected by a decrease in the safety or a lack of fresh water. An increased chance for floods might mean that certain parts of the Eastern Scheldt area cannot be inhabited anymore or used for recreation. A decrease of the fresh water availability will harm the flora and fauna and the agriculture. The nature of these uncertainties is a lack of knowledge and the level is scenario uncertainty as the possible consequences range from complete unusable natural system to an increase in the usability. All parties recognise the importance of the uncertainty concerning the usability of the system.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

62


6.3.7

ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE EXTERNAL SYSTEM The uncertainty in the external system is put together under the group ‘external uncertainty’ and is visualised in Figure 6.31. This group covers many different topics such as political dynamics and natural dynamics.

Figure 6.31 Uncertainty in the external system

Political dynamics Political uncertainties cover the uncertainties that are apparent in EU policymaking, such as the height of the penalties, the list of prioritary substances, the extra daughter guidelines, the regulation on diffuse sources of pollution and also uncertainties that are apparent in other (national and regional) political processes, such as the upstream ambition, the outcome of elections etc. The level of this uncertainty group is scenario uncertainty as the possible range of consequences differs between a political climate with a high environmental awareness and a political climate that is not interested in issues such as the WFD.

Natural dynamics Climate change, sea level rise, land subsidence and all the uncertainties that are related to these processes are covered by natural dynamics. Also, the relation with upstream water bodies is part of the natural dynamics. This uncertainty in the natural dynamics is of the level of recognised ignorance, as no results are known.

Socio-cultural, technological and economical dynamics Examples of these groups are the uncertainty in population growth, societal preferences in living, working travelling and uncertainty in economic growth, such as the growth of the freight transportation or of the agricultural demand. Periods of economical growth or recession have a strong influence on how much money people are wiling to spend on nature. These uncertainties can be addressed as scenario uncertainties. Innovation in wastewater treatment techniques, in sand suppletion techniques etc. can affect the WFD implementation significantly as well. This uncertainty is of the level of recognised ignorance as nothing can be said on the possible consequences.

Unexpected events A disaster or an unexpected event such as the big flood of 1953 might change the current political climate and societal opinion and will have an effect on the RBMP. Nothing can be

ARCADIS & TU Delft

63


said about the possible consequences and therefore this uncertainty is classified as recognised ignorance.

6.3.8

UNCERTAINTY RELATED TO MEASURES The groups of uncertainties related to the proposed measures for the Eastern Scheldt are taken closer into account, as from the description of the uncertainties, it became clear that uncertainty in measures play a big role in RBMP development. For each group that contains uncertainties related to measures, the following uncertainties will be looked at in more detail (Table 6.7):

Table 6.7 Uncertainty related to measures (The # refers to the

Uncertainty location

Uncertainty group

Uncertainty looked at in more detail

#

Policy Æ Natural system

System response

Effects of measures

4

Policy system

Costs and benefits

Costs of measures

16

Feasibility

Technical feasibility of measures

18

Finance

Finance of measures

24

Impacts

Effect of measures on competitive

46

number in Appendix 10) Policy Æ Societal system

position farmers

In the pilot study for the Eastern Scheldt (ARCADIS, 2006a) a list was made of possible ecological and water quality measures. These measures were combined into ten categories of measures with approximately the same type of uncertainties. The measures related to morphodynamics are: Adjustments to the Eastern Scheldt Barrier (to reinstall the tidal volume, flow velocity) Sand suppletion (to restore the shoals and mudflats) Protection of salt marshes, mudflats and shoals (with stone walls) Creation or rejuvenation of salt meadows Re-instalment of the tidal influence in adjacent water bodies (e.g. with the VolkerakZoommeer) Measures related to ecology are: Increasing fresh salt dynamics by increasing the fresh water inflow (sluices) from adjacent water bodies (e.g. Volkerak-Zoommeer) Planting eelgrass (important WFD parameter) Measures related to water quality are: Decontamination of the water bottom (at approximately seven locations) Introduction of a new (generic) environmental policy for agricultural (use of manure, fertilizers and pesticides) recreational, fishery and shipping sector (anti-fouling, bio fuels, cleaner motors etc.). Improvement of wastewater treatment plants (add a fourth step to the treatment process). A table was then made to visualise and further detail what uncertainties exactly appear in each of these measures. The tables with the results can be found in Appendix 8.

6.3.9

RELATIONS BETWEEN GROUPS AND BETWEEN CHALLENGES IN WFD IMPLEMENTATION The groups of uncertainties that are described above do not stand alone; they are related to each other which is visualised by the arrows and colours in Figure 6.32. It is important to

ARCADIS & TU Delft

64


keep these relations in mind when managing uncertainties, as the reduction of one uncertainty can help in reducing others. Uncertainties can strengthen and dampen each other. The groups uncertainty in ‘system response’, in ‘impacts’ and uncertainty in ‘usability’ strongly influence the uncertainty in ‘continuity’ as the continuity of activities in the sub river basin depends on the effects that policies will have directly on the societal system and indirectly through the effects on the natural system (this is visualised with the red circles). Another example is that the uncertainty in ‘representation’ of the societal system affects the uncertainty in ‘influence’, as parties that are better organised will be able to influence the policymaking in a more efficient way (visualised in green circles). A similar relation is apparent in the policy system where the uncertainty in ‘internal organisation’ influences the uncertainty in ‘reliability’ and the uncertainty in ‘influence’ (visualised in blue circles). If the internal organisation is clear and not ambiguous then the uncertainty in reliability will be less. More examples can be found, such as the uncertainty in the quantification of benefits, which is related to the uncertainty in system response and uncertainty in impacts, but these are not further discussed. Figure 6.32 Model of uncertainty groups; groups are related to each other Blue = natural system Green = policy system Orange = societal system Grey = external system = related uncertainty group = related uncertainty group = related uncertainty group

Many of the discovered groups can also be related to the challenging aspects of the WFD discussed in Chapter 2. This means that the challenging characteristics of RBMP development, identified in this research, can be used as indicators for uncertainties. First, the innovative character of the WFD can be related to the uncertainty in system response and in impact of measures. These impacts and effects of measures are unknown, because measures have not been taken before. Second, the aspect of the strict time path and rules set by the EU indicates towards the group uncertainty in political dynamics in the external system. An example is the uncertainty in the height of the penalty if the deadline is not met. Then, the aspect of the many links of the WFD to other legislation can be brought in connection with the uncertainty in goals, in reaching the requirements and in finance. The goals of Natura-2000 and WFD partly overlap, leading to uncertainty in priority and finance. Furthermore, the many parties that are involved are indicators for uncertainty in internal organisation, in influence and in representation, as parties will vary in their ideas, values and goals. Next, the aspect of the dependency on upstream river basins points towards the group uncertainty in reaching the requirements, as measures taken in upstream countries will influence the results in the Eastern Scheldt. Finally, boundary problems can be related to the groups uncertainty in internal organisation, in representation and in influence.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

65


6.4

ADDING PERSPECTIVES TO THE UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS To gain more insight in the subjectivity of the uncertainties identified, for every group is traced whether this uncertainty was mentioned by PKS, the governmental parties and / or the stakeholders. In the following Figure 6.33, the groups of uncertainties that were mentioned by all interviewed parties are visualised in blue. The groups only mentioned by stakeholders are highlighted in orange. The perspective of the policymakers and PKS is highlighted in green. Within the groups, the variety in perspectives is greater than displayed in this simplified figure. This is indicated precisely in the complete list of Appendix 10.

Figure 6.33 Uncertainty overview from different perspectives Blue = natural system Green = policy system Orange = societal system Grey = external system Dark Blue = mentioned by all Dark Orange = stakeholder perspective Dark Green = PKS + Policymakers perspective

As can be seen in the figure, PKS mentioned many of the uncertainties that play a role in RBMP development (green and blue). However, they do not focus on uncertainties that play a role in the societal system. Focusing on these uncertainties could give PKS an added value as they might be able to reduce or manage those uncertainties and thereby increase the acceptation of a RBMP in the societal system. Especially uncertainty in influence is important in this respect as this directly influences the relation between the policy system and the stakeholder system. Uncertainty in monitoring is another group that is mentioned by stakeholders as very important, however PKS and governmental parties do not consider it important enough to mention. Of course, it is important to note that when PKS does not mention the uncertainty, this does not imply that PKS does not know the uncertainty. However, it does imply that the uncertainty is not given priority by PKS. There is only one group of uncertainties not mentioned by the stakeholders. This group, uncertainty in finance is highlighted in green. Apparently, the stakeholders do not consider this an important issue. For the governmental organisations only (excluding PKS) no groups could be highlighted, as the variety in the subjectivity of the uncertainties mentioned was very high.

6.5

HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS LONG LIST OF UNCERTAINTIES? Due to time constraints, it is impossible to discuss management approaches for all uncertainties identified in RBMP development. Therefore, several uncertainties have to be selected from the long list. In the theoretical framework of Chapter 5, a prioritisation step

ARCADIS & TU Delft

66


was prescribed, which is a subjective activity and should thus be carried out together with the problem owner and involved parties. However, in the interviews held for this case study, no order of priority was asked and due to time limitations, it is not possible to organise a workshop for determining the best order of priority. Therefore, a selection will be made by the researcher to determine what uncertainties will be discussed in more detail from a management perspective. For this selection, first the aspects that are advised to look at for prioritising (Chapter 5) were used, to illustrate and test the use of these aspects. For each aspect, a selection was made of the most important uncertainties, while only looking at that one aspect. Based on the aspects of the theoretical framework the following four selections were made: Subjectivity; it is important to take into account who identified the uncertainty. By putting an uncertainty on top of the priority list, this actor is helped. This can improve the decision making process around RBMP development. Therefore, the uncertainties only mentioned by stakeholders, but not by PKS are selected based on this aspect, as these will give PKS new insights. Time dependency; several uncertainties are identified as temporal uncertainties. This means that somewhere in the process an outcome is scheduled for this uncertainty. This uncertainty is thus less uncertain than structural uncertainties. The temporal uncertainties are selected here for monitoring purposes, to make sure that the outcome will come forward as expected. Influence; it is vital to take into account if it is possible (for the actor of interest) to influence the uncertainty at all. Can the actor of interest manage the uncertainty or can he manage the consequences? PKS can influence almost all uncertainties identified, however it has a very limited influence on the uncertainty in continuity and on political dynamics. Also the individual uncertainties: 5, 22, 38, 40, 47 are difficult to influence. PKS can influence the groups uncertainty in usability and uncertainty in impacts, that are directly related to the continuity of stakeholders. The continuity itself is dependent on the actions of the stakeholders themselves and those do not fall under the influence of PKS. PKS can manage all the other uncertainties itself or can at least try to influence these uncertainties through other actors in the Scheldt River system. Several of the external uncertainties can also be influenced by lobbying. This aspect results in a selection of non-preferred uncertainties. Impact; uncertainties with a high impact were selected, by using the table from the theoretical framework (adjusted from Janssen, (1990)). It was filled in by the researcher, based on the knowledge that the researcher gained during this project. The level of the uncertainty itself was judged with help of the dimension ‘level’ (qualitative uncertainty is less uncertain than recognised ignorance, scenario uncertainty can be high as well as low). The level of the expected impact of the uncertainty was judged with help of the dimension ‘consequences of the uncertainty’ and the criteria for success derived from the goal tree for PKS. If the consequences were directly related to reaching the requirements and the deadline of the WFD, then the expected impact was judged as high. If they were related to other goals, the impact was judged as low. This gave the following results see Appendix 9. The uncertainties that are judged to have both a high uncertainty and high consequences were selected from the total list.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

67


Appendix 9 and 10 give an overview of the selected uncertainties for each aspect.

Final selection The next dilemma is how to combine these four separate selections into one final selection. In the theoretical framework, it is proposed to make this final step in a workshop with stakeholders or based on expert judgement. In this workshop, the other aspects for selection could be added and the importance of each aspect could be discussed. Since no such activity was performed in this case study, the final selection was made based on what the researcher considered the best uncertainties to illustrate the added value of this research for PKS. For every group and every location, an uncertainty was selected. This final selection step resulted in approximately twenty uncertainties that include: both process and content uncertainties several new uncertainties that PKS is currently not aware of or not focusing on time dependent uncertainties that need to be monitored uncertainties that were mentioned in many of the interviews held uncertainties that have a big impact on RBMP development uncertainties that can be managed or influenced by PKS itself. In Table 6.8, an overview is given of this selection. It is important for PKS to keep in mind the other, not selected uncertainties of the project, as the final list of this case study is only a selection made by the researcher for this moment of time and not a priority order. The selection is expected to change over time, as uncertainties are not static, but dynamic. The activity of selecting or prioritising should be repeated several times during a project.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

68


Table 6.8 Selection of uncertainties

Location

Group

#

First selection on

Final selected uncertainty

aspect: Natural

Natural processes

1

Impact

System response

4

Impact

system PolicyÆ

Equilibrium state of the natural system

Natural

Effects of measures on the natural system

system NaturalÆ

Monitoring

7

Policy

Subjectivity &

What to measure exactly

Time dependency

system Policy

Goals

system

8

Time dependency

11

Overlap with Natura-2000 goals (content wise) & Outcome of Volkerak-Zoommeer

Costs and benefits

16

Impact

Costs of measures

Feasibility

18

Impact


Finance

24

Impact

Finance from national government is

Reaching the WFD

30

Impact

Reaching the deadline

32

Impact

Internally conflicting goals

42

Subjectivity

Point in time when action should be

uncertain requirements Internal organisation SocietalÆ

Influence

Policy

taken

system PolicyÆ

Impacts

46

Impact

Measures restrict the growth of

Societal

sectors; more specifically the effect

system

of measures on competitive position farmers Reliability

49

Subjectivity

Reliability of the government;

Societal

Continuity

51

Influence

Continuity of the fishery sector

system

Representation

55

Subjectivity

How to inform / reach the other

predictability of the future policy

people of the sector SocietalÆ

Sources

Natural

59

Impact

60

system. Example; precise share of

system NaturalÆ

Influence of a source on the natural agriculture in nitrogen pollution

Usability

65

Impact

Productivity of the Eastern Scheldt

External

External

68

Impact

Natural dynamics (Climate change)

system

uncertainties

Societal system

ARCADIS & TU Delft

69


6.6

MANAGING UNCERTAINTY IN THE EASTERN SCHELDT For the selected uncertainties, a preferred management approach will be chosen based on the theory discussed in Chapter 5. An overview of the proposed preferred management approach for selected uncertainties that are not dependent on the measure that is chosen is given in Table 6.9. After, they are all discussed briefly.

Table 6.9 Preferred management approach for selected uncertainties

Group

#

Selected uncertainty

Nature

Management approach

Natural

1

Equilibrium state of the

Lack of


natural system

knowledge /

combined with network

ambiguity

aspects Network approach: coming

processes Monitoring

7

What to measure exactly

Ambiguity

Goals (WFD

8

Overlap with Natura-2000

Ambiguity

to a joint agreement and other

goals (content wise)

search for a common

legislation)

ground 11

Reaching the

30

Outcome of VZM Reaching the deadline

WFD

Lack of

Traditional approach:

knowledge

monitoring / scenario

Lack of


knowledge

combined with introducing

requirements Internal

Network approach to

flexibility 32

Internally conflicting goals

Ambiguity

organisation

Network approach to search for a common ground

Influence

Reliability

42

49

Point in time when action

Lack of

Network approach

should be taken

knowledge /

combined with traditional

ambiguity

approach

Ambiguity

Network approach

Reliability of the government; predictability

combined with introducing

of the future policy Continuity

Representation

Sources

51

55

flexibility

Continuity of the fishery

Lack of

Can only be monitored or

sector

knowledge /

managed through other

ambiguity

uncertainties

How to inform / reach the

Lack of

Network approach

people that you represent

knowledge /

combined with traditional

ambiguity

approach

59

Influence of a source on

Lack of


60

the natural system.

knowledge


Example; precise share of

aspects

agriculture in nitrogen pollution Usability

External uncertainties

65

68

Productivity of the Eastern

Lack of


Scheldt

knowledge /


ambiguity

aspects

External

Traditional approach:

Natural dynamics

monitoring

Managing the uncertainty in the equilibrium state of the natural system The uncertainty about what the equilibrium state of the natural system is, stems mainly from a lack of knowledge on the relations and effects in the complex system of natural processes in the Eastern Scheldt. It is expected that the complexity behind this uncertainty is so large that it will not be understood fully in the near future. Consequently, acceptance of this uncertainty is important. This uncertainty has a structural character. More research or data collection can help to solve parts of this uncertainty and create a better understanding

ARCADIS & TU Delft

70


of the system. In addition, monitoring and data collection will assist in solving the lack of knowledge on this topic. However, it is important that other stakeholders also believe the results of the research and therefore the joint commissioning of research with for example the fishery sector and the nature organisations of this long-term research is advised. When introducing flexibility into a RBMP by real options or by using an adaptive approach, this flexibility should be applied to the status of the natural system, meaning that adjustments can be made if new knowledge or insight becomes available.

What to measure exactly The uncertainty in what to measure is created because of the behavioural variability of parties involved in RBMP development. Historically, these parties were not asked to work together and consequently, they all installed different monitoring systems. First, it could be tried to come to an agreement by negotiation and goal intertwinement to find a solution that is commonly accepted by policymakers. But, if this is not possible than the traditional methods of hard steering and the top down setting of norms could bring a solution. The ultimate goal is to create a level playing field in the EU.

Overlap with Natura-2000 goals (content wise) The overlap in goals between Natura-2000 and the WFD creates uncertainty in what measures should be taken for what purpose. The solution is to focus on the establishment of a common ground of understanding between Rijkswaterstaat and LNV (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality). Consequently, the uncertainty surrounding the goals and measures related to both Directives will disappear. This can be done by exchanging values and opinions and the use of an integrated design approach, which allows for a joint RBMP for both Directives. The plan to create a joint RBMP for both Natura-2000 and WFD will also force parties to pay attention to the uncertainties that exist between the two Directives. The creation of a joint plan will also require changes in the institutional setup, as for example both Directives, each legally require a plan and the cooperation between the two institutions surrounding the WFD and Natura-2000 (including the stakeholders, the governments etc.) need to be intensified.

Outcome of the Volkerak-Zoommeer (VZM) The outcome of the study of the VZM (salt or fresh water system), will have a great influence on the possible measures taken in the Eastern Scheldt. It is therefore important that PKS closely monitors the progression in this study so that it can be taken into account in RBMP development. This monitoring can be done by sitting in on meetings about the VZM, ask for a monthly update etc. The decision on the VZM is complex and time delays can be expected. As the outcomes of the VZM study are limited to two options; either fresh or salt, PKS could also develop two scenario’s based on these two outcomes, to get insight in the consequences for the RBMP of the Eastern Scheldt. All of these methods are part of the traditional approach.

Reaching the deadline The uncertainty whether the deadline will be met and what the consequences will be of that uncertainty, is difficult to fully reduce. Accepting this uncertainty is therefore necessary as part of the traditional approach for dealing with this uncertainty. Nevertheless, measures can be taken to reduce the chance of occurrence of not reaching the deadline. The introduction of flexibility in the form of an adaptive approach is one good method for doing this. The RBMP can then more easily be adjusted to unexpected changes in the environment, without violating the deadline. In addition, monitoring of the progress of the different sub projects can help in reducing the uncertainty of reaching the deadline. For this monitoring,

ARCADIS & TU Delft

71


help is needed from the different parties involved and the management of the process is important.

Internally conflicting goals The nature of the uncertainty conflicting goals within governmental organisations is also an uncertainty that cannot be reduced fully as it originates from the differences in behaviour and values between people. However, the ambiguity that is shown by the governmental organisations towards the societal system can be reduced by using methods to enhance internal goal intertwinement. Process management can help in solving these problems, as the process manager can then make sure that the external communication is consistent. The conflicting goals within governmental organisations can also be used strategically by the process manager to involve stakeholders and convince them to commit to the process.

Point in time when action should be taken This uncertainty (that is apparent in the societal system) is viewed as a quick win possibility for PKS, as it is quite easy to reduce at least a part of this uncertainty. The solution strategy is a combination of traditional methods and the network approach. If PKS monitors more closely what issues play a role in the societal system, then they will know earlier what is going on there. Communication of the process rules, the planning and especially the changes in the planning to all the stakeholders will reduce the uncertainty in influence in the societal system. Especially making clear when a discussion will take place on a certain topic and when the decision is expected is vital information that will solve the lack of knowledge in the societal system of when to take action. Of course, this does not solve the ambiguity that can exists about what the most efficient or best time is to take action and try to influence the process.

Reliability of the government; predictability of the future policy Ambiguity exists between parties about the reliability of the government and specifically about the predictability of planned policy. This ambiguity can be solved with the installation of clear process rules that are accepted by all parties. These are rules about entry and exit procedures to the process and about the value of decisions taken and the conditions under which decisions made can be altered. This measure will not fully solve the problem of reliability and trust but it will cerate more certainty in the behaviour of other actors in the process. It will also solve the knowledge gap between the policy and societal system.

How to inform / reach the people that you represent PKS can help solving this uncertainty by trying to create common understanding between the policy and the societal system about the uncertainties that exist in the Eastern Scheldt. The increased communication can solve the uncertainty that exists in the societal system in how to inform the party. Another network management method for PKS is to make a clear planning of when certain decisions will be taken and to indicate for every decision how much time there is for the representatives of the societal system to inform and discuss the proposed solution with the party. By making this planning together with the representatives, it will also become clear earlier in the process that more time is needed for consultation or that time is needed on different moments.

Influences of a source on the natural system: precise share of agriculture in nitrogen pollution This uncertainty is caused by both a lack of knowledge, as not enough research is available, but also by ambiguity on the results of the data that has been studied. The traditional method to solve this uncertainty would be the usage of central norms and mandated

ARCADIS & TU Delft

72


science. However, since ambiguity is also important it is better to use a network approach and commission the research together with the agricultural organisations. As a result, both the governmental as well as the agricultural organisations will trust the results of the research.

Productivity of the Eastern Scheldt This uncertainty in usability of the Eastern Scheldt is especially important for the fishery sector and the nature organisations. This uncertainty is strongly related to the effects of measures on the natural system (system response) and external uncertainties such as climate change that can change the productivity of the Eastern Scheldt and is therefore very difficult to manage separately. Instead, it is better to not manage this uncertainty at all, but to look at system response of measures and also consider the system response in relation to the usability of the Eastern Scheldt. Consequently, this uncertainty is accepted.

Natural dynamics It is impossible for PKS to manage the uncertainty in climate change itself, as this falls outside the scope of their tasks and responsibilities. However, the consequences of climate change can be monitored, so that action can be taken when necessary. Monitoring of the sea level rise, the decrease in inter-tidal area, the water temperature etc. can give insight in possible changes in the natural system. Furthermore, after the RBMP has been developed it could be tested for different climate scenarios to see if it is robust across a possible range of climate futures. The same could be done for economical, technological and social dynamics and unexpected events.

6.7

MANAGEMENT OF MEASURE RELATED UNCERTAINTIES The management of the other (measure related) selected uncertainties depends on the measure proposed. In Annex 8, an overview was given of the uncertainties in every proposed measure (ARCADIS, 2006a). For every main WFD goal there is one measure selected for which several management methods to deal with the uncertainties, will be discussed. An overview of the three chosen measures and the accompanying uncertainties and natures are listed in Table 6.10.

Table 6.10

Measure 1: Decontamination of the water bottom #

Nature and management of uncertainty in measures

4

Uncertainty

Uncertainty in decontamination

Nature

of the water bottom

Effects of

Effect of contamination on

Lack of

measures

ecology and water quality

knowledge

Stirring up the bottom has

Ambiguity

effect on benthic life 16 18

Management response Traditional: research Network: Joint research with stakeholders

Costs of

What are the costs compared to

Lack of

Traditional: research,

measures

the benefits

knowledge

participation, flexibility

Technical

Extra shipping movements

Ambiguity

Network: value

feasibility of

exchange with shipping

measures 24

Finance of

Who is responsible

Ambiguity

-

-

Network: Negotiation

measures 46

Effect of measures on competitive position farmers

ARCADIS & TU Delft

73


Measure 2: Sand Suppletion # 4

Uncertainty Effects of

Uncertainty in sand

Nature

suppletion Ecological response

measures

Management response

Lack of

Traditional & joint

knowledge

research, participation, flexibility

Direction of sand transport

Ambiguity on

Network approach:

model results

negotiation, exchanging of values and opinions

Visibility of the water 16 18

Lack of

Traditional: pilot

knowledge

project / tests Traditional: research

Costs of

Location of the sand

Lack of

measures

extraction

knowledge

Technical

Extra work district

Lack of

Traditional:

knowledge

participation

Ambiguity

Value exchanging

feasibility of measures

Number of ship movements

with district & shipping Sand availability and quality

Lack of

Traditional: Research

knowledge 24

Finance of

National financing

Ambiguity

measures 46

Effect of

Network approach: negotiation

-

-

-

measures on competitive position farmers

Measure 3: Increasing the fresh salt dynamics (VZM is salt) # 4

Uncertainty Effects of

Uncertainty in increasing

Nature

fresh salt dynamics Ecological response

measures

Management response

Lack of

Traditional & joint

knowledge

research, public participation, flexibility

Water quality response 16

Costs of

Type of passageway

measures

Lack of

Traditional: pilot

knowledge

project, research

Lack of

Traditional: pilot

knowledge

project / tests, research

Ground acquisition 18

Technical

Lack of

Traditional: New

knowledge

Public Management

(Long term) MER procedures

Ambiguity

Value exchange with

Enough water flow

Ambiguity

feasibility of measures

parties Network: increased participation

24

Finance of

Costs for water board or RWS

measures 46

Effect of measures on

Fresh water supply agriculture

Ambiguity, lack

Network:

of knowledge

Negotiation

Ambiguity, lack

Joint research with

of knowledge

agriculture

competitive position farmers

ARCADIS & TU Delft

74


The management focus for the uncertainty related to measures lies mainly on a traditional approach (research, monitoring, new public management) for the uncertainties caused by a lack of knowledge, while a network approach is preferred for the uncertainties caused by ambiguity. However, the network approach is recommended for all of the uncertainties in measures from Table 6.9, as this will enhance the broad support for measures in the societal system. Public participation, (which entails thus more than the traditional structured stakeholder consultation) and the use of a network approach in uncertainty related to measures, will enrich the decision making process on measures or even result in new innovative ideas or solutions to implement the WFD in the Eastern Scheldt and address the problems related to sand hunger, ecology and water quality. Besides the network approach, the introduction of flexibility and adaptivity in the measures, will help in resolving uncertainties. Consequently, both the use of adaptive policymaking and including real options is advised. Such a real option could for example have been included in the design of the Eastern Scheldt barrier: the option to be able to, after the instalment of the barrier, adjust the size of the openings in the barrier if new insights require this. By thinking about the possible consequences of uncertainties, it may be possible to include such options in the design of measures of this RBMP and prevent problems in the future. An adaptive approach can be used for example in sand suppletion; first it can be implemented in one part of the Eastern Scheldt and later on, when it turns out to be successful, it can be implemented in other parts as well or a new strategy can be implemented. The set-up of the WFD process by the EU also leaves room for this adaptive approach to measures, as every seven years the goals and the measures need to be reconsidered and can be adjusted. Under conditions, it is possible to postpone the reaching of a goal to a later period in time, also allowing for more flexibility in measures. Consequently, the adaptive approach can be linked to the phasing of measures. PKS is already considering this for measures related to the bigger problems in the Eastern Scheldt, such as sand hunger.

6.8

SEVERAL QUICK WINS FOR THE PROJECT BUREAU The uncertainties that were not mentioned by PKS, have an added value for PKS. However, not all of these uncertainties were selected for management purposes in the previous paragraphs. Some of these uncertainties, now that they are identified, can be resolved rather easily by PKS. Even though these uncertainties often have a low impact, dealing with these uncertainties will enhance the mutual understanding between the parties in RBMP development and can increase the trust between the parties and PKS. This is useful for the rest of the process. These uncertainties are therefore called quick wins: 1. Point in time when action should be taken (42= number in Appendix 10) PKS can help resolve this uncertainty that is apparent in between the societal and the policy system by communicating more clear when certain decisions will be taken and when input from stakeholders is necessary and useful in the project. It is also important to communicate what changes occur in the planning. This improved communication will also create more trust in PKS. 2. How to inform and explain the WFD to the people that you represent (55)

ARCADIS & TU Delft

75


PKS could help representatives of stakeholders in explaining the WFD to their public by giving them at least enough time to consult the people that they represent. Furthermore, when talking one to one to stakeholders it might be useful to sometimes not only talk to the representatives, but also to other (important) members of the organisation. By doing this PKS will gain insight in the most important players in the field. 3. Agriculture stands alone in critique, what will happen when not present (56) PKS could give some more attention to the agricultural organisation. By doing this they feel that they can trust PKS and that their ideas are considered by PKS, even if they are not able to make it to one of the stakeholder meetings. 4. Information shortage district (19, 48) By giving the district updates on the progress in the WFD, they will feel more involved. This will help later in the implementation of the RBMP. 5. RWS uses investments while water boards work with yearly costs (14) This can be solved by the traditional method of central norms, which will prescribe what to use in cost calculations. Within the Scheldt River basin this could also be solved by PKS by making an agreement with the water boards in the area. 6. WFD is not taken into account in the budget of the districts (23) This uncertainty for the district can also be taken away by PKS by increasing the communication about the WFD with the district and informing them about possible costs of measures, so the district will have an idea of what to expect.

6.9

CONCLUSIONS OF CASE STUDY The goal of this case study was to gain experience with the application of the adjusted theoretical framework for uncertainty analysis and management. Therefore, the sub question was stated: what uncertainties occur in the development of the River Basin Management Plan for the Eastern Scheldt and how can these uncertainties be structured and managed? Below each of the sub-questions related to this question will be answered. What uncertainties can be identified in the Eastern Scheldt? In the Eastern Scheldt many uncertainties occur, which are formulated on different levels of detail and are of different types (both content and process). Structuring the long list of uncertainties was necessary to be able to oversee all of the uncertainties apparent in the Eastern Scheldt. The uncertainties were grouped by topic and by location in the conceptual model. The model of uncertainty groups that was the result of this activity, can serve as a checklist for the next iterative round in the analysis of uncertainties for the Eastern Scheldt and as a starting point for identifying new uncertainties in the Eastern Scheldt. As was experienced in the interviews, it can also be used as a communication tool. The perspective or bias of the parties involved played an important role in identifying new uncertainties for PKS. New for PKS are the uncertainties in the groups continuity, representation, influence and monitoring. The case study also showed that many of the uncertainties identified, depend on the measure that is chosen. To make sure that these uncertainties are not overlooked, uncertainties were also identified per proposed measure. During the one on one interviews with the actors, many other issues that play a role came up, such as local

ARCADIS & TU Delft

76


knowledge and information on cooperation. This information can be used in the RBMP development process. What are the implications of these uncertainties for the project bureau? The implications of all these uncertainties for the project bureau are described in relation to the main goals of PKS (from the goal tree, Paragraph 2.4). The most important implications are that the requirements and the deadline of the WFD will not be reached in time. Many of the uncertainties in the case study that were caused by ambiguity are related to a lack of trust between actors. Many uncertainties caused by lack of knowledge are related to a knowledge deficit between and among parties in the policy and the societal system. How can these uncertainties be managed? Due to time limitations, a selection of most interesting uncertainties was made, for which the management approach was discussed. No prioritisation was done in this case study. For most of the selected uncertainties a combination of the traditional and the network management approach was advised. Then, both the knowledge deficit as well as the lack of trust can be solved. Since PKS is currently focusing mostly on methods from the traditional management approach (research), more attention should be paid to the network approach and the introduction of flexibility. The introduction of flexibility can be useful to reduce and control all uncertainties discovered and especially to later control the consequences of external uncertainties, such as climate change. Also monitoring can play an important part in this. From the interviews in the case study, it can be concluded that many actors in the process focus mainly on external uncertainties (especially on natural and political dynamics). The case study shows that internally (in the Eastern Scheldt system) there are still many uncertainties that influence the process and that deserve more attention. PKS can further increase the relationship and the trust between the parties in the societal and in the policy system by focusing on the quick wins: several uncertainties identified by stakeholders that do not have a big impact on RBMP development, but can be solved by PKS without much effort. The analysis of the uncertainties in the Eastern Scheldt can be further improved. The nature of the uncertainties need to be further checked with experts and other stakeholders, as in the determining of the management approach the nature of an uncertainty turns out to be extremely important. Furthermore, the determination of the level of an uncertainty is ambiguous, as different researchers will interpret the level of an uncertainty in a different way. The two dimensions added in this research for selection purposes were difficult to analyse. The possible consequences of the uncertainties in the Eastern Scheldt can be expanded by more investigation into this dimension. However, the range between (best and worst) consequences was put forward to the best knowledge of the researcher. Finally, the subjectivity of the uncertainty plays such an important role in identifying new uncertainties, that a further analysis of this aspect is recommended. The management approaches discussed in the case study are still not very practical. Further detailing is necessary to make them more practical. In Chapter 7, these suggestions will be further discussed.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

77


CHAPTER

7

Discussion of case

study results

In this chapter, it is explored if it possible to derive a more general concept from the Eastern Scheldt case study to deal with uncertainty in the development of a RBMP for the greater Scheldt River basin. Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages of the theoretical framework, based on the experience with the case study are put forward.

7.1

TRANSLATION OF CASE STUDY RESULTS TO SCHELDT RIVER BASIN Even though a research of only one case study is a small data set to base conclusions on for a whole River basin, still a discussion of the translation of the results of the Eastern Scheldt to the Scheldt River basin in the Netherlands gives valuable insights. In the interviews with the actors of the Eastern Scheldt, it was found that many of the uncertainties apparent in the Eastern Scheldt also occur in other main water bodies in the Delta of Zeeland. This was especially true for those water bodies that were just as the Eastern Scheldt appointed as Natura-2000 area. Consequently, many of the uncertainties identified are not dependent on the area that is studied. The question is what results of the case study are also applicable to the entire Scheldt River basin? This will be discussed first for the results related to the identification of uncertainties in the Eastern Scheldt. Then for the analysis and finally for the aspects of the case study related to management of uncertainties.

Discussion of results for identification of uncertainties in Scheldt River basin The conclusion from the case study that looking at uncertainty from the perspective of different parties, will create new insights is generally valid. Differences in perspectives should be taken into account, as in other parts of the Scheldt River also many stakeholders and governmental organisations are involved in RBMP development. However, it should be noted that in the case study mainly the members of the sounding board were interviewed. These people have been invited by PKS to join the process. This could imply already a bias of these stakeholders. A more open approach that involves the subjectivity of new stakeholders could lead to even more insights. In the development of a joint RBMP for the entire Scheldt River many the same uncertainties will occur, but also different uncertainties. New uncertainties in a joint plan will be the uncertainties related to the coordination and tuning between plans made for the different sub basins. Not all of the uncertainties of the list for the Eastern Scheldt will be found in other areas (for example the uncertainty related to sand hunger will not be found in Schouwen Duiveland), however the groups can be found almost everywhere. This brings forward the idea that the model of uncertainty groups discovered for the Eastern Scheldt

ARCADIS & TU Delft

78


can also be used to find the uncertainties in other areas in the basin. However, this idea needs to be verified. The questions to answer are: Is the conceptual model used in the Eastern Scheldt also applicable to other sub basins and to the entire basin? Is the list of groups of uncertainties formulated for the Eastern Scheldt complete? Can these groups be used in other areas in the Scheldt River? If the answer to these questions is positive, this would mean that the model of uncertainty groups can be used as a starting point for identification of uncertainties and as a checklist for uncertainty updates in the whole basin. The questions will be discussed below. The first question is related to the conceptual model, which was an important tool in the identification of uncertainties as it helped in communication with actors. The conceptual model is especially developed for use on every geographical scale, depending on what the preference is, as was shown in the explanation of the model in Chapter 3. It is thus expected that the model can also be used in other sub basins as well as in the entire basin. The conceptual model was also validated in the interviews with the different parties. In general, the actors interviewed understood the model and recognised the systems described with the model. A few remarks were made related to the relations between the different sub systems. The societal system and the policy system are more intertwined than is depicted in the model. However, this was done on purpose, as it will help in structuring and finding new uncertainties. Another comment was that the relation between the two systems of actors was different from the relation between the natural system and the actors. This was incorporated in the model by showing that between the systems of actors also process uncertainties can occur. In the other relations, only content uncertainties come up.

Use of the model of uncertainty groups in other sub basins To answer question two and three the use of the model is tested in different areas. First, the use of the groups of uncertainties from the Eastern Scheldt, is tested in the Schouwen Duiveland area. This area is totally different from the Eastern Scheldt, as it is not appointed as Natrura-2000 area and it contains mostly land instead of water. To discover the uncertainties apparent in Schouwen Duiveland, the report of the pilot study for Schouwen Duiveland was analysed (Provincie Zeeland, 2006c). In this pilot study, the following groups of uncertainties were explicitly mentioned: Uncertainty in natural processes In Schouwen Duiveland, the influence of salt seepage on the ecology, the relation between ecology and water quality are important uncertainties. Uncertainty in sources The pollution in Schouwen Duiveland is mostly caused by the agriculture, but also by atmospheric deposition and salt seepage. It is unclear how these sources relate to each other. Uncertainty in system response The effects of possible measures on the water system and ecology are unclear. Uncertainty in impact, uncertainty in usability, uncertainty in continuity The measures proposed are less innovative than the measures needed to for example overcome the ‘sandhunger’ problem of the Eastern Scheldt. Possible measures are fish passageways, development of natural banks, natural water level management, less maintenance etc. The measures proposed have small socio-economic consequences, consequently the groups of uncertainties related to the socio-economic consequences, play a smaller role than in the Eastern Scheldt. Uncertainty in goals

ARCADIS & TU Delft

79


The WFD goals related to the ecology of Schouwen Duiveland have not been set yet and are still uncertain. Uncertainty in reaching the requirements Several norms will not be met in Schouwen Duiveland, even if all the measures are taken (e.g. the norms for copper and nitrogen). This will have consequences for reaching the requirements and the deadline. Monitoring Fertilisers and several other substances are not monitored yet in Schouwen Duiveland. Costs and benefits The costs of measures are not clear yet. But, this is considered less of a problem than in the Eastern Scheldt as the measures are less complicated and far fetching. The other groups of uncertainties are not mentioned in this pilot. However, it is expected that almost the same organisations of stakeholders and same policymakers are active in Schouwen Duiveland as in the Eastern Scheldt and that consequently also the groups uncertainty in influence, in internal organisation and in representation will come up when identifying uncertainties with these parties. Since the measures proposed are less complicated than the measures in the Eastern Scheldt, the uncertainty groups related to measures are considered less an issue. Figure 7.34 visualises what groups of uncertainties are apparent and what groups are less apparent in Schouwen Duiveland, compared to the Eastern Scheldt. Figure 7.34 Model of uncertainty groups in Schouwen Duiveland (SD) Green = Apparent in SD Grey = Less apparent in SD Black = Expected to be apparent in SD (but not found in pilot)

It can be concluded from the above scheme that the model of uncertainty groups can also be used in Schouwen Duiveland, because all uncertainties discovered can be ascribed to one of the groups. Some groups are less apparent and others more, but no new groups have been discovered. Since the model is applicable to both the two very different areas; the Eastern Scheldt and Schouwen Duiveland, it can be concluded that it is very probable that the model is valid for all sub basins in the Scheldt River.

Use of the model of uncertainty groups on a different level of scale To further check the claim that the model of uncertainty groups can help in defining, structuring and identifying uncertainties on a higher level of scale as well, also the uncertainties discovered in the research performed earlier by ARCADIS for Rijkswaterstaat

ARCADIS & TU Delft

80


(ARCADIS, 2006c) have been compared to the different groups defined. This means that it was tried to link the uncertainties discovered in the interviews held for this project to the conceptual model and the groups associated with that model. The conceptual model was thus adjusted for a higher level of scale (namely; the Netherlands, see Figure 7.35). Figure 7.35 Conceptual model for the scale of the Netherlands

The goal of this research of ARCADIS was to describe the risks of the WFD and Natura 2000 for Rijkswaterstaat as national executor of policies, which meant that the focus of this study was to identify mostly risks within the different governmental organisations involved. These organisations are the EU, the ministry of public waterworks (DG Water), Rijkswaterstaat, the district organisations of Rijkswaterstaat, the union of water boards (UvW), provinces (IPO) and municipalities (VNG), RIZA etc. No interviews were thus held with national stakeholders, so hardly any uncertainties were discovered for the societal system or the natural system. This means that it is not very useful to apply the conceptual model and the different groups to this specific research, as most of the uncertainties identified could be allocated only to groups in the policy and the external system. Especially the groups finance of measures, uncertainty in reaching the WFD requirements, uncertainty in goals and uncertainty in internal organisation were apparent. In this last category, uncertainties were related to the coordination and cooperation between actors in the different levels of government and in how to combine the different local management plans into one plan. Based on the results of the Eastern Scheldt case study, it would have been interesting for Rijkswaterstaat to also include the uncertainties related to the WFD from the point of view of national stakeholders, such as the agriculture (LTO) and the Chamber of Commerce (KvK), as this could have provided new insight useful for the decision making process on a national level. It can be concluded that the model of uncertainty groups is better applicable to classifying and visualising uncertainty groups in RBMP development processes than to the more general purpose of risks and uncertainty analysis within an organisation. However, it was shown that the uncertainties discovered in the ARCADIS research in the policy system could all be attributed to one of the sub groups and no groups had to be added to be able to do that.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

81


Use of the model of uncertainty groups in Natura-2000 management plans Next to the development of a RBMP, it might be possible to use the model of uncertainty groups for discovering and describing uncertainties in the process of the development of the management plans for Natura-2000 areas. This statement was checked with help of expert judgement 7 and by studying the guidebook on how to make a management plan for Natura2000 (Min LNV, 2005). This gave the following results see Figure 7.36, an explanation of this figure is given below. Figure 7.36 Model of uncertainty groups in Natura-2000 Green = Explicitly mentioned as important by experts Grey = Explicitly mentioned as less important by experts Black = Expected to be the same as in RBMP development

There are several important differences between uncertainties in Natura-2000 and the WFD. The first difference is related to the group uncertainty in goals. The preservation goals for Natura-2000 are currently going through the public participation processes. This means that soon they will no longer be uncertain. The group uncertainty in goals is thus of less importance here and therefore coloured grey. In addition, the goals that conflicted with the WFD goals have been eliminated and no longer form an uncertainty in Natura-2000. The uncertainty group ‘reaching the requirements’ is more uncertain than in the WFD, as in Natura-2000 the goals can not be reformulated or lowered, after the implementation of the plans. Natura-2000 is thus more stringent than the WFD. The uncertainty in internal organisation contains different kind of uncertainties than in RBMP development. On the one hand, the goal and the requirements of Natura-2000 are stricter, so there is less room for freedom of interpretation and strategic behaviour and thus fewer problems in internal organisation. On the other hand, there are more uncertainties about how the development process of the management plans will be set up. All users of a Natura-2000 area need to be involved in the plans. This also explains why uncertainty in representation is less of a problem in Natura-2000; users can also participate individually in the development process. The uncertainty in the set-up of the process is also apparent in the groups uncertainty in influence and uncertainty in reliability. Reliability of the government organisation is a very important issue in Natura-2000 as the reliability of the government has already been touched by the consequences of the ‘Kokkelarrest’ (a verdict that restricts the cockle fishery in the Waddenzee). First, it was promised that current use of the Natura-2000 areas would 7

The scheme with the uncertainty groups was discussed with N. ‘t Lam and M. de Boer, both from

ARCADIS

ARCADIS & TU Delft

82


not be touched or changed, however with the decision to restrict the fishery of cockles in the Waddenzee, this policy changed also in other areas in the Netherlands. The groups uncertainty in continuity of current activities and in the future usability of the natural system are two uncertainty groups that play a very big role in the development of the management plans for Natura-2000 areas. Other groups of uncertainties contain the same type of uncertainties as in the WFD, such as the group uncertainty in natural processes. For example the uncertainty related to the sand hunger process is also apparent in the development of a Natura-2000 plan. Uncertainty in system response, in costs, in feasibility, in finance and in impact is dependent on the measures proposed, just as in RBMP development. These are all coloured black. It can be concluded that several groups of uncertainties are less apparent in Natura-2000 than in the WFD and other groups contain very different uncertainties. But, in general the model of uncertainty groups can be applied to Natura 2000 as well, as the model fitted nicely and no groups had to be added to the scheme.

Use of the model of uncertainty groups in the WFD for marine water bodies Currently the EU is also developing a Water Framework Directive for marine water bodies. I think, that the model of uncertainty groups can also be used as an uncertainty checklist for that purpose, as in marine areas many different governmental parties (countries) are involved, many different stakeholders are involved (for nature, oil & gas, shipping, recreation, fishery etc.) and there is a clear natural system involved, for example the North Sea.

Conclusions for use of the model of uncertainty groups in RBMP development To check the completeness of an uncertainty identification, to update an existing list of uncertainties, to help in communicating uncertainties or to serve as a starting point in interviews with stakeholders, the model of uncertainty groups can be very useful in the development of management plans for a river basin or a Natura-2000 area in the Scheldt River. The use of the model for the joint River basin of the Scheldt River is also expected to be good, as the conceptual model is also valid on this level of scale. The new uncertainties on this level of scale related to coordination and tuning between local management plans can be attributed to the group: internal organisation in the policy system. The model is less useful if the focus of a study is only on one sub system. However, not all groups of uncertainties will appear in all sub-basins and sometimes it will be ambiguous where an uncertainty needs to be placed. It is further recommended to check the usability of the model of the uncertainty groups in other River basins, such as the Rhine and Meuse, as it is expected, based on the above-described results, that the model is also useful in those basins. A good aspect of this model of uncertainty groups is that it can be used together with different approaches to uncertainty. For example, it can be used when using the Risman approach, but it can also be used when using the W&H framework. Regardless of how the uncertainties are analysed or further dealt with, the model can serve as a tool that enables better understanding, communication and identification of uncertainties in WFD and Natura-2000 management plans in Zeeland. All three questions (on the use of the conceptual model, the completeness of the groups and the use in other areas) were thus answered positively.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

83


Discussion of case study results for analysis of uncertainties in Scheldt River basin The structured approach to uncertainty analysis and management, with help of the W&H framework and the conceptual model, is applicable to all regions in the Scheldt River as the theories were adjusted for use in the whole basin and not only for use in the Eastern Scheldt. However, there are still several difficulties in the use of the framework in practice, which need more attention. Also, the advantages and disadvantages of the W&H framework compared to Risman need to be discussed. These topics will be discussed in the next paragraph (7.2).

Discussion of results for management of uncertainties in Scheldt River basin The described uncertainty management approaches (traditional approach, network approach and flexibility approach) for the competent authority are applicable to the whole basin and the description of these approaches can give new ideas for managing uncertainty in the basin. It is very logical that the management approaches are applicable to all levels of scale as they are formulated on a very high level. If more practical management suggestions are formulated, then the approaches cannot necessarily be transferred to other areas. The focus on one approach or the other can only be determined after the identification and analysis of uncertainties in those areas.

7.2

DISCUSSION OF THE EXPERIENCE WITH THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The main outline of the theoretical framework was based on Risman (Risman, 2007). However, instead of performing a full Risman analysis, different theoretical concepts were used in this research, as it was expected that the process of RBMP development was too abstract to use the quantitative ordening of risks of Risman. In the ideal Risman method an inventory is made of the chance of occurrence of the uncertainty (ranging from a seldom occurrence to an almost certain occurrence) and the consequences of a risk related to the aspects money, quality and time (ranging from small consequences to very large consequences). These aspects are rated from 1-5. Subsequently, a score for each uncertainty can be calculated by multiplying the chance of occurrence times the consequences. One of the dimensions added to the W&H framework in this research tried to assess the chance of occurrence and the consequences, however this was very difficult as the uncertainties found were still too abstract. Based on this, the choice not to use the full Risman method in this research turned out to be valid. On top of that, the research shows that within the general steps of Risman different approaches can be used. This is useful for Rijkswaterstaat, as many people within this organisation are used to working with Risman for the analysis of risks in projects. It is striking to see that both the Risman framework and the W&H framework use a table for structuring uncertainty. Risman uses types of uncertainty and the steps in the process on the respectively horizontal and vertical axe. The type of uncertainty can either be determined based on who is responsible for the uncertainty or based on aspects of a project, such as technical, financial, juridical. The steps in the process can be related to project phases or to sub-aspects of the project. This way of structuring and presenting uncertainties is more simple and straightforward than the W&H framework. However, since the quantitative part of the Risman analysis could not be carried out it was decided to try a different method for structuring in this research.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

84


The theoretical framework was mainly based on two concepts; the W&H framework for integrated uncertainty analysis by Walker et al. (2003) and the management of uncertainty in networks by Koppenjan and Klijn, (2004). Both theories have been adjusted for RBMP development in the Chapters 4 and 5. In the conclusion of the case study, several aspects of the theoretical framework were mentioned, because they need further improvement. Other aspects turned out to be very useful. First, a new weaknesses and a new strength of the framework, discovered in this case study is described. Then the documented experiences are compared to the experience with the case study. Unfortunately, several of these documented experiences were only found in a later stage of this research, so these experiences were not incorporated in the case study. From the case study, it can be concluded that the W&H framework can be used in a more flexible way than was intended by Walker et al. (2003). Especially the dimension ‘location’ can be assessed in multiple ways, as long as the system of interest can be described as a system model. This new strength of the W&H framework increases the usability of the framework in multidisciplinary settings. The new conceptual model that was used to assess the location of an uncertainty, also allows for the introduction of multiple perspectives and different interpretations of uncertainty. The analysis of the uncertainties in the W&H framework initially did not incorporate subjectivity. The case study showed that the perspective on uncertainty is a very important aspect in identifying new uncertainties. It should therefore be further investigated how perspectives can be included in the W&H framework in a more structural way. Van Asselt (2000) tries to incorporate perspectives into an uncertainty analysis in the PRIMA approach, however she relates subjectivity to several general ways of thinking that exist in cultural theory and not to the subjectivity of stakeholders or policymakers. A more practical approach to introducing perspectives in the framework is thus needed. Furthermore, the inclusion of perspectives on uncertainty can also be expanded by interviewing even more stakeholders and citizens outside of the sounding board. Several experiences with the W&H framework pointed out by Krayer von Krauss and Janssen (2005) and Norton et al. (2006) were confirmed in the case study. They also put forward several recommendations to improve the results of the study. Below, the experiences, recommendations from both the literature and the case study are discussed:

Further refinement of the methodology to communicate the framework. Krayer von Krauss and Janssen (2005) addressed the difficulty of understanding the concepts used in the W&H framework. Unfortunately, the unfamiliarity of policymakers and stakeholders with the concepts of the W&H framework was a limitation that was not specifically addressed in the adjusted theoretical framework and the case study. The case study did confirm this critique. The framework is not easy to understand, as there are many groups and locations for uncertainties. Furthermore, the concepts used are not straightforward and need explanation. The distinction between process and content uncertainty was necessary to group uncertainties, however it does create confusion between the topic of an uncertainty (process or content) and the nature of an uncertainty (ambiguity and lack of knowledge). These last two are often related to respectively process and content uncertainties, while this is not true as both types of uncertainties can have both natures. The model of uncertainty groups developed in this research can help in communicating the

ARCADIS & TU Delft

85


framework. In addition, integration of the more practical concepts of Risman into the framework could improve the understanding as well. It is furthermore difficult to translate the information from the interviews to the dimensions in the uncertainty matrix. Different experts will assess uncertainty in different ways. This is especially true when the meaning of the qualitative scales is not always clear, for example when assessing the dimension ‘level’. Krayer von Krauss and Janssen (2005, p. 150) try to solve this problem by transferring the qualitative scale into a quantitative scale ranging from 0-1. This was not tested in the case study, but seems an useful solution. Figure 7.37 Quantitative scale for the dimension ‘level’

Further develop and substantiate the link between the uncertainty analysis and the management approach. Norton et al. (2006) already pointed out that a link was missing between the uncertainty analysis of the W&H framework and the preferred management approach. This link was added in this research with help of the theory by Koppenjan and Klijn (2004). However, this link is then mainly based on the nature of the uncertainty. It was explained in Chapter 4 that it can be quite difficult to exactly identify the source of an uncertainty and thus also to make a well-founded choice for a management method. Janssen et al. (2003) adds two extra dimensions to the framework of Walker et al. 2003 to gain more insight in the source of the uncertainty. One dimension is to further assess the source ‘lack of knowledge’, by looking at ‘the qualification of the knowledge base’ or in other words the degree of underpinning of the established results and statements or the reliability of the information that is used in the assessment. This can be judged as weak, fair or strong and gives an indication in how far the uncertainty can be reduced by an increase in knowledge. It can also be addressed with a Pedigree analysis, which is a method to evaluate the quality of data (Krayer and Janssen, 2005, p. 150). The other dimension is to assess the value-ladenness of the ambiguity or in other words, to look at the strength of the subjectivity involved in the uncertainty. High value ladenness means that even more emphasis should be placed on using the network approach to explicitly deal with the different views and perceptions (Janssen et al 2003, p. 22). To further assure and substantiate the choice for one or more management methods two extra dimensions should thus be assessed: value ladenness and qualification of the knowledge base. Unfortunately, these two dimensions have not been used in the case study and therefore more experience with these two dimensions needs to be developed.

Uncertainties should not be managed separately, but also as a whole, as uncertainties are all related to each other in a project. Norton et al. (2003, p. 87) state that: “the classification by Walker et al. undermines the possibility that interactions between different sources of uncertainty are obscured or overlooked. (..)the effect of different sources are not always additive but they can through complex interactions amplify or dampen one another. Rather, once those uncertainties have been identified and classified, they must be analysed and their implications for decision making evaluated as a whole.”

The analysis of the individual uncertainties does not

necessarily imply that the uncertainties should be managed individually as well. In the case

ARCADIS & TU Delft

86


study for the Eastern Scheldt often a combination of management approaches was advised to overcome this problem, however more research is needed to find a more structural solution to deal with this problem. A suggestion is to assess uncertainties both individually as well as in different groups, for example by grouping uncertainties by nature to see if they can be managed as a group as well. The management methods were put forward in an abstract way. Detailing of the management methods will provide more practical methods to deal with uncertainties. This will improve the practical use of this research.

7.3

CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE CASE STUDY RESULTS In this chapter, the following questions were discussed: Is it possible to derive a more general concept from the Eastern Scheldt case study to deal with uncertainty in the development of a RBMP for the greater Scheldt River basin? Based on the case study, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the theoretical framework used? The answer to the first question is that it is possible to derive several concepts from the case study that can be used in the greater Scheldt River basin. This was partly tested with help of expert judgement and partly by studying a different area in the Scheldt River basin. The most important general concept is the model with the uncertainty groups. This model can be used as a checklist for identification or updating uncertainties, for communication and for visualisation of uncertainties. Other concepts that can be used in the greater basin are the assessment of subjectivity and the bias of the problem owner and other parties involved, which can give new insight in the issues at stake. Also, the structured approach to uncertainty analysis and management, with help of the W&H framework and the conceptual model and the use of the described uncertainty management approaches (traditional approach and network approach) can be used in the greater basin. More practical and detailed management approaches would not be valid for the whole basin, but might be of more practical use for policymakers in the areas. The discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the theoretical framework (question 2) showed that the flexibility of the W&H framework and the introduction of perspectives are important positive aspects of the theory. Several difficulties were mentioned related to the practical usability and communication of the concepts, the link between the analysis and the management approach and the relations between uncertainties that are not taken into account in the individual assessment of uncertainty. In general, it was concluded that both the Risman framework as well as the W&H framework have advantages and disadvantages and the choice for one of these methods depends on the abstractness of the project.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

87


CHAPTER

8

Uncertainty analysis and management in practice Performing uncertainty analysis and management as a research activity, differs from using it in the practice of policymaking. For example the time and money constraints of the project can limit the possibilities for an uncertainty analysis and management in practice. Also, the risks of stagnation of the project or negative publicity associated by policymakers with a focus on uncertainties, can withhold policymakers from carrying out an uncertainty analysis. Therefore, based on the experience and discussion of the case study, it is further discussed how policymakers should address uncertainty. An uncertainty analysis should be seen as a decision support activity, which can help the project manager in gaining a better overview of the possible risks of a project, so these can be prevented or monitored. Janssen et al. (2005) states that in order to perform a successful uncertainty analysis in a project the following conditions need to be met: Commitment of higher management is important; time and effort spent on dealing with uncertainties must be considered as relevant. The uncertainty analysis needs to be adopted as a standard activity in project management. Policymakers need to be trained better in thinking in terms of uncertainty. Currently there is still a fear or aversion of thinking in terms of uncertainties.

8.1

USING THE RESEARCH IN PRACTICE In an uncertainty analysis, first the identification, then the analysis and finally the management approach is put forward. However, from a more practical point of view one should start reasoning from the management approach 8 . Important questions to answer are: What methods should PKS use? In how far are the recommendations from the research validated and tested? What uncertainties can be managed and how can these uncertainties be managed? These questions will come up in the following paragraphs. In this research, the W&H framework is used for uncertainty analysis, however in practice this framework still has some difficulties (see also Paragraph 7.2). Depending on the project, either the Risman framework (for more quantitative uncertainties) or the W&H Framework (for more abstract uncertainties) is recommended.

8

In a meeting with RWS Zeeland (with Mrs. A. van Boxtel), the practical use of an uncertainty analysis

was discussed

ARCADIS & TU Delft

88


Practical considerations for uncertainty identification It sounds obvious, but stakeholder involvement is essential for the success of complex policymaking projects such as RBMP development. Performing an uncertainty analysis and specifically making an inventory of all the uncertainties apparent in a project, will help in creating stakeholder support and mutual understanding in a project. When trying to identify all subjective uncertainties in a project, policymakers need to put themselves in the position of the stakeholders, thereby looking at the project from different perspectives. By doing this, new insights can come up, while at the same time mutual understanding is created of the problems and uncertainties in a project. The best way to discover the subjective uncertainties is to hold individual interviews. These interviews can best be performed by an independent party. Since actors are not used to thinking in terms of uncertainties, the interview questions need to be very open and as much information as possible is put forward. As a starting point for the interviews, the model of uncertainty groups from this research can be used. The use of the model of uncertainty groups will also shorten the time that is needed for the identification and analysis. From the case study, it became clear that this model can be used in Natura-2000 projects as well. During the interviews, also many other issues that play a role can come up as well as local knowledge and information that can be used in the process. This information can help in improving and speeding up the policymaking process.

Practical considerations for uncertainty analysis Performing the uncertainty analysis with help of the W&H framework is a very time consuming and abstract activity. However, the assessment of the dimensions of this framework is considered useful in the case study. The dimension ‘location’ of the uncertainty together with the typology of content or process uncertainty, helps to structure uncertainty and increases the overview of the project. It also helps in distinguishing internal and external uncertainties. The dimension nature is also very useful to assess, as the nature of an uncertainty can be linked to a preferred management approach. The dimension level is difficult to assess, especially for qualitative uncertainties, which appear mostly in policymaking projects, and is only useful for prioritisation. In this research, two extra dimensions were added, these were consequences and time dependency. The assessment of possible consequences creates a better insight and can help in prioritising uncertainty, but is very difficult to address, as the consequences are often unknown. The dimension time dependency is very useful for project management purposes, because for a time dependent uncertainty a solution or outcome is already planned and monitoring is thus necessary. The assessment of the dimensions needs to be done in the interviews or with help of expert judgement. For several dimensions a quantitative scale can be developed, which will improve the understanding of the dimensions for other parties. It is furthermore important to address the subjectivity of the uncertainty. An uncertainty analysis needs to be carried out multiple times during a project as the project is subject to many changes that influence the uncertainties that come up. The first time that the analysis is carried out, it will cost extra time, but in iterative activities, the duration of the analysis is shortened.

Practical considerations for uncertainty management When looking from a practical point of view, not all uncertainties discovered can be managed and prioritisation is important. The assessment of the different dimensions of the W&H framework can be used for to determine the impact of an uncertainty. In addition, it is important to determine what uncertainties can be managed by PKS itself, what uncertainties are time dependent and who identified the uncertainties. To combine these aspects into a final order of priority a workshop together with the stakeholders or parties of interest is

ARCADIS & TU Delft

89


recommended. It can also be done based on expert judgement. The order of priority is subject to change over time. To determine the main management approach the coupling between the nature of an uncertainty and the choice for a focus on a certain management approach is very important. Since this coupling has not been researched enough it is important to alternate the different management approaches. From the case study in the Eastern Scheldt, it was concluded that some of the uncertainties or problems that stakeholders perceive could be solved by the project bureau without extra effort. Since the project bureau is mainly using traditional management methods, it will be useful to further implement the management of uncertainties from a process rationale, using process management or stakeholder involvement. An uncertainty analysis will give insight when a focus on the network approach is recommended. It can also help in determining where the budget for research should be spent on. It is not very useful to spend research on uncertainties caused by ambiguity.

8.2

TRANSLATION OF THE RESEARCH INTO PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PKS Based on the considerations on the use of this research in practice and on the reflection and discussion of the case study results in the meeting with RWS Zeeland, a set of eight recommendations have been formulated for PKS. These recommendations help the project bureau PKS in translating the theoretical framework, the management recommendations and the general concept of this research to the practice.

RECOMMENDATION 1

PKS should carry out an uncertainty analysis, as it will tell them what the best process approach is for the development of an RBMP. It will point out the potential problems in a process and gives information on the actors involved. The nature of an uncertainty will tell PKS when to use the traditional, reactive approach to uncertainty, such as performing research and where to use the proactive, network approach. PKS should make the update of the uncertainty analysis an integral part of the project planning, to guarantee that the uncertainty analysis is performed iteratively and to assure input from the whole project team.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The model of uncertainty groups, as identified in this research, should serve as a checklist or starting point for identifying uncertainties in WFD implementation and as a tool to communicate and visualise uncertainties to stakeholders and other policymakers. This tool can also be used to assist in the uncertainty analysis of Natura-2000 processes.

RECOMMENDATION 3

Identify uncertainties from the perspective of each of the actors involved in the policymaking process to justify the different perspectives on uncertainty and to get new insights in the project. For an optimal result, this can be done as following: Direct and individual contact with stakeholders in one on one interviews is recommended (besides workshops and group discussions), as this gives very valuable information on possible barriers and problems in the policymaking process. The interviews should be performed by an external, independent party, in such a way that actors can speak freely. Stakeholders often do not think in terms of uncertainties. Therefore, the interviewer should use the model of the uncertainty groups for visualisation and communication.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

90


Do not only involve members from the sounding board, but also invite other interested parties in the process. For example, important farmers in the area or influential citizens. This will reduce the chance for a ‘bias’ of PKS in the results of the analysis. RECOMMENDATION 4

It is recommended to prioritise the long list of uncertainties identified before looking at management methods: Prioritise with help of stakeholders or experts Focus on uncertainties identified by other parties (this is based on the perspective on an uncertainty), as this will give new insights. Identify quick wins or no regrets; these are uncertainties identified by other stakeholders that do not have a great impact on RBMP development, but can be solved by PKS without much effort. Focusing on these uncertainties will increase the relationship and the trust between the parties in the societal and in the policy system.

RECOMMENDATION 5

The most important uncertainties in the Eastern Scheldt that PKS should focus on now are: Uncertainties mentioned by other parties: the groups influence, representation, monitoring and continuity (some of them are identified as: quick wins) Uncertainties related to measures Uncertainty in goals, especially the outcome of the Volkerak-Zoommeer study and the overlap with Natura-2000 goals, as the content of the RBMP depends on these uncertainties. Uncertainty in sources, especially historic pollution (addressing this uncertainty group will help in gaining the support of the societal system for the acceptance of the RBMP). Uncertainty in internal organisation (first looking at the internal problems, before focusing on external issues, increases the reliability and trustworthiness of PKS).

RECOMMENDATION 6

Based on an uncertainty analysis also the research budget can be divided. Uncertainties that have a nature of ambiguity often require process management methods, so the budget should not be spent on these uncertainties. Instead, the budget should be used for uncertainties that stem from a lack of knowledge or on those uncertainties that stem from ambiguity and that can be managed by joint commissioning of research.

RECOMMENDATION 7

Instead of only using traditional methods, PKS should focus more on the network approach, as the uncertainties in RBMP development are not only caused by a lack of knowledge, but also by ambiguity. The following methods should be introduced: Joint commissioning of research (together with stakeholders). Exchanging of values and opinions, package deals and compensations. Integrated design approach (design together with different stakeholders). Public participation (this entails more than just a sounding board). Process design and process management (design the start-up situation, entry and exit rules for parties involved etc. and appoint a facilitator for the process).

RECOMMENDATION 8

Often there is not enough time to perform a full uncertainty analysis. The focus of the analysis should then be the following: Look at the conceptual model and groups of uncertainties for identification Assess the source of the uncertainty (either lack of knowledge or ambiguity: no consensus about the information), as this can be linked directly to a preferred management approach. Lack of knowledge can be linked to the traditional approach to uncertainty and ambiguity should be dealt with in a more process-oriented manner.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

91


CHAPTER

9

Conclusions and recommendations 9.1

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS OF THIS RESEARCH In the beginning of this research, it was stated that: “In almost all decision situations not all information is available that would be desirable to have. … There is a need for guidelines and support on how to deal appropriately and responsibly with uncertainty. This need exists particularly for public decision makers who should act in the ‘public interest’.” (Klauer and Brown, 2004, p. 124). This research addressed this ‘need’ specially for public decision makers in RBMP development, by providing recommendations on dealing appropriately and responsibly with uncertainty. The decision making process in the development of a RBMP for the Scheldt River basin, is a process with many challenging aspects and with many involved actors. As part of a decision support activity, it is useful to carry out an uncertainty analysis, as this will improve the development process of a RBMP. In this research, the question: what uncertainties occur in the development of the River Basin Management Plan for the Scheldt River basin in the Netherlands and how can these uncertainties be structured and managed, was answered by performing a case study for the Eastern Scheldt and discussing the results of this case study for the Scheldt River basin and the problem owner; the project bureau PKS. Below, the most important conclusions will be presented.

CONCLUSION 1

The performance of an uncertainty analysis plays an important role in the design of the RBMP development process, as it will point out what the most appropriate process approach is. An uncertainty analysis gives insight in the actors involved and in their stakes and values. It thereby reveals the potential problems, fears and pitfalls of the policy development process.

CONCLUSION 2

Based on a conceptual model that describes and explains the different aspects of RBMP development, a model of uncertainty groups was developed (Figure 9.38). This model can be used for identification and communication of uncertainties in other parts of the Scheldt River and even in the development of Natura-2000 plans. With the model, the question what uncertainties occur in the development of a RBMP for the Scheldt River can be answered. The use of the model of uncertainty groups increases the understanding of the RBMP development process by visualising the different aspects involved in the process. This model was verified in the interviews and in discussions with the problem owner.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

92


Figure 9.38 General model of uncertainty groups

CONCLUSION 3

RBMP development has many challenging aspects that can be linked directly to uncertainties discovered in interviews. Besides the use of the model, RBMP development also has several important aspects that can be linked directly to uncertainties identified in this research. These aspects and an example of a related uncertainty are: - The innovative character of measures proposed in the WFD, which can be linked to uncertainty in effect of measures. - The strict time path and rules set by the EU, which can be linked to uncertainty in reaching requirements. - The many links to other legislation (e.g. Natura-2000), which can be linked to uncertainty in goals, timeline and prioritisation of the legislation - The many parties that are involved. This causes uncertainty in internal organisation and influence. - The dependency on upstream river basins. This causes uncertainty in the effects of measures taken upstream on the river basin in the Netherlands. - Boundary problems. Uncertainty in the division of work ( e.g. the set-up of monitoring programs) and responsibilities.

CONCLUSION 4

The perspective or bias of the parties involved plays an important role in identifying new uncertainties and can lead to new insights in uncertainties. By assessing uncertainty in one on one interviews, insight in the subjectivity of uncertainty can be gained and at the same time trust and mutual understanding is created. These interviews can best be carried out by an independent party. The interviewer has to realise that actors are often not used to the concepts and terms used in an uncertainty analysis. Clear communication of the uncertainties and concepts used is thus very important.

CONCLUSION 5

The theoretical framework that uses of the four steps of Risman (2007) in combination with the W&H framework and the theory by Koppenjan & Klijn (2004) is a good method for analysing and managing uncertainty in more abstract policymaking processes, such as RBMP development. Within the four steps of the Risman framework (goal setting, identification and mapping, prioritising and management), different theoretical notions have been applied (see Figure 9.39). The W&H framework gives a good objective overview of uncertainty, allows for both

ARCADIS & TU Delft

93


qualitative and quantitative uncertainties and can be used in a flexible way. Adjustments were made to the theory to create a link between the analysis of uncertainty and the management approach and to incorporate the subjective character of an uncertainty. The discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the theoretical framework showed that the flexibility of the W&H framework and the introduction of perspectives are important positive aspects of the adjusted theory. Several difficulties were mentioned that require further attention. Figure 9.39 Theoretical framework based on the four steps of Risman


Goal & demarcation


CONCLUSION 6




4. Management


The selection of priority uncertainties should be done by expert judgement or together with stakeholders, as this is a subjective activity. Four different aspects were suggested, that can be taken into account when making an order of priority. These aspects (subjectivity, time dependency, influence and impact) result in four different selections. There is no clear method to determine the final order of priority. From the interviews in the case study, it can be concluded that many actors in the process focus mainly on external uncertainties (especially on natural and political dynamics). The case study shows that internally (in the Eastern Scheldt system) there are still many uncertainties that influence the process and that deserve more attention.

CONCLUSION 7

The nature or source of an uncertainty determines the focus on a management approach and can help in determining the spending of the research budget Many of the uncertainties in the case study, caused by ambiguity, are related to a lack of trust between actors. Many uncertainties caused by lack of knowledge, are related to a knowledge deficit between and among parties in the policy and the societal system. The source lack of knowledge can be managed by focusing on the traditional approach to uncertainty, including methods as research and firm leadership. The source ambiguity has to be addressed with a network management approach, including process management and joint commissioning of research. Both approaches are complementary as the two natures of uncertainty are not independent. For most of the selected uncertainties a combination of the traditional and the process management approach was advised. Consequently, both the knowledge deficit as well as the lack of trust is solved. Currently, PKS is focusing too much on traditional methods. The spending of the research budget can be based on an uncertainty analysis as well: the priority uncertainties caused by a lack of knowledge, as well as uncertainties that can be managed by joint commissioning of research, should receive more research budget, than those that require process management type of methods.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

94


CONCLUSION 8

An uncertainty analysis will give the policymaker insight in possible quick wins and in the flexibility of the project. PKS can further increase the relationship and the trust between the parties in the societal and in the policy system by focusing on the quick wins: several uncertainties identified only by stakeholders that do not have a great impact on RBMP development, but can be solved by PKS without much effort. Flexibility can be further increased by using scenarios, real options and adaptive policymaking.

9.2

OVERVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Practical recommendation for PKS Recommendations 1 through 8 were described in the previous chapter (Paragraph 8.2) and will not be repeated here.

Recommendations for ARCADIS RECOMMENDATION 9

Carrying out an uncertainty analysis can be offered to clients as an integral activity in a process design or a stakeholder inventory. This analysis will point out the weaknesses in the process design and at the same time will include the subjectivity of stakeholders in the process. ARCADIS can act as the independent party that next to organising stakeholder workshops and discussions, also performs the one on one interviews with stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATION 10

In addition to the well-known method of Risman, also the W&H framework could be used in an uncertainty or risk assessment. The advantage is that the W&H framework can be used within the Risman framework (see Figure 9.39).

RECOMMENDATION 11

In the development of RBMP and Natura-2000 management plans, uncertainties can be assessed and identified more quickly with help of the model of uncertainty groups. The model can also help in communicating aspects of a management plan with decision makers and stakeholders, because it visualises the problems and activities necessary to create such a plan.

Recommendations for further research RECOMMENDATION 12

In this research only one case study was performed, which is a rather small data set to base conclusions on. It is therefore recommended to perform another uncertainty analysis in a different basin to compare the results to the results of this research. By increasing the practical experience with the W&H framework, it can be further improved. It is recommended to further check the usability of the model of the uncertainty groups in other River basins, such as the Rhine and Meuse.

RECOMMENDATION 13

The analysis of the uncertainties performed in this research can also be further improved: The interview set-up needs to be improved, so that it incorporates an order of priority and the dimensions nature, level etc. of an uncertainty should be included in the questions. The flexibility of the dimension ‘location’ needs to be tested further by using different conceptual models. The nature of the uncertainties should be further checked with experts and other stakeholders, as in the determining of the management approach, the nature of an uncertainty turns out to be extremely important. Also, two other dimensions could be

ARCADIS & TU Delft

95


added to the framework; ‘the qualification of the knowledge base’ and ‘value-ladenness of the ambiguity’. The determination of the level of an uncertainty needs to be made less ambiguous, by quantifying the scale or asking for an assessment of the level in interviews. The dimension range of consequences of the uncertainties in the Eastern Scheldt can be expanded by more investigation into this dimension. The Risman approach of looking at the consequences for time, quality and money can help in this. The relations between uncertainties need to be incorporated into the analysis. Uncertainties should not only be assessed individually, but also in groups as they can strengthen or dampen each other. The perspective from which the uncertainty is identified plays such an important role, that it needs to be elaborated further. Van Asselt (2000) incorporates a pluralistic view on uncertainties, which might help in improving this aspect of the analysis. RECOMMENDATION 14

The link between uncertainty analysis and management approaches is based only on the nature of an uncertainty, which can be seen as too thin. A further expansion of this link is therefore recommended. The research of possible links of the analysis, based on the W&H framework, to other management approaches would increase the use of the W&H framework in practice. A clear link between the collection of uncertainty methods in the toolkit of the MNP (2007) and the dimensions in the W&H framework could be a good start.

RECOMMENDATION 15

The management approaches put forward in this research are not very detailed. In the literature used, the management of uncertainties is discussed only on a very high level. A further detailing of the management approaches to make them more practical will enhance the use of an uncertainty assessment in practice.

RECOMMENDATION 16

To increase the practical use of the W&H framework, it is advised to further research the integration of the concepts of the W&H framework, which are very widely applicable, with the experience and practical advantages of the Risman method.

RECOMMENDATION 17

Uncertainty and risk are very closely related and often mixed up. It is important to continuate the common understanding among analysts of the differences of these two concepts and of the different methods for uncertainty or risk analysis.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

96


ANNEX

1

Literature * 9 ARCADIS (2006a). Pilot gevolgen EU richtlijn voor Oosterschelde, Rijkswaterstaat Zeeland, ARCADIS Ruimte& Milieu B.V. , M. Menke, 18-10-2006 ARCADIS (2006b). Handreiking gemeente-inbreng waterbeheer Scheldestroomgebied, provincie Zeeland, ARCADIS regio B.V., M. Vroege en F. v.d. Heijden, 7-11-2006 *ARCADIS (2006c). Risico’s KRW voor RWS als uitvoeringsorganisatie, RWS RIZA, ARCADIS Ruimte & Milieu B.V. M. Lathouwers, M. de Groen, 18-12-2006 *ARCADIS (2006d). Offerte Omgaan met onzekerheden voor RWS, Rijkswaterstaat RIZA, ARCADIS Ruimte & Milieu B.V. M. Lathouwers, M. de Groen, 22-5-2006 Asselt M.B.A. van, Langendonck R., Asten F. van, Giesen A. van der, Janssen P.H.M., Heuberger P.S.C. & Geuskens I. (2001). Uncertainty and RIVM’s environmental outlooks, documenting a learning process. RIVM report 550002001 Asselt M.B.A., van (2000). Perspectives on uncertainty and risk, The PRIMA approach to Decision Support, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht Bolier G. (2005). Lecture notes 2005-2006, Ecology in water management ct 5460, TU Delft Brouwer R. (2005). Uncertainty in the economic analysis of the European Water Framework Directive, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU Amsterdam Bruin J.A. de & Heuvelhof E.F. ten (1999). Management in netwerken, tweede druk, Lemma BV: Utrecht Brugge, R. van der, Rotmans, J. & Loorbach, D. (2005). The Transition in Dutch water management. In: Regional Environmental Change, 5, p.164-176 *Carter J.& Howe J. (2006). The Water Framework Directive and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Exploring the linkages. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26, p. 287– 300 Deltawerken (2006). www.deltawerken.com. Last visited December 2006. *Dewulf A., Craps M., Bouwen R., Taillieu T. & Pahl-Wostl C. (2005). Integrated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. In: Water Science & Technology 52 (6), 115–124. Ecologisch herstel (2007). http://www.ecologischherstel.nl/onderwerpen/ecosystemen/oosterschelde/. RIKZ, Last visited January 2007. European Commission (2000a). Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle, 02-02-2000, Retrieved January 2007 from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf European Commission (2000b). Water Framework Directive, Directive 2000/60/EC. Retrieved September 2006 from: http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env /wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/legislative_texts&vm=detailed&sb=Title. Gevers, T. & Hendrickx, W. (2001). Kansrijk risicomanagement in projecten, Academic service: Schoonhoven HarmoniRiB (2006). Harmonised Techniques and Representative River Basin Data for Assessment and Use of Uncertainty Information in Integrated Water Management. www.harmonirib.com, Last visited September 2006.

9

The literature marked with an asterisk: * has been used in the case study to identify uncertainties

ARCADIS & TU Delft

97


*Hoven S.M. (2006). Audit kaderrichtlijn Water. In opdracht van: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Directoraat Generaal Rijkswaterstaat, Regionale Dienst Zeeland. Janssen P.H.M., Peterson A.C., Sluijs, van der J.P., Risbey J.S. & Ravetz J.R. (2005). A guidance for assessing and communicating uncertainties. In: Water science & technology, 52 (6), p.125-131 Janssen P.H.M., Peterson A.C., Sluijs, van der J.P., Risbey J.S. & Ravetz J.R. (2003). RIVM/MNP Guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication. Quickscan Hints & Actions list (RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication Series, Volume 2). RIVM, Bilthoven. Retrieved February 2007 from: http://www.mnp.nl/leidraad/ Janssen P.H.M., Slob W. & Rotmans J. (1990). Gevoeligheidsanalyse en Onzekerheidsanalyse: een Inventarisatie van Ideeën, Methoden en Technieken. Rijksinstituut voor volksgezondheid en milieuhygiëne Bilthoven: rapport nr. 958805001 Kaderrichtlijn Water (2007). Uitvoering: Stroomgebieddistrict Schelde. http://www.kaderrichtlijnwater.nl/uitvoering/stroomgebieddistrict/schelde/schelde. Last visited: February 2007 Kaderrichtlijn Water (2006). Kaart 1 Nederlands deel Scheldestroomgebieddistrict .http://www.kaderrichtlijnwater.nl/download-document.php?id=815, Last visited: September 2006 Klauer B. & Brown J. (2004). Conceptualising imperfect knowledge in public decision making: ignorance, uncertainty, error and risk situations. In: Environmental research, engineering and management, 1 (27), p. 124-128 Klis, H. van der (2003). Uncertainty Analysis applied to Numerical Models of River Bed Morphology, TU Delft: Delft University Press Koppenjan J. & Klijn E.H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks, Routledge: London Krayer von Krauss, M.P., Walker W.E., Sluijs, van der J.P., Janssen, P., Asselt, van M.B.A.& Rotmans, J. (2006). Response to „To what extent, and how, might uncertainty be defined“ by Norton, Brown and Mysiak. In: Integrated Assessment Journal, 6 (1), p. 89-94. Krayer von Krauss M., Asselt M.B.A. van, Henze M., Ravetz J.& Beck M.B. (2005). Uncertainty and precaution in environmental management. In: Water science & technology, 52 (6), p.1-9 Krayer von Krauss M. & Janssen P.H.M. (2005). Using the W&H integrated uncertainty analysis framework with non-initiated experts. In: Water science & technology, 52 (6), p.145-152 *Landelijk Bestuurlijk Overleg Water, Wittenhorst H. & Mak W. (2005). Werkprogramma WB21/KRW 2005-2009, Definitieve versie, 20 april 2005 Marchau V.A.W.J. & Walker W. (2003). Dealing with uncertainty in Implementing Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: an Adaptive Approach. In: Integrated Assessment, 4 (1), p. 35-45 Ministerie LNV (2005). Handreiking beheerplannen Natura-2000 gebieden, Infotiek Ministerie LNV (2006). Concept - Natura-2000 doelendocument – hoofddocument. Retrieved September 2006 from Website Min. LNV: http://www9.minlnv.nl/servlet/page?_pageid=361&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORT AL30 Ministerie van VROM (2006). Dossier Nota Ruimte, http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=3410, Last visited september 2006 Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Directoraat-Generaal Water (2006). Schoon water voor iedereen. Inspraakdocument tijdschema, werkprogramma en waterbeheerkwesties Kaderrichtlijn Water 2006

ARCADIS & TU Delft

98


MNP (2007). Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication. http://www.mnp.nl/leidraad/. Last visited: February 2007 *Mysiak, J. & Sigel, K. (2005). Sources of uncertainty in economic analysis of the Water Framework Directive. In: Water Science & Technology, 52 (6), p.161–166 Nederland leeft met water (2006). Waterbeleid 21e eeuw, Retrieved September 2006 from: http://www.nederlandleeftmetwater.nl/Waterbeleid-21ste-eeuw Nationaal Park Oosterschelde (2007). www.npoosterschelde.nl, Last visited January 2007. Neufville, R. de, (2001). Real options: dealing with uncertainty in systems planning and design, Paper prepared for presentation June 29, 2001 at 5th International Conference on “Technology Policy and Innovation“, Technical University, Delft, Netherlands Newig J., Pahl-Wostl C.& Sigel K. (2005). The role of public participation in Managing Uncertainty in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. In: European Environment, 15, 2005, p. 333-343 Norton, J.P., Brown, J.D. & Mysiak, J. (2006). To what extent, and how, might uncertainty be defined? Comments engendered by “Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support”: Walker et al., Integrated Assessment 4(1), 2003. In: Integrated Assessment Journal, 6 (1), p. 83-88 NPOS, Overlegorgaan Nationaal Park Oosterschelde (2001). Van de parels en het slik, beheers en inrichtingsplan Nationaal Park Oosterschelde, 22-11-2001 *NRC Handelsblad (2004a). Milieuregels voor Europa te zacht, May 8, 2004, Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis Database October, 2006 NRC Handelsblad (2004b). Achterstand doelstellingen milieu groeit; RIVM in Milieubalans, May 7, 2004, Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis Database, October 2006 PKS (2006). Concept werkprogramma Kaderrichtlijn water 2006-2007 Scheldestroomgebied, 29-112006, PKS-06-563a *Platform Mineralen en Middelen Meester (2006). Brief aan de leden van het Regionaal Bestuurlijk Overleg Scheldestroomgebied, PKS 06-364 *Projectgroep IKS (2003). Implementatie Kaderrichtlijnwater in het stroomgebied van de Schelde, Plan van Aanpak, 1e fase 2003-2005, IKW 668, april 2003 *Projectgroep IKS ( 2004). Karakterisering stroomgebied Schelde, rapportage van Nederland over de invulling van de kaderrichtlijn water in het stroomgebied Schelde conform artikel 5, Regionaal Bestuurlijk Overleg Schelde, IKS 04-500, december 2004 Projectorganisatie waterkwaliteit Volkerak-Zoommeer (2004). Startnotitie Volkerak-Zoommeer, RIKZ Middelburg, December 2004 Provincie Zeeland, Zuid-Holland en Noord-Brabant (2006). Kracht van de delta, agenda voor een deltaprogramma, de ambitie, door ARCADIS, HA Zanting, E. van Essen, juni 2006 Provincie Zeeland (2006a). Omgevingsplan Zeeland 2006-2012, 30-6-2006 Provincie Zeeland (2006b). Toespraak Commissaris van de Koningin ten behoeve van de inauguratie van de heren Fundter en Dierckx, 31 januari 2006. Retrieved September 2006 from: http://www.zeeland.nl/bestuur_organisatie/bestuur/cdk/publicaties/speeches /veiligheid/fundter_dierckx *Provincie Zeeland (2006c). Pilot Schouwen Duiveland; brakke wateren in Zeeland. PKS 06-80, 11-5-2006 *Refsgaard J.C., Nilsson B., Brown J., Klauer B, Moore R., Bech T., Vurro, M., Blind M., Castilla, G., Tsanis I.& Biza P. (2005). Harmonised techniques and representative river basin data for assessment and use of uncertainty information in integrated water management (HarmoniRiB). In: Environmental Science & Policy 8, p. 267–277 *Rijkswaterstaat (2006a). Rijkswaterstaat Compilatienota, 2006, Bijdrage van Rijkswaterstaat aan de NBW nota 2006, RIZA werkdocumentnummer: 2006.094X

ARCADIS & TU Delft

99


*Rijkswaterstaat (2006b). Decembernota 2006 – Management samenvatting versie 13 november 2006, PKS-06-534a Risman (2007). Website Kennisnetwerk Risicomanagement RISNET: http://www.risman.nl/. Last visited March 2007 *RWS Zeeland (2004). Lijst van bevoegde autoriteiten KRW Schelde, 27-5-2004 RWS Zeeland (2006a). Pilot project Eastern Scheldt, presentation by M. Menke, Workshop, Middelburg, 7-9-2006 *RWS Zeeland (2006b). KRW Nota Scheldestroomgebied, Bijdrage aan de decembernota 2006, PKS 06-370, 11-9-2006 Scaldit (2007). Scaldit 2003-2008. Retrieved January 2007 from www.scaldit.org e *STOWA (2005). Inventarisatie synergie Europese Kaderrichtlijn Water en Waterbeleid 21 eeuw, rapportnummer 2005 15, Stowa: Utrecht *Trouw (2006). Alles profiteert van mestvrije akkerrand, June 22, 2006, Retrieved from: LexisNexis Database October 2006 *Twijnstra en Gudde (2005). RWS RIZA, Analyse pilots Kaderrichtlijn Water op onzekerheden, Amersfoort, 413524/HSB/HSB VVV Zeeland (2007). Plattegronden. http://www.vvvzeeland.nl/plattegronden/. Last visited: February, 2007 Walker W.E., Harremoes P., Sluijs, J.P. van der, Asselt, M.B.A. van, Janssen P. & Krayer von Krauss M.P. (2003). Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support. In: Integrated Assessment, 4 (1), p. 5–17 Walker W.E., Adnan Rahman S. & Cave J. (2001). Adaptive policies, policy analysis and policy-making. In: European Journal of Operational Research, 128, p. 282-289 Weening, H. (2006). Smart cities omgaan met onzekerheid. Delft: Eburon

ARCADIS & TU Delft

100


ANNEX

2

Project planning

Phase Phase 1:

Activity Problem analysis

Background 6 weeks

Time period

Duration

Realisation

Start: 14 Aug

2 weeks

33,34,35,36

4 weeks

36, 37, 38

Week 33, 34 Literature study of

Week 35, 36,

current state of

37, 38

research and publications Kick off meeting

Week 39: 25-9-2006

Phase 2:

Develop framework,

Week 39, 40

2 weeks

39, 40, 43, 44, 50

Uncertainty

based on literature

analysis

and criteria Zeeland Case study Eastern

Week

8 weeks

41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48,

Scheldt

41,42,43, 44,

10 weeks

51,1,2

45, 46, 47, 48 Midterm meeting

Week 47, 20-11-2006

Phase 3 & 4:

Management of

Week 49

1 weeks

49,2

Uncertainty

uncertainty

management &

Christmas

Week 52

1 week

52

validation

Midterm meeting 2

Week 3, 16-1-2006

Validation of the

Week 2,3

2 weeks

8, 13

Week 4, 5

2 weeks

3,4,5,6,7,9

7 weeks

framework

Scientific paper

Continue report

and finishing

writing & Scientific

the report

paper

6 weeks

Green light meeting

Week 5

Finishing paper and

Week 6,7,8,9

4 weeks

11, 12, 14, 15

Vacation

Week 10

2 weeks

10

Presentation

Week 9 or

report 17

Week 12 Total duration:

28 weeks

33 weeks

ARCADIS & TU Delft

101


ANNEX

3

Actor analysis Governmental parties in the Scheldt River, Zeeland Actor Project bureau KRW Scheldt (PKS)

Interest with respect to the WFD

Resource

Critical?

Authority to coordinate

Yes

Regional coordination and coordination with national and international parties

RWS Zeeland

Management of Rijkswateren in

(including the district

Zeeland and scope setting for

organisations)

regional waters in Zeeland

Sets guidelines and priorities for region, power, budget,

Yes

execution

Groundwater policy and management, filling in the policy Province of Zeeland

for the regional waters, program

Sets guidelines for water

of measurements, coordination,

boards, power, budget

Yes

licensing, public consultation, information Waterboards in Zeeland: Zeeuwse Eilanden, Zeeuws Vlaanderen and Brabantse Delta VZG Association of Zeeuwse municipalities (17)

Regional water quantity and water quality, management of

Local knowledge, own

wastewater treatment plants,

budget and policy

Yes

drainage, licensing Municipal water policy

Local knowledge, own

(watertoets), sewage system, urban

budget and policy,

water, drainage, farmers

water plan/toets

Yes

ARCADIS & TU Delft

102


Other parties in Zeeland Actor

Explanation

Interest with respect to the WFD

Resource

Critical?

Protection and development of the Goal of this National National Park

Park is nature

Eastern Scheldt:

protection,

consultative body

development and education

estuarine character of the Park,

No juridical

including the ecological quality of

entity, no

this character is important. WFD is a

power, only

chance to turn ambition into action,

consultative.

however realism and affordability is

Member of

important. Users of the park need to

interest group

No

be taken into account. Consultative

Steering committee and

Steering committee

Coordination of plans made in other

consultative

Voordelta and

water bodies or in the Delta as a

councils of water

Grevelingen

whole.

basins in Zeeland

power, coordination power.

No

Member of interest group Members of

Zeeuws landschap,

interest

Staatsbosbeheer

Protection and management of

group;

Organisations for

Vereniging tot

cultural, historical and natural sites

Knowledge;

nature

behoud van

in Zeeland. Protection of wild birds

Development

protection,

Natuurmonumenten,

and their habitats.

Plan Tureluur

conservation and

IVN Consulentschap,

management

Zeeuwse

WFD is chance for further

development

Milieufederatie,

improvement of ecosystems.

around the

No

(nature

Vogelbescherming

Eastern Scheldt) Final

Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food

Min LNV, south

Quality, (Region South West)

Natura-2000 and the Main ecological

responsibility

network/corridors (EHS) policies

for Dutch

overlaps with WFD. Implementation

agriculture

of Natura-2000 should not cost extra

and nature

money on top of what is reserved

policy;

yet. WFD and Natura-2000 are

Decision

different but synergy is definitely

making

possible.

power,

Yes

budget. Goal is economically sustainable

Agricultural organisations

ZAJK /ZLTO

water management. A good

The association of

ecosystem is vital. However, this

young people living

should not economically harm the

in the rural areas of

agricultural sector: no more extra

Zeeland and the

rules and costs.

representative of the

Ambition level of WFD should be

agricultural

low. Important is what is already

businesses in the

done and what is feasible on top of

southern part of the

that?

Netherlands

Agriculture is considered as one of the main sources of pollution.

KVK (chamber of commerce)

Member of interest Group; Cooperation is essential to prevent further

Yes

pollution of the water; power to block the process; knowledge

Represent the interests of the

Member of

businesses (industry, retail,

interest

recreation) in Zeeland: WFD should

Group; power

not hamper commercial activities

to block the

Yes

ARCADIS & TU Delft

103


process Representatives of the fishery Productschap vis,

industry in Zeeland. The fishery

Fishery

Bureau of mussels

sector sees clear advantages of a

organisations

Fish marketing board

healthy natural water system,

etc.

however reaching this should not economically harm the sector.

Drinking water companies (utility

Delta NV / Evides NV

companies) Greater

Member of interest Group; knowledge; block the process

Clean water for intake is important.

Member of

WFD sees water as an economic

interest

good; cost recovery is important.

group;

No

BOD tries to coordinate between the

Member of

consultative

Breed Overleg

recreational sector in Zeeland and

interest

council on the

Deltawateren (BOD)

the government and other

group;

stakeholders.

coordination

They stand for an open WFD process.

Member of

The minimum requirements of the

interest

WFD need to be met. A healthy

group; power

ecosystem is preferred, however at

to block the

Delta Waters

Recreational organisations

Zeeland seaports Industry that uses groundwater and surface water of Zeeland

Hiswa, Recron,

No

no extra costs.

process

Management of

No extra costs and rules. Benefits

Member of

ports in Zeeland

from clean water.

interest group

Dow Benelux Chemical company in Terneuzen.

Regulations for waste water and groundwater use are already very strict. It is not feasible to tighten these further.

Yes

power to

Yes

No

Member of interest group, also

No

represented by KvK Member of

Stichting mineralen en middelen meester (MMM)

interest Cooperation between ZLTO, LNV etc

To reduce the emissions from the agriculture to the surface water.

group, experience

No

and knowledge from projects;

Nederlandse Onderwatersport Bond (NOB)

Represents the diving sport

New possibilities for diving.

WFD has to guarantee a fast and safe Shipping companies

shipping route, especially in the Schuttevaer

execution phase. WFD should not lead to extra costs for the shipping sector

Member of interest group

No

Blocking power, intensive contact with

Yes

RWS district organisations

ARCADIS & TU Delft

104


Parties outside of Zeeland Actor

Interest with respect to the WFD Good status of all water

EU

systems by 2015, penalty, strict timeline

Resource Legislative power, budget, monitoring, penalties

Critical?

Yes

Coordination of water policy ISC (International

and management concerning

Scheldt Committee)

the Scheldt River: WFD is

Policymaking power

Yes

chance, not problem Upstream governments (Belgium, France)

Implementation of WFD and other environmental

Legislative power, budget,

legislation. High cost

knowledge

Yes

effectiveness Final responsibility for Dutch water policy, Legislative and

Ministry of Transport,

Safety, Deadline WFD, Clean

policy power, budget,

Public Works and

water in the rivers, lakes and

Member of Nationale

Water Management

the sea.

regiegroep water

(DG Water)

Yes

(preparation), Zurichberaad, Bestuurlijk overleg Water (BOW) Final responsibility for Dutch

Ministry of VROM housing, spatial planning and the environment (DG

environmental and spatial Spatial planning plays a role in WFD measures.

milieu)

planning policy Member of Nationale regiegroep water

Yes

(preparation), Zurichberaad, Bestuurlijk overleg Water (BOW)

RWS corporate

Policy and management of

Official organisation for

Rijkswateren and scope for

execution of Dutch water

regional waters

policy.

RWS North Sea,

Management of Rijkswateren

Noord-Brabant, Zuid-

in regions and scope for

Holland

regional waters delay

Budget, knowledge, power

Yes

Yes

Upstream parties, Groundwater Province of Zuid-

policy and management, Filling

Holland, Noord-

in the policy for the regional

Brabant

waters, coordination, drainage

Legislative power, budget, knowledge

Yes

and seepage into Zeeland RIZA collects information, RIZA

performs research and gives advice on water quality and

Knowledge, information

No

Knowledge, information

No

water quantity. Het RIKZ collects information RIKZ

and advices on sustainable use of estuaria, coastal areas, the sea and on flood protection.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

105


ANNEX

4

W&H framework for integrated uncertainty analysis The core of the W&H framework by Walker et al. (2003) is formed by distinguishing three dimensions of uncertainty. These three dimensions are: 1. Location; where does the uncertainty manifests itself in the conceptual model? Walker et al. 2003 use a conceptual model that gives an overview of the general process of policymaking. This model puts the system model (an abstraction of the real world issue, including the group of cause effect relationships) at the centre. This conceptual model forms the basis to assess the location of an uncertainty. Possible locations are in the context of the system model, in the model itself, in the inputs, in the parameters and in the model outcome. 2. Level or the degree of severity of the uncertainty; there exists a spectrum of different levels of knowledge, ranging from ignorance to complete deterministic understanding. In between, you can find recognised ignorance, scenario uncertainty and statistical uncertainty. 3. Nature; what is the source of the uncertainty? Is the uncertainty epistemic, which means due to the imperfection of our knowledge or is it variability uncertainty; due to randomness, human behaviour, etc. The three dimensions are then combined in an uncertainty matrix, in which all uncertainties can be placed:

Figure

Location

Level

W&H uncertainty framework (Walker et al., 2003)

Context

Nature

Statistical

Scenario

Recognised

Epistemic

Variability

uncertainty

uncertainty

ignorance

uncertainty

uncertainty

Natural, technological, economic, social and political representation

Model

Model

Unc. A

Unc.A

structure

Inputs

Technical

Unc. B

model

Unc. D

Unc. D

Unc. B

Driving forces System Data

Parameters Model Outcomes

Unc. C

Unc. C

ARCADIS & TU Delft

106


ANNEX

5

List of interviewed persons and organisations Interviewee

Organisation

Date

L. de Jong

RWS Zeeland (PKS)

Interviewed together with

W. Oorthuiijzen

RWS Zeeland (PKS)

S. Jacobs

RWS Zeeland

Q. Smeele

Natuurmonumenten

25-10-2006

C. Steur

Water board Zeeuwse Eilanden

30-10-2006

H. van Wezel

Coördinatie Stroomgebieden

1-11-2006

ARCADIS, 17-8-2006 Interviewed together with ARCADIS, 17-8-2006 Interviewed together with ARCADIS, 17-8-2006

Nederland W. Mak

Coördinatie Stroomgebieden

1-11-2006

Nederland R. van der Veeren

RIZA

3-11-2006

J. Schoot Uiterkamp

RIZA

7-11-2006

C. Michielsen

ZLTO

9-11-2006

C. Helmendach

ZAJK

9-11-2006

R.Ruks

LNV zuid

1-12-2006

H. van Geesbergen

PO mosselcultuur

7-12-2006

E.Neyt

District Zeeuwse Delta (RWS)

7-12-2006

F. van Pelt

National Park Eastern Scheldt

6-12-2006

J. Bruurs

Kamer van Koophandel

15-12-2006

ARCADIS & TU Delft

107


ANNEX

6

Interview questions INTRODUCTION 1. What is uncertainty (in light of this research)? 2. What is your position/ function/responsibility with respect to the WFD? 3. What are the viewpoints and interests of your organisation with respect to the WFD and Natura-2000? And specifically for the Eastern Scheldt and for Schouwen Duiveland? IDENTIFYING UNCERTAINTY 4. What do you think of the usage of the scheme below to locate and identify uncertainties and their relations? External system (Natural system and stakeholders outside Zeeland) Implications/ Influence System model

Implications/ Monitoring

Implications/ Influence

Natural system Scheldt River (Physical, biological, chemical subsystems and water bottom, water and air system)

Policy system Scheldt River (Project Bureau, RWS Zeeland, Province, Water boards, Municipalities)

Influence/ Implications

Implications/ Signs

Societal system Scheldt River Stakeholders and users of the Scheldt River basin, Netherlands

5. There are two main types of uncertainty process and content. Both these types can be caused by ambiguity or lack of knowledge. Do you agree with this and can you give examples? 6. What are the five most important uncertainties in the WFD implementation? Are these apparent in the Eastern Scheldt? 7. Can you give examples (from the Eastern Scheldt) of uncertainties in the WFD implementation for each of the following topics? a. Measure-effect uncertainty? b. Link with Natura-2000 / WB 21? c. Societal acceptance? d. International cooperation? e. Boundary conditions set by the national government? f. Technology / innovation?? g. Costs / Finance? h. Other? 8. When looking at the timeline of the process what kind of uncertainties do you see? Will some uncertainties be resolved? Which ones? MANAGEMENT OF UNCERTAINTIES 9. What are the consequences of the uncertainties for the process and content of RBMP development?

ARCADIS & TU Delft

108


10.How should the project bureau PKS deal with uncertainty? How would you deal with uncertainty? (e.g. proactive or reactive etc.) 11.If you would have to choose a schematic way to describe uncertainties what would it look like? 12.When prioritising uncertainties, what are important factors to consider? 13.Can you use this research and how would you use this research? 14.Are there any other uncertainties or risks that you did not mention earlier?

ARCADIS & TU Delft

109


ANNEX

7

Interview reports The reports of the interview held in this research are bundled in a separate document (Annex 7).

ARCADIS & TU Delft

110


ANNEX

8

Uncertainty in measures Measures related to Morphodynamics: Adjustments to the

Selected

Protection of

Creation or

Re-instalment of the

Eastern Scheldt

Sand suppletion

salt marshes,

rejuvenation of

tidal influence in

Barrier

mudflats and

salt meadows

adjacent water bodies

uncertainty

shoals

Effects of

Back to old system?

Ecological

Effect of

Will the salt

Sand hunger increases

measures on

Long term before

response,

artificial

meadow

because of more tidal

the natural

actual response,

direction of

elements in

maintain itself?

volume and less tidal

system?

velocity of the

sand transport,

the water on

differences? Increase of

water high

visibility in the

the ecology

sea lettuce, Japanese

enough? Higher

water

and water

Oyster etc.

ersosion in some

quality,

parts of the ES?

morphological effects

Costs of

Sunk costs, high

Transportation

Transportation

Sluice or passageway,

measures?

costs for extra

distance, costs

_

distance and

safety measures

necessary safety

of sand,

costs of heavy

measures

dredging costs

material are

Technical

General societal

Extra work

Extra work

Locations

Only for a small area,

feasibility of

acceptance, long

district, number

district,

available,

otherwise too much

measures?

term plan

of ship

number of

material

tidal volume, also sand

movements,

ship

available, ship

hunger in this area,

sand

movements,

movements,

long term

availability,

short term

short term

long term

solution,

uncertain

societal acceptance of stone walls Finance of

National financing

National

measures?

is necessary

financing is

_

_

National financing is necessary

necessary Effect of

Economic impacts

Financial impact

Financial

measures on

for shipping sector,

for fishery,

impact for

agriculture, anti

competitive

safety impacts

shipping,

shellfish

fouling recreation,

recreation

sector,

fresh water fishery

position farmers?

_

Fresh water supply

recreational sector

ARCADIS & TU Delft

111


Measures related to ecology: Increasing fresh salt dynamics Selected uncertainty

by increasing the fresh water

Planting eelgrass

inflow Effects of measures on the

Ecological response, water

natural system?

quality response

Costs of measures?

Type of passageway, ground acquisition;

Technical feasibility of

Long term, MER procedures

measures?

necessary, enough water flow?

_ Planting or sowing? Not natural, enough fresh water (salinity level is important)? Will it also come by itself?

Finance of measures?

Costs for water board or RWS

Effect of measures on

Fresh water supply

competitive position farmers?

agriculture, anti fouling

_

recreation, fresh water fishery

Measures related to water quality:

Selected uncertainty

Decontamination of the water bottom

Effects of measures on the natural

Improvement of

(generic)

waste water

environmental policy

treatment plants

Relation between _

system? Costs of measures?

Introduction of new

water quality and

_

ecology Effect of contamination on water quality and

Ecological response to

ecology is unclear,

increased water

stirring up the bottom

quality?

Effect of less polluted inflow is unknown

has effect on benthic life, Technical feasibility of

Depend on location

measures?

and contamination

Cost effectiveness

Low cost effectiveness

level Finance of measures?

Generic execution Extra shipping

better than regional,

movement

but uncertain. Low

By water boards

societal acceptance Effect of measures on competitive position

Regional or national Who is responsible?

financing? Costs for

farmers?

sectors

Effects of measures

Competitive position

on the natural

of farmers, local rules

system?

_

stricter than global rules, extra costs for shipping, fishery and

By water boards

Increased costs for waste water treatment

recreation

ARCADIS & TU Delft

112


ANNEX

9

Selection based on four aspects Table of selected uncertainties based on impact Uncertainty itself Low

Expected

Low

impact of the uncertainty

High

High

9,10,14,22,23,37,

15,19,28,29,34,35,

41,42,43,55,56,58,64

38,39,47,48,62,69,70

3,6,7,8,11,12,17,20,

1,2,4,5,16,18,21,24,

25,31,40,49,51,52,53,

26,27,30,32,33,36,

54,60,61,66

44,45,46,50,57,59, 63,65,67,68,71,72

Selection for each aspect Location

Uncertainty group

Subjectivity

Time

Uncertainties

dependency

difficult to

Impact

influence Natural system

Natural processes

PolicyÆNatural

System response

-

-

-

1,2

3

5

4,5

system Natural

Monitoring

6,7

6,7

-

-

Goals (WFD and

10, 13

8,11,12

-

-

Costs and benefits

14,15

14

-

16

Feasibility

19

19,20

-

18,21

Finance

22,23

22,23

22

24

Reaching the WFD

-

-

-

26,27,30

Internal organisation

38,39

34,36, 40

38,40

32,33,36

Influence

41,42,43,44

-

-

44

Policy Æ

Impacts

-

-

47

45,46

Societal system

Reliability

48, 49

-

-

50

Societal system

Continuity

51,52,53,54

-

51,52,53,54

-

Representation

55,56

-

57

57

Sources

-

-

-

59

Usability

-

-

-

63,65

External

External

-

67

70, 72

67, 68, 71,

system

uncertainties

ÆPolicy system Policy system

other legislation)

requirements Societal Æ Policy system

Societal system Æ Natural Natural Æ Societal system

72

ARCADIS & TU Delft

113


ANNEX

10

List of uncertainties in the Eastern Scheldt See the attached table of the uncertainty analysis for a complete list of all uncertainties found in the Eastern Scheldt

ARCADIS & TU Delft

114

ANNEX 7 INTERVIEW REPORTS UNCERTAINTY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WFD IN DUTCH

12 april 2007


ANNEX 7 INTERVIEW REPORTS

Content 7.1 Verslag van interview met dhr. Q. Smeele, Natuurmonumenten, regio Zuid-Holland en Zeeland, 25-10-2006 ______________________________________________________ 3 7.2 Verslag interview met dhr. C. Steur, Waterschap Zeeuwse Eilanden, 30-10-2006____ 5 7.3 Verslag interview met dhr. W. Mak en dhr. H. van Wezel, Coördinatie stroomgebieden Nederland, 1-11-2006 _____________________________________________________ 8 7.4 Verslag interview met dhr. R. van der Veeren, RIZA, Lelystad, 3-11-2006__________ 11 7.5 Verslag interview met dhr. J. Schoot Uiterkamp, RIZA, 7-11-2006 _______________ 13 7.6 Verslag interview met mevr. C. Michielsen (ZLTO) en mevr. C. Helmendach (ZAJK), 911-2006 _______________________________________________________________ 16 7.7 Verslag interview met dhr. R. Ruks, LNV Zuid, 1-12-2006_______________________ 20 7.8 Verslag interview met E. Neyt, waterdistrict Zeeuwse Delta, 7-12-2006 ___________ 23 7.9 Verslag interview met dhr. J. Bruurs, Kamer van Koophandel Zeeland, 20-12-2006 _ 25 7.10 Verslag interview met dhr. Hans van Geesbergen, Producenten organisatie Nederlandse mosselcultuur, 7-12-2006 ______________________________________ 28 7.11 Interview verslag met dhr. F. van Pelt, Secretaris Overlegorgaan nationaal park Oosterschelde, 6-12-2006_________________________________________________ 30

ARCADIS & TU Delft

2


1.1

VERSLAG VAN INTERVIEW MET DHR. Q. SMEELE, NATUURMONUMENTEN, REGIO ZUIDHOLLAND EN ZEELAND, 25-10-2006

Dhr. Smeele is werkzaam als adviseur extern beleid bij de werkorganisatie van Natuurmonumenten, regio Zuid-Holland - Zeeland. Zijn verantwoordelijkheden liggen op het grensvlak van interne en externe beleidsbeïnvloeding in het Delta gebied van Zeeland. Dat wil zeggen: beïnvloeding van het beleid in de regio als ook het meenemen van extern beleid naar het beleid van Natuurmonumenten. Standpunten en beleid natuurmonumenten m.b.t. KRW Zeeland Natuurmonumenten beheert vooral binnendijkse gebieden in Zeeland (Zuid-Beveland en Schouwen Duiveland) en heeft verder belang bij het Veerse Meer en de Oosterschelde. Doel is het verbeteren van de randvoorwaarden voor natuurontwikkeling en toename in de kwaliteit van systemen. Binnendijks is verdroging een groter probleem dan waterkwaliteit, buitendijks gaat het om de afname van de dynamiek van systemen. Natuurmonumenten ziet de KRW als een kans

om de waterkwaliteit (een belangrijke

voorwaarde voor de ontwikkeling van natuurgebieden) te verbeteren en staat hier dus ook positief tegenover. In de maatschappij is deze houding veel negatiever. Natuurmonumenten probeert daarom ook de baten van de KRW in beeld te brengen. Medestanders hierin zijn Milieufederatie, collega terreinbeheerders en het projectbureau KRW Zeeland. Partijen die kosten moeten maken door de KRW zijn waterschappen, landbouw, visserij en recreatie. Zij zullen dan ook het proces willen vertragen, al hoewel waterschappen steeds positiever worden ten opzichte van de KRW. Gemeenten hebben nog een kennis achterstand. De provincie is in principe positief, maar is een ‘veelkoppig’ monster. Met name de landbouwafdeling kan afwijken. De klankbordgroep heeft een gezamenlijke intentie, maar tot nu toe nog weinig concreets kunnen doen. Het is nog steeds lastig om KRW verplichtingen te vertalen naar Zeeland en inzicht te hebben in de gevolgen daarvan. Toch ook wel loopgraven cultuur. Bijvoorbeeld de landbouw die blijft vasthouden aan bepaalde normen (nitraat richtlijn), terwijl het nu gaat om het vaststellen van een budget en ambitie en later pas om de detail invulling. De groep heeft nog geen status en het echte werk gebeurt in het RBO en het projectbureau. Meer invloed zou goed zijn, maar dan moet de klankbordgroep wel wat te vertellen hebben. Ambitieniveau moet zo hoog mogelijk liggen, december nota 2005 was te weinig ambitieus, 2006 heeft wel een hoge ambitie, maar stelt het halen van deze ambitie uit tot 2027. Lobby voor generiek beleid is niet taak Natuurmonumenten, maar Milieufederatie etc. het is wel een belang van Natuurmonumenten. De tijdslijn van de KRW is positief als middel om druk op de ketel te krijgen, maar het maakt overheden ook angstig. Bij Natura 2000 ontbreekt dit middel. Internationale maatregelen en plannen in het kader van de KRW zijn niet bekend. Reactie op indeling in systemen:

ARCADIS & TU Delft

3


Waar gaat het over? Inhoudelijk systeem Wie doet wat? Beleidssysteem Maatschappelijk systeem heeft een andere relatie, ander soort interactie met beleidssysteem dan water systeem. Houd hier rekening mee in het schema. Oosterschelde: Veel geld aan uit gegeven om het een zo natuurlijk mogelijk systeem te maken, zonde om dat nu op zijn beloop te laten. Daarom is het belangrijk om te investeren en desnoods te tuinieren. Huidig beleid is waarschijnlijk onvoldoende voor KRW. Schouwen Duiveland: Water is te voedselrijk en de kwel vormt een probleem. Verdroging is groter probleem dan waterkwaliteit. Zeker aanvullingen nodig op huidig beleid. Onzekerheden korte termijn: Welke maatregelen zullen er toe doen? En wat zijn de gevolgen? Vooral ecologische doelen zijn nog onzeker. Welke ecologische doelen worden landelijk en welke regionaal vast gesteld? Hoe zou je dit proces van doelvorming kunnen beïnvloeden? Vertegenwoordigers krijgen geen ruimte om met achterban te overleggen (risico van later terugkrabbelen) Het is ook lastig om achterban in te lichten door vaagheid KRW Onzekerheden lange termijn: Innovatie in maatregelen, manieren om systeem te verbeteren. Pas in de uitvoering blijkt echt of een maatregel effect heeft. Dit is de grootste onzekerheid. Overheid houdt zich niet aan gemaakte afspraken (bijv. Schelde traject). Betrouwbaarheid overheid is onzeker. Visie op onzekerheid: Onzekerheden zullen er altijd zijn en uitzoeken is vaak onbegonnen werk. Helderheid is belangrijk, maar op een gegeven moment zul je toch risico moeten nemen en beginnen en dan ook bereid zijn om geld uit te geven. Van belang hierbij is wel voor Natuurmonumenten dat de verwachting is dat het beleid in de goede richting gaat, dat wil zeggen als bijv. het beleid Oosterschelde leidt tot verbetering in de estuariene dynamiek: neem dan het risico en ga ervoor. Besluiten tot verder onderzoek is makkelijker dan besluiten tot actie. Vooral partijen die moeten bloeden zijn gebaat bij uitstel. Onderzoek helpt om onzekerheid weg te nemen, maar hangt wel af van onderzoeker en uitkomsten. Focus op zekerheid is goed, maar vergeet niet onzekerheden te benoemen en aan te geven hoe je ermee omgaat. ProSes (Westerschelde) heeft hier in een vroeg stadium veel tijd aan besteed. Nog zeker interviewen: Kamer van Koophandel

ARCADIS & TU Delft

4


1.2

VERSLAG INTERVIEW MET DHR. C. STEUR, WATERSCHAP ZEEUWSE EILANDEN, 30-102006

Algemeen: Functie: Coördinator KRW, contactpersoon naar en in de regio en contactpersoon KRW in de Unie van Waterschappen. KRW standpunt waterschap: De KRW is een kans om betere afstemming te krijgen in het waterkwaliteitsbeheer. In de toekomst zal de KRW zeker bijdragen aan een goede waterkwaliteit en zal er een gezamenlijke visie op de Schelde ontstaan. De insteek van het waterschap is te gaan voor een hoog ambitieniveau, maar de maatregelen haalbaar en betaalbaar te houden. De stroomgebiedbenadering is zeer goed, echter De KRW is organisatorisch te ingewikkeld. Een risico vormt de grote focus die op de KRW lichamen komt te liggen, waardoor andere problemen of kleinere gebieden misschien te weinig of geen aandacht krijgen. Medestanders: andere waterbeheerders in de regio Weerstand bij: landbouw en industrie De invloed die het waterschap heeft is erg wisselend. Europees: invloed minimaal, nationaal: via UvW, beperkt (maar 1 van de 26), regionaal: groot, vooral wat betreft ecologie, omdat je daar eigen doelen vast mag stellen. Schouwen Duiveland en de andere eilanden Schouwen Duiveland is gekozen als proef project, omdat het eiland de typische problemen heeft die ook op de andere eilanden zijn en alle belangen en functies daar vertegenwoordigd zijn: landbouw, natuur, RWZI, kwel etc. De Zeeuwse eilanden zijn behoorlijk homogeen van karakter. Kwel speelt nergens anders een zodanige grote rol als bij dit waterschap. Dat geeft een grote vrijheid in hoe er mee om kan worden gegaan. Het waterschap heeft hier in een voorlopers rol. Volkerak Zoommeer is enige bron van zoetwater voor de eilanden en dus erg belangrijk. Er zijn 4 Natura 2000 gebieden en daarnaast ook aan de randen van de Oosterschelde. Meeste waterhuishoudkundige maatregelen zijn hier al genomen. Indeling in sub systemen De indeling ziet er helder en herkenbaar uit in verband met IWM. Onzekerheden in het natuurlijk systeem Er zijn nog onvoldoende gegevens over de schadelijkheid van bepaalde stoffen en de effectiviteit van bepaalde maatregelen. Met effectiviteit wordt hier het effect bedoeld op de waterkwaliteit en de ecologie. Ook is het nog onduidelijk hoe bepaalde stoffen moeten worden gemeten. Sommige verschijningsvormen worden wel gemeten maar zijn niet schadelijk. Bijvoorbeeld bij bepaalde metalen die op verschillende manieren voorkomen is onduidelijk hoe schadelijk ze zijn (de bio-beschikbaarheid).

ARCADIS & TU Delft

5


-

-

Kosten inschatten is niet het grootste knelpunt. Effecten op de ecologie zijn wel lastig in te schatten. Monitoring: het meetplan behoefde weinig aanpassing, want dit was al KRW proof opgesteld in 2002 en de monitoring binnen Zeeland sluit goed op elkaar aan. In sommige Rijkswateren worden andere parameters gemeten, maar daar worden ook andere parameters gevraagd. Door grote variatie in omstandigheden (neerslag, temperatuur e.d.) zijn er grote marges in metingen, waardoor ruis ontstaat in de getallen. Afwenteling: aandeel van polderwater in rijkswater is zeer beperkt. RWS beaamt dat. Zelf heeft het waterschap weinig last van afwenteling, alleen uit de Brabantse wal.

Onzekerheden in beleid: Risico van het niet eens worden met elkaar bestaat natuurlijk. Maar, in de Schelde regio is tot nu toe iedereen wel goed op een lijn. Doelstellingen KRW en Natura 2000 zijn soms nog tegenstrijdig. Maar geen problemen verwacht. positief: KRW met WB21 laten meeliften, ruimte combineren met ecologie (kans) Extra stijging van de waterschapsbelasting moet voorkomen worden. Bij het maken van de plannen is al een kostenstijging ingecalculeerd omdat de KRW, daarin al is e meegenomen. De inzet is om het hiermee te doen. Het aanleggen van de 4 trap zuivering kan leiden tot forse extra kosten. Internationale afstemming: Zeeuwse Eilanden heeft weinig last van België, alleen via het VZM is er sprake van input van verontreinigingen afkomstig van bovenstroomse gebieden. Hierin is het Nederlandse beleid dualistisch: aan de ene kant willen we niet het beste jongentje van de klas zijn, maar aan de andere kant leveren we wel kritiek op bovenstroomse overheden. Uitkomst van de planstudie VZM is erg belangrijk in verband met de zoetwatervoorziening voor de eilanden. Het waterschap wil graag dat dit meer zoet blijft, maar wil ook geen blauwalg. Als het zout wordt dan is zoet water aanvoer uit de Brabantse wal mogelijk een optie of de aanvoer via pijpleidingen (is wel duur). Mede door late vaststelling van randvoorwaarden van bovenaf (EU, DG water), zal het eerste Stroomgebiedsbeheerplan niet spectaculair zijn. De samenwerking in het Scaldit project verloopt moeizaam. Vooral Wallonië, Brussel en Frankrijk hebben een lagere ambitie. Ambitieniveaus zijn nog niet vastgesteld. Er is angst voor de resultaatsverplichting mede doordat de fijnstof regelgeving en nitraatwetgeving nu op dat gebied voor problemen zorgen. Een ander risico vormen de mogelijke instrumenten. Deze zitten namelijk verdeeld over de verschillende overheidslagen. Een aantal maatregelen kunnen alleen generiek genomen worden, willen ze effect hebben. De vraag is of dit gaat gebeuren. Er wordt gewacht op de lijst van Prioritaire stoffen Uitvoering is nog niet bij de KRW betrokken, maar is ook nog niet nodig. Een ander risico is dat bestuurders binnen Nederland geen eenduidig verhaal hebben naar buiten toe. Loopt Nederland voor of achter op het buitenland? Doen wij wel genoeg i.v.m. andere landen? Dit is een aandachtspunt. Adaptief beleid kan binnen de KRW, als je het maar goed verkoopt naar Brussel toe. Er zouden machtsspellen kunnen ontstaan tussen het Rijk en de Regio, maar verwachting is van niet. Bestuurders kunnen terug komen op hun besluiten, dat is een risico. Omgeving en onzekerheid Innovatie is al erg ver in Nederlands waterbeheer, dus daar moeten we voorlopig geen wonderen van verwachten. Wel vertrouwen in de toekomst. Participatie van de gewone burger is lastig, maar is dat ook nodig? Klankbordgroep etc. werkt goed. Overlegcultuur: traject om tot besluitvorming te komen is erg lang; uiteindelijk worden echter wel de besluiten genomen. Dezelfde discussies worden vaak herhaald (op verschillende niveaus). Als het eindresultaat maar goed is hoeft dit geen probleem te zijn.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

6


Hoe om te gaan met onzekerheid? Als er echt geen kennis is over een bepaald onderwerp, dan is het nodig om aanvullend onderzoek te doen. Als de globale marges bekend zijn, dan heeft verder onderzoek op dit moment geen prioriteit en moeten we aan de slag gaan. Vervolgens is het wel belangrijk om te blijven meten en monitoren en dan aan te passen. Adaptief beleid is zeer nuttig! Vaak is er wel genoeg kennis in huis bij het waterschap om een probleem te kunnen beoordelen. Het is vaak wel een probleem om deze deskundigheidbeoordeling naar buiten toe te verkopen. Het waterschap zoekt dan naar consensus over het onderwerp bij andere partijen om zo gezamenlijk naar buiten te treden. Een voorbeeld hiervan is dat de landbouw aangeeft dat kwel een grotere belasting vormt dan de landbouw activiteiten. Om dit te pareren wordt toegewerkt naar een gezamenlijk standpunt van de betrokken overheden. Geloofwaardigheid van de deskundige is dus erg belangrijk. Tijdslijn Deadline is strikt (in 2009 moet er een plan liggen) ondanks de onzekerheden. Dat betekent dat er keuzes gemaakt worden en dat daarmee de onzekerheden vanzelf kleiner worden. Om onzekerheid te accepteren, moet je inschattingen en keuzes maken. Van uitstel word je ook niet wijzer. Zit je in de goede richting, dan moet je ervoor gaan. Profijt van dit onderzoek? Bewust met onzekerheid bezig zijn is noodzakelijk, om verantwoord met keuzen om te gaan.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

7


1.3

VERSLAG INTERVIEW MET DHR. W. MAK EN DHR. H. VAN WEZEL, COÖRDINATIE STROOMGEBIEDEN NEDERLAND, 1-11-2006

Algemeen: Het coördinatie bureau is een intermediair tussen het ministerie en de regio. Dhr. Mak is adjunct stroomgebiedcoördinator Rijn –Oost en dhr. van Wezel voor Rijn-Midden. In totaal zijn er 7 adjunct stroomgebied coördinatoren. Loes de Jong is de coördinator voor de Schelde. Rollen binnen de KRW Alle overheden zitten op een lijn wat betreft het idee dat ze wat gaan maken van de KRW. Echter, er is geen consensus over hoever ze hierin willen gaan. De ambitieniveaus verschillen zeer per instantie, waardoor een spanningsveld ontstaat. Rijk: ambitieniveau staat in dec. Nota 2006, is redelijk ambitieus. Provincie; hebben vaak een hoge ambitie, maar dat is ook makkelijk omdat ze niet voor de kosten opdraaien. Gemeenten; grote verschillen onderling. Van niets doen tot zeer ambitieus. Niets doen kan gerechtvaardigd zijn als gemeente niet overstort, vervuild etc. RWS; er zit een spanning tussen RWS corporate en RWS regio. Corporate heeft bijvoorbeeld top down een prioritering van de regio’s opgelegd. Dit levert spanningen op. Overige organisaties; natuurorganisaties hebben een forse ambitie, KRW is een breekijzer om dit waar te maken. Landbouw heeft een veel lagere ambitie en ook werkgevers zijn negatief over de KRW. Op landelijk niveau overlegt DG water met de OWN (Overlegorgaan water en Noordzee). Middelen voor de coördinatie Geen keiharde hiërarchische macht Wel aanwijzingsbevoegdheid (‘knuppel ergens onderin de kast’) Sturen en overtuigen Aan tafel krijgen, ambities op tafel leggen De KRW is een framework, dat wil zeggen dat het een kader aangeeft waarbinnen je nog veel vrijheden hebt. De heer Mak en de heer Wezel geven aan dat verschillende partijen de KRW verschillend zien en dit gebruiken in hun strategie. Zij herformuleren de wet zo dat het voor hen het beste uitkomt. Milieuorganisaties wijzen op de strengheid van Brussel en proberen een angst aan te wakkeren, terwijl de landbouw dat juist tegen spreekt. De coördinatoren proberen handreikingen en instrumenten aan te reiken aan de regio. Vaak heeft de regio geen zin om discussies te voeren en hebben ze liever dat van bovenaf gezegd wordt hoe het moet. Dit voorkomt discussie binnen het bestuur van de regionale overheden en is dus makkelijker. Indeling in systemen De voorgelegde indeling klinkt vertrouwd. Er is een aanmerking op de indeling, omdat er te veel onzekerheden in het beleidssysteem zitten. De effecten van maatregelen die te maken hebben met de reactie van het systeem op de maatregel kunnen beter in het watersysteem

ARCADIS & TU Delft

8


benoemd worden dan in het beleidssysteem. Dit betekent dat de categorie ingreep-effect onzekerheden verder opgesplitst kan worden. Door het uit elkaar trekken, indelen en benoemen van de onzekerheden kun je inzicht verschaffen in de gevolgen van onzekerheden in het ene systeem voor het andere systeem. Deze wisselwerking is belangrijk. Risico analyses worden nog niet echt uitgevoerd in de verschillende stroomgebieden. Het tijdsaspect van bepaalde onzekerheden kun je meenemen als een soort derde dimensie. Namelijk door het plaatje van alle onzekerheden voor verschillende momenten in de tijd te maken. Een aantal onzekerheden zullen dan verdwijnen (idee van een trechter proces) maar een aantal zullen ook gewoon blijven. Het is niet erg als onzekerheden blijven bestaan, als maar duidelijk is dat het onzeker is, zodat vervolgens gekozen kan worden voor kleine stappen of een andere route. Een voorbeeld van een blijvende onzekerheid is de zandhonger in de Oosterschelde of de geulverdieping in de Westerschelde. Omgaan met onzekerheid Onderzoek doen is een nuttige manier om meer informatie te verkrijgen. Onderzoek lost niet altijd de onzekerheid op, maar ook dat is bruikbare informatie. In hoeverre onzekerheden geaccepteerd worden hangt ook af van het maatschappelijk belang van het onderwerp. Op het gebied van veiligheid zullen sneller grote stappen genomen worden (ondanks onzekerheden) dan op het gebied van waterkwaliteit. Onderzoek richt zich vaak alleen op het watersysteem, waardoor de resultaten in het beleidssysteem weinig bruikbaar zijn. Het zou beter zijn als onderzoek rekening houdt met de balans tussen de drie systeemelementen en bijvoorbeeld uitgaat van de vragen die er liggen in het beleidssysteem en dat te onderzoeken in het water systeem en niet andersom. Eenzijdig onderzoek heeft erg weinig zin in het KRW netwerk. Er moet ook draagvlak voor resultaten van onderzoeken worden gecreëerd, anders heeft het onderzoek geen nut. Onzekerheden in het natuurlijk systeem Het ecosysteem is nog niet in evenwicht, dit speelt ook in het IJsselmeergebied. Onzekerheden in het beleidssysteem -

Binnen overheden zijn de belangen niet eenduidig.

Dit kan een belangrijke rol spelen in de KRW. Als bijvoorbeeld een projectbureau een staf heeft van mensen uit de natuurhoek, dan zal de ambitie van dat bureau hoger liggen en dat kan botsen met bestuurders of ook andere werknemers die bijv. uit de landbouwhoek afkomstig zijn. Interne discussies en belangentegenstelling vormen dus ook zeker een belangrijk risico. -

Natura 2000 is niet zo gericht op hoogdynamische systemen met een lange tijdsschaal, zoals in Zeeland veel voorkomen.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

9


Af en toe kloppen de doelen niet met de doelen van de KRW, maar vaak is dit eenvoudig op te lossen (bijv. toename van de duikeend versus afname van nutriënten). -

Er zijn vier hoofdcircuits die alleen samen werken daar waar raakvlakken zijn. Dit zijn: o KRW o Natura 2000 o WB 21 o Veiligheid

-

Afstemming met bovenstroomse (internationale) gebieden is een lastig issue.

De vraag is in hoeverre kunnen wij bovenstrooms iets opleggen? Hoeveel grip hebben wij? Hoeveel moeten wij zelf doen in relatie tot de bovenstroomse gebieden? Rijn: relatief gezien ten opzichte van de water toevoer, vervuilen wij meer dan men bovenstrooms doet. Dit draagt Nederland niet uit. -

Onzekerheid in generieke maatregelen (diffuse bronnen en generiek beleid; nutriënten, mest).

Landelijk en Europees komt er waarschijnlijk geen generiek beleid. Dit is een teleurstelling, omdat je bijvoorbeeld aan PAK’s weinig kan doen als individuele lidstaat. Maar, regionaal zijn er wel veel mogelijkheden voor maatwerk. Hiervoor is echter geld nodig en het is onduidelijk wie dat gaat betalen. Het is belangrijk dat regio’s zich gaan richten op wat ze wel kunnen doen in plaats van wachten en rekenen op generiek beleid. -

Onzekerheid van boetes / reactie van Brussel.

De insteek is duidelijk niet om te kijken wat voordeliger is; een boete of een maatregel nemen. Het is wel belangrijk om het spel goed te spelen naar Brussel toe.! Daarmee wordt bedoeld om goed te zorgen dat je aan alle spelregels voldoet (wat betreft doelverlaging) zodat je daar niet op afgerekend kan worden. Lef hebben is hierbij belangrijk. De verwachting is dat Brussel erg streng zal zijn wat betreft het volgen van de spelregels en minder streng wat betreft het behalen van het doel. Deze verwachting is gebaseerd op de erg gedetailleerde reacties van Brussel op Artikel 3 en 5 rapportages, die vooral streng waren op het naleven van de regels. Partijen gebruiken de angst voor Brussel om hun belangen te behartigen. Aan de ene kant opfokken en bang maken om meer gedaan te krijgen, maar ook juist andersom. Wij hoeven ons niet te schamen voor Brussel, want we zijn op de goede weg. Italië en Griekenland bijv. worden nu al hard aangepakt, omdat zij achter lopen op de rest. Dit komt deels omdat zij al een grote achterstand hadden en deels door bestuurlijk onvermogen. -

Grenzen watersysteem en beleidssysteem zijn niet gelijk.

Dit kan problemen opleveren op ‘kruispunten’. Bijvoorbeeld voor de provincie Gelderland, die vier stroomgebieden in zich heeft met elk een andere aanpak en insteek, waardoor er veel verschillende verhalen richting het bestuur komen. De Schelde heeft dit niet omdat het een zeer losstaand proces is. Dit kan ook een risico zijn, omdat de provincie dominant is in het implementatie proces. De waterschappen zouden hierdoor kunnen afhaken. In veel andere gebieden heeft het waterschap een dominantere rol. Overig Een laatste advies is om de case Oosterschelde te gebruiken voor het nagaan van de gevolgen van alle onzekerheden voor de andere systemen. Als je ergens binnen een systeem aan sleutelt, wat voor gevolgen heeft dat dan voor het geheel?

ARCADIS & TU Delft

10


1.4

VERSLAG INTERVIEW MET DHR. R. VAN DER VEEREN, RIZA, LELYSTAD, 3-11-2006

Algemeen De heer van der Veeren is milieueconoom en gepromoveerd aan de VU op economische analyses van het terugbrengen van nutriëntenemissies in de Rijn (ex post analyse van het Rijnactie programma van de Internationale Rijn commissie). Binnen de KRW houdt hij zich bezig met de maatschappelijke kosten baten analyse (MKBA) van de mogelijke maatregelen in de verschillende regio’s. In het WATECO document wordt beschreven hoe de economische analyse binnen de KRW ingevuld zou kunnen worden (het is geen bindend document, slechts bedoeld als hulpmiddel). Bij de maatregelpakketten gaat het erom om aan te tonen dat de voorgestelde maatregelen kosten effectief zijn en om een onderbouwing te kunnen geven van mogelijke disproportionaliteit van de kosten ter onderbouwing van eventuele fasering/verlaging van doelstellingen. De tweede kamer heeft bij de implementatie van de KRW in de Nederlandse wetgeving een opdracht gegeven tot het maken van een MKBA. De uitvoering van deze MKBA is erg lastig, omdat zowel de doelstellingen, als de mogelijke maatregelen en kosten en effecten van die maatregelen nog niet bekend zijn. Dit wordt gaandeweg het proces duidelijker. De aanpak en resultaten van de MKBA zijn besproken met een maatschappelijke klankbordgroep. Omdat de KRW een langlopend proces is zijn er decembernota’s ingevoerd om een soort druk te creëren en het proces als een ‘trechter’ te laten verlopen. Rol RIZA binnen de KRW Onderzoeksondersteuning, kennis verwerven Indeling in systemen Prima, geen commentaar Omgaan met onzekerheid Gedurende het project zullen bepaalde onzekerheden weggenomen worden door afspraken te maken bijvoorbeeld over het structureren van gegevens en het krijgen van eenduidigheid in rapportages. Deze zijn dus tijdsafhankelijk. Andere onzekerheden zullen altijd blijven. Informatie over de richting van een bepaalde oplossing of een orde van grootte geeft genoeg informatie om een beslissing te kunnen nemen op hoofdlijnen. Bestuurders zijn gewend om om te gaan met onzekerheid, dus nauwkeurigheid is niet altijd nodig. Overigens geldt dat de informatie die is aangeleverd door de regio’s verschilt in de mate van detail. Bij het RIZA is veel kennis te vinden, maar niet altijd specifiek genoeg om tot nut te zijn voor

de

MKBA.

Zo

ontbreekt

in

de

beschikbare

informatie

over

herstel

en

inrichtingsmaatregelen vaak informatie over de situatie voorafgaand aan de ingreep, waardoor de effecten van de maatregelen moeilijk te berekenen/beredeneren zijn.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

11


De vraag is of onzekerheid zelf een probleem is, het probleem zit eerder in hoe er met onzekerheid wordt omgegaan. Onzekerheden in de economische aspecten van de KRW (beleidssysteem) (zie ook onderzoek van Roy Brouwer, VU) De regio’s hebben informatie aangeleverd over kosten, maatregelen etc., echter deze informatie was lastig samen te voegen omdat het in verschillende vormen was aangeleverd. De verschillen lagen vooral op gebied van: Wisselende focus: deelstroomgebied, waterlichaam etc. Investeringen (RWS) of jaarlijkse kosten (waterschappen) Doelbereik wordt verschillend geformuleerd (percentage etc.) Invulling van varianten anders gedaan (variant maximaal is dat het theoretisch meest haalbare of het maximum haalbare in de regio, gegeven allerlei andere eisen en randvoorwaarden) In de beschrijving werden extra kosten en totale kosten door elkaar gehaald Kosten verschillen tussen maatregelen zijn er groot De regio realiseert zich nu de grote verschillen en vraagt Den Haag om een handvat -

voor het opstellen van de MKBA. De MKBA is puur gericht op de KRW. Overlap met maatregelen Natura 2000, WB21 etc. levert problemen op (welk deel van de kosten en effecten van maatregelen moet worden toegerekend aan KRW?). De reden dat het KRW deel gesplitst is, is dat dit de mogelijkheid biedt om de kosten van de maximale variant te kunnen gebruiken ter onderbouwing van disproportionaliteit van kosten. Er zijn plannen om in 2008 een MKBA te maken voor de totale wateropgave uit het bestuursakkoord water, maar dilemma hierbij is dan weer hoe je het KRW deel naar Brussel toe gaat uitleggen.

-

Het definiëren van baten van de KRW wordt door verschillende partijen anders aangepakt. Het RIZA focus vooral op de extra opbrengsten die ontstaan door de KRW terwijl natuur organisaties met hun folder ‘Baten van water’ alle baten meenemen en niet alleen de extra baten door de KRW. Dit kan je opvatten als strategisch gedrag.

-

Probleem bij het vaststellen van de baten is dat er vaak een knik in de batengrafiek zit. Dat wil zeggen dat maatregelen lange tijd weinig tot geen effect hebben tot een bepaalde grenswaarde is overschreden.

-

Een aantal zaken zijn nog niet meegenomen in de MKBA; Invloed van internationale ontwikkelingen (bovenstrooms). Er wordt nu wel een enquête uitgevoerd in verschillende landen over hoever ze zijn, maar het vrijgeven van gegevens hiervoor ligt gevoelig. Onzekere boetes van de EU

-

Doordat regio’s horen van elkaars maatregelen en oplossingen treedt er soms ook verbreding op van het maatregelenpakket in plaats van versmalling, zoals verbeeld wordt met het ‘trechter’ plaatje van RWS.

Overig n.v.t.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

12


1.5

VERSLAG INTERVIEW MET DHR. J. SCHOOT UITERKAMP, RIZA, 7-11-2006

Algemeen De heer Schoot Uiterkamp is sinds maart 2006 projectleider van de werkgroep verkennen van maatregelen, vanuit DGW. De vertegenwoordiger van de regio Schelde in deze werkgroep is de heer Paulus. Doel van deze werkgroep is het verschaffen van een kader/handleiding om (mogelijke) maatregelen te structureren. Daarnaast is ook algemene kennisoverdracht vanuit het Rijk naar de regio’s en tussen de regio’s onderling een van de doelstellingen. Het KRW proces was ‘top down’ begonnen vanuit DG water, toen bleek dat dit niet werkte is men meer ‘bottom up’ gaan werken en nu is er weer vraag om meer structuur van bovenaf. Het is dus zoeken naar een balans hier tussen. Rol RIZA binnen de KRW Ondersteuning DGW, ondersteuning RWS en kennis en advies verwerven en geven. Standpunten binnen de KRW In het algemeen is het beeld van de KRW veranderd van een angstbeeld naar een kans. De KRW kost nog steeds veel geld, maar lijkt nu beter haalbaar doordat: 1. Er nu meer duidelijkheid is over de speelruimte binnen de ecologische doelen en die is groter dan verwacht. 2. De normering van prioritaire stoffen alleen nog opgeloste stoffen omvat en niet aan slib gebonden deeltjes, waardoor ook deze normen haalbaar lijken (Dit is nog niet officieel vastgesteld). 3. Fasering van doelbereiking en maatregelen betere mogelijkheden voor een goede implementatie biedt. Ook is er dan meer ruimte om rekening te houden met synergie tussen WB21, VHR en KRW. Natuurlijk kan het beeld lokaal sterk verschillen. Zo zal de landbouw kritischer zijn wat betreft de KRW dan natuurorganisaties. De twee grote issues op de agenda van (waterschaps)bestuurders zijn de veiligheid en de KRW. Hierdoor zullen andere onderwerpen minder aandacht krijgen. Vraag is of dat erg is. Indeling in systemen Indeling is herkenbaar, maar er zijn wel een paar aanbevelingen: - Het fysische water systeem houden zoals het is en niet natuurlijk systeem gaan noemen. Dit maakt je schema te breed. - Zet Zeeland apart in het maatschappelijk systeem. Benoem de actoren in dit gebied scherper (voeg bijv. de andere deelstroomgebieden toe) dan voorkom je verwarring. - Misschien moet het hele schema opgedeeld worden in twee ringen; een Zeeuws systeem en een omgevingssysteem. - Process uncertainty in twee systemen met verschillende betekenissen is verwarrend. Geef het dus of een andere naam of splits de onzekerheid in het maatschappelijk systeem ook verder op, zoals in het beleidssysteem is gedaan. Het belangrijkste bij het omgaan met onzekerheden is het schaalniveau waarop je kijkt en de tijdsschaal waarnaar je kijkt. Het kijken vanuit een ander oogpunt (schaalniveau) levert vaak nieuwe inzichten en oplossingsrichtingen op. Op verschillende niveaus kunnen onzekerheden uitgeruild worden tegen nieuwe ideeën.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

13


Voor tijdsschalen geldt dat onzekerheden kunnen veranderen in de tijd. Het is van belang dit in beeld te brengen. Omgaan met onzekerheid Het is belangrijk om onzekerheid in perspectief te plaatsen, dat wil zeggen om aan te geven dat de onzekerheden relatief zijn ten opzichte van de zekerheden en waarschijnlijkheden in een project. Als je uitgaat van zekerheden en waarschijnlijkheden kijk je anders tegen een probleem aan dan wanneer je uitgaat van onzekerheden. Verwachtingsmanagement werkt beter dan onzekerheidsmanagement door de positieve insteek die erachter zit. Dit wil niet zegen dat onzekerheden niet bespreekbaar moeten worden gemaakt, maar het moet in de relatie worden gebracht met de zekerheden c.q. verwachtingen. Bijvoorbeeld: In de KRW zou een insteek vanuit zekerheid er als volgt uitzien: In 2009 komt het Stroomgebiedsbeheerplan er zeker. Onzeker is op welke dag precies. Stel het komt 1 maandje later dan zal niemand dat echt erg vinden. Het is dus belangrijk om in de interviews door te vragen op het waarom iets als een onzekerheid wordt gezien. Dit om te bepalen waar de onzekerheid concreet zit. Zodoende komen de belangen achter de belangen beter op tafel. Bestuurders ‘lossen onzekerheid op’ door een besluit te nemen. Bijvoorbeeld door ervoor te kiezen om bepaalde onzekerheden naar achteren te schuiven, die nu nog geen prioriteit hebben of om nader onderzoek te vragen (= tijd winnen, maar lost onzekerheid lang niet altijd op. Dit wordt in de praktijk vaak bewust gedaan, maar niet zo gestructureerd als hier nu verondersteld wordt. Voor het projectbureau Zeeland is de vraag aan welke kraan zij moeten draaien om onzekerheden te verminderen (instrumentele invalshoek). Daarom moet duidelijk worden op welke onzekerheden Zeeland invloed heeft. De overige onzekerheden zijn dan dus minder van belang omdat er (binnen de tijdsduur en schaal van het project) deze door het projectbureau niet beïnvloed kunnen worden. In principe hoeft Zeeland zich daar dus ook niet mee bezig te houden (aandacht geven aan zaken waarop je geen invloed kunt uitoefenen gebeurt overigens wel vaak in Nederland).Je moet deze onzekerheden wel lokaliseren omdat ze een risico kunnen vormen, maar je hoeft ze niet te managen. De onzekerheden waarop je invloed hebt, bepalen dus de bestuurlijke speelruimte van Zeeland.

Sturing van bovenaf kan ook helpen in het omgaan met onzekerheden. In het KRW project is deze sturing ook mogelijk, omdat partijen toch niet uit het proces kunnen stappen. Dit geeft een bepaalde zekerheid binnen het besluitvormingsnetwerk van de KRW. Toch kan de KRW niet als een eenvoudig project worden gemanaged het blijft het procesmanagement. Dit onder meer omdat er nog veel vrijheidsgraden zijn in het EU raamwerk (bijvoorbeeld door disproportionaliteit aan te tonen van kosten of door fasering toe te passen). Sturen op het proces gaat tot nu toe vrij goed. Het projectbureau zou moeten omgaan met onzekerheid door: 1. Gezamenlijke onzekerheden vast te stellen 2. Onzekerheden te prioriteren (en dit te bespreken) 3. De belangrijkste onzekerheden bespreekbaar te maken, om de verschillende gezichtspunten en benaderingen in beeld te krijgen. 4. De belangrijkste onzekerheden te managen

ARCADIS & TU Delft

14


Overige tips Bij de onzekerheden in kosten en baten speelt ook de onzekerheid een rol over de verdeling van de lasten over actoren. Deze onzekerheid moet ook meegenomen worden. Door de procesmatige aanpak, trekken partijen in Nederland naar elkaar toe. Van deze kracht kan bestuurlijk gebruik worden gemaakt door allerlei partijen in het gebied. Bijvoorbeeld door regio’s met elkaar te vergelijken, door ze van elkaar te laten leren etc. Dit gebeurt nog meer. Let op dat je niet op een te hoog abstractieniveau werkt, want daar heeft Zeeland niet zo veel aan. Je schema daarentegen moet wel op elk niveau toepasbaar zijn en is dat ook. Maar, naast de focus op bijvoorbeeld Oosterschelde (als voorbeeldgebied) is het handig om ook af en toe afstand te nemen en naar heel Zeeland te kijken. Bij een thema als veiligheid zijn de zekerheden de insteek en zoekt een bestuurder naar garanties. Echter, de KRW is maatschappelijk minder belangrijk dan veiligheid en daar zal een bestuurder dus meer neigen naar een focus op onzekerheid. Het punt waarop een bestuurder ‘omgaat’, hangt af van zijn achterban. Kortom om bestuurders te overtuigen is het belangrijk om onzekerheden om te buigen naar verwachtingen. Bijvoorbeeld door naast kosten vooral ook de baten goed te etaleren etc. Probeer de klankbordgroep in Zeeland te gebruiken om het laatste stukje van het onderzoek mee in te vullen.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

15


1.6

VERSLAG INTERVIEW MET MEVR. C. MICHIELSEN (ZLTO) EN MEVR. C. HELMENDACH (ZAJK), 9-11-2006

Algemeen Mevrouw Michielsen is beleidsmedewerker bij de

ZLTO (Zuidelijke Land- en

Tuinbouworganisatie) op het gebied van water, in Zeeland en West Brabant. Ze is vooral bezig met beïnvloeding en lobby en vertaling van het overheidsbeleid naar de praktijk en andersom. Ook in de landelijke LTO is ze actief op dit gebied. De ZLTO vertegenwoordigt de ondernemers in de land en tuinbouw sector. De leden van de ZLTO zijn vrijwillig lid en de dekkingsgraad in Zeeland is ongeveer 85 %. Mevrouw Helmendach is secretaris van de ZAJK (Zeeuws Agrarisch Jongeren Kontakt). Deze organisatie vertegenwoordigt de jonge ondernemers in de land en tuinbouw sector. Het

gaat

hierbij

dan

vooral

om

ondersteuning

bij

bedrijfsovernames

en

bedrijfsontwikkeling. Het thema KRW speelt momenteel nog niet erg bij de leden van beide organisaties, maar wel al op bestuurlijk niveau. Beide organisaties zitten ook in het MMM (Platform Mineralen en Middelen Meester). Deze stichting is opgericht in 1999 en heeft tot doel om de waterkwaliteit van het oppervlakte water te verbeteren (aanpak diffuse bronnen). Het platform is gericht op de landbouwsector en

brengt

elk

jaar

de

stoplicht

kaart

uit.

Deze

kaart

geeft

aan

welke

gewasbeschermingsmiddelen het milieu schaden en welke niet. Het gebruik van deze kaart is op vrijwillige basis. Hieronder zal geen onderscheid meer worden gemaakt tussen de twee organisaties, aangezien de standpunten vrijwel op een lijn liggen. Standpunten binnen de KRW De ZLTO en de ZAJK zien de KRW eerder als een bedreiging dan als een kans, hoewel ze dit graag anders zouden zien. Het grootste probleem dat de landbouworganisaties zien betreffende de KRW is dat de landbouw wordt aangeduid als de grootste veroorzaker van de problemen omtrent waterkwaliteit en ecologie. Hierbij wordt echter door overheden en betrokken instanties geen onderscheid gemaakt in de huidige belasting door de landbouw en de historische belasting door de landbouw, waardoor een vertekend beeld ontstaat. Door de huidige wetgeving op het gebied van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen, mest, lozingen etc. doen de huidige agrarische ondernemers al zeer veel aan de verbetering van de milieubelasting. Huidige ondernemers voelen zich dus niet aangesproken door de KRW problematiek, aangezien deze grotendeels is ontstaan door activiteiten in het verleden. In de landbouw wordt bijvoorbeeld nog maar 1 stof gebruikt van de lijst met prioritaire stoffen (deze stof is al opgenomen in het landelijke project Schone Bronnen. Alle andere stoffen zijn reeds verboden). Echter, de bestuurders en beleidsmakers binnen de KRW realiseren zich dit veelal niet, waardoor de land en tuinbouw sector zich niet serieus genomen voelt.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

16


Om het historisch probleem inzichtelijk te maken,

zouden de afbreekbaarheid, de

afbreektijd van stoffen en mogelijke maatregelen tegen historische vervuiling duidelijk naar voren moeten worden gebracht. Indien de overheid het onderscheid tussen huidige en historische belasting duidelijker onderkent, ontstaat er een gespreksbasis en niet zoals nu een “zwarte pieten” spel. Binnen een dergelijke gespreksbasis zal de ZLTO deelnemen en ook waar mogelijk verantwoordelijkheid nemen. Een goed punt van de KRW is het doel om de internationale samenwerking en afstemming binnen een stroomgebied te verbeteren. Ook het aanpassen van de MTR norm voor fosfaat (norm is gebaseerd op stilstaand zoet water) vinden beide vertegenwoordigers een goede zaak, aangezien fosfaatgehalte in brak en zout water van nature hoger ligt en stikstof de kritische factor is. Het is belangrijk dat ondernemers in de Agrarische sector de meerwaarde en de kansen van de KRW zien, naast alle huidige wetgeving die er is. Daarom moet eerst het aandeel van de landbouw in de vervuiling duidelijk worden gemaakt (met daarin onderscheid tussen huidige en historische belasting) en vervolgens kun je de bijpassende maatregelen in beeld brengen. Dan kun je ook een zinnige discussie voeren over effecten van de maatregelen en inpasbaarheid en uitvoerbaarheid. Een dergelijke aanpak is niet alleen voor de landbouw noodzakelijk maar ook bij andere diffuse verontreinigingen zoals onkruidbestrijding op verharde oppervlakten. De kanttekening die de vertegenwoordigers van de landbouw plaatsen bij Natura 2000 is dat men neigt de invulling van deze wet te veel te baseren op een beeld van hoe het vroeger was. Echter, dit beeld zal nooit meer terug komen in Zeeland, door de vele aanpassingen die er zijn gedaan aan het watersysteem. De instandhoudingsdoelen zullen dus vastgesteld moeten

worden

binnen

de

huidige

situatie

in

combinatie

met

de

verwachte

zeespiegelstijging, mogelijke verzilting en noodzakelijke maatregelen voor de veiligheid. Ook moet er meer rekening worden gehouden met mogelijkheden om plagen aan te pakken in Natura 2000 gebieden, zoals bijvoorbeeld de exponentiele groei van het aantal grauwe ganzen. Rol binnen de klankbordgroep De landbouw organisaties staan wat betreft hun kritieke standpunt vrij alleen in de klankbordgroep van de KRW, Zeeland. Alleen de visserij sector deelt de kritische houding. De landbouw staat dan ook erg in de ‘spotlight’. Problemen in de waterkwaliteit die worden veroorzaakt door de recreatie worden bijvoorbeeld veel minder als een probleem gezien en de recreatie wordt dus ook minder daarop aangesproken. Beide geïnterviewden zouden liever zien dat ze in plaats van in de verdediging te moeten gaan, een discussie kunnen voeren over innovaties en mogelijke nieuwe oplossingen, zoals het gebruik van biobrandstoffen, gewasbestrijding met behulp van insecten (functionele agrobiodiversiteit) en stikstof verwijderen met behulp van bacteriën. Hier is echter weinig ruimte voor binnen de KRW structuur, mede door de harde deadlines. Het komt ook doordat deze nieuwe technologieën nog te experimenteel van aard zijn. Partijen in het KRW circuit gaan soms zover dat het verbeteren van de ecologie en waterkwaliteit niet meer hun hoofddoel is, maar dat puur het creëren van nieuwe natuurgebieden (in plaats van landbouwgrond) het doel wordt. Deze partijen zien dus geen

ARCADIS & TU Delft

17


functie meer voor de landbouw, terwijl die er wel degelijk is. Vooral de aardappelteelt, de glastuinbouw en de bloemensector zijn van grote economische waarde voor Nederland. Binnen de klankbordgroep bestaat een duidelijk verschil in ambitieniveaus. De landbouwsector pleit voor de basis ambitie, terwijl RWS Zeeland en de natuurorganisaties voor een hogere ambitie gaan. De basis ambitie staat voor de uitvoering van het bestaande beleid met eventueel wat extra maatregelen. De hoge ambitie gaat veel verder en wil bijvoorbeeld de zandhonger in de Oosterschelde terug dringen. De landbouw sector zet dus vraagtekens bij dit hoge ambitieniveau, omdat veel van de doelen niet haalbaar zijn en Zeeland het waarschijnlijk niet kan betalen. Indeling in systemen De gemaakte indeling is herkenbaar, maar er is wel een aanmerking: Het maatschappelijk systeem kan voor de duidelijkheid beter worden opgesplitst in overheid en maatschappelijke organisaties of in een landelijk en een regionaal systeem. Grootste onzekerheden De effecten van het huidig beleid zijn onzeker (bijvoorbeeld van de ecologische hoofdstructuur, Volkerak Zoommeer etc.) Het aandeel van de (huidige en historische) landbouw in de belasting van het watersysteem is nog onzeker. De instandhoudingsdoelen van Natura 2000 houden te weinig rekening met het huidige watersysteem en de verwachte toekomstproblemen. Het is onzeker wat een keuze voor een bepaald ecologisch niveau nu eigenlijk precies betekent. Welke randvoorwaarden moet je dan aan voldoen en hoe bereik je die? Dit beïnvloedt ook de geloofwaardigheid van de overheid op KRW gebied. De onderbouwing van nieuw voorgesteld beleid (in verband met fasering en uitstel) is nog onvoldoende waardoor de reactie van Brussel zeer onzeker is. Uitleg aan de achterban is lastig door bovenstaande onzekerheden en door de complexiteit van de KRW. Het is onzeker wat belangrijke beslissingen zijn en wanneer die genomen zullen worden, zodat het tijdstip van ‘ingrijpen’ voor maatschappelijke organisaties ook lastig te bepalen is. Omgaan met onzekerheid Een groot probleem van de KRW is dat de materie door de vele onzekerheden en complexiteit erg ingewikkeld en moeilijk te begrijpen is voor heel veel partijen. Door de abstractheid van de materie is het lastig om te weten wanneer het belangrijk is om je mening te laten horen of in te grijpen. Ook bestuurders vinden dit lastig. Ook de klankbordgroep wordt veel dingen gevraagd waarvan zij eigenlijk te weinig afweten (bijvoorbeeld indeling in grondwaterlichamen). Door het afwijkende standpunt van de landbouw worden onzekerheden hopelijk sneller inzichtelijk gemaakt en scherper naar voren gebracht in het proces. ZLTO en ZAJK zouden graag meewerken aan praktisch onderzoek (op basis van gegevens) om onzekerheid weg te nemen: proeven om maatregelen te testen, om gegevens te verzamelen in plaats van een bureaustudie. Dat geld ook voor kostenramingen en effectenramingen die kunnen ons inziens beter plaatsvinden aan de hand van praktijkgegevens.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

18


Daarom hebben ze ook het initiatief genomen om een proef Actief Randenbeheer in gang te zetten om te kijken of dit werkt en op basis daarvan een afweging te kunnen maken voor het stroomgebiedsplan 2009. De ZLTO en ZAJK zijn altijd bereid om mee te werken aan innovatieve plannen en ideeën om problemen op te lossen of onzekerheden weg te nemen. Vooral als innovatie een dubbelrendement voorziet zoals milieutechnisch als bedrijfseconomisch.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

19


1.7

VERSLAG INTERVIEW MET DHR. R. RUKS, LNV ZUID, 1-12-2006

Algemeen Het ministerie van LNV heeft zowel een uitvoerende als een beleidsmatige kant. Het is opgedeeld

in

zowel

sectorale

directies

als

regionale

directies.

Dhr.

Ruks

is

beleidsmedewerker bij de Directie Regionale Zaken vestiging zuid. Dit omvat, Brabant, Zeeland en Limburg. Zijn taken liggen in de vertaling van het landelijk beleid naar de regio (maatwerk) en het oppikken van signalen uit de regio om die aan het Rijk door te geven. Hij houdt zich bezig met de natuurontwikkeling in Zeeland en het “programma Deltawateren” Dhr. Ruks zit namens LNV in het Overlegorgaan Nationaal Park Oosterschelde, maar niet in de klankbordgroep Oosterschelde. Natura 2000 omvat alle gebieden die zijn aangewezen (of aangemeld) in het kader van de Vogelrichtlijn respectievelijk de Habitatrichtlijn. De specifieke soorten bescherming uit deze twee richtlijnen is vertaald in de Nederlandse wetgeving via de Flora en Fauna wet. EHS staat voor Ecologische Hoofdstructuur. Standpunten binnen de KRW Het KRW traject en het Natura 2000 traject zijn twee verschillende sporen, die goed op elkaar aan kunnen sluiten. Net als bij de KRW ligt ook binnen Natura 2000 de ambitie hoog, maar is het uitgangspunt dat de uitvoering wel haalbaar en betaalbaar zijn. Natura 2000 had als insteek dat vanuit Europees niveau steeds verder is ingezoomd op de verschillende gebieden. Voor Nederland is bekeken welke specifieke en unieke natuurwaarden Nederland heeft ten opzichte van andere landen en die zijn vervolgens aangewezen als potentieel Natura 2000 gebied. Deze benadering is dus top down. De KRW benadering is veel meer bottom-up. Deze twee benaderingen komen nu bij elkaar in het maken van de beheerplannen. Belangrijk hierbij is om de kaders en verwachtingen vanuit EU en NL helder neer te zetten, zodat deze regionaal verder ingevuld kunnen worden (wat staat wel/niet open voor discussie) Ervaringen van de workshop pilot KRW Oosterschelde Tijdens de workshop KRW-Pilot Oosterschelde (7 september)

werden veel beelden

opgeroepen die niet altijd voortkomen uit kennis of informatie, maar ook uit gevoel. Een aantal dingen die aan de orde worden gesteld, zijn eigenlijk al besloten en zijn dus achterhaald. Natuurlijk is het goed om bij bepaalde zaken opnieuw stil te staan, maar dit vertraagt wel de voortgang. Bijvoorbeeld de vraag of er überhaupt iets moet gebeuren aan waterkwaliteit is niet meer relevant doordat de KRW al is ingevoerd.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

20


Het gebruik van het woord tuinieren, impliceert knutselen en kleinschalig fröbelen in plaats van duurzaamheid en natuurlijkheid. En dat is wel het doel van de invoering van zowel KRW als Natura 2000. De kennisachterstand van bepaalde actoren kan een belangrijke rol spelen in het KRW proces. Ook zullen mensen pas echt gemotiveerd zijn om hun mening te geven als ze weten wat de gevolgen van maatregelen zijn en hoe dat hen benadeeld/bevoordeeld. Het risico zit er dan dus in dat je mensen opnieuw moet meenemen in het gehele proces van het afwegen van kosten en baten. De insteek van Natura 2000 is om geen extra geld uit te geven naast de al bestaande natuurbeheerpotjes. EHS en Natura 2000 zullen worden gecombineerd en met de huidige financiering moeten worden bereikt. Eventueel kan dit aangevuld worden met Europese fondsen, zolas Life. In diverse andere Europese landen bestaan überhaupt geen of zeer beperkte natuurbeheerpotjes. RWS zit met een dubbele rol in het project, namelijk zowel als uitvoerder als beleidsadviseur Dit maakt het lastig. RWS ziet zich vaak teveel als probleemhouder in plaats van beheerder. Indeling in systemen In het systeem zit een sterke scheiding tussen het beleidssysteem en het maatschappelijk systeem. Deze scheiding is in werkelijkheid veel minder strikt. Beleid wordt immers steeds integraler gemaakt en er is veel overlap. De pijl tussen de twee systemen zal dus veel dikker moeten zijn. Ook ontbreekt er een cluster techniek; de maatregelen en mogelijkheden worden in belangrijke mate bepaald door wat wel en niet kan technisch gezien. Dit is niet expliciet meegenomen in het systeem. Waar zitten de burgers? De maatschappij als geheel stelt ook eisen aan het watersysteem. Deze eisen worden door de beleidsmakers vertegenwoordigd in het beleidssysteem. Tijd is een belangrijk aspect in onzekerheid. Zekerheid is ook een goede insteek. Duurzaamheid op lange termijn is meer gebaat bij denken in zekerheden. Onzekerheden / Risico’s -

-

Onzichtbaarheid van waterkwaliteitsproblemen voor het grote publiek; bijv. voor wie is zandhonger nou eigenlijk een probleem? Het probleem wordt nog niet breed maatschappelijk gedragen. EHS kan bijdragen aan waterbergingssystemen en andersom; echter dit mag niet ten koste gaan van het primaire doel dat de maatregelen dienen. RWS heeft een dubbelrol Financiering met behulp van huidige middelen; is dat voldoende? weerstand hangt af van de consequenties van maatregelen. weerstand komt dus pas laat op gang, waardoor je in een laat stadium veel actoren opnieuw in het afwegingsproces van maatregelen mee zult moeten nemen.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

21


-

-

Er is een grote kennisachterstand over de KRW en Natura 2000 in de maatschappij. Daardoor weten partrijen niet waar ze nu staan en roepen ze beelden op die niet gebaseerd zijn op feiten. De kaders gesteld door overheden zijn bij anderen nog altijd niet duidelijk/bekend.

Omgaan met onzekerheden Het is belangrijk om kaders te stellen voor de regionale invulling. Dit voorkomt onnodige discussies en geeft duidelijkheid. Bepaalde onderdelen die zeker zijn moeten nu al verder uitgewerkt worden zodat partijen meer gevoel krijgen bij de gevolgen van de KRW en Natura 2000. Het is belangrijk om niet de schuld bij Europa te leggen, omdat Nederland ook zelf wil voldoen aan de doelen van Natura 2000 en KRW. Er moet een middenweg gezocht worden tussen een bottom-up en een top-down aanpak.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

22


1.8

VERSLAG INTERVIEW MET E. NEYT, WATERDISTRICT ZEEUWSE DELTA, 7-12-2006

Algemeen Het district is de operationele dienst van Rijkswaterstaat. Er zijn twee waterdistricten in Zeeland: Zeeuwse Delta en Westerschelde. De algemene doelstellingen van het district Rijkswaterstaat zijn: Vlotte en veilige doorstroming van A naar B, zowel op de weg als op het water “Droge voeten” Æ waterkeren Waterkwaliteit en waterkwantiteit Het district levert hier op operationeel vlak een bijdrage aan. Mevrouw Neyt zit bij de afdeling juridische beheer en ondersteuning. Als bestuurlijk medewerker is zij een intermediair tussen praktijk en beleid. Zij is inhoudelijk nog niet goed bekend met de KRW. Standpunt betreffende de KRW Dit is nog niet gevormd, aangezien het district nog nauwelijks betrokken is bij de KRW. Er komen wel al vragen binnen vanuit de praktijk. Hetzelfde geldt voor het Volkerak Zoommeer: de gevolgen van dit project zijn nog onduidelijk. Het gaat pas leven op het moment van de in vergunning aanvraag of in uitvoering komende projecten, omdat het district er dan daadwerkelijk mee geconfronteerd wordt. Voor de WVO en Natura 2000 zijn er heldere afspraken over wat wel en niet mag. De tegenstand tegen de KRW zal meevallen omdat veel dingen kunnen binnen de bestaande ruimte. Indeling in systemen Het district zit tussen het beleidssysteem en het maatschappelijk systeem in. Grootste onzekerheden Informatietekort van het district. Het district wordt te laat betrokken bij beleidsvorming (bv. bij het concretiseren van maatregelen) rondom de KRW, waardoor zowel kennisinbreng vanuit het district ontbreekt en draagvlak voor het handelen naar de nieuwe wetgeving bij het district klein is/kan zijn. Het budget niet geborgd. Publieksonvriendelijkheid, doordat sommige vragen/aanvragen wel twee jaar op zich laten wachten door onzekerheid in beleid. KRW blijft te abstract als het district niet wordt betrokken bij het formuleren van werkbare maatregelen, waardoor de kans van slagen klein afneemt, omdat het wellicht praktisch niet uitvoerbaar is. Het is belangrijk mensen in de uitvoering in een vroeg stadium te betrekken om de vertaling van ‘hoog’ niveau naar ‘laag’ niveau duidelijk te krijgen. Op het hoofdkantoor van RWS Zeeland is weinig inzicht in het reilen en zeilen van het district (vaak een focus op een onderdeel), terwijl het district veel inzicht heeft in alle belangen in het gebied en alle aankomende/lopende projecten. Haalbaarheid van maatregelen; zowel technisch als maatschappelijk is onzeker. Een goede illustratie bij de onzekerheden die hierboven worden genoemd is de proefsuppletie op de Galgenplaat. RWS Zeeland realiseert zich onvoldoende wat de praktische consequenties zijn van de proefsuppletie. Natuurlijk is een dergelijk proefproject nuttig en goed om als pilot uit te voeren en er moest voor verbetering van de doorvaart toch

ARCADIS & TU Delft

23


gebaggerd worden in de geul. Maar, door de suppletie is een bepaalde periode van uitvoering noodzakelijk (zomer) en wordt de werkduur van baggerwerkzaamheden verlengd van 6 weken naar circa 5 maanden. Dit heeft grote effecten op het gebied, zowel voor de scheepvaart, recreatievaart, beroepsvisserij en overige belanghebbenden en door het seizoen waarin de werkzaamheden moeten worden uitgevoerd. Bovendien zal de betreffende werkwijze langer en intensievere verkeersbegeleiding vragen. Hetgeen een extra druk legt op de beperkte capaciteit aan menskracht binnen het district. Tevens vraagt bovengenoemde

werkwijze

extra

capaciteit

om

met

de

belanghebbenden

te

onderhandelen/overleggen. Schuttevaer, de belangenvereniging van de beroepsvaart, wil nu onderhandelen over een oplossing. Bovendien moeten de werkzaamheden nu in de zomer uitgevoerd worden als er ook veel recreatie is op de Oosterschelde. Deze gevolgen had RWS Zeeland niet voorzien. Er

is

nu

nog

voldoende

draagvlak

in

het

gebied

voor

het

uitvoeren

van

(natuur)maatregelen, maar hoe lang nog? Internationaal heeft het district geen contact. Er zijn wel contacten met het Nationaal Park.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

24


1.9

VERSLAG INTERVIEW MET DHR. J. BRUURS, KAMER VAN KOOPHANDEL ZEELAND, 2012-2006

Algemeen De heer Bruurs is manager economische stimulering bij de Kamer van Koophandel Zeeland en lid van het MT. De KvK heeft drie hoofdtaken: − Uitvoeren van de handelsregisterwet − Geven van voorlichting en advies (starters, export, groei en wet & regelgeving) − Wettelijke taak om op te komen voor economische belangen De Kamer van Koophandel draagt zorg voor een bedrijfs- en ondernemingsvriendelijk vestigingsklimaat.

Hierdoor

is

de

Kamer

betrokken

bij

het

vaststellen

van

bestemmingsplannen, provinciale omgevingsplannen en ook bij de KRW en Natura 2000 implementatie in de regio. Op landelijke en Europese schaal is de KvK niet actief, dat doen andere organisaties zoals VNONCW, MKB Nederland etc. In tegenstelling tot bijvoorbeeld Recron, Hiswa en andere brancheverenigingen is de Kamer van Koophandel een publiekrechtelijke organisatie. De KvK heeft dus ook geen leden en staat voor de overkoepelende belangen van het bedrijfsleven en niet voor individuele belangen. De heer Bruurs is lid van de klankbordgroep KRW. De KvK vertegenwoordigt vooral de industrie (met concentraties in de kanaalzone GentTerneuzen

en

rondom

Vlissingen-Oost),

de

detailhandel,

recreatie

en

toerisme.

Landbouwbedrijven worden vertegenwoordigd door de ZLTO en ZAJK. De recreatiesector (campings e.d.) worden ook vertegenwoordigd door de RECRON en de (plezier) jachthavens door de HISWA. De KvK werkt met beide organisaties nauw samen. Standpunt betreffende de KRW De KvK heeft het standpunt dat de implementatie van de nieuwe Europese wetten geen extra belemmeringen op mag leveren voor het bedrijfsleven in de regio. Mocht de invoering wel effecten hebben dan is het belangrijk dat de beperkingen vergelijkbaar zijn met andere regio’s om zo een level playing field te creëren en dus eerlijke concurrentie voor het bedrijfsleven te behouden. De ambitie betreffende de KRW moet betaalbaar zijn. Het standpunt van de KvK is dus tweeledig: in principe hebben de invoering van KRW en Natura 2000 veel voordelen, vooral voor het toerisme, de recreatie en de visserij. Echter, nadelen kunnen ontstaan voor de industrie en detailhandel, zoals extra kosten, verslechterde concurrentiepositie etc.). Veel van de belasting komt uit het buitenland en de vraag is in hoeverre de Nederlandse bijdrage zin heeft als het water bovenstrooms nog steeds sterk vervuild wordt. Voor veel ondernemers is de KRW nog erg ver weg, mede door de lange termijn insteek. De KvK heeft daarom de taak om nu al naar de belangen van het bedrijfsleven te kijken.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

25


De BZW (Brabantse Zeeuwse Werkgevers organisatie) en de BOD hebben dezelfde belangen als de KvK. Indeling in systemen Het is lastig om iets te zeggen over de indeling. In het maatschappelijke systeem zijn de belangen vaak tegengesteld. In het beleidssysteem zit de onzekerheid van elke vier jaar verkiezingen en dus een ander beleid. Ondernemers zijn juist gebaat bij voorspelbaarheid van beleid. Grootste onzekerheden − Wat is door de KRW vastgelegd en welke ruimte heb je nog als regio? De Rijkskaders zijn nog steeds onduidelijk. Bij Natura 2000 bleek al dat de Rijksoverheid een eigen positie in kan nemen binnen de Europese kaders, is dit bij de KRW ook zo? − De implementatie van de KRW en Natura 2000 zal redelijk gelijk zijn in de verschillende landen (door resultaatsverplichting en EU brede wet). Onzeker is echter hoe Nederland om zal gaan met de handhaving van de gemaakte afspraken. Verwachting is dat dit zal verschillen tussen landen en dat zorgt voor oneerlijke concurrentie tussen EU landen. Vooral de handhaving net over de grens in Vlaanderen (Gent, Antwerpen) is van belang voor Zeeland. Maar ook de striktheid van de handhaving in andere landen is belangrijk aangezien veel Zeeuwse bedrijven op de Europese markt opereren. − Het is lastig om als KvK iets te zeggen over doelstellingen. Pas bij het bedenken van concrete maatregelen is het duidelijk wat een doelstelling betekent, maar vaak is het dan te laat om een doelstelling nog aan te passen. Het is dus lastig te bepalen wanneer ingrijpen in het KRW/Natura 2000 proces nodig is. Ook is het onzeker welke maatregelen een bepaald doel met zich mee brengt. − In hoeverre zorgt de KRW voor extra verplichtingen voor industrie bovenop de bestaande verplichtingen voor de lozingsvergunningen? Kan de industrie hier nog wel aan voldoen of moeten activiteiten worden stil gelegd? Dit is een grote bedreiging. − Wat is het rendement van de maatregelen in Nederland? Hoe kosten effectief zijn deze maatregelen en is het niet ebteer om bovenstrooms te investeren. − Hoe wordt er gemeten inde verschillende landen? (Bijv. grondwatermeting in 1 grondlaag? Of gemiddelde van alle lagen? Dit geeft verschillende uitkomsten.) − Voorspelbaarheid van het nieuwe beleid is lastig − Legt Natura 2000 de ambitie van de KRW hoger? Omgaan met onzekerheid ‘Gelukkig zijn er onzekerheden, dat maakt het leuk en interessant.’ − − − − − −

Onderzoek doen levert nooit eenduidige antwoorden op. Het is van belang om vanaf het begin maatschappelijke partijen te betrekken bij het proces voor kennisinbreng en draagvlak. “ Het spel is belangrijker dan de knikkers”. Een ondernemer heeft ook dagelijks met onzekerheid te maken. Het gaat erom de onzekerheid te onderkennen en in te schatten. De bestuurder moet op een gegeven moment zijn verantwoordelijkheid nemen en een beslissing nemen. De KvK zou vooral informatie willen hebben over de kosten en de financiering van maatregelen, om hun standpunt beter te bepalen. Het gaat om de afweging tussen zekerheid en onzekerheid. Rekenen op innovatie om om te gaan met onzekerheden is een lastig punt. Enerzijds zou het kunnen dat het bedrijfsleven vanzelf met innovatieve oplossingen komt als de regelgeving strenger wordt, aan de andere kant is het een erg groot risico om hier vanuit te gaan.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

26


Overige opmerkingen − De insteek van het projectbureau nu is bepalen wat het gewenste resultaat is over een aantal jaren en dan terugrekenen naar welke maatregelen daarvoor nodig zijn. De KvK ziet dit liever andersom: kijken welke maatregelen nu economisch en maatschappelijk haalbaar zijn en dan kijken waar je op uitkomt. −

Het bedrijfsleven ziet mogelijkheden om de KRW implementatie (kosten)effectiever uit te voeren. In plaats van fors te moeten investeren voor een relatief klein rendement in eigen land, kan men bijvoorbeeld België en Frankrijk steunen met investeringen in projecten die het probleem bovenstrooms oplossen. De stroomgebiedbenadering zou dus kosten effectiever ingezet kunnen worden.

−

De KvK heeft nog geen contact met Vlaanderen, Brussels gewest en Wallonië.

−

De KvK ziet graag maatregelen die natuur en economische ontwikkeling combineren in plaats van een ‘ hek om een gebied zetten en alles verbieden’ zoals vroeger vaker gebeurde.

−

Het Delta gebied moet veel meer als een gebied worden gezien voor het bepalen van doelen en maatregelen. Dan is er veel meer speelruimte.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

27


1.10

VERSLAG INTERVIEW MET DHR. HANS VAN GEESBERGEN, PRODUCENTEN ORGANISATIE NEDERLANDSE MOSSELCULTUUR, 7-12-2006

Algemeen De heer Van Geesbergen is secretaris en penningmeester van de producentenorganisatie voor de Nederlandse mosselcultuur (PO mosselcultuur). Ook is hij lid van het dagelijkse bestuur van het Productschap Vis, een publiekrechtelijke organisatie voor alle visserij activiteiten en belangenorganisaties in de vissector (aanvoer, verwerking, handel en import). Vroeger werd de visserij in Zeeland vertegenwoordigd door één partij, Zevibel. Echter de belangen van de mosselcultuur, kokkelvisserij, oesterkweek, kottervisserij en vaste visserij op aal en kreeft liepen zo uiteen dat dit niet meer in 1 organisatie kon, waardoor Zevibel is opgeheven en de onderscheiden belangen tegenwoordig worden behartigd door afzonderlijke organisaties. In de Oosterschelde vindt naast mosselcultuur ook oesterkweek, kokkelvisserij en visserij met vaste vistuigen plaats. In de jaren ’80 voordat er natuurwetgeving was, werd er veel gevist en gekweekt, maar was er ook het meeste natuur (grote aantallen vogels). Nu is er een neerwaartse spiraal zichtbaar in de mosselproductie, is het water te schoon geworden en ontdaan van voedingsstoffen waardoor de draagkracht is afgenomen? Een aantal beleidsaanpassingen zijn te sterk en strikt uitgevoerd; zoals de zoet zout scheiding in het Krammer Volkerak/Oosterschelde. Standpunt betreffende de KRW De visserijsector heeft geleerd van Natura 2000 (Vogel-en habitat richtlijn). Toen deze richtlijn werd ingevoerd was de sector niet voorbereid en ‘overkwam’ het hen. Door verschillende zaken bij de raad van state, het kokkelarrest etc. is de sector veel deskundiger geworden. Deze zaken hebben een belangrijk gevolg gehad voor de visserij: eerst moest aangetoond worden dat de visserij de natuur belastte, nu is dit omgedraaid en moet zij laten zien dat de visserijactiviteit geen significant effect heeft op de natuur.

De precieze

formulering en omschrijving van het beleid zijn erg belangrijk voor de visserij. Elke tekst moet worden gewogen op zijn juridische betekenis. Het standpunt betreffende de KRW is dat deze wet geen extra beperkingen op mag leveren voor de productiefunctie van de visserij boven wat al is opgelegd door Natura 2000. Op Zeeuwse schaal ziet de heer Van Geesbergen weinig procesmatige bedreigingen en is het vertrouwen groot. In de Waddenzee ligt dit gevoeliger. De visserij is gebaat bij een gezond natuurlijk watersysteem, omdat de draagkracht van het systeem dan toeneemt, maar dat mag niet ten koste gaan van de productiefunctie uit dit watersysteem. Uit een natuurlijker systeem zou je ook meer kunnen produceren. De KRW was eerst nog erg abstract, maar krijgt nu langzaam meer inhoud. Medestanders binnen de klankbordgroep zijn de organisaties met een bedrijfsmatige insteek, zoals de landbouw, de KvK en het toerisme. Er is een groot verschil tussen de landbouw en de visserij: alleen het gebruik van het water, zoals de visserij doet, geeft de visserij een andere positie dan de landbouw, die naast gebruik ook zorgt voor de belasting van het water.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

28


Indeling in systemen De helikopter view is herkenbaar. Grootste onzekerheden De stapeling van richtlijnen (KRW bovenop Natura 2000) moet niet alsnog de visserij wegdrukken. De verhouding tussen de twee richtlijnen is nog onduidelijk. Het ambtelijk apparaat rondom KRW is erg breed en verspreid, waardoor het lastig te bepalen is waar en wanneer lobby nodig is. Een onzekerheid is dat er maatregelen worden opgeschreven in het beleid die een beperking betekenen voor de mosselsector. Bijvoorbeeld het laten liggen van onderwater mosselbanken zou beter zijn voor het natuurlijk systeem. Echter in de Oosterschelde worden de mosselen toch opgegeten door zeesterren en dus kunnen ze net zo goed gevist worden. Een ander voorbeeld is de proefzandsuppletie op de Galgenplaat die mogelijk wordt uitgevoerd in de directe nabijheid van een aantal mosselpercelen. Dit is zeer bedreigend.

Omgaan met onzekerheid Het natuurlijk systeem is en blijft onzeker. Er is veel ervaring opgedaan met omgaan met onzekerheid in Natura 2000, zowel op juridisch vlak als in het aantonen van significante effecten. Door maatregelen te toetsen in de praktijk worden de voor -en nadelen duidelijker en creëer je duidelijkheid en ook meer draagvlak. Het is onzin dat er maar wat wordt gedaan, maar communicatie van doelen en maatregelen is essentieel om dit duidelijk te maken naar buiten toe. Het voorzorgsbeginsel is duidelijk versterkt. Omgaan met onzekerheid kun je regelen: de oplossing is adaptief beleid. Dit is als het ware uitgevonden door de ‘mosselsector’, zie ook het rapport ‘uit de schulp’. Dilemma’s ontstaan doordat een maatregel onomkeerbaar is. Monitoring en adaptief beleid kan dan helpen. Ook de netwerk benadering is belangrijk in omgaan met onzekerheid. Er moet gezocht worden naar samenhang tussen onafhankelijke verschijnselen. Integraliteit is altijd ingewikkelder. Daarom focust een natuurorganisatie ook liever op een diersoort dan op meerdere tegelijk.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

29


1.11

INTERVIEW VERSLAG MET DHR. F. VAN PELT, SECRETARIS OVERLEGORGAAN NATIONAAL PARK OOSTERSCHELDE, 6-12-2006

Algemeen De heer Van Pelt is Senior beleidsmedewerker ruimtelijke planologie bij de provincie Zeeland. Hij richt zich hierbij op alle Zeeuwse wateren. Daarnaast is hij secretaris van het Overlegorgaan Nationaal Park Oosterschelde. In dit overlegorgaan zitten Rijk, Provincie, Waterschap, Gemeenten, verschillende sectoren en terreinbeheerders. De provincie levert op basis van afspraken met het Rijk een secretaris. Dhr. Van Pelt is namens het Nationaal Park Oosterschelde lid van de klankbordgroep KRW. Het overlegorgaan is juridisch gezien geen entiteit. Het heeft geen eigen middelen en kan dus alleen afspraken maken over hoe leden hun middelen inzetten of welk beleid leden volgen, waarbij het gezamenlijk afgesproken beleid richtinggevend is. Het draait dus om de autonome bevoegdheden van de verschillende partijen in het overlegorgaan. Standpunten KRW De KRW is een kans. De wet borduurt voort op bestaand beleid. Echter door de KRW zul je ook echt afgerekend worden op je beleid. In ’76 werd het besluit genomen om de Oosterschelde kering deels open te laten. Er werd een stuurgroep opgericht die de gevolgen van de opening voor milieu, natuur, beroepsvaart en recreatie ging bekijken. Dit resulteerde in het eerste gebiedsgerichte beleidsplan in Nederland ( 1982). In 1995 is het beleidsplan opnieuw vastgesteld door de partijen in de Stuurgroep Oosterschelde en door Provinciale Staten (legitimatie als RO-instrument). Het overlegorgaan neemt de insteek dat de KRW realistisch en betaalbaar moet zijn van het Rijk over. In het overlegorgaan wordt nu bekeken hoe het zandhonger probleem hierin past en hoe om gegaan moet worden met de prioritering tussen de Oosterschelde en andere Rijkswateren. De Grevelingen is bijvoorbeeld net als de Oosterschelde een Natura 2000 gebied. Nu de KRW iets concreter wordt wil het overlegorgaan meer betrokken worden. Echter de KRW blijft nog steeds op een hoog niveau hangen. Meer scenario’s en meer visualisering zou dit kunnen verbeteren. De landbouw, recreatie en Kamer van Koophandel zullen de KRW eerder als een bedreiging dan als een kans zien, maar wel in verschillende mate, afhankelijk van hoe direct zij geconfronteerd worden met de KRW en hoeveel kosten zij zullen moeten maken. Voor de visserijsector spelen de belangen van het voortbestaan van de bedrijfstak en mogelijkheden voor innovatie. De schelpdiersector in Yerseke schept een paar duizend banen. Het overlegorgaan staat positief tegenover de openstelling van het Krammer Volkerak. Dit zorgt voor ecologische verrijking van het gebied. Ook de opening van het Veerse meer zorgde voor een robuuster systeem zonder eutrofiering, echter ook voor de Japanse oester…

ARCADIS & TU Delft

30


De natuur in Nederland laat zich niet regelen, maar als wij kunnen helpen om te voorkomen dat de Oosterschelde een bak met water wordt, dan moeten wij dat doen. ‘Ecologisch Tuinieren’ is dus noodzakelijk. De bijzondere kwaliteit van de Oosterschelde leeft op bestuurlijk niveau zeker, maar bij het grote publiek is dat minder het geval. Hoewel is er veel media aandacht is geweest, moeten de gevolgen van Europese Kaderrichtlijn Water en Natura 2000 blijvend gecommuniceerd worden. Voor innovatieve oplossingen is geen ruimte binnen het tijdsbestek van de KRW. Indeling in systemen Geen aanmerkingen. Technologie is een randvoorwaarde, maar maatschappelijke acceptatie ook. Het Groen links programma Delta anders (verwijderen van de kering) kan technisch gezien, maar maatschappelijk gezien niet. Onzekerheden Zandhonger: Onzekerheid is hoe dit probleem op te lossen. Probleem zelf is helder. Mosselzaad: Laatste jaren is er weinig mosselzaad gevallen. Onzeker is waardoor dit komt. Dhr. Van Pelt heeft geen zicht op procesmatige onzekerheden. Wel is de insteek van alle partijen over het doel van de KRW grotendeels positief. Afwenteling is niet een erg groot probleem voor de Oosterschelde, omdat het water opgehouden wordt in het Krammer Volkerak. Kwaliteitsproblemen veroorzaakt bovenstrooms, spelen dus nu geen grote rol voor Oosterschelde als systeem. Wel komen de problemen richting Oosterschelde als de verbinding met Krammer Volkerak weer wordt hersteld. De EU is nog erg onduidelijk naar lidstaten toe. Nederlandse regering lijkt te gaan voor beste jongentje van de klas, maar is dit ook echt zo nodig? Grootste onzekerheid is de waarde die de maatschappij hecht aan oplossingen. Dit is nodig om geld te genereren. Omgaan met onzekerheid Het is onmogelijk om alle zekerheid te krijgen. Communicatie vanuit de overheid kan helpen om onzekerheid weg te nemen. Het is nodig dat partijen overleggen om methoden vast te stellen en elkaar verantwoordelijk te maken voor bepaalde onzekerheden en gevolgen. Ook moet er overlegd worden over wat de problemen zijn. Beleidsmakers opereren in een netwerk. Als je bepaalde onzekerheid op een tijdsbalk kunt zetten kan dat zeer nuttig zijn om de tijdsafhankelijk van de onzekerheid aan te geven. Bewust maken door middel van een ‘Al Gore’-achtige campagne helpt om draagvlak te creëren voor de KRW en vermindert het abstracte karakter van de wet. Visualisering is hierbij zeer belangrijk. (Interessante website: de groene rekenkamer bestrijdt het meest recente onderzoek naar klimaatverandering) Nut van het onderzoek Het is van wezenlijke betekenis om de mate van een onzekerheid aan te geven en inzicht te krijgen in de balans tussen zekerheid en onzekerheid. Het enige zekere in 's mensen leven is de dood: niemand kan zich daaraan onttrekken.

ARCADIS & TU Delft

31

ANNEX 10 LIST OF UNCERTAINTIES IN THE EASTERN SCHELDT

13 April 2007



Type N r Uncertainty

D etailed exam ple s

Analysis

Perspective

Level

Range of consequences and chance Influence of external of occurrence uncertainties

X

lack of know led ge (or ambiguity resulting from this lack of know led ge)

statistical, qualitative and scenario uncertainty and recognised ignorance

d ifficulties in pred icting effects of m easures and thus in reaching requirem ents.

natu ral d ynam ics, sociocultural d ynam ics, econom ical d evelop ments

_

X

X

X

im pact

yes

X

lack of know led ge (or ambiguity resulting from this lack of know led ge)

statistical, qualitative and scenario uncertainty and recognised ignorance

d ifficulties in pred icting effects of m easures and thus in reaching requirem ents and d ead line.

natu ral d ynam ics, sociocultural d ynam ics

_

X

X

X

im pact

_

X

lack of know led ge / ambiguity

scenario uncertainty

m easures tu rn out to be useless or unnecessary; requirem ents and d ead line WFD not met.

natu ral d ynam ics

yes

X

_

X

tim e

_

X



m easures tu rn out to be useless; quality natu ral d ynam ics and d ead line WFD not met.

_

X

X

X

im pact

yes

lack of know led ge

recognised ignorance

no outcom es know n. Solution is only short term ; long term qu ality, costs and natu ral d ynam ics d ead line goals of WFD not m et.

_

X

X

X

influence, im pact

_

m easurem ents d o not portray actual situ ation and effects of m easu res can not be jud ged ; no level playing field betw een countries.

yes

_

X

X

subjectivity, tim e

_

N ecessity of m easures; it is not know n _ if the w ater bod y status is good or not.

yes

_

X

_

subjectivity, tim e

yes

Content

Process N ature

Time PKS dependent

Management

Government Stakeholders

First selection

Final selection

N ATURAL SYSTEM Uncertainty in natural processes

1

2

Equilibriu m state of the natural system

Working of m orphod ynam ical processes, sand hunger, red uction of m ussel prod uction, flora grow th, Japanese Oyster grow th, Mu ssel seed prod uction, eelgrass d epletion

Tim eline for the equilibriu m state

BETWEEN N ATURAL AN D POLICY SYSTEM Uncertainty in system response (to a measure from the policy system) Effects of current agricultural p olicies, Effects of Plan Tuureluur, effect of m anure legislation, effect of recreational regulations

3

Effects of m easu res from current policy on natural system

4

Effect of possible m easures on the Effects of sand suppletion natu ral system

5

Taking m easures w ill create new problem s

It is uncertain w hether gard ening/ taking measures is usefu l or just creates other p roblem s

X

X

Uncertainty in monitoring (of the natural system)

6

H ow to m easure certain elem ents

Sum m er or w inter influence on m easurem ents, m easurement variables used are not uniform w ithin the Zeeland River basin, background noise in m easurements, d ifferent countries use d ifferent m ethod s

7

What to m easure exactly

Bio availability, substances appear in the w ater system in d ifferent form s

X

ambiguity


X

ambiguity


natu ral d ynam ics

ARCADIS & TU Delft



D etailed examples

Content

Analysis Process N ature

Perspective

Level


Time PKS dependent

Management


First selection

Final selection

POLICY SYSTEM Uncertainty in goals (WFD and other legislation)

8

Overlap in content w ith Natu ra 2000

Focu s of N atura 2000 is not on long term , high d ynam ic system s, but short term low d ynamic systems, goal of WFD and N atura 2000 conflict. N o insight in requ isites for coup ling

9

Overlap in content w ith other legislation

Overlap w ith N atura 2000, WB 21, 5th N ota Ruimte, Kracht van d e Delta

10

N o focus on sm aller w ater bod ies

11

Outcom e of VZM (VolkerakZoom m eer) stud y

12

Ecological goals itself

13

Com bining nature and w ater policies might harm the prim ary objectives of the policies

Outcom e d eterm ines the characteristics of w ater system of the Eastern Scheld t

The consequences of a choice for a certain ecological level (MEP/ GEP)

X

ambiguity


qu ality of WFD is affected by combining it w ith N atura 2000; no synergy

_

yes

X

X

_

tim e

yes

X

ambiguity


qu ality of WFD is affected by combining it w ith other legislation; no synergy

_

_

X

X

_

_

_

X

ambiguity


sm aller w ater bod ies w ill get no bud get; effects up and d ow nstream

_

_

_

X

_

su bjectivity

_

X

lack of know led ge

scenario uncertainty (either salt or fresh)

tw o possible outcomes: salt or fresh w ater in the VZM; effect on m eeting of _ requirem ent and on p ossible m easures

yes

X

X

_

tim e

yes

X


qualitative uncertainty

range from a very high MEP and GEP to a low er MEP and GEP, chances are the MEP w ill be pu t rather high for the natu ral d ynam ics ES; feasibility and realization w ithin d ead line

yes

X

_

X

tim e

_

X

ambiguity


effect on realization w ithin d ead line and m eeting the requirem ents

political d ynam ics

_

_

_

X

su bjectivity

_

_

yes

_

_

X

subjectivity, tim e

_

Uncertainty in costs and quantification of benefits (of measures) 14

RWS uses investm ents w hile w ater board s w ork w ith yearly costs

X

ambiguity

qualitative uncertainty

m iscalculations, low p robability if this uncertainty is recognized

15

Costs betw een WFD and N atura 2000 overlap

X



no outcom es know n (effect on synergy) _

_

_

_

X

su bjectivity

_

16

Costs, investm ents, d epreciation, d iscount rate of m easures

Sand supp letion: costs are uncertain

X



for d ifferent scenarios rough cost estim ates can be m ad e; effect on costs

_

_

X

X

X

im pact

yes

Benefits of WFD are hard to quantify

Benefits are often slow and uncertain because of a sud d en bend in the benefit grap h, benefits are d efined d ifferently by parties, benefits of taking m easu res d ow nstream instead of upstream is questioned

X

ambiguity


no outcom es know n; effect on effects for stakehold ers and up -and d ow nstream

_

_

X

X

X

_

_

17

ARCADIS & TU Delft



D etailed examples

Analysis

Perspective

N ature

Level


X



w orst case; m easure is not feasible

technological d ynam ics

X

ambiguity


no outcom es know n; effect on feasibility

Content

Process

Time PKS dependent

Management


First selection

Final selection

Uncertainty in feasibility (of measures)

18


19

Consequences of execu tion of m easures are und errated / not consid ered by RWS Zeeland

Sand supp letion: feasibility (technical) is uncertain: is there enou gh sand to transp ort to the Eastern Scheld t? Quality of the sand , w ill the sand stay?

20

Measures are d ivid ed am ong governm ents

Generic or regional m easu res? regional legislation instead of joint legislation, but how ?

21

Sequential nature and d epend encies betw een m easures

All m easures are d ep end ent on results Volkerak-Zoom m eer stu d y

_

X

X

_

im pact

yes

_

yes

_

X

_

subjectivity, tim e

_

yes

X

X

X

tim e

_

_

X

_

_

im pact

_

X

ambiguity


all m easures have to be taken at national level, all measures w ill be taken at regional level or a d ivision is _ m ad e; effect on realization w ithin d ead line and m eeting the requirem ents

X

lack of know led ge


no outcom es know n; effect on realisation w ithin d ead line and m eeting _ the requ irements

Uncertainty in finance (of measures) 22

Raise of Water board tax

X

ambiguity


Raise w ith a certain percentage; this is d etermined in the w ater board plan; effects for stakehold ers

econom ical d ynam ics

yes

_

X

_

subjectivity, tim e, influence

_

23

WFD is not taken into account in bu d get of the District

X

ambiguity


no bud get for execution p hase; effects for stakehold ers

_

yes

_

X

_

subjectivity, tim e

_

X

ambiguity


Am bition and requirem ents Eastern Scheld t w ill not be m et

_

_

X

X

_

im pact

yes

X

ambiguity


not enough bud get for N atura 2000, m eeting the WFD requirem ents


_

X

_

X

_

_

X

lack of know led ge


ecological requirem ents are not m et

natu ral d ynam ics

_

X

X

X

im pact

_

X

lack of know led ge


w ater quality requirem ents are not m et _

_

X

_

_

im pact

_

24

Finance from the national governm ent is u ncertain

The financial claim for the Eastern Scheld t is too high and therefore not subm itted ; Management contract is signed in 2008 w hen m easu res WFD are not yet know n

25

Is financing N atu ra 2000 w ith current bud get enough?

Finance of cu rrent activities w ill be cut d ow n to finance WFD and N atura 2000

Uncertainty in reaching the WFD requirements set by the EU 26

Reaching the ecological status

27

Meeting the necessary w ater quality status

28

Meeting the N atura 2000 preservation Differences and synergy in tim eline betw een N atura 2000 and goals, synergy in com bined execu tion or d elay? WFD trajectory

X

ambiguity


no outcom es know n; effect on synergy

_

_

X

X

X

_

_

29

Differences and synergy in tim eline betw een WFD trajectory and other legislation

Differences and synergy in tim eline betw een WB 21, Kracht van d e Delta, N ota Ruimte and WFD trajectory. Differences in p riority betw een province (N ota Ruim te) and RWS (WFD/ N atura 2000)

X

ambiguity


no outcom es know n, effect on synergy

_

_

X

X

X

_

_

30

Reaching the d ead line

Duration of the public particip ation process; focus on uncertainties stagnates the process; no tim e to reflect on uncertainties; d uration of subcontracted w ork and tasks, d uration of stud ies for related plans (e.g. Volkerak-Zoom m eer)

X

lack of know led ge


d ead line is not m et

_

_

X

_

_

im pact

yes

31

The exp lanation of choices is not good enough for Brussels

X

ambiguity


tim e d elay and low ering of goals is not _ accep ted

_

X

_

X

_

_

Shifting problem

ARCADIS & TU Delft



D etailed examples

Content


Perspective

Level


Time PKS dependent

Management


First selection

Final selection

Uncertainty in internal organisation (of the policy system) Internally conflicting goals and d ifferent know led ge levels w ithin governm ent organisations

Com plexity and abstract nature of WFD are d ifficult to explain; uncertainty in know led ge levels

X

ambiguity


no outcom es know n

_

_

X

X

X

im pact

yes

33

Pow er games

Fram ew ork gives freed om for interpretation that is used strategically (e.g. shifting problem betw een WZE and RWS Zeeland ); province is d om inant in p rocess, no other parties involved ; publical im age of parties changes; RWS takes over tasks of w ater board s and can thus be held responsible

X

ambiguity


no outcom es know n

political d ynam ics

_

X

X

X

im pact

_

34

When to involve the executor of the policies?

The executor is not inform ed yet

X



no outcom es know n

_

yes

X

X

X

tim e

_

35

Division of tasks at bord ers, Correspond ence of the geographical bord ers is not same as com prehensive natural system and m anagerial bord ers, sam e d iscussions the fragm ented policy and societal take place on each level of system m anagem ent

X

ambiguity


no outcom es know n

_

_

X

_

X

_

_

36

Priority w ithin RWS Zeeland areas Focu s RWS Zeeland , no vision

X

ambiguity


priority for Eastern Scheld t or any other area w ill lead to d ifferent m easu res; _ effects for u sers and stakehold ers

yes

X

_

X

tim e, im pact

_

37

Dualistic behaviour in criticising countries bu t self not excelling in im plem enting the WFD

Critique on up stream p olicy making in relation to ow n efforts are not in balance

X

ambiguity


up stream p arties w ill take no m easures _ at all; requ irements in ES not met

_

X

X

X

_

_

38

Dutch am bition and w ay of w orking is not u nam biguou s

Bound ary cond itions are interpreted d ifferently

X

ambiguity


no outcom es know n

_

_

_

X

_

subjectivity, influence

_

39

Cooperation w ith Scald it and ISC is not alw ays efficient

Mand ate for emp loyees to m ake d ecisions in international com m ittees is unclear

X

ambiguity


no outcom es know n

_

_

_

X

_

su bjectivity

_

40

Region versus N ational: w ho d oes w hat first?

X



region d ecid es not to act or N ational governm ent d ecid es not to act

_

yes

X

_

X

tim e, influence

_

32

BETWEEN POLICY AN D SOCIETAL SYSTEM Uncertainty in influence (of the policy system)

41

Possibilities to influence d ecision m aking

X



no outcom es know n; effect on effects for users and stakehold ers

_

_

_

_

X

su bjectivity

_

42

Point in tim e w hen action should be taken

X




_

_

_

_

X

su bjectivity

yes

43

Know led ge d eficit in the societal system

X




_

_

_

_

X

su bjectivity

_

44

Opposition d epend s on the m easures taken and w ill only com e up in a late stage of the process

ambiguity


certain m easures w ill lead to more opposition than others; effect on effects _ for users and stakehold ers, effect on m eeting the d ead line

_

_

_

X

subjectivity, im pact

_

It is unclear w hat m easu res com e w ith the choice for a certain goal.

X

ARCADIS & TU Delft



D etailed examples

Content


Perspective

Level


Time PKS dependent

Management


First selection

Final selection

Uncertainty in impacts (on the societal system) 45

Direct effects of current policy on econom y and op erational m anagem ent unclear

46

Measures restrict (grow th of) sectors

47

In the execution the real effects w ill be know n

Measures restrict the fishery sector (m ussels), measures affect the com petitive position of farmers, m easures restrict grow th of ind ustrial activities, the grow th of recreational harbou rs and facilities

X



effects are very significant

natu ral d ynam ics, econom ical d ynam ics

_

X

X

X

im pact

_

X



fishery, agricultural, ind ustrial sector w ill d isappear


_

X

X

X

im pact

yes

X

lack of know led ge


no outcom es know n

_

_

X

X

X

influence

_

lack of know led ge


no outcom es know n, effect on effects for users and stakehold ers

_

_

_

X

_

su bjectivity

_

regulation and agreem ents have to be d iscu ssed all over again; effect on _ m eeting the d ead line; requirem ents are not m et

_

_

X

X

su bjectivity

_

Uncertainty in reliability (of the policy system) 48

Inform ation shortage

49

Im plem entation of WFD w ill und o Com bination of gu id elines lead s to agreem ents m ad e for N atura 2000, uncertainty in goals, reliability etc. N atura 2000 increases the ambition of the WFD

X

ambiguity


50

Recall of a d ecision, pred ictability of the futu re p olicy, RWS w ill be held responsible for norms, w hile they are not. Agreem ents m ad e w ith region can not be fu lfilled (financially)

X

ambiguity


governm ent recalls d ecisions and is not consid ered a reliable partner; political d ynam ics cooperation stagnates, no realisation

_

X

X

X

im pact

yes

X



Mu ssel p rod uction d isap pears, effects for users and stakehold ers

_

_

_

_

X


yes

X



N ot enou gh fresh w ater for agriculture, d rinking w ater, natural character w ill _ change d ue to salt w ater influence; effects for u sers and stakehold ers

_

_

X

_


_

X



no outcom es know n, effects for users and stakehold ers

_

_

_

_

X


_

X



Measures w ill become so strict that the bound ary of the innovative capacity of _ ind ustries has been m et. Requirem ents w ill not be m et.

_

_

_

X


_

Reliability of the government

Of the RWS District organisation

X

SOCIETAL SYSTEM Uncertainty in continuity (of activities in the societal system)

51

Continuity of the fishery sector

Sand supp letion harm s the m ussel prod uction, how to show that fishery activities have no significant effect on natu re

52

Continuity of stand ard of living (includ ing natural qualities of the area and safety of the area)

Fresh w ater su pply for the island s is im portant for nature, d rinking w ater etc.

53

Continuity of agricultural activities Fresh w ater su pply for agriculture

54

Continuity of ind ustrial and com m ercial activities

Ind ustry can not fulfil extra regulation, recreational value of the area, recreational activities and facilities are restricted

ARCADIS & TU Delft



D etailed examples

Content

Analysis Process

Perspective

Management First selection

Final selection

N ature

Level




Party behind representatives w ill not accep t the proposed solutions or _ m easures, effect on effects for u sers and stakehold ers and meeting of d ead line

_

_

_

X

su bjectivity

yes

ambiguity


Agriculture w ill need to w ork hard to m ake themselves heard , effect on effects for u sers and stakehold ers and m eeting of d ead line and requ irements

_

_

_

X

su bjectivity

_

ambiguity


Society is very negative about the proposed solu tions, effect on effects for users and stakehold ers and m eeting of d ead line and requirem ents. General natu ral, econom ical, pu blic is not w illing to 'pay' for w ater socio-cultural d ynam ics qu ality, effect on effects for users and stakehold ers and meeting of d ead line and requirem ents

_

X

X

X

influence, im pact

_


Salt seepage influences the w ater qu ality heavily and this can not be changed ; effect on m eeting the requirem ents

_

_

X

X

_

_

_


no outcom es know n; effect on m eeting _ the requ irements

_

X

X

X

im pact

yes

Time PKS dependent


Uncertainty in representation (in the societal system)

55

H ow to inform and explain the WFD to the peop le that you respresent?

56

Agriculture stand s alone in critique; u ncertainty about d ecisions mad e w hen not present

57

Valuation of solutions by society

Length of time to d iscuss issues w ith the party

X

X

Societal acceptance is d ifficult, because w ater quality problems are invisible

X

_

BETWEEN SOCIETAL AN D N ATURAL SYSTEM Uncertainty in sources (of pollution)

58

Influ ence of salt seepage on w ater N ot of influ ence on the Eastern system Scheld t!!

X


59

From several sources it is not know n Influ ence of a source on the natural how they contribute to pollution, system routes and sources of atm ospheric d eposition

X


60

Precise share of agriculture in nitrogen pollu tion

61

Tim e-lag of historical pollution in the system

Influ ence of agricultu re on w ater quality, size of the historical bu rd en caused by agriculture

X

lack of know led ge


There is a high chance that most of the pollu tion caused by agriculture is historical; m eaning that current agricultural com panies can not be blam ed the pollu tion

_

_

X

X

X

_

yes

X

lack of know led ge


The time lag is very high and pollution stays in the w ater and ground for a _ long period ; effect on m eeting the requirem ents

_

X

X

X

_

_

X

lack of know led ge


no outcom es know n

natu ral d ynam ics

_

X

_

X

_

_

Uncertainty in usability (of the natural system) 62

Bloom of the Japanese oyster w ill lead to ?

63

Safety of the area

Gu arantee of stability of d ikes and barrier

X



m easures w ill have a negative effect on safety; d ikes are not safe anymore; natu ral d ynam ics effect on safety

_

X

X

_

im pact

_

64

Recreational usage

Salt or fresh w ater, tid al influence etc.

X

ambiguity


Salt or fresh w ater w ill give d ifferent natural values and thus also recreational facilities and activities


_

X

X

X

_

_

65

Prod uctivity of the Eastern Scheld t Prod uction of m ussels, fish etc.

X



no outcom es know n

natu ral d ynam ics

_

X

X

X

im pact

yes

66

Fresh w ater availability for agricu ltu re, nature and ind ustrial activities

X



no fresh w ater available for agricu ltu re and d rinking w ater; effect on effects for _ users and stakehold ers

_

X

X

X

_

_

ARCADIS & TU Delft


Analysis


D etailed examples

Content

Process

N ature

Perspective

Level


Time PKS dependent

Management


First selection

Final selection

EXTERN AL SYSTEM External uncertainties

Political d ynam ics

Uncertainty in the realization of a joint policy (for d iffuse sources), H ow w ill the national government prioritize betw een regions? bou nd ary cond itions set by RWS corporate, w hat w ill the EU accep t and w hat not? Penalty EU, d aughter guid elines EU not yet there, list of prioritary substances, nitrate and ground w ater, w hat tasks are send to RIZA, RIKZ, upstream ambition, d ifference in perspective EU and N L on translation of EU norm s to m easu rable variables, influence of legislation on use of m anure, Each region d iffers w ay of presenting and w ay of w orking, the d etailing of the m axim al feasible variant is d ifferent per region, how m uch room is left over for the region? H ow w ill other countries enforce the WFD?

X

X

external


Positive scenario: The political climate is concerned w ith nature, resulting in strict rules and ambitiou s goals, high penalties and strict enforcem ent; effect _ on all criteria. N egative scenario: N o concern w ith nature. Uncertainties w ill create a longing for num bers w ith a d efinitive statu s, for w hich it is still too early

N atural d ynamics

Clim ate change, Sea level rise, Depend ence on up stream governm ent bod ies, Part of the Scheld t is in ZH olland and N -Brabant,

X

X

external


no outcom es know n, effect on all criteria

69

Socio-cultural d ynam ics

Population grow th, fu ture of agricu ltu re, acceptation of an uncertainty d epend s on the societal im portance of the issue

X

X

external


70

Technical d ynam ics

Innovation

X

X

external

71

Econom ical d ynamics

Econom ic d evelopm ent, Grow th of transp ortation of freight

X

X

72

Unexpected events

Sud d en unexpected event or d isaster

X

X

67

68

yes

X

X

X

tim e, im pact

_

_

_

X

X

X

im pact

yes

H igh population grow th w ill increase the pressure on space and w ill affect the spatial planning

_

_

X

X

X

_

_



_

_

X

X

X

influence

_

external


an econom ic recession w ill result in less m oney for w ater quality and ecology; _ effect on meeting the requirem ents

_

X

X

X

im pact

_

external



_

X

X

X

influence, im pact

_

ARCADIS & TU Delft

Reflection on the use of the W&H framework as a basis for integrated uncertainty analysis in RBMP development W.L. Oosterwijk 1049224 [email protected] Delft University of Technology Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, section policy analysis Journal: Water, Science & Technology # words body text: 5051

Abstract Walker et al. (2003) developed a framework for integrated uncertainty analysis in model based decision support (the W&H framework) to promote systematic reflection on a wide variety of uncertainties. This paper gives an overview of some of the documented experience associated with the use of the W&H framework. Furthermore, we reflect on the use of the W&H framework in the development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP), based on a case study performed for the Eastern Scheldt. The development of a RBMP is required by the European Water Framework Directive. Based on the documented strengths and weaknesses of the W&H framework and the special characteristics of RBMP development, several adjustments were made to the framework, before it was used in the case study. The W&H framework turns out to be very useful for structuring and identifying the full spectrum of uncertainties involved in RBMP development and it can be applied in different ways. However, despite the adjustments made to the framework, the introduction of different perspectives into the analysis, the communication and use of the model in practice, the relations between uncertainties and the relation between the uncertainty analysis and the management of an uncertainty are four aspects that need to be further elaborated. This can be done by gaining more practical experience with the framework. Keywords decision support, River Basin Management Plan, uncertainty, uncertainty analysis, Water Framework Directive

Introduction Uncertainty analysis is a decision support activity that tries to identify, structure and analyse the uncertainties in a project to be able to better communicate, manage or control uncertainties. An uncertainty analysis can be done in a quantitative and in a qualitative way. Many researchers have focused on the quantitative assessment of uncertainty (e.g. on sampling errors or measurement errors) but in policymaking or decision support in general, many of the uncertainties cannot be captured with a statistical analysis, as the uncertainties are of a more qualitative nature (Krayer von Krauss and Janssen 2005). In literature, different definitions exist for the term uncertainty. Here, is chosen to use the definition of Brouwer (2005, p. 1) that says: “uncertainty is defined as limited (incomplete or imperfect) knowledge or information about current or future conditions, states or outcomes and about the implications or conditions of these future conditions, states or outcomes.”

1

Walker et al. (2003) have developed an elaborate framework (here called the W&H framework) to analyse uncertainty in model based decision support activities, such as policy analysis, integrated assessment and environmental impact assessment. The aim of the W&H framework is: “to promote systematic reflection on a wide range of types and locations of uncertainty, in order to minimise the chance that relevant key uncertainties are overlooked, and to facilitate better communication among analysts from different disciplines as well as between them and policymakers and stakeholders (Krayer von Krauss et al., 2006, p. 90)”. This tool has been used by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency in a guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication (Janssen et al., 2005). Krayer von Krauss and Janssen (2005) discuss the use of this framework with non-initiated experts based on a risk assessment on genetically modified crops. Researchers state that: “there is a need for guidelines and support on how to deal appropriately and responsibly with uncertainty. This need exists particularly for public decision makers who should act in the ‘public interest’” (Klauer and Brown, 2004, p.124). The W&H framework could provide this support, as the aim of this framework corresponds to one of the aims of decision support activities in policymaking: it tries to help in the communication and decision making between and among analysts, policymakers and stakeholders. This article aims to reflect upon the use of the W&H framework, as a tool for decision support in the development of a River Basin Management Plan. The research question is: in how far is the W&H uncertainty framework useful for decision support in RBMP development? The reflection on the use of the W&H framework is based on the results of a case study to analyse and structure uncertainties in the Eastern Scheldt in the Netherlands. This case study was used to test and collect experience with the use of the (adjusted) W&H framework. First, we will briefly describe the case study and the W&H framework. Then, we will go into the strengths and weaknesses of the framework that were identified in literature and the adjustments made to the framework for use in RBMP development. Based on the results of the case study, a reflection will be given on the comments of other authors, the adjustments made in this case study and the practical use of the framework for decision support in RBMP development. Since water managers of all EU river basins in Europe are confronted with the uncertainties apparent in the development of a RBMP, it is useful to reflect on the W&H framework as a tool for decision support in RBMP development. In 2000, the EU furthermore adopted the Precautionary Principle, which emphasizes the importance of a scientific assessment of uncertainty in environmental policy processes, such as the WFD implementation. More knowledge on where the uncertainty exists and how this could affect decision making will assist water managers in the implementation of the WFD, as “uncertainty is not systematically addressed either in the Directive itself or in the accompanying guidance documents (Newig et al., 2005, p. 333)”. In several sections of the WFD, uncertainty is mentioned and the guidance documents explicitly emphasize that an uncertainty analysis should be performed, but the documents do not specify how to do so (Refsgaard et al., 2005, p. 267; Mysiak and Sigel, 2005, p. 161). The experience from the use of the W&H framework in the uncertainty analysis of the Eastern Scheldt basin will help in developing tools for this purpose.

RBMP development and the case study The European Water Framework Directive (European Commission, 2000) is viewed by scientists as one of the most ambitious and significant environmental Directives in Europe in the past years (Mysiak and Sigel, 2005; Newig et al., 2005; Refsgaard et al., 2005). It aims to safeguard and improve the water quality and ecology in all major river basins in the EU,

2

within a relatively short period of time (2015). For the implementation of this Framework Directive, water managers are required to make a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP). The most important aspects in RBMP development are the innovative character of the WFD, the strict time path and rules set by the EU, the many links to other legislation (e.g. Natura2000), the many parties that are involved, the dependency on upstream river basins and the boundary problems that occur. Since the development of a RBMP is new to water managers, they come across many uncertainties that complicate the implementation process. Examples are the uncertainty in the sources of pollution, in the effects of measures on the ecology in the basin or the uncertainty in how strict the EU will judge the goals of the WFD. All these uncertainties make it difficult for authorities in the basin to prepare the first RBMP, which could harm the achievement of the objectives of the Directive. The case study was carried out for a sub basin of the Scheldt River basin in the Netherlands: the Eastern Scheldt. The Eastern Scheldt is chosen as a case study area because of its special natural, historical and cultural values and because this area was used as a pilot project for WFD implementation in Zeeland. The natural values of the Eastern Scheldt include the salt marshes, shoals and mudflats that form a special and unique habitat for flora and fauna. In these inter-tidal and shallow areas live many small animals that form an important source of food for birds and larger sea animals. Many birds use the Eastern Scheldt as a stopover in their migration to the south or as a safe place during high tides. In addition, special salt-water vegetation can be found here, such as eelgrass (NPOS, 2001). Because of the above values, the Eastern Scheldt was appointed a National Park in 2002. The Eastern Scheldt is a popular recreational area with around ten recreational harbours. It is also an important area for fishery; it has around 4000 hectare of mussel and oyster beds (ARCADIS, 2006). The main problems in the Eastern Scheldt are related to ecology and morphodynamics. Due to the building of the Eastern Scheldt barrier, the tidal volume and flow velocity of the water decreased, which heavily affected the sand supply. Rather than a net supply of sediment towards the inter-tidal areas, there is now a net erosion of these areas. The wide channels and gullies are filled up with sand from the salt meadows, mudflats and shoals. This process is called ‘Sand hunger’ and decreases the inter-tidal areas in the Eastern Scheldt (NPOS, 2001). The morphodynamical problems described above can be linked directly to the ecological goals of the WFD and Natura-2000 as a loss of inter-tidal area means a loss of food and habitat in the area. Good water quality and stable natural morphodynamical processes should provide the basis for a healthy ecosystem in the Eastern Scheldt. The recreational, fishery, agricultural and other sectors in this area will also benefit from this healthy ecosystem. The Eastern Scheldt is part of the Dutch Delta, an area with a long history of water management, where many natural, cultural and economical values are present. In such a complex and changing environment, the development of a plan for the ambitious WFD is surrounded by uncertainties. Uncertainties were identified for the Eastern Scheldt and analysed with an adjusted W&H framework, based on fourteen interviews with actors involved in the process. Examples of uncertainties apparent in the Eastern Scheldt are: the uncertainty in the equilibrium state of the natural system, especially in the decrease of inter-tidal area, the uncertainty in the effect of measures on the safety in the area or on the fresh water supply for agriculture, the uncertainty in the influence of atmospheric deposition and the uncertainty in the effect of measures taken upstream. There are also uncertainties apparent in the decision making process, such as the uncertainty for stakeholders of when to influence the process and the uncertainty of the outcome of other studies in adjacent water bodies, such as the Volkerak-Zoommeer.

3

The W&H Framework The W&H framework seems useful as a tool for decision support in RBMP development, as it supports an integrated uncertainty analysis, which means that the framework can cover qualitative as well as quantitative uncertainties. It also aims to systematically address uncertainties, which will help in creating insight and structuring uncertainty. Besides the W&H framework, which is thus chosen to discuss in this research, several other approaches to uncertainty analysis and management are available. The Netherlands Environmental Agency (RIVM) embedded the W&H framework in an uncertainty guidance system (Janssen et al. 2003). Part of this system is a toolkit with many different tools for uncertainty analysis and management (MNP, 2007). In the case study, the W&H framework was used within a more general framework for integrated uncertainty analysis and management, developed by Risman (2007) and called the Risman method. This Risman method consists of the following steps: 1. Setting of the goal 2. Identifying and mapping the (risks) uncertainties 3. Prioritising the (risks) uncertainties 4. Choosing management methods for dealing with the risks and uncertainties The first two steps of Risman were called uncertainty analysis and the last two steps uncertainty management. Because the Risman method focuses on risks and not uncertainties and is developed for risk management of very straightforward civil technical projects, the Risman method was only used as a general outline. It was expected that the policymaking process of RBMP development was too abstract to use the framework for uncertainty analysis developed by Risman. To carry out step one and two, the W&H framework was used instead. The W&H Framework is meant for model-based decision making and thus developed from the perspective of the analyst that supports the decision makers. The core of the W&H framework (see also Figure 1) is formed by distinguishing three dimensions of uncertainty. Location Nature Level

Figure 1. Uncertainty; a three dimensional concept (Walker et al., 2003, p. 9)

These three dimensions are: Location; where does the uncertainty manifests itself in the conceptual model? Walker et al. (2003) use a conceptual model that gives an overview of the general process of policymaking. This model puts the system model (an abstraction of the real world issue, including the group of cause effect relationships) at the centre. This conceptual model forms the basis to assess the location of an uncertainty. Possible locations are in the context of the system model, in the model itself, in the inputs, in the parameters and in the model outcome. (Krayer von Krauss and Janssen, 2005, p. 146) Level or the degree of severity of the uncertainty; there exists a spectrum of different levels of knowledge, ranging from ignorance to complete deterministic understanding. In between, you can find recognised ignorance, scenario uncertainty and statistical uncertainty (Walker et al., 2003).

4

Nature; what is the source of the uncertainty? Is the uncertainty epistemic, which means due to the imperfection of our knowledge or is it variability uncertainty; due to randomness, human behaviour, etc. (Walker et al., 2003).

The three dimensions are then combined in an uncertainty matrix (Table 1), which is filled with uncertainties. Location

Context

Model

Inputs

Level Statistical uncertainty Natural, technological, economic, social and political representation Model structure Technical model Driving forces System Data

Scenario uncertainty

Recognised ignorance

Unc. A Unc. B Unc. D

Nature Epistemic uncertainty

Variability uncertainty

Unc.A Unc. D

Unc. B

Parameters Unc. C Unc. C Model Outcomes Table 1. Uncertainty matrix of the W&H framework (adjusted from Walker et al. 2003, p. 15)

The use of the W&H framework for uncertainty analysis in policymaking activities has documented advantages and disadvantages. Before an overview is given of the strengths and weaknesses of the W&H framework, it is important to note that all of the documented experience comes from the same group of authors. From this, we can conclude that the experience with the W&H framework is still very limited. Both Krayer von Krauss and Janssen (2005), Norton et al. (2006) and Janssen et al. (2005) acknowledge that first, the W&H framework is useful for structuring a problem, by forcing the analyst to clearly mark the boundaries of the system of interest and for classifying the uncertainties involved in the project. Second, the framework can also assess the full spectrum of uncertainty, as it includes statistical and non- statistical uncertainties. Third, the transparency of the uncertainty analysis is very high, which stimulates the understanding of the analysis. Furthermore, the framework can be used at various stages in the project; at the beginning, in the middle of the project or as an evaluation tool at the end of the project. Also, the framework can be integrated in a larger Guidance tool or process for uncertainty analysis and management. Finally, an uncertainty analysis performed with the W&H framework can be used to develop a strategy for adaptive policymaking, as decision schemes can be developed for all the different uncertainties. Krayer von Krauss and Janssen (2005) state that the W&H framework creates a common understanding of the meaning of uncertainty and of ignorance. It can thus be seen as interdisciplinary. Norton et al. (2006) disagree, as they say that Walker et al. (2003) do not give a full overview of how different disciplines define uncertainty and therefore cannot claim that the W&H framework is truly interdisciplinary. The interdisciplinary character of the framework is a very important characteristic for RBMP development, because many different actors with different backgrounds (ecologists, water managers, biologists, economists etc.) are involved in this development.

5

There are also several weaknesses documented on the use of the framework that will be discussed. The first limitation of the framework was identified by Norton et al. (2006) and entails the fact that the W&H framework is developed for a modeller’s view instead of for a decision maker’s view. RBMP development is in fact a problem that is faced by the policymaker and not the analyst and therefore the uncertainty analysis might have more added value as a decision support tool in RBMP development, if it was developed for the right perspective. The second problem identified is that in the dimensions of Walker, the relationships between the uncertainties are overlooked. Norton et al. (2006, p. 87) state that: “the classification by Walker et al. undermines the possibility that interactions between different sources of uncertainty are obscured or overlooked. (..)the effect of different sources are not always additive but they can through complex interactions amplify or dampen one another. Rather, once those uncertainties have been identified and classified, they must be analysed and their implications for decision making evaluated as a whole.” The third limitation is that stakeholders and policymakers are unfamiliar with the concepts location, nature and level, which complicates the communication between the parties involved. Krayer von Krauss and Jansen (2005) describe that it is difficult to explain the concepts of the W&H framework in interviews, which complicates the filling in of the W&H framework. Janssen et al. (2003) state that especially the nature of an uncertainty is difficult to address, as the two natures of uncertainty; variability and lack of knowledge are interrelated. The final weakness of the W&H framework, described by Norton et al. (2006) is that no link exists between the uncertainty analysis and the management of uncertainties. No answer is given to what to do with the uncertainties, when they are identified and analysed, while that is the aspect that is most important for policymakers.

Discussion of the use of the framework in the case study Given the many strengths of the W&H framework and the fact that it is applicable to model based decision support activities that involve many actors and have a high complexity, it is valid to use this framework for decision support in RBMP development. However, to overcome several of the weaknesses of the W&H framework described above, the theoretical framework of Walker et al. (2003) was slightly adjusted, before it was used in the case study. Several dimensions were assessed in a different way, than was described by Walker et al. (2003) and several adjustments were made to the framework, which were then tested with the case study. Unfortunately, not all the limitations identified in literature could be dealt with in the adjustments to the framework, due to time constraints and a lack of knowledge of some of the constraints in the beginning of the project. For every weakness or aspect, the changes made to try to improve the framework for RBMP development and the experience with these changes based on the case study, are put forward. Dealing with different perspectives The dimension ‘location’ of the W&H framework was used in a different way than prescribed by Walker et al. (2003). The locations were defined based on a newly developed conceptual model (see Figure 2). The idea behind this model was that it is more directly related to the practice of RBMP development and therefore easier to work with in interviews with stakeholders and policymakers. It also shows very clearly the relations between the different

6

systems. The new conceptual model was recognised in interviews with different actors as a representation of the system of interest (the Eastern Scheldt) and can be used to address uncertainties from multiple perspectives. There are four main locations in this conceptual model of the Scheldt River basin: the natural (water) system, the policy system, the societal system and the external system. There are also four locations in between these four systems. The full explanation of the development of this new conceptual model falls outside the scope of this research. In Figure 2, the conceptual model used in RBMP development for the Eastern Scheldt is shown. The flexibility of the dimension ‘location’ has only been tested in this one case study. More reflection on the use of different conceptual models within the W&H framework is therefore necessary.

Figure 2. Conceptual model of the Eastern Scheldt

Adjustments made for RBMP development For the case study of the Eastern Scheldt, several adjustments were made to the W&H framework, based on the special characteristics and complex nature of RBMP development. To increase the practical use of the framework for policymakers, two dimensions were added to the framework (see Figure 3). These dimensions were the range of consequences of an uncertainty and the time dependency of an uncertainty. Because it is impossible for a policymaker to manage all uncertainties, the next or third step of the Risman framework prescribes that a prioritisation or selection is made. The added dimensions help policymakers in making this selection, as it gives more information on the impact and time frame of the uncertainties identified. Level Nature Location

Consequences Time dependency

Figure 3. Uncertainty; a five dimensional concept?

Because many different parties are involved in RBMP development, which all have different values, opinions etc., it was also tried to include the perspective of these parties on uncertainty into the framework. This was done by adding a column to the framework in which the name

7

of the actors that identified the uncertainty was stated. All of the above-described additions made the layout of the table of uncertainties slightly different form the W&H framework, see Table 2. Uncertainty

Location

Nature

Level

Consequence

Uncertainty in equilibrium state of the natural system When to influence the process

Natural system

Lack of knowledge & ambiguity

Scenario uncertainty

Not reaching the requirements of the WFD

Between societal and policy system

Ambiguity (Variability)

Recognised ignorance

No influence

Time dependency No

No

Perspective All actors

Stakeholders only

Management approach Traditional approach (research) in combination with network approach Network approach (Process management)

………. Table 2. (Part of the) adjusted W&H Framework for the case study

The use of the adjusted W&H framework in the case study for the Eastern Scheldt revealed a new limitation of the original W&H framework, namely that it lacks possibilities to include different perspectives on uncertainty into the framework. The subjective character of an uncertainty revealed new uncertainties for decision makers and gave important information about the bias of policymakers and stakeholders and therefore needs to be taken into account in assessing uncertainty in RBMP development. This was solved in the case study by adding an extra column to the framework. However, this solution is somewhat too simple and needs to be elaborated further. Maybe the W&H framework can be integrated with the PRIMA approach by van Asselt, which tries to analyse uncertainty from a pluralistic viewpoint (van Asselt, 2000). The two dimensions added for selection purposes (consequences and time dependency) were very difficult to assess and require more information, which is often not available for uncertainties. In the Risman framework, this is solved by looking at the consequences with respect to time, money and quality (Risman, 2007). It is recommended to integrate this more practical way of working in the W&H framework. The dimension ‘time dependency’ turned out to be useful for finding uncertainties that need to be monitored closely. For temporal uncertainties, it is important to monitor if the proposed solution or management of the uncertainty is carried out, as planned. Incorporating relations between uncertainties Although the new conceptual model visualises the relations between the different subsystems and allows for different perspectives, the framework still assesses all the uncertainties individually and not as a group as was suggested by Norton et al. (2003). In the adjusted theory for the case study, unfortunately no solution was included to incorporate the relations between uncertainties in the analysis. However, the new conceptual model did help to visualise for example how an uncertainty in the policy system can have an indirect effect (namely through the natural system) on the societal system. It is important to find a better balance between assessing uncertainties individually, which will give relevant information on the uncertainty itself and assessing uncertainties in groups, which can show the relations between uncertainties. An idea to reach this balance is to group uncertainties by nature and then look at common ways to manage these uncertainties. This idea needs to be further elaborated. 8

Increasing the communication and understanding of concepts Unfortunately, the unfamiliarity of policymakers and stakeholders with the concepts of the W&H framework was a limitation that was not specifically addressed in the adjusted theory for the case study. The interviews of the case study however did confirm the documented critique that the communication and understanding of the dimensions of the framework is difficult for non-informed policymakers and stakeholders. A possible solution mentioned in literature is the special interview set-up by Krayer von Krauss and Janssen (2005). They focused on how to set up an interview without mentioning all the terms, which most people are unfamiliar with, and how to avoid ambiguity and inconsistency with the concepts. They also give a solution for translating the information from the interviews to the W&H framework, which also in the case study turned out to be a very subjective activity. Krayer von Krauss and Janssen (2005) try to solve this problem by transferring the qualitative scale of the dimension ‘level’ into a quantitative scale ranging from 0-1 (Figure 2).

Figure 4. Quantitative scale to address the dimension level (Krayer von Krauss and Janssen, 2005, p. 151)

Another possible solution to this problem, based on the case study is the use of the new conceptual model as this model visualises the RBMP development process, thereby making it easier for interviewed parties to identify uncertainties and address the relations between uncertainties. It is recommended to further test these possible solutions in case studies. Creating a link between analysis and management The link between the uncertainty analysis and the preferred management approach is essential in using the framework in practice and was therefore added to the theory and tested in the case study. The link that is chosen is based on Koppenjan and Klijn (2004) and is mainly based on the nature of the uncertainty. In the theory for the case study, two main natures of uncertainty were distinguished; ambiguity (a form of variability) and lack of knowledge. A lack of knowledge might be solved with the more traditional methods of information gathering, research and expert consultation. This approach is here called the “traditional” approach. Ambiguity requires a management response that is focused on creating joint action in the complex network of actors. This approach is called the “network” approach. It can be quite difficult to exactly identify the nature of an uncertainty, as the two natures can be interrelated. This complicates making a well-founded choice for a focus on a management method. The case study emphasized the importance of the link between the analysis of an uncertainty and the management of the uncertainty. This link that was added based on Koppenjan and Klijn (2004) needs to be further elaborated, in such a way that the different tools available for uncertainty management (for example from the RIVM website) can be linked more explicitly to the dimensions of Walker. This last recommendation is vital when using the W&H framework in the practice of RBMP development. The goal of the policymakers or water managers using the W&H framework is to improve the decision making by focusing on the management of the uncertainties discovered in the analysis. This is not possible if the link between the analysis and the management approach does not exist. Janssen et al. (2003) recognised the importance of the dimension ‘nature’ in the assessment of an uncertainty. They

9

add two extra dimensions to W&H framework to gain more insight in the nature of the uncertainty. Since the dimension ‘nature’ forms the link between the uncertainty analysis and the management approach in this research, these two dimensions could be very valuable to strengthen the relation between the nature of an uncertainty and the management approach. The first dimension added by Janssen et al. (2003) is to further assess the source ‘lack of knowledge’, by looking at ‘the qualification of the knowledge base’ or in other words the degree of underpinning of the established results and statements or the reliability of the information that is used in the assessment. This can be judged as weak, fair or strong and gives an indication in how far the uncertainty can be reduced by an increase in knowledge. The other dimension is to assess the value-ladenness of the ambiguity or in other words, to look at the strength of the subjectivity involved in the uncertainty. A high value ladenness means that even more emphasis should be placed on using the process approach to explicitly deal with the different views and perceptions (Janssen et al., 2003, p. 22). This last dimension closely resembles the dimension ‘perspective’, which was added in this research. The two dimensions suggested by Janssen et al. (2003), can form a valuable addition to the adjusted W&H framework used in this research. Besides strengthening the link based on the dimension ‘nature’ it is also recommended to investigate, if it is possible to establish links between other dimensions of the W&H framework and management approaches.

Conclusions and recommendations Because of the weaknesses documented, the complexity and special characteristics of RBMP development, several changes were made to the W&H framework before it was used in a practical case study. From the case study, it can be concluded that the most successful changes made to the W&H framework, were the use of a new conceptual model in the W&H framework and the introduction of subjectivity or perspectives into the analysis. In addition, a link was established between the analysis and management approaches. The two extra dimensions added to the framework for selection purposes turned out to be difficult to assess thoroughly, but have added value in selecting uncertainties and in determining what uncertainties to monitor closely. The case study showed furthermore that the adjusted W&H framework has many advantages for use in RBMP development. The first positive aspect is that the scope of the W&H framework can be widened, because it was possible to turn the dimension ‘location’ into a more flexible or wider dimension. Consequently, the framework can be assessed in a different way than described by Walker et al. (2003) without having to make big changes to the layout or use of the framework. This flexibility of the W&H framework might even allow the framework to be useful for assessing uncertainties in non model based decision making, as long as the decision making process can be described with help of different locations. In addition, this flexibility increases the possibilities to use the framework for different locations and projects and makes it more interdisciplinary, which is useful in RBMP development. The case study furthermore showed that the W&H framework is a very systematic method, which will create overview of all of the uncertainties in a project on whatever level of detail is preferred. However, there were several problems identified in literature and confirmed by the case study that were not solved with the adjustments made to the W&H framework. To overcome these problems, the experience with the use of the W&H framework needs to be further elaborated upon. This can be done by performing several more practical case studies, for example in a different River basin, such as the Rhine or Meuse basin. These case studies should test the

10

suggested changes and recommendations documented in this and in past research. This means that it is recommended: to try to use a different conceptual model to test the flexibility of the dimension ‘location’ of the W&H framework; to further introduce the subjective character of uncertainty, by integrating concepts of the PRIMA approach by van Asselt (2000) or by developing new approaches; to include the suggested interview methods and visualisations to improve the communication and understanding of the concepts used in the W&H framework; to group the uncertainties in different ways to assess the relations between uncertainties; to add the two dimensions: value ladenness and qualification of the knowledge to the analysis, to substantiate the link between the uncertainty analysis and uncertainty management approach. In conclusion, the case study of the Eastern Scheldt confirmed on the one hand that the adjusted W&H framework is a useful basis for uncertainty analysis and decision support in RBMP development. On the other hand, not all documented weaknesses of the W&H framework were addressed in this research. In addition, the adjustments that were made to the framework require more testing to optimise the use of the W&H framework for decision support in RBMP development.

Literature ARCADIS (2006). Pilot gevolgen EU richtlijn voor Oosterschelde, Rijkswaterstaat Zeeland, ARCADIS Ruimte& Milieu B.V. , M. Menke 18-10-2006 Asselt M.B.A., van (2000). Perspectives on uncertainty and risk, The PRIMA approach to Decision Support, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht Brouwer R. (2005). Uncertainty in the economic analysis of the European Water Framework Directive, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU Amsterdam European Commission (2000a). Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle, 02-02-2000, Retrieved January 2007 from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf European Commission (2000b). Water Framework Directive, Directive 2000/60/EC. Retrieved September 2006 from: http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env /wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/legislative_texts&vm=detailed&sb=Title. Janssen P.H.M., Peterson A.C., Sluijs, van der J.P., Risbey J.S. & Ravetz J.R. (2005). A guidance for assessing and communicating uncertainties. In: Water science & technology, 52 (6), p.125-131. Janssen P.H.M., Peterson A.C., Sluijs, van der J.P., Risbey J.S. & Ravetz J.R. (2003). RIVM/MNP Guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication. Quickscan Hints & Actions list (RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication Series, Volume 2). RIVM, Bilthoven. Retrieved February 2007 from: http://www.mnp.nl/leidraad/. Klauer B. & Brown J. (2004). Conceptualising imperfect knowledge in public decision making: ignorance, uncertainty, error and risk situations. In: Environmental research, engineering and management, 1 (27), p. 124-128. Koppenjan J. & Klijn E.H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks, Routledge: London Krayer von Krauss, M.P., Walker W.E., Sluijs, van der J.P., Janssen, P., Asselt, van M.B.A.& Rotmans, J. (2006). Response to „To what extent, and how, might uncertainty be defined“ by Norton, Brown and Mysiak. In: Integrated Assessment Journal, 6 (1), p. 89-94.

11

Krayer von Krauss M., Asselt M.B.A. van, Henze M., Ravetz J.& Beck M.B. (2005). Uncertainty and precaution in environmental management. In: Water science & technology, 52 (6), p.1-9. Krayer von Krauss M. & Janssen P.H.M. (2005). Using the W&H integrated uncertainty analysis framework with non-initiated experts. In: Water science & technology, 52 (6), p.145-152. MNP (2007). Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication. http://www.mnp.nl/leidraad/. Last visited: February 2007. Mysiak, J. & Sigel, K. (2005). Sources of uncertainty in economic analysis of the Water Framework Directive. In: Water Science & Technology, 52 (6), p.161–166. Newig J., Pahl-Wostl C.& Sigel K. (2005). The role of public participation in Managing Uncertainty in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. In: European Environment, 15, 2005, p. 333-343. Norton, J.P., Brown, J.D. & Mysiak, J. (2006). To what extent, and how, might uncertainty be defined? Comments engendered by “Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support”: Walker et al., Integrated Assessment 4(1), 2003. In: Integrated Assessment Journal, 6 (1), p. 83-88. NPOS, Overlegorgaan Nationaal Park Oosterschelde (2001). Van de parels en het slik, beheers en inrichtingsplan Nationaal Park Oosterschelde, 22-11-2001 Refsgaard J.C., Nilsson B., Brown J., Klauer B, Moore R., Bech T., Vurro, M., Blind M., Castilla, G., Tsanis I.& Biza P. (2005). Harmonised techniques and representative river basin data for assessment and use of uncertainty information in integrated water management (HarmoniRiB). In: Environmental Science & Policy 8, p. 267–277. Risman (2007). Website Kennisnetwerk Risicomanagement RISNET: http://www.risman.nl/. Last visited March 2007 Walker W.E., Harremoes P., Sluijs, J.P. van der, Asselt, M.B.A. van, Janssen P. & Krayer von Krauss M.P. (2003). Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support. In: Integrated Assessment, 4 (1), p. 5–17.

12

UNCERTAINTY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

Recommend Documents