Learning from
participation
Quick scan of Participatory Action,
ComCoast WP4
Learning from
participation
Quick scan of Participatory Action,
ComCoast WP4
This report has been prepared by Rijkswaterstaat Bouwdienst in co-operation with Wijzer Adviesbureau. The ComCoast project is carried out in co-operation with ten partners.
• Rijkswaterstaat (NL - leading partner) • Province of Zeeland (NL)
• Province of Groningen (NL) • University of Oldenburg (D) • Environmental Agency (UK)
• Ministry of the Flemish Community (B) • Danish Coastal Authority (DK) • Municipality of Hulst (NL)
• Waterboard Zeeuwse Eilanden (NL) • Waterboard Zeeuws Vlaanderen (NL)
Wijzer Adviesbureau is specialized in research and consultancy on communication and participation in planning and decision making processes. The main fields of work are spatial and environmental issues and in particular water management. Research activities comprise stakeholder analysis, analysis of the project environment, citizens value assessment, monitoring and evaluation of communication and participation in projects and pretesting. Wijzer Adviesbureau also offers communication and participation consultancy, in many cases research-based.
Address: Postbus 13789 2501 ET Den Haag - 00 31 (0)70 3643044 - wijzer@xs4all.nl
Website (in Dutch): www.wijzeradvies.nl
Illustration coverpage by Beeldleveranciers, Amsterdam
This report is an initiative of the ComCoast project, co-financed
by the EU-Interreg IIIb North Sea Programme.
Workpackage 4
Participatory Action
Learning from
participation
Quick scan of Participatory Action
Final Report
Acknowledgements:
This report is a deliverable of WP 4: Participatory Action
The work is performed by: Rijkswaterstaat in co-operation with Wijzer Adviesbureau
The report is written/edited by: Otto Cox, Wijzer Adviesbureau
List of important contributors to the input of this report:
• Claudia van der Pol (supervision, Rijkswaterstaat)
• Astrid Glasius (Rijkswaterstaat)
1. Preface
Learning from participation
The telephone rang on a Friday afternoon, at the end of a busy working week for Jan Boelhouwer, Member of the Provincial Executive of the Province of Noord-Brabant. The representative of the Overdiepse Polder’s residents was on the line. He regretted to have to inform Jan that the residents had lost their confidence in the process that was to result in a water-storage plan for the polder. The member of the Provincial Executive’s response was both rapid and characteristic for the project. On the very next day, a Saturday, he sat with the residents at the kitchen table to discuss the problems.
This was just one incident in a long process. However, it is a characteristic incident – and an incident from which a number of lessons can be learnt. It illustrates, for example, the great importance of commitment to a
participatory process and the courage that is sometimes required. In addition, it also illustrates the importance of direct contacts, and of network management rather than relying on hierarchical channels. Moreover, it also illustrates the process-oriented nature of participation – in which the informal activities are of equal importance to the formal meetings and procedural agreements in determining the success of the project.
These and other lessons about participation form the core of this quick scan of participatory action. This report contains learning points and recommendations relating to the participation of residents and other stakeholders in coastal-defence and water-management projects. However, many of these points will undoubtedly also be suitable for wider use.
The learning points and recommendations can be of assistance in the decision to use participation, the design of the planning process, and the management of the planning process.
The quick scan was carried out within the scope of ComCoast, a European project which develops and demonstrates innovative solutions for flood protection in coastal areas. The involvement of the residents and other stakeholders is regarded as one factor which determines the success of the implementation of the innovative solutions planned by the ComCoast project.
The study was carried out by Otto Cox, of Wijzer Adviesbureau, and supervised by Claudia van der Pol.
Contributions were made by Claudia van der Pol and Astrid Glasius, of the Rijkswaterstaat Bouwdienst. We are particularly grateful to all those who collaborated in this study, either via interviews or providing material, and to Madelinde Winnubst of the Radboud University Nijmegen for her collaboration in the interviews and the exchange of knowledge and insights.
The layout of this report
Readers with little time are advised to begin by studying the Summary, conclusions and recommendations Section, and then focusing their attention on Chapter 6 reviewing the various issues involved in the design of a participatory process. However, they will then skip a great deal of interesting information – such as about the effects of and conditions to be met for participation, about the perception of flood risks and the consequences for participation and – last, but not least – the lessons learnt from the five projects which were analysed. Readers who are not very familiar with the situation in the Netherlands may benefit from Chapter 2, which offers them a brief review of participation in the Netherlands. Chapter 7 outlines a number of the methods used in the Netherlands.
More information
Readers who are interested in receiving more information about ComCoast or this quick scan are welcome to contact the ComCoast secretariat at:
Rijkswaterstaat DWW, ComCoast Secretariat P.O. Box 5044
2600 GA Delft The Netherlands
+31 (0)15 – 2518 518 (telephone) / +31 (0)15 – 2518 555 (telefax) info@comcoast.org
www.comcoast.org (on the website this report is also available in digital form)
Your question will then be forwarded to the relevant person within the ComCoast project. Report title: ‘Learning from participation’
Report number: ComCoast_Part_Overview_4.01_Aug2005 Summary: ComCoast_Part_SummaryO_4.02_Aug2005
Summary, conclusions and recommendations
Projects using innovative concepts in coastal defence -like ComCoast- can benefit greatly from participatory action. It can lead to innovative solutions with a broad societal support base, as is shown in the plan for water storage in the Overdiepse polder and the inundation compensation scheme for farmers in the upper River Dinkel region.
This is one of the main lessons learned in the report “Learning from participation”, a quick scan of participatory action in the Netherlands relevant for coastal projects. Five projects have been analysed and a desk research study has been conducted. This has provided a wealth of material and experiences. These lessons will help with decisions about public participation and designing participatory processes in ComCoast and other water management and spatial projects.
ComCoast
ComCoast - COMbined functions in COASTal defence zones - is a European project for the development and demonstration of innovative solutions for flood protection in coastal areas. The project consortium consists of ten partners in five North Sea countries (United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark). Rijkswaterstaat, part of the Dutch Ministry of Public Works and Water Management, leads the project. During the coming decades climate change will increase the physical loads on the flood defences along the North Sea. Traditional flood-management methods will become increasingly unfeasible.
The ComCoast concept aims to create multifunctional flood-management schemes with a gradual transition from sea to land that are beneficial to the wider coastal community and the environment, while at the same time offering economically sound options. The aim of ComCoast is to explore the opportunities offered by the concept, to generate innovative solutions for multifunctional flood defence, and to improve and apply stakeholder engagement strategies with an emphasis on public participation.
Examples of ComCoast solutions are: wave overtopping of embankments, improvement of the wave-breaking effect of the foreshore, and the creation of salty wetland conditions with tidal exchange in the primary sea defence using culvert constructions or by realigning the coastal defence system.
The involvement of the public at an early stage – and keeping them involved throughout the process – will be of essential importance to ComCoast’s acceptance. In view of the crucial importance of public support and acceptance the project will have a strong focus on innovations in the public-participation process.
5 projects
The 5 Dutch projects which have been analysed are: Proses
A Dutch-Flemish project to improve the accessibility of the Port of Antwerp, restore the nature value of the Westerschelde region, and ensure for safety at high tide. The procedure is a formal strategic environmental assessment, concluded with a decision by Dutch and Belgian governments in December 2004. Important for participation was the ‘Consultative Committee of Advisory Parties’ (OAP) consisting of representatives from the port authorities, water-boards, municipalities, provinces, and nature-conservation and environmental
organisations. This Committee could submit advice – either requested, or unrequested – to the Project Directorate, and directly to the two national governments. A number of meetings were organised to provide the residents and other organisations the relevant information, and to collect their responses. The OAP gave in the end a positive response on the plan, societal support in the region is still uncertain.
Regge en Dinkel
Small rivers in the Province of Overijssel where a number of projects have been carried out or are in preparation intending to restore and increase the water retention. Restoring nature values and water quality are also objectives of the projects. Several storage areas have been developed and an innovative inundation
compensation scheme for farmers has been implemented. Characteristic for participation in these projects is the combination of a traditional formal “inspraak” procedure with extensive consultations with individuals, groups, and organisations prior to the formal procedure. An important success factor was the extensive knowledge of the region and its stakeholders.
Horstermeerpolder
A very deep polder in the province of Noord-Holland, part of which is designated by the provincial government as possible water storage area. A number of inhabitants doubted the necessity of the plan but nevertheless developed a more attractive and more radical plan. Insufficient support by both government agencies and the other inhabitants have led to abandoning the plan and a standstill in planning.
Overdiepse Polder
A polder along the South bank of the Bergsche Maas, which in the nationwide project Ruimte voor de Rivier (Space for the rivers) probably would be designated as a water storage area. The inhabitants of the polder feared a long period of uncertainty about their fate and decided to make their own plan. This initiative was supported by some government institutions and led –ahead of schedule- to an innovative plan for water storage and living areas on mounds (“terpen”).
Pettemer en Hondsbossche Zeewering
Two connecting sections of dike that plug a gap in the chain of dunes between Schoorl and Petten. The dikes have to be strengthened. Some emergency measures have been implemented without participation. Now a long-term solution is developed which can entail measures seawards or landwards of the existing dikes. Great attention is paid to clear communications about the projects.
Benefits of participation
Participatory action can bring a number of benefits for a project.
In the first place participation often leads to a better quality of the plan or project. Participation leads to an improved definition of the problems, improved knowledge of the local situation, increased insights into the effects of the plan or policy, a broader field of expertise and experience, and attention to new, more creative solutions. In addition, the plans are also rendered more feasible and practicable.
Equally important is the broader and increased societal support for the project. This doesn’t mean there has to be a 100% consensus, but an adequate support can be a great advantage when implementing the project or policy, as for example is shown in the Regge en Dinkel water management project.
Other effects include an improvement in the government’s image, the restoration of the public’s confidence in the government, increased awareness of short-term solutions, and more comprehensive and comprehensible plans.
Incorporating participatory action requires attention, expertise and - not in the least - commitment. It takes some courage to commit oneself to a participatory action, because one cannot predict exactly the outcome of this dynamic process. This applies to project managers, but equally so to politicians. Experiences in the Netherlands show that commitment of at least some politicians to the process is a major success factor. The experiences also show that commitment can lead to results, both for the project and the politician involved.
Main findings
• Analysis of publications and in particular analysis of projects provides many useful insights on participatory action. The Netherlands has ample experience with a wide range of public participatory methodologies. However, in practice planning procedures in the Netherlands make insufficient use of the lessons learnt from earlier experiences.
• Important success factors for participatory action are: a thorough analysis of the project environment; explicit, specific and bilateral communications on the relevant problems; the quality of project management; the allocation of sufficient time in the schedule; a combination of formal and informal methods; attention to contacts between stakeholder representatives and their grass roots; and commitment from the various stakeholders, including at least some politicians.
• The choice for a participatory process is not a simple yes-or-no question. The real issue is choosing an appropriate level of participation. “Participation ladders”, such as those described by Pröpper and by
Weidemann, are useful tools for these choices. It is perfectly possible to have different levels of participation in different stages of the planning process and/or varying levels for different groups of stakeholders.
• A high level of participation will probably be appropriate when the process addresses a fairly complex set of problems (projects involving multiple land-use issues are often appropriate), the participants have good relationships with the government and each other (or are prepared to enter into them), there is sufficient (political) scope for the formulation of new policies or plans, the provision of open information is feasible, there is a need for creative and innovative solutions, and the added value provided by participation is explicit.
• Of course there also are risks to be considered, such as lack of sufficient time, insufficient possibilities for implementing results of a participatory process, or fear of loss of power by participants. And there are pitfalls, such as an early focus on one appealing solution whilst prohibiting the exploration or even discussion of other solutions for the relevant problem. In almost all situations one or more risk factors occur, but often there are adequate possibilities to diminish these risks.
• But a decision to refrain from a participatory process has its own specific risks that should be taken into account: the public and other stakeholders will form their own opinions about the project, its goals, the problems, and the solutions, etc. This can in turn result in misconceptions and wild rumours. Not deciding for participatory action doesn’t mean nothing will happen.
• Societal support is often an objective of participatory action. In many instances ‘support for the project’ isn’t adequately defined. Questions to be answered are: who will need to support the project, what does support entail (for example active or passive support) and which degree of support is necessary. It is also important to keep in mind that support is dynamic: it can grow, but also diminish.
• Public participation is essential during the initial phases of the planning or policy-making process. Interaction in these early phases increases the opportunities available for the incorporation of the problems, perceptions and ideas of the public and other stakeholders in the process, and it broadens the scope for creative solutions. It is often advisable to invest ample time in the first stages. This contributes to the success of the project and in many cases also to time gains in later stages.
• Adequate time is needed for participatory action. That doesn’t mean that public participation has to lead to lengthy procedures or delays. Experiences show that good planning and management can keep a participatory project on schedule. And appreciable time gains are also possible, as for example the project “Overdiepse Polder” shows.
• Public participation can be an important force for finding creative, practical and innovative solutions. Knowledge development should be a consideration when designing a participatory process, especially in projects where multiple land use is an issue. Both rational/technical knowledge and practical and local knowledge will be required in such planning processes.
Designing a participatory process
All participatory processes require a tailor-made design that takes account of the dynamics of the process, and of some uncertainty as to the outcome. Methodologies serve more as frameworks rather than as fixed sets of guidelines. The quick scan does not offer a step-by-step recipe for process design, but instead offers a range of tools, experiences, and issues requiring attention.
These issues can be divided into three categories, which can serve as a framework for designing participatory processes:
1. The fundamentals: issues that need to be taken into account when deciding on the incorporation of participatory action in the planning process.
2. Process design: for the planning process as a whole or for specific stages.
3. Process management: participatory action is a dynamic process that often exhibits some unexpected developments. For this reason process management must receive close attention.
Most interactive processes consist of divergent phases (in which many new solutions, ideas, perceptions, and problem definitions are generated) and convergent stages (in which the best solutions, ideas, etc., are selected). Quite often the process will include several of these phases.
1. The fundamentals
Issues and lessons to be taken into account when deciding about the fundamentals of public participation in a project:
• The problem definition should be explicit and specific. The experts and local stakeholders can have
(sometimes very) different perceptions of the problems, in particular relating to flood risks. For this reason it is necessary to enter into dialogue to develop a shared analysis of the problem. Although this might appear self-explanatory, in practice this dialogue is often overlooked.
• A thorough analysis of the project environment is an important success factor. Too often the analysis is too shallow. The report offers some analytical tools.
• The conditions to be met for a successful participatory process, such as an open attitude, adequate opportunities to exert an influence on the plan or policy, as well as sufficient time and resources (a full summary is given in the report).
• Take care to formulate explicit expectations of the results from participatory action and share these with all stakeholders. In particular, it will be necessary to define the required resultant societal support (which stakeholders will be involved, will active support be required, or will mere acceptance be sufficient, etc.).
• Ensure adequate commitment from the stakeholders and politicians for the participatory action. The projects reveal that this requires a measure of courage from at least a few politicians.
• Selection of appropriate levels of participation for the various phases and various groups of stakeholders.
2. Process design
Issues to be addressed during the process design include the following:
• Management: At least one person should be assigned the specific responsibility for the management of the participatory action; however, it can be necessary to appoint managers for a number of sub-processes, such as the actions taken for a specific group of stakeholders.
• An explicit set of rules for the process (the report contains an overview of subjects to be covered by the rules).
• Adequate opportunities for informal activities, such as presentations and discussions at meetings, visits of the public and stakeholders, and direct talks. Informal activities are an essential part of participatory action.
• Good contacts between the stakeholders’ representatives and their grass roots are essential to success of the participatory action, and will need to receive attention during process design. Several tools are available for the promotion of these contacts, and they should be used more often.
• Communications are important – not just communications between the government agency and the stakeholders, but also the internal communications within public-sector organisations and the contacts between the stakeholders’ representatives and their grass roots.
• The development of knowledge is seen as an important factor in creating new, innovative solutions and gaining support for those solutions. Two forms of knowledge are often required for water-management and coastal projects, i.e. expert knowledge and local practical local knowledge. The process design should provide for the use of different types of knowledge.
• Time is also an important issue to be taken into account when designing participatory processes. Most processes, for example, will benefit from alternating intense and quieter periods.
• Working methods: A wide range of methods and activities can be used, such as presentation methods, group sessions, Internet-based methods, etc., etc. These can be grouped into fact-finding and social research tools, sounding boards or citizen panels, tools for enhanced consultations, debating sessions, and design workshops. This last type of workshop is a relatively new development; design workshops have been used in quite a few Dutch projects during the past few years, in particular in land-use and
water-management projects. Chapter 7 of the report contains a more detailed description of the various groups of methods.
• Scenarios and visual information contribute in different ways to participation and finding new, better solutions. This should be a consideration when choosing working methods.
3. Process management
• The design must incorporate explicit points for a review of the process, assessment of the results to date, and modification of the design, where relevant. These are of particular importance between the various phases of the process.
• Feedback must be given close attention. Time pressure often results in a failure to report back to
stakeholders on the actions taken with the information, ideas and opinions. However, feedback is of great importance to the process and the acquisition of support.
• One or more (large or small) crises occur in all processes. An alert response – usually involving direct, personal contacts – can make the difference between success and failure.
• Explicit rules are required for participatory action; however, they may not impose an excessively rigid framework. Almost all processes will be confronted with developments that make it necessary to change (or even break) some rules.
Risk perception
Particular attention is devoted to the perception of risks, in particular flooding risks, and the possible
consequences for the participatory process. There is a considerable difference between public perception of risks and expert judgements. Public perception is usually based on local knowledge, as well as personal observations and experiences. Emotions and insecurity also play a role, and consequently need to be taken into account. Participatory methods incorporating dialogue on risk perception are ideally suited to dealing with these issues. In the Netherlands the risk of floods with serious consequences is perceived as being very low by the public. Protection from these risks is regarded as a responsibility of the government. People with experience of flooding (for example, because they have lived in a risk area for a long time) perceive the risk of floods as lower than those without that experience.
Relevance to ComCoast
Participatory action is particularly relevant to ComCoast; the concept is contrary to the traditional approach (raising and strengthening the dikes), and consequently could encounter resistance and unfavourable responses. In addition, the focus on multifunctional flood management also gives cause to the need for stakeholder involvement. Participatory action will be a factor determining the success of the pilot projects. The experiences obtained to date will also provide insights into the broader acceptance of the ComCoast concept.
Of course, the experiences and lessons will also be useful for other projects, especially on water management and land use planning.
Table of Contents
1. ComCoast and the quick scan
15
1.1. ComCoast 15
1.2. The quick scan of participatory action 16
1.3. Overview of this report 16
2. Overview of public participation in the Netherlands
19
2.1. Current practice 19
2.2. Experiments with other forms of public participation 19
3. Theory and general characteristics of participation
21
3.1. Effects of participation 21
3.2. Characteristics of all participation actions, and the conditions to be met 22
3.3. Levels of participation 22
3.4. The decision to make use of public participation 23
4. Perception and communication of flood risks
25
4.1. The perception of risks by experts and the public 25
4.2. Perception of flood risks in the Netherlands 25
5. Participation on the dissecting table: five projects
27
5.1. Brief description of the five projects 27
5.1.1. Proses 27
5.1.2. Waterberging Regge en Dinkel water-retention scheme 28
5.1.3. The Horstermeerpolder 28
5.1.4. The Overdiepse polder 29
5.1.5. The Pettemer and Hondsbossche zeewering (coastal defences) 30
5.2. Styles of participation used in the projects 31
5.3. Effects of participation 32
5.4. Conditions to be met for participation 32
5.5. Success and failure factors 33
6. Designing a participatory process
35
6.1. The fundamentals 35
6.1.1. Problem awareness and problem definition 36
6.1.2. Analysis of the project environment 37
6.1.3. Selection of the participants 39
6.1.4. Societal support - an indispensable ingredient 40
6.1.5. Commitment at the political level 40
6.1.6. Drawing up a process design: levels and phases 41
6.2. Process design 42
6.2.1. Supervision 42
6.2.2. The framework and the rules 43
6.2.3. Formal and informal sections of the process 44
6.2.4. The grass roots 44
6.2.5. The exchange of information and the development of knowledge 45
6.2.6. Time, and timing 46
6.2.7. Selection of methods 47
6.3. Process management 48
6.3.1. General 48
6.3.2. Information about the process, and feedback 48
6.3.3. The approach to risks and modifications 48
6.3.4. Organisation of the activities 49
7. Participatory processes and methods
51
7.1. Fact-finding and opinion research 51
7.2. Sounding board or citizen panels 51
7.3. Enhanced consultations 51
7.6. Composite methods/methodologies 54
7.6.1. Infraplan 54
7.6.2. Dialoog 54
7.6.3. KDO methodology 55
Appendix A: List of working methods and tools
57
Appendix B: Checklist for stakeholder analysis
58
Appendix C: Participation ladders
59
Appendix D: Analytical framework for Dutch projects, ComCoast WP4
60
References
62
Publications 62
Web sites with information about participatory planning 63
Sources of information about the projects 63
1. ComCoast and the quick scan
1.1. ComCoast
ComCoast - COMbined functions in COASTal defence zones - is a European project for the development and demonstration of innovative solutions for flood protection in coastal areas. The project consortium consists of ten partners in five North Sea countries (United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark).
Rijkswaterstaat, part of the Dutch Ministry of Public Works and Water Management, leads the project.
During the coming decades climate change will increase the physical loads on the flood defences along the North Sea. Traditional flood-management methods will become increasingly unfeasible.
ComCoast creates and applies new methodologies to evaluate multifunctional flood defence zones from an economical and social point of view. A more gradual transition from sea to land, creates benefits for a wider coastal community and environment whilst offering economically and socially sound options. The aim of ComCoast is to explore the spatial potentials for coastal defence strategies for current and future sites in the North Sea Interreg IIIb region.
ComCoast goals are:
Ø developing innovative technical flood defence solutions to incorporate the environment and the people and to guarantee the required safety level;
Ø improving and applying stakeholder engagement strategies with emphasis on public participation; Ø applying best practice multifunctional flood management solutions to the ComCoast pilot sites; Ø sharing knowledge across the Interreg IIIb North Sea region.
Depending on the regional demands, ComCoast develops tailor-made solutions:
• to cope with the future increase of wave overtopping of the embankments;
• to improve the wave breaking effect of the fore shore e.g. by using recharge schemes;
• to create salty wetland conditions with tidal exchange in the primary sea defence using culvert constructions or by realigning the coastal defence system;
• to cope with the increasing salt intrusion
• to influence policy, planning and people
• to gain public support of multifunctional zones.
Public support as a critical factor
The ComCoast project is subdivided into six work packages. Work Package 4 (WP4) focuses on the acquisition of public support for the ComCoast concept by innovations in the process of public participation. The degree to which the relevant stakeholders respond to the concept is regarded as a factor of critical importance to the feasibility of the ComCoast concept.
The ComCoast concept is contrary to the traditional approach (raising and strengthening the dikes) and could encounter resistance and unfavourable responses. The focus on multifunctional flood management is another factor that can give cause to the need for stakeholder involvement.
The involvement of the public at an early stage – and keeping them involved throughout the process – will be of essential importance to ComCoast’s acceptance. In view of the crucial importance of public support and acceptance the project will have a strong focus on innovations in the public-participation process.
The ComCoast approach is compatible with the Aarhus Convention, which stipulates the right of the public to information about environmental issues and the obligation of the public authorities to take due account of public participation.
Work Package 4 will carry out a number of activities that can be grouped into four categories: 1. Quick scan of participatory action in the several participating countries
For the Netherlands the quick scan will provide an insight into the current status of participatory action in the Netherlands, in particular the North Sea coastal region and the river regions. In addition, it will offer guidelines for the successful organisation and implementation of participatory action. This report is the Dutch contribution to the quick scan of participatory action.
2. Communications planning on participatory action
The identification and implementation of the appropriate communications strategy for a successful participatory process. This will take place in one or more of the ComCoast pilot projects. Communications should be geared towards increasing awareness and support for the ComCoast concept.
3. Review of the participatory process and its application in the pilot projects
A synopsis of feasible approaches for participatory action for pilot projects in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, and the establishment of a public forum on the ComCoast concept.
1.2. The quick scan of participatory action
The objective of the quick scan is to provide an insight into the current status of participation in Dutch planning and policy-making, the methods that are used, experiences, and success and failure factors. The emphasis is placed on the coastal and the river regions.
The quick scan consisted of a literature study of:
• A participatory methods (interactive planning) that could be applicable to the ComCoast concept. The emphasis of this study was placed on experiences in the Netherlands; in addition, an outline exploration was made of experiences outside the Netherlands.
• The provision of a specification of the current status of (interactive planning) in projects in the Dutch coastal region of relevance to the ComCoast concept.1
• The provision of a contribution to an analytical framework for the evaluation of implemented projects.
• A study of five projects in which participation played a role. This study, carried out by means of desk research and interviews, examined the following projects:
Proses en ontpolderingen in Zeeland (hereinafter referred to as ‘Proses’),
Waterberging in het Dinkelgebied (Overijssel) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regge en Dinkel’),
the Horstermeerpolder (Noord-Holland), the Overdiepse Polder (Noord-Brabant),
the Pettemer and Hondsbossche Zeewering (Noord-Holland).
• The performance of an analysis and evaluation of each project which reviewed the participatory design and its effects on the course of the project. The results from these analyses are included in this final report on the quick scan, albeit in abbreviated form. The analyses of the projects have not been published in a separate report.
• The preparation of the final report containing a summary of the methods, the current status, an evaluation of the completed projects, and recommendations (do’s & don’ts). The contents of the final report are based on the literature study and the analysis of the projects. The analytical framework is enclosed as Appendix D to this report.
Procedure
A large number of Dutch publications address participation and interactive planning. For this reason it was necessary to restrict the literature study to participation in water-management, spatial-planning and land-use projects, and to place the emphasis of the study on options for the participatory process, methods, and experience gained in practice. However, even with these restrictions it still proved impossible to consult all the publications of relevance to the quick scan.
The projects were selected on the basis of their geographical distribution and the diversity of their approaches and problems. The information was collected by means of desk research (reports, press publications, and the Internet) and interviews with a restricted number of key persons in each project. Those involved in the projects collaborated in full with this quick scan. Please refer to the references for a summary of the sources used for the project information.
Problems in arranging for the necessary consultations prevented the preparation of a joint analytical framework for the various countries participating in the ComCoast Project. For this reason an analytical framework has been prepared for the Dutch projects. This analytical framework is enclosed in Appendix D.
The quick scan was carried out by Otto Cox, of Wijzer Adviesbureau, on the request of Rijkswaterstaat/ComCoast Work Package 4. Astrid Glasius, Leonie Stronk and Dimitri Terlien of Rijkswaterstaat also carried out work for the quick scan. Claudia van der Pol, also from the Rijkswaterstaat organisation, supervised the performance of the quick scan.
A number of interviews were conducted in collaboration with Madelinde Winnubst of Radboud University Nijmegen, who is currently carrying out a study of participation in the river region within the scope of the “Freude am Fluss” report. In addition, information was also exchanged about the projects.
1.3. Overview of this report
The core of this report is comprised of the learning points and recommendations reviewed in chapter 6: Designing a participatory process. Participation is a tailor-made process. Consequently this chapter does not provide ready-to-use recipes; however, it does offer issues requiring attention, options, and tips for the design of participatory processes. A concise summary of the most important learning points and conclusions is given in
1
A separate Dutch-language Memorandum reviewing the project summary (status as of January 2005) has been published. This is not included in this report.
the Summary at the beginning of this report. The findings on which the recommendations, experiences and backgrounds are based are given in chapters 2 through 5.
Chapter 2 contains a brief summary of participation as used in Dutch planning procedures. Chapter 3 reviews the most important insights offered by the literature into the effects of participation, the conditions that need to be met, the opportunities for participation, and the issues to be considered in deciding whether to opt for participation.
A considerable number of Dutch publications address the perceptions of risks, as well as planning and
communications methods for dealing with these perceived risks. Chapter 4 contains the most important findings on risk perception, whereby particular attention is given to flood risks.
Chapter 5, which reviews practical experience with participation, contains a brief specification of the five projects analyzed for this quick scan together with a review of the effects of participation in these projects, the nature and intensity of the participation, and the success and failure factors.
Chapter 7 focuses on methods. Both the literature and experience gained in practice reveal that a wide variety of methods are used for participatory processes. This chapter, which does not contain an exhaustive description of the various methods, classifies the various methods into a number of categories.
Appendix A contains a list of working methods, accompanied by a number of references to publications and websites offering information about the working methods and procedures.
Appendix B contains a checklist for the performance of an analysis of the project environment, and Appendix C provides some additional information about participation ladders used by different authors.
Appendix D contains the analytical framework used for the analysis of the five projects, and which is also suitable for use in other projects.
The References section of the report contains a comprehensive summary of the publications referred to during this study, websites offering information about participation, and the sources of the information used to study the five projects examined in this report.
2. Overview of public participation in the Netherlands
2.1. Current practice
Dutch public-planning and decision-making procedures are based on a form of consultation referred to as
inspraak (enabling the public to have its say). This form of consultation was developed in the 1970’s and is now
a mandatory constituent of Dutch planning procedures, especially spatial planning, land-use planning and environmental planning procedures.
A draft plan must be published before the final decision; the public, interest groups and others are then offered an opportunity to submit their opinions to the relevant government agency. These opinions can be expressed in writing, and at public hearings. These consultations can result in amendments to the plan before it is adopted, usually by representative bodies such as city councils.
Inspraak has contributed to the increased openness of planning procedures, and it has given the public and
interest groups the right to express their views before a decision is made. Inspraak has proven to be a practical form of consultation.
However, this form of consultation does have disadvantagesi
: consultation in the final phase of the decision-making process tends to result in rigid opinions and conflicts; it does not encourage a search for creative solutions; it is not designed for complex, multi-faceted problems, and it often fails to achieve broad societal support for decisions. In many cases the group participating in the process is not fully representative of the population (a predominance of older, well-educated, white males). In addition, this form of consultation in the final phase is not regarded as being compatible with the individualistic and pragmatic attitudes of today’s society. Nowadays many people have a higher education and are focused more on their personal interests. Moreover as a result of the intensity of population and land use in the Netherlands, most projects have an impact on a large number of people from various groups and a range of interests.
2.2. Experiments with other forms of public participation
Dissatisfaction with traditional forms of consultation resulted in ideas and experiments for other forms of public participation which offered more influence to the public and public organisations during different stages of the planning process. In the 1990’s an appreciable number of policy-making processes incorporated elements of public participation, especially processes focused on spatial and land-use planning. These processes are referred to interactieve beleidsvorming (‘interactive policy making’) or, occasionally, as the Open Planproces (‘open planning process’).
In 2001 a State Advisory Committee on Public Communicationsii
recommended a more open attitude and increased attention to two-way communications with public and interest groups at the early stages of the policy-making process. These recommendations were in line with developments and opinions in the field. This resulted in the Governmental Service of Public Information’s formulation of a set of guidelines for interactive policy-makingiii
. These guidelines are not mandatory, and they have no legal status. The level and method of participation are determined on an ad-hoc basis, and vary between projects.
In the years since 2002 the attention given to public participation appears to have decreased slightly, and the focus has shifted to research on public attitudes and opinions and on private financiers of public projects. A new
Andere Overheid governmental action programme primarily devotes attention to the public sector as an efficient
provider of public services rather than on citizenship and participation.
Nevertheless some promising developments and experiments are taking place, especially in water
management. Examples include the project Space for the River, the Buurtschap IJsselzone near Zwolle, and a number of projects in water meadows and flooding areas.
3. Theory and general characteristics of participation
There are no fixed standards or procedures for public participation in the Netherlands. As such, even the terms “interactive policy making” and “open planning process” often give cause to confusion, since government officials, experts and others have different views on what they involve.
Nevertheless, it is possible to determine some general trends and characteristics from the literature. One of the most important of these is the emphasis the experts place on the importance of tailor-made solutions. Every situation is different, and there are no fixed methods suitable for all processes.
Moreover, there is no consensus on the definition of ‘participation’. However, most definitions, such as Bekker (1993) and the OECD (1994) all emphasise the following points:
• the involvement of all the relevant stakeholders (such as the public, NGOs, interest groups, and public sector organisations);
• a dialogue between stakeholders, and with government agencies and experts;
• cooperation in drawing up the problem definition, and in developing solutions;
• openness and explicit endeavours to obtain knowledge from all stakeholders.
Nevertheless, there is agreement on the possible effects of public participation (3.1), and on a number of common characteristics (3.2). Frequent use is made of a distinction between levels of participation (3.3). The literature devotes a great deal of attention to the selection of the form of participation, conditions to be met for success, and risk factors (3.4).
Note: a variety of terms are used to describe those involved in a participatory process, such as citizen groups, interest groups and actors. This publication uses ‘stakeholders’ to designate the public, interest groups, NGOs, public-sector organisations and others involved in the process, since ‘stakeholders’ is the term most widely used in referring to these groups.
3.1. Effects of participation
Most publications emphasize the beneficial effects of public participation. These can be classified into three main categories:
1. The improved quality of the plan or policy as a result of the improved definition of the problems, improved knowledge of the local situation, increased insights into the effects of the plan or policy, a broader field of expertise and experience, and attention to new, more creative solutions, etc. In addition, the plans are also rendered more feasible/practicable.
2. Broader and/or increased societal support for the plan or policy, or less resistance to the project;
3. Stronger democracy, narrowing the gulf between government and the public, the restoration of confidence. In addition, further beneficial effects sometimes mentioned include the improvement of the government’s image, the increased problem-solving capacity of the public and society, the encouragement of the improvement of the quality of the civil service, the increased awareness of short-term solutions, and plans that are more comprehensive and comprehensible.
Detrimental effects cited in the literature mentioned include the personnel and financial resources that are required (public participation is a labour-intensive process) and the fact that public participation can increase the complexity and cost of the project. In addition, the failure to meet the expectations aroused by participation can result in a risk that the public loses its confidence in the government.
Opinions are divided on the question as to whether public participation lengthens or shortens the duration of the project. The incorporation of public participation in the planning process increases the duration of the early phases of the process. However, many authors argue that this is more than regained during the later stages and implementation of the project. Some experiences, for example with Infraplan (see 7.6.2), indicate that the time needed for participation can be fairly short and controllable. Participation often contributes to increased care for and consideration to the planning and decision-making process, thereby reducing the time for implementation. Examples reveal that minimal participation can cause delays in later phases of the project, and may result in the need to start again. However other authors disagree, and argue that participation lengthens the planning process.
Evaluations of the effects of participation are usually carried out on an ad-hoc basis. A number of authors have developed frameworks for the purposes of analysis and evaluationiv
3.2. Characteristics of all participation actions, and the conditions to be met
There is wide consensus on the following characteristics of public participation, and the conditions that must be met:
• Fixed methods are not available and, in fact, they are neither feasible not desirable, since each situation is different. Public participation is always a tailor-made process.
• Public participation is essential during the initial phases of the planning or policy-making process. Interaction in these early phases increases the opportunities available for the incorporation of the problems, perceptions and ideas of the public and other stakeholders in the process, and it broadens the scope for creative solutions.
• Openness is both a characteristic of and a condition to be met by interactive planning. As much information as possible (surveys, policy statements, design proposals, etc.) must be made available to the participants in the process.
• It is essential that the participants are offered scope to influence the relevant plan or policy. The public-sector organisation initiating a participatory process must at least make an explicit statement that it is willing to incorporate the results of the process in the final plan or policy. This statement will need to be supplemented by other measures when the public lacks the necessary confidence.
• There must be explicit rules governing the interactive process. Sometimes these rules are drawn up in negotiations between the participants; in other cases the government agency lays down the rules. These rules stipulate, for example, who may participate, when and in what role, the phases of the process, who takes the decision, and how conflicts are resolved.
• Most interactive processes consist of divergent phases (in which many new solutions, ideas, perceptions, and problem definitions are generated) and convergent stages (in which the best solutions, ideas, etc., are selected). Quite often the process will include several of these phases.
• The importance of a shared analysis and definition of the problems. Participation is not restricted solely to finding a solution for a pre-defined problem; it must also address the (different) problems experienced by the participants if the participation is to be successful.
3.3. Levels of participation
The “Levels of Participation” concept is of great importance to the process. The literature frequently cites Pröpper and Steenbeek’s “Participation ladder”, which defines seven levels of participation:
1. a closed authoritarian style; 2. open authoritarian style; 3. closed participation (consulting); 4. open participation (advising);
5. delegation (of decisions on partial subjects); 6. co-operation (joint decision-making);
7. facilitating (in which the government restricts its operations to helping the public and private parties to solve the problems themselves).
The participation ladder is – often in adapted versions – frequently cited in publications, policy documents, and project descriptions.
These levels of participation resemble similar concepts in international publications, for example the Public Participation Spectrum developed by the IAPv
, and the participation ladders by Sherry Arnstein and by Wiedemann and Femers. Wiedemann and Femers developed their ladder on the basis of large government agencies’ perceptions of public participation. Although this ladder finds infrequent use in the Netherlands, it does nevertheless offer a suitable framework:
6. Public participation in final decision The public is active in selecting the criteria for the evaluation of the plan, and in arriving at and supporting the final decision.
5. Public participation in assessing
risks and recommending solutions The public is involved in assessing the impact of possible decisions, and can recommend solutions to the decision-makers. 4. Public participation in defining
interests, actors, and determining agenda
The first step towards real participation. The public is involved at an early stage, and defines and discusses the relevant issues on the decision-makers’ agenda.
3. Public right to object The public can say yes or no to a plan and raise objections, but is not given the right to amend or decide on the plan.
2. Informing the public The government implements a programme to inform the public about the plan; however, the public is not permitted to respond. 1. Public right to know The public is offered no more than an opportunity to find out that a
The following four-level classification is frequently used in the planning projects of local, regional and national public-sector organisations in the Netherlands:
• information exchange or fact-finding (meeweten);
• opinion development and exchange (meedenken);
• joint policy development (co-production, or meedoen);
• joint decision-making (co-decision, or meebeslissen).
In practice this four-level classification is somewhat arbitrary, since most projects fall in the second quite broad category. The aforementioned participation ladders would appear to be better tools for the selection of the nature of the participatory process.
3.4. The decision to make use of public participation
It is important to give careful consideration to the decision to make use of public participation and, where relevant, the selection of an appropriate level of participation.
A number of conditions need to be met if the participatory planning process is to be a success. Careful consideration will always need to be given to the selection of the appropriate level of participation for the relevant situation. Some indicators can point towards the desirability of a high level of participation; however, it will also be necessary to give consideration to the risks. Moreover, it will always be wise to give consideration to the actions that could be taken by other stakeholders. Although a public-sector organisation can decide not to make use of participation, this does not imply that other stakeholders will refrain from action.
Conditions to be met for a successful participatory process
There is general consensus about the following conditions:
Ø The adoption of an open attitude by participants, including the relevant government agencies.
Ø The availability of adequate opportunities for the process to influence policy decisions. The participants must be fully aware of the scope they are offered to influence the decisions.
Ø The problem or planning question must be appropriate for the process. Ø Commitment from government officials.
Ø The public, stakeholders and other participants must be willing and able to participate. Ø Explicit rules must govern the process.
Ø There must be explicit expectations of the value of the participatory process (for example, the quality of the proposals, or broader societal support)
Ø Reconciliation with other relevant planning and policy making processes. Ø Adequate time for the process.
Ø Adequate financial and organisational resources (most participatory processes are intensive processes).
Commitment for the process is required from all the major stakeholders, including the government officials, politicians and members of the relevant representative bodies.
Obstruction by other organisations (public-sector organisations, NGOs, and/or private enterprises) can result in a severe loss of credibility, and can even obstruct the entire process.
Indicators for success
A high level of participation will probably be appropriate when:
Ø The process addresses a fairly complex set of problems (projects involving multiple land-use issues are often appropriate).
Ø The participants have good relationships with the government and each other (or are prepared to enter into them).
Ø There is sufficient (political) scope for the formulation of new policies or plans. Ø The provision of open information is feasible.
Ø There is a need for creative and innovative solutions. Ø The added value provided by participation is explicit.
Risk factors
A number of risk factors also need to be considered: Ø The degree of participation is not explicit. Ø Insufficient time for the process.
Ø Insufficient representation of all stakeholders. Ø The participants’ fear of losing power.
Ø The possible obstruction of the process by one or more stakeholders. Ø The possible generation of conflicts.
Ø Expectations that the process will yield insufficient results (for example, a bleak compromise). Ø Insufficient opportunities to implement the results that may be achieved by the process.
A common pitfall is an early focus on one appealing solution whilst prohibiting the exploration or even discussion of other solutions for the relevant problem.
Public-sector organisations will often be reluctant to initiate or take part in participatory processes as a result of their concerns for the control of the process, and for the uncertainty of its outcome. However, a degree of uncertainty is a necessary ingredient of participative processes, and consequently this issue must be addressed when it arises.
One or more risk factors will be involved in almost every process. It will often be possible to reduce these risks; however, when these risks cannot be reduced a high level of participation may not be the best choice. Still, caution is always required. It may seem simplest to opt for a low level of participation, or to decide not to make use of participation. Nevertheless, the decision to refrain from a participatory process does not imply that this will be accepted. Examples are known in which a government agency opted for a closed policy-making process, as a result of which the stakeholders initiated a process of meetings and negotiations that left the government agency with a role as bystander. There are also a number of examples in which groups from the public or stakeholders initiated a participatory process before the relevant government agency had made a decision on participation. In these cases the primary issue will be to reconcile a participatory process that has already been initiated with the regular planning processes.
The decision to refrain from a participatory process is also accompanied by specific risks: the public and other stakeholders will form their own opinions about the project, its goals, the problems, and the solutions, etc. This can in turn result in misconceptions and wild rumours, sometimes based on earlier experiences.
These effects are frequently encountered in projects addressing protection from flooding risks, controlled flooding areas, and the storage of polluted soil or dredging sludge. They are often an indicator for a higher level of participation.
However, this does not imply that a high level of participation will always be appropriate, or that a role as bystander is always undesirable; however, there are considerations that need to be taken into account. It is impossible to control everything, even in a closed process.
Other considerations of relevance to opting for participation:
The level of participation can differ at various phases in a policy-making or planning process, an additional important reason for giving consideration to the entire process when deciding on participation.
The expectations of the various groups will need to be monitored and corrected as necessary. When the public and other stakeholders have unjustifiably high expectations of their influence on the process they will become disappointed and lose confidence in the government agencies; in addition, this may give cause to conflicts and delays in the further process. Conversely, when the public and stakeholders have unjustifiably low expectations of their participation they will not be prepared to take part, since they will be of the opinion that their efforts will serve no purpose. It will be necessary to provide explicit information about the level of participation. Meulemanvi gives some advice on the management of expectations:
• ensure that everyone is fully aware of the degree of influence they can influence;
• invest more time in the project kick-off than might seem to be necessary;
• tailor the form, content, selection of participants and methods of communications to the goal, and explain the selections to participants;
• ensure that the participants remain well informed about the process, for example by means of information bulletins and existing media;
• devote a great deal of attention to providing feedback on the process, and on the ideas and proposals of the participants;
4. Perception and communication of flood risks
During the past few years a great deal of research has been carried out into the perception of risks by the general public and communication of risks. Flood risks are a major subject of this research in the Netherlands, since they are of relevance to large segments of the public.
4.1. The perception of risks by experts and the public
It has been shown that the general public’s perception of the risks can differ considerably from the experts’ assessment of those risks.
Expert assessments, used in planning and for government information on risks, are based on statistical and technical knowledge such as the probability of flooding and the strength of dikes.
However, public perceptions are largely based on other sources, such as local knowledge, personal observations, past experiences, and stories from other residents. Personal experience with the risk is an important factor. People living on a floodplain, for example, will generally be less concerned about flood risks than others living behind the dikes, since they have more experience in assessing and dealing with the risk.
Emotions and insecurity also play a role: an unknown risk with a low probability is often perceived as more serious than a well-known risk with a higher probability.
These differences in the perception of the risks between the public and the experts should not only influence the communications about a project, but should also be taken into account during the entire planning process. Ignoring these differences, and relying solely on statistical and scientific knowledge, could place the project at risk. It is not enough to provide information about the risks; it is also necessary to establish the perception of those risks. Participative methods can be used for this purpose. The Comrisk Report2 states that participation in and the provision of information on coastal defences is still uncommon. The report also states that coastal defences should not be addressed in isolation from disaster management and prevention. In Dutch practice it is customary to provide information about plans for the strengthening of the coastal defences; however, the government is reluctant to issue information about disaster management.
The Leidraad risicocommunicatie Report (´Guidelines for risk communication´, see references under Pol) contains a summary of insights into and experiences with the communication of risks.
Important issues to be taken into consideration stated in the report include:
• Open communications, with respect for all the participants, are essential;
• Make a thorough analysis of the stakeholders and participants, of the region and the problem, and of the history of the problem (for example: loss of confidence in the government agency as a result of past problems);
• Pay due heed to differences in risk perception;
• Ensure for two-way communications, and take care to listen carefully;
• Begin the communications process at an early stage;
• Use a mixture of rational, emotional and practical arguments.
4.2. Perception of flood risks in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands the risk of floods with serious consequences (such as the loss of life and/or extensive damage) is perceived as being very low. Protection from these risks is usually regarded as a responsibility of the government (including the water-boards), and there is a great deal of confidence in the expertise of these governmental agencies. However, the risks are perceived as being greater in the region of the major rivers (the Rhine, Waal and Meuse), largely due to the high water levels and evacuations in 1995. Nevertheless this perception of greater risks is offset by the perceived advantages of living near a river.
Experience with flood risks is an important factor in risk perception. People with experience (for example, because they have lived in the area for a long time) perceive the risk of floods as lower than those without that experience. They have seen the different water levels and their consequences at first hand, have made
alterations to their houses and their surroundings, know what they should do in a flood, and are aware of how to cope with the consequences. It is striking to note that people living on floodplains or in other areas with a high risk of floods generally perceive the risks as much lower than those living behind the dikes.
2
A long-term public information campaign initiated in 2002 is intended to raise the awareness of flood risks and the need for new forms of water management (for example, spatial solutions to contain the water). The feasibility of spatial measures, in particular in the floodplains, is widely accepted in the river-basin areas of the Rhine, Waal and Meuse. The strengthening of the dikes is perceived as the best form of protection in many coastal areas.
The public’s perception of the risks should be taken into account in projects in which flood risks are an issue. An approach based solely on technical and expert information will fail to yield the desired effects. Participation furthers the integration of the public’s perceptions and the experts’ information in arriving at a shared perception of the risks. It will also promote the formulation of a shared problem and the acquisition of broader societal support for the solutions. Joint fact-finding (see 7.1.) is one method that can be suitable for addressing this issue.
5. Participation on the dissecting table: five projects
5.1. Brief description of the five projects
An analysis was carried out of the participatory processes used in five water-retention and coastal-management projects: Proses (Project Ontwikkeling Schelde-Estuarium), Waterberging Regge en Dinkel, Spiegelproject
Horstermeerpolder, Spiegelproject Overdiepse Polder, and the Pettemer and Hondsbossche Zeewering. Desk
research and interviews with key persons were used to draw up a description of the projects, and to carry out an analysis of the participatory processes. The following sections contain a brief description of the projects and the most important conclusions from the analyses.
5.1.1. Proses
Proses is the abbreviation of Projectdirectie Ontwikkelingsschets Schelde-estuarium (‘Scheldt Estuary
Development Outline Project Directorate’). The objective of this Dutch-Flemish project is to improve the accessibility of the Port of Antwerp, restore the nature value of the Westerschelde region, and ensure for safety at high tide. The project was based on an agreement concluded in 2001 by the Dutch and Belgian governments whereby a specific plan was to be drawn up for the Lange Termijnvisie Schelde-estuarium (‘Long Term Vision for the Schelde Estuary’). Those involved in the project were the port authorities, the water-boards, municipalities, provinces, nature-conservation organisations, environmental organisations, and the agricultural sector. A variety of plans have been drawn up for the Schelde region. The Sigmaplan is of importance in Flanders; this plan was drawn up and largely implemented following the floods of 1976. The objective of the project was to increase safety by strengthening the dikes and constructing controlled flooding areas. On the Dutch side of the estuary the second deepening of the Schelde in 1995 gave cause to a Plan van Aanpak Herstel Natuur
Westerschelde (‘Plan of Approach for the Restoration of the Nature Value of the Westerschelde’). Within this
context project proposals were drawn up for ‘depoldering’ (the return of land to tidal influences) that met with a great deal of resistance. It transpired that it was not possible to find support for depoldering and nature compensation within the dikes. Consequently the project was terminated, and a Committee was appointed (the
Commissie Hendriks) which recommended that the problem should be addressed by starting with a long-term
perception of the future.
Problem definition
Proses is focused on three issues: safety, accessibility, and nature.
Safety is primarily a long-term issue, since future climate change and increases in sea level will ultimately result in the failure of the coastal defences to comply with the standards. In addition, alterations such as the
deepening of the navigation channel and the implementation of nature projects could reduce the level of safety. The principle is that safety shall be retained at the level as of 2000.
The economic development of the Port of Antwerp gives cause to the need to deepen the navigation channel to offer access to large container vessels. The nature-development projects relate to compensation for the consequences of this deepening and the strengthening of the dikes, and to the retention and restoration of the dynamic nature in the region.
Procedure
There is no statutorily-prescribed procedure; the governments have agreed on a procedure which is largely comparable to an environmental impact assessment/planning study. The project extends to a formal strategic environmental assessment, inclusive of the preliminary phase (the preparation of the Kennisgeving (the
startnotitie, or Notification of Intent), inspraak and guidelines); the middle phase (the preparation of a strategic
environmental assessment) and closing phase (inspraak and approval). An Overleg Adviserende Partijen (‘Consultative Committee of Advisory Parties’, the OAP) was appointed with representatives from the port authorities, water-boards, municipalities, provinces, and nature-conservation and environmental organisations. This Committee could submit advice – either requested, or unrequested – to the Project Directorate, and directly to the two national governments. A number of meetings were organised to provide the residents and other organisations the relevant information, and to collect their responses. Project-Directorate staff also conducted informal consultations with and gave presentations to a wide range of organisations and groups in the region.
Discretionary scope for policy
There was discretionary scope for policy, although the intention to deepen the Westerschelde played a very emphatic role. Importance was given to the acquisition of support. There was no active commitment from ministers, although the Project Directorate had an independent position and there was scope for the OAP.
