Policy analysis methodology

(1)

Policy Analysis Methodology

Henk Jan Verhagen

Associate professor in coastal engineering Head of the Hydraulic Engineering Department

1 Policy Analysis

1.1 Introduction

Policy analysis is a systematic approach to making complex choices. However it is not a single method ore technique, or even a fixed set of techniques. indeed, because policy analysis take their characteristics largely form the problems they address, the analyses of different problems often show little resemblance. Thus it is difficult to give a short definition of policy analysis that captures its essence. One such definition is the following:

Policy analysis is an inquiry whose purpose is to assist decisionmakers in choosing a preferred course of action from among complex alternatives under uncertain conditions. The bold printed words in the above definition deserve special comment. The word assist emphasizes that policy analysis does not replace the judgement of the decisionmakers (any more than an X-ray or blood test replaces the judgement of a medical doctor). Rather, it aids the exercise of that judgement by clarifying the problem, outlining the alternatives, and comparing their consequences.

The word complex emphasizes that the alternatives are often numerous, involve mixtures of different technologies and management policies, and produce multiple consequences that are often far-reaching yet difficult to anticipate (let alone predict).

The word uncertain emphasizes that the decisionmakers must generally make choices on the basis of incomplete knowledge, among other alternatives that do not yet physically exist, and whose predicted consequences will occur -if at all- only in an unknown future. Alternatives must be compared not only by their expected consequences but also by the risks of being wrong.

A policy analysis does not go beyond this. The consequences and aspects of the various options are enlightened and presented, but the choice between the alternatives is not made. The major purpose of a policy analysis is to collect, rank and present information.

Decision-makers can use the presented information in the way they want to. They determine which aspects are the most important ones and which are the less important ones. Of course it is good to get in a first stage of the study already some agreement on the question which aspects are the important ones in order to focus on these important ones.

We should not look to policy-analysis as an extra activity with regard to design process. In fact it is an activity integrated in the design process, illuminating all aspects of importance of the design in order to select the optimal alternative.

A policy analysis can be executed for the preparation of a policy, but also for the preparation of a project. In those cases the study is in general not called policy-analysis but project study or policy study.

Both a policy analysis as a project study follow the same framework, to which is referred as policy analytical approach. A policy analytical approach is the systematic development and evaluation of alternative solutions for a design- or policy-problem.

(3)

policy analysis

EAPD’98 Varna (21-24 September, 1998)

3

In order to achieve this several tools and methods are used, making together a framework, which can be used for questions in many fields of policy.

This framework has the following steps:

* problem analysis

* generation/preselection of alternatives

* determination/ranking of alternatives

Such a systematic approach has a number of advantages. The project-study can be completed in a relatively short time, it is manageable and can be verified by all involved in the process. It is transparent. Also the uncertainties can be presented in a clear way. It has to be stressed that the uncertainties cannot be eliminated by this approach, they only become apparent.

The area of application of a policy analysis is very broad. From nearly undefinable socio-political problems to very concrete technical designs; from nationwide policy problems to personal questions, like buying a car.

In the last case the process will not be very explicit, but the potential buyer will have some reason to buy a car, he will compare the various alternatives, compare the advantages and disadvantages of various types, and finally he will make a choice.

The advantages of a policy analysis are:

* when social issues are involved,

* when there are many (contradictory) interests

* when non-comparable values are to be judged

* when there are many values to be compared.

With other words: When there is a complex selection problem.

1.2 the execution of a policy-analysis

In reality the execution of a policy analysis is not as simple as indicated before.

* In first instance we can divide the several phases in subphases.

* Also for a number of actions we can select which method, approach or model we apply.

* Finally the process is usually not followed from the begin to the end "according to the

book". Mostly there are one ore more iteration loops in the process.

For example it can become clear that during the calculation of the alternatives, there are more problems than anticipated on beforehand; or that maybe more solutions are possible than foreseen in the beginning. The total process becomes than much more complicated.

problem analysis

During the problem analysis the problem is made as concrete as possible and the area to be studied is limited as much as possible. Important is to determine the difference between the existing (or predicted) situation and the desired situation.

In coastal zone management this is in some cases very simple. A coastal stretch does not fulfil the requirements and therefore has to be improved. It is much more complicated when at this moment

(4)

4

the coastal stretch fulfils the requirements, but it is anticipated that within a few years this is no more the case. When ??, and when should measures be taken ??

More complicated is the case when only one party has a problem (e.g. a project developer) and all other parties judge the situation as still acceptable.

In most cases the real extend of the problem can only be determined after a thorough investigation to:

* the causes of the coastal problem;

* the expected developments when the existing policy is not changed (the existing policy is

usually "do nothing";

* the effects of the present or future situation for the various user functions.

On one hand the knowledge of the coastal processes is very important, but on the other hand all coastal functions have to be inventoried. In order to come to a useful problem definition it is necessary that in this phase all parties involved (i.e. all functions) can come to an agreement on the goals of the project and standards to be reached. With the use of these goals and standards the desired end-situation after completion of the project can be described in objective units. Then it becomes possible to test the expected effect of a project to the goals and standards.

It is important to write down these goals and standards in an early stage of the whole procedure. From the problem analysis one can derive two kinds of problem-descriptions:

1. a problem description which needs an answer to the question: is it necessary to carry out

a project (a work) ?

2. a problem description which needs an answer to the question: which alternative is the

best one ?

It is clear, that when the answer on the first question is positive, one automatically has to answer the second question. In most cases it is necessary to study the case more thoroughly for answering the second question. This is an example of the iteration loops mentioned before.

1.3 development of alternatives

An alternative can be described as a combination of measures which solve the problem sufficiently. An alternative can of course also consist of only one measure. Variants can indicate several variations within one alternative.

The development of alternatives is not only a technical matter; a hard analytical method cannot be presented. Important points of attention in the process of thinking about alternative solutions are, besides the problem itself:

* already indicated solutions

* experience in similar cases

* the causes of the problem

* the urgency of the problem.

In spite of this it is possible to give a few general applicable methods to come in a more or less systematic way to a set of reasonable alternatives:

(5)

policy analysis

5

* the zero-option

* the zero-plus option

* analogue solutions

* symptom combatment

* brainstorming

1.4 preselection

It is very well possible that we have in this phase of the project study with a big number of alternatives, a too big number of alternatives. It is impractical and very costly to work out all alternatives, to present them and to include them in the final decision making process.

In those cases it is necessary to make a preselection. The big number of alternatives is reduced to a limited number of promising solutions. This selection is usually done without a clear definition of criteria. Important criteria are:

* costs * potential realization * attractiveness * dominance * reliability * discrimination

1.5 determination of the effect

The computation, or with other words, the prediction of the effect of the alternatives is one of the most difficult aspects of the project study.

First has to be determined which effects have to be taken into account for judgement of the various alternatives. Criteria for this choice might be:

* the magnitude of the effect

* the discrimination with respect to the alternatives

* recursability

* time/duration

* frequency

In the analysis of hydraulic engineering problems, the costs are usually one of the most important criteria. In the situation in the Netherlands, safety is never a criterion, all alternatives have to fulfil standard safety requirements; so in this respect all alternatives are equal. It is important to make the number of effects to be taken into account not too big. On one hand it cost a lot of time and money to perform all required studies, and on the other hand the comparison of the alternatives only becomes more difficult. Clustering of the effects in order to come to a smaller number of judgement-parameters may solve this problem. Practically the total number of judgement-judgement-parameters should be limited to seven.

(6)

6

group.

We can in this phase of the project-study distinguish two types of effects: aimed-effects and side-effects. Aimed effects are simply those effects written down in the problem analysis, such as: desired beach width, prevention of erosion. These effects are the effects which have to be fulfilled by the design, by the alternative.

Side-effects, often also called undesired effects, are effects which occur, but do not contribute to the aim of the project. These effects might have a positive or a negative effect. For example if one performs a beach nourishment in order to combat chronic erosion (=aimed effect), one gets a wider beach. This is very pleasant for the beach recreation (=positive side-effect), but also more sand is blown inland in the agricultural area behind the coast (=negative side-effect).

The determination of these effects is not easy; in some cases the required knowledge is not available, in other cases it may cost a lot of time and money to perform the required studies. Very often these side-effects are in areas of interest which are not in the direct field of a ministry of public works. But mostly civil servants of this ministry determine whether these side-effects are included in the study or not. It is clear that this cannot be done without consultation of the parties involved (like farmers, fishermen, nature conservancy agencies, etc.)

For the determination of the effect the following methods are available:

* computational models

* statistical analysis

* dose-effect relations

* process-description

* expert judgement (Delphi method)

* expert systems

The determination of the effects always involves an uncertainty. The models used are in principle an approximation of the reality, and also the reality will often develop different than expected. A number of methods to decrease the uncertainties are:

* collection of more data

* do more research

* flexibility in the design

* perform a sensitivity analysis in order to get an impression of the robustness of the

computational results.

In any case the uncertainties have to be mentioned in the project memorandum and be explained.

1.6 comparison and ranking the alternatives

The data collected have to be structured and presented in a clear way. This can be done by means of an effect-overview. In this effect-overview information can be both quantitatively as well as qualitatively. Quantitatively means that the effects are judged with respect to a given reference situation or that the effects of the various alternatives were compared with each other.

(7)

policy analysis

7

it is advisable always to include this option, also when you are sure that this option will not be selected. In this way always a good reference is possible.

The zero-option is not always really do-nothing. The zero-option is what happens when no special decision is made and works are carried out acc. to "business as usual".

The effect-overview may be the last item of the project study. But depending on the kind of the problems some more elaboration of the data might be necessary. A number of evaluation techniques are available to do this. However not all techniques can be used in all cases. Sometimes a separate study is necessary to determine the most applicable evaluation technique. Some techniques are automatised and can handle very complex problems. These techniques are in general not very appropriate for coastal problems.

In coastal zone management the methods usually used are:

* aggregate approach

This includes monetary methods, like the cost-benefit method.

* disaggregate approach

This include the score-card method.

Once the impacts of the alternatives have been assessed, a major difficulty still remains: synthesizing the numerous and diverse impacts of each alternative and presenting them to the decisionmakers for comparison of alternatives. In an aggregate approach to synthesis, each impact is weighed by its relative importance and combined into some single, commensurate unit, such as money, worth, or utility.

One can try to aggregate all impacts (e.g. by expressing all impacts in monetary units). Then a decision is very simple.

The aggregate-technique has several major disadvantages. First the aggregation process loses considerable information: For example, it suppresses the fact that alternative A has environmental problems, whereas alternative B has financial problems.

Second, any single measure of worth depends very strongly on the weights given to de different impacts when they were combined and the assumptions used to get them into commensurate units. Unfortunately, these crucial weights and assumptions are often implicit or highly speculative. They may impose on the decisionmakers a value scheme bearing little relation to their concerns. For example, cost-benefit analysis implicitly assumes that a dollar's worth of one kind of benefit has the same value as a dollar's worth of another; yet in many public decisions, monetarily equivalent but otherwise dissimilar benefits would be valued differently by society. Also, in converting disparate impacts to monetary values, cost-benefit analysis must sometimes make speculative assumptions, such as: How much money is one square meter of coral reef worth ? And is the value of ten thousand square meters of coral reef the value of ten thousand times the value of one square meter ?

Third, the aggregate techniques are intended to help an individual decisionmaker choosing the preferred alternative, the one that best reflects his values (importance weights). Serious theoretical and practical problems arise when there are multiple decisionmakers: Whose values get used (the issue of inter-personal comparison of values), and what relative weight does the group give to the preferences of different individuals (the issue of equity) ?

(8)

8

ranking which does not explicitly include inter-personal comparison of preferences. To make this comparison and to address the issue of equity, full consideration of the original impacts appears essential.

Finally, to be theoretically valid, the aggregate technique (others than cost-benefit analysis) require that the importance (value) of each impact be independent of the size of all other impacts. But in the real world, this condition is not always satisfied. Each impact that violates this condition must be suppressed, either by eliminating it or by treating is at the next level of aggregation.

Therefore it is better to choose an disaggregate approach that presents a column of impacts for each alternative, with each impact expressed in natural units. In comparing the alternatives, the decisionmaker can assign whatever weight he deems appropriate to each impact. Explicit consideration of weighting thus becomes cental to the decision process itself, as it should be. Prior analysis can consider the full range of possible effects, using the most natural description for each effect. Sometimes effects can be described in monetary terms and others in physical units; some are assigned with quantitative estimates (e.g. "100 jobs would be created), others with qualitative comparisons (e.g. "recreation opportunities would increase slightly"), and still others with statements of non-ordinal facts ("an attractive tourist site would be destroyed"). A disadvantage of this approach is that the amount of detail makes it difficult for the decisionmaker to see patters or to draw conclusions.

To aid the decisionmaker in recognizing patters and trading off disparate impact one can use score

-cards, a technique developed by the Rand-corporation in the USA in 1971). Impact values are

summarized (in natural units) in a table, each row representing one impact and each column representing an alternative. The score-card takes the table of impacts. Colours can be added to indicate each alternative ranking for a particular impact, for example Blue for the best value, Yellow for the worst and Grey for the intermediate values.

(9)

Scordecard decision making Oosterschelde

Item

Alternative

Closed Case SSB-case Open Case Financial costs

Construction costs (DFL million) 2135 4645 3620

Annual maintenance (DFL million) 10 25 15

Peak year expenditure (DFL million) 0 0 0

Security

Land flooded (ha) in 1/4000 storm 0 0 400

Technical uncertainty None Scour Dikes

Land flooded during construction (ha) 430 200 530

Value of real estate flooded (DFL million) 50 20 60

Number of people at risk 800 360 970

Ecology

Rapid kill of benthic biomass (tons afdw) 11500 4500 4200

Gradual loss of biomass (tons afdw) 5050 -8000 300

Time to stabilize (years) 6.5 6.0 0.0

Total biomass (tons afdw) 5200 29700 21300

Potential benthos-eating birds (tons afdw) 1 9 7

Potential fish-eating bir ds (tons afdw) 4 .06 .03

Potential mussels (percent of present) 13 90 100

Potential oysters (percent of present) 0 90 100

Fish nursery function (percent of present) 0 133 73 Fishing

Jobs lost 199 7 0

Annual production loss (DFL million) 30.3 1.4 0

Accumulated net loss (DFL million) 89 0 0

Shipping

Accumulated savings through 1999 (DFL million) 27.2 8.9 0 Recreation

Added sea beach visits 338 0 0

Added inland beach visits 108 88 68

Percent decrease in salt-water fish quantity 75 0 25

Number of moorings added <1060 <900 0

National Economy (peak year)

Jobs 5800 9000 5700

Imports (DFL million) 110 200 130

Production (DFL million) 580 940 560

Regional effects

Number of households displaced -37 0 124

Jobs, peak year -230 90 290

Production, peak year (DFL million) -37 13 38

(10)

- Closed case, i.e. closing the Oosterschelde fully with a dam

- SBB-case, i.e. closing the Oosterschelde with a storm surge barrier

- Open case, i.e. not closing the estuary but improving the surrounding dikes.

1.7 presentation

In most cases the project study will be completed with a final report, a project memorandum, or something identical. The decisionmakers have to be able to find the information they need in these documents and in the appendices. But usually decisionmakers have no time to study these reports. Therefore special attention has to be paid to presentation. In any case in the report there has to be an executive summary, presenting the main findings of the study.

1.8 selection

As indicated before, the choice is not a part of the policy-analysis. The policy-analyst has collected data and ranked them in such a way that the decisions-makers can come to a well weighted judgement. The have to compare the alternatives with the

* political aims

* policy

* interests

(11)

civil servants and CZM

EAPD’98 Varna (21 – 24 September, 1998)

11

2 The role of the civil servant in Coastal Zone Management

2.1 Introduction

Civil engineering projects usually serve public interest: Water management coastal defence, reclamation of land from the sea, etc. However, many civil engineers sometimes have difficulties to get the most necessary project started. In several cases public resistance is growing against the project during realization which often takes years or decades. Sometimes it results in essential modifications of the original design of the project. In other cases it even means the end of the project. Sometimes the public interest as translated in the project, fades away or one or more objectives of the project disappear. In a number of cases ecological effects cause the public resistance. Examples from the Netherlands are:

* Delta project (S-W Netherlands)

Main interest (1958) was flood control by closing estuaries from the sea. Another objective was to replace salt water with freshwater for agriculture. Public opinion said in 1973: Salt water nature and shellfish culture are more important than freshwater. The resulted in a salt lake Grevelingen instead of a freshwater lake and in a storm surge barrier in the Eastern Scheldt leaving room for tidal water movement instead of a dam.

Recently public opinion called for a storm surge barrier in Rotterdam Waterway instead of raised dikes in towns and villages.

* Zuiderzee project (Central Netherlands)

Main interests (1932) were flood protection and the reclamation of land out of water for food production in 5 polders. Public opinion (1980) said: A freshwater lake for nature, fishing and watersports is more important than land for food production. That resulted in the cancelling of the 5th polder. This means the end of 7 centuries of land reclamation: 20% of the Netherlands consists of reclaimed land. (2). Today the lake is a wetland.

An example form Japan is the Nakanoumi project:

Main interest (1963) was the reclamation of land for rice production. Public opinion (1975) said: Nature and fisheries are more important than rice production. That resulted in cancelling the construction of a dam although sluices and locks were finished.

Another example is the Siberian project to reverse the direction of the flow of a river. This project was cancelled by Gorbatchov after public resistance all over the world. Recently public resistance is growing against the storm surge barrier which under construction near Leningrad. This resistance is caused by serious water pollution which however is not related to the barrier. So this might be an example of irrational resistance.

After the realization of a project the budget for the maintenance of public work is often too low. Even in the Netherlands - with their history as a subsiding country and a rising sea level over

(12)

12

centuries - the budgets for maintenance of flood protection works were often insufficient. By analyzing this phenomenon a cycle could be recognized:

! an inundation with its traumatic consequences in losses of life and goods brought a national

consensus: " this never again, dikes have to be raised"

! after 2 or 3 generations the public awareness of the danger to be flooded decreased and

consequently the degree of protection decreased too.

! the 3rd or 4th generation could look forward to a next inundation.

From the recent experience with the formulation of the new erosion control policy of the Dutch coast, the conclusion can be drawn that public opinion and public support often are the keys to gain and to keep attention for essential issues. Of course: In democratic societies politicians decide on priorities. And politicians do their job in interaction with the public opinion.

In other governmental systems there is in principle no difference. Always there is a group of "politicians" (either elected or appointed by their constituency-groups) to decide upon priorities. And they do that in interaction with their constituencies (e.g. the army, the party-leaders, the influential businessmen).

That leads to the central problem definition of this chapter. "What are the possibilities for the government and its civil servants to interact with public opinion and to hold public support over many years or decennia during the planning and the realization of a project and afterwards during the maintenance?"

So the main question for the civil servant is "How to get public support and how to keep it". More specific question for the civil servant is that he has to know how to play the role in the tension between politics and public opinion.

As a starting point it is good to list the classic attitudes of the civil servant.

! We make no mistakes

! We defend our job until death

! "This is my problem, this is my solution, please give me a budget"

! My project is my child, do not change it.

It will be proven that this is classical attitude will not always lead to the desired result.

First of all the answer on the above question will be given based on practical experience. This experience is gained working on projects and observing the interaction between project, politics and public opinion. The experience is supplemented with some information from literature. The practical base forms the approach in the next sections and is in the first place rooted in the Dutch society. On the other hand foreign literature indicated that the approach might be useful in other well developed societies where people think independently.

The approach will be worked out for the planning, the realization and the maintenance of civil engineering projects. The same approach is suitable for the formulation, the acceptance and the realization of more abstract policies.

(13)

13

2.2 Public opinion, public support and politics

2.2.1 Public opinion and politics

Public opinion rules in a democracy. This could be a direct democracy where all citizens are directly involved in decision making. However in practice a small number of chosen politicians represent voters in parliament and government. They interact with public opinion.

This statement is valid for all types of governmental systems, not only for the Western-European democracies. However, the definition of "public" may vary from country to country. Sometimes the "public" consists of all voters, sometimes the "public" consists only of a limited group of party-rulers or army-officers.

Politicians have their own rationality. Often one or more of the next three criteria can be recognised: a. Public interest.

b. Rules and routines of the authority.

c. Striving to state in power, so to be elected again.

Politicians mix these criteria to their own combination which changes from time to time. Of course the striving to stay in power is important. Otherwise a politician can not continue to work for public interest. It makes politicians sometimes seem to have their agenda dictated by press and public opinion. Some politicians rise to the level of a statesman. The latter mostly concerned with public interest on the long term and are able to get public support for their ideas. This way their agenda is not dictated, but they appoint the political agenda. Also a statesman can only bring his ideas effective to the public if he knows his public. So he has to be in contact with the public and he has to listen what is going on. Anyhow, for every politician public opinion is important. So it is for civil engineers in civil service.

A civil engineer in civil service - both as he is working as a policy formulator and as he is working more closely to technics - has from time to time to support his political superiors to inform the public about good or bad news. The approach of politicians and engineers is often decisive for the public opinion about their project. Some remarks are:

! Politicians dislike to bring bad news. Examples are: Negative ecological effects of a project or

exceeding the original budget. If possible such bad news has to be explained of external influences such as an exceeding inflation in the market-segment.

! Politicians prefer to avoid complicated messages that are difficult hard to explain. Keep it

simple.

! Policies without visible success are unpopular. Such policies are sufficient management or

maintenance which are never spectacular.

! Projects with short term success have an advantage on projects with a long term success. The

(14)

14

decisions on public investments have a disadvantage on projects in a consumptive atmosphere.

Looking at the latter two items. A decision with long term effect can enhance the image as a statesman from the responsible politician. Such a decision presented just before elections might be attractive from a political point of view. Timing is important for a public discussion. When a discussion starts one or half a year before elections, political parties might use it as a topic in their program. After the elections it can be written in an agreement between ruling parties. It is a method to quick popular decisions. The political importance of questions depends on the phase of a project. The successful former Dutch minister of environment. Winsemius, recognised the policy cycle as shown in adjacent figure.

To get recognised a problem is sometimes very difficult. Often bad news or an incident is necessary. The Sandoz disaster (1987) - seriously polluting the river Rhine - is an example of such an incident. It pushed the international Rhine action plan forward. A logic continuation was the action plan for the North Sea.

It was more difficult to reach an agreement on the latter. The sea seems to state far from our backyard. Fortunately Greenpeace mobilizes public opinion. If that was not the case, only dying seals like in 1988 could do this. The figure also illustrates that the phase of management (maintenance) is the least interesting in politics.

2.2.2 Influencing the public opinion

The media can help to consolidate an existing public opinion. To change an attitude in public opinion is more difficult, especially an existing issue. Considering the long realization period and required lifetime of civil engineering projects, attitudes have to be influenced for longer periods. People strive to the equilibrium between the 4 pillars of attitude. Values (ideas and feelings) weigh the heaviest. For continuing influence on an attitude, it is necessary to appeal on the values of people. The Brundtland report may be an example summoning for "sustainable" development of society". This

(15)

15

generation inherited the earth with specific chances to survive and ought to leave the earth in a condition giving their children at least the same chances to survive. This appeals to a basic value of people, their parenthood. Such appeals are issues for statesmen.

Today the Dutch politics is involved with long term environmental policies. This is not only caused by the Brundtland report, but might also be caused by other facts. Around 1970 young academic people at universities were educated in environmental problems. At that time the ruling item was "Limits to growth". (The report of the "club of Rome"). Today these academic people have key positions in public service and in industries. This seems to be related to the pillar social surroundings. Colleagues, fellow students, family, societies are a decisive factor whether a signal will be recognised or not. Public opinion depends strongly on opinion makers such as leaders of societies, of trade-unions and even of pressure groups. These groups are a vital link between their supporters and the government. It is necessary to talk with these "linkgroups" in order to listen what is going on in the public. Only then it is possible to bring an effective message to the public.

The moment a democratic decision has been made, can be seen as a turning point in communication from government with the public. Before the decision is taken only information consisting of facts is acceptable. After the decision, information influencing the people to fulfil the adopted objective is acceptable. Independent thinking people do not like to be pushed to specific conclusions. This behaviour is an international recognized basic principle, in the science of communication.

Contrary to this principle, the classic approach is: "This is my problem and here is a solution, please give me the necessary budget." The public opinion often doubts about the proposition and ignores the problem sometimes. Only opponents are heard. The policy analysis that was executed to formulate the new policy on erosion control of the Dutch coast was tackled with a non-classic approach.

2.3 Changes in interaction with the public opinion

2.3.1 Case Erosion Control of the Dutch Coast

The erosion of the Dutch North Sea coast (10 millions m3 of sand/year) was a rather non-recognised

problem. The erosion undermined dikes and dunes and caused unsafe situations for the polder areas. About 20 ha dunes/year disappeared by the erosion. That gave the government no reason to allocate a structural budget to fight the erosion. Till 1991 the ruling policy was to solve the most embarrassing bottle necks. The public showed a growing indignation. In 1987 the parliament requested the government to establish a long term policy. The public and the parliament asked for a structural policy. However the government did not want to present such a policy immediately.

The first crucial step to establish the long term policy was a discussion report published in 1989. It gave only facts and alternative policies without preferences. Accompanied by a video-film, some thousands of reports were send to all authorities and persons who might be interested. Since publication of the report the public opinion jumped to the conclusion: "The erosion must be stopped." This was shown by the results of public participation - collected by the Advisory Board of Public Works and Watermanagement. The Minister of Public Works and Watermanagement remained

(16)

16

without preference for a specific alternative, so did her officials.

The second crucial step was to contact and to consult linkgroups. The Royal Institution of Engineers organised a congress for technicians, businesspeople, policymakers and politicians. Environmental groups (interested in preserving natural dunes) organised a congress on natural coastal protection. Officials from the Ministry of Public Works and Watermanagement presented only informative speeches. Both congresses lead to the same consensus: Stop the erosion. Others played the role of opinion makers. Consensus was reached too in consultations with provinces, the union of waterboards and other ministries. These bodies were involved in discussions on the drafts for a decisive report choosing the "stop erosion alternative". One major question remained: The Ministry of Finance had to supply the budget.

The third crucial step came by "good" luck. A 5 days lasting storm did heavily damage large dune-areas. Emergency measures were necessary. Public was very indignant. That incident breaded a decisive atmosphere. The budget was allocated for the long run.

By the way, the atmosphere for a decision was already reached. All the concerned persons and bodies except the Ministry of Finance, were committed to "stop erosion" before that storm. The linkgroups had done their job well.

The non-preferential attitude of the Ministry of Public Works and Watermanagement until the final decision was very important. Opposition was impossible. The public and every interested group had to plead for "stop erosion".

2.3.2 Generalization of the approach

The approach of the erosion control policy of the Dutch coast can be generalized according to the stages in the public opinion and phases of the policy lifecycle. These are linked in table 1.

Table 2 shows the more detailed approach inter-acting with the public opinion. Failing recognition of the problem is supposed. In some cases the phases of recognition and formulation may be integrated if the problem is full recognised.

If the government does not permit to publish a report of the phase of recognition, linkgroups might publish the facts they extract from the discussions. It is important to take time at the end of the phase of recognition. The politicians and the public need time to become familiar with the problem. If there is no reaction, wait for the next chance and continue consequently the existing policy. The facts must

Stages in Public opinion Phases in policy lifecycle a. Discontent. b. Crystallization in 1. Recognition.

a common need. 2. Formulation

c. Judgement and 3. Solution

decision

(17)

17

do their work.

It is essential to express no preference for a specific alternative in the phase of formulation up to the final decision. A preference opposes the basic principle of communication as mentioned before.

It is essential too to keep in contact with linkgroups and opinion-leaders and to involve pressuregroups and governmental bodies in the resuming activities up to the decision. Preferably every consulted body gets success in the consultation phase and there are no losers. Realise that it must be no problem if anyone else adopts your good idea.

Phase. Activity Who and what.

1. Recognition. a. Analyze facts, history, existing policy.

b. Listen

politicians, press-publications, letters of citizens, linkgroups.

c. Report facts, prediction what happens if policy is continued. d. Wait reactions. 2. Formulation. a. Analyze

alternatives based on reactions. costs, sensitiveness on uncertain predictions. b. Test flexibility of alternatives. c. Compare alternatives.

d. Report compared alternatives, NO CHOICE

e. Inform politics, press, linkgroups, scientists. 3. Solution. a. Listen participation of public, consultation of linkgroups. b. Resume

reactions into conclusions, involvement of linkgroups. c. Decide

d. Report decision, execution. e. Execute project, policy.

f. Inform see 2e, also schools, universities. 4. Management.

a. Evaluate

results, state of maintenance, costs and budgets, predictions. b. Report involvement of linkgroups.

(18)

18

The final decision is the responsibility of the government. Also the announcement of the decision to the press must be done by the responsible politician. With the announcement the realization of the project starts.

At the same moment the information about the project goes on. The information intends now to hold public support in order to complete the project and to maintain it afterwards. Special attention should be given to groups who are importance in future: Scholars and students. Lectures today help them to remember the project of vital interest in coming decades. The shorter the time of realization of a project is, the shorter the time to loose public support. Projects with realization periods taking decades, require flexibility to modify on additional objects and to go on for the main issue.

Anyhow, during the realization of the project it is indispensable the public feels confidence: This task force guarantees professionalism and soberness. Although "Nothing succeeds like success", give true information, also if disappointments occur. Particularly in the long run, telling the truth is a sake for dead or life for confidence of the public. And last but not least: Keep reports simple. Everyone must understand them.

Information goes on in the phase of maintenance to keep the public support awake. In this phase periodic evaluation is necessary. It is difficult for politicians to neglect an evaluation report which concludes to intensify the maintenance and requires a raise of the budget. When such a report is neglected, public support is indispensable. Linkgroups might seek publicity.

Legal duties to evaluate and to publish the results are useful instruments. Such a legal duty about dike management in the Netherlands is under preparation. This phase remains the most difficult to hold public interest, because sufficient maintenance is never spectacular.

2.4 Final remarks

Public support has to be earned every day again. Of course major public interest, professionalism and soberness are necessary issues. Also, the way back to the market: For the public service the public is the market. The recommended attitude is to listen respectfully and to handle patient with the ideas from the public instead of considering them as difficult. Telling the truth is indispensable for confidence. Only simple elements of good behaviour are required. In this way public support can be gained and kept awake.

So, the attitude of the civil servant has to change somewhat: ! "Sometimes we make a mistake",

! "Is this your problem? Here are some alternatives".

! Evaluate long lasting projects. If necessary, moderate them, keep projects flexible. Summarising, the following points are essential for the civil servant:

! tell the truth, also the mistakes,

! keep informing in all phases.

(19)

19

! compare alternatives without preference,

! let the public make up her mind herself,

! integrate planning and the political agenda,

Policy analysis methodology