Método de evaluación

Since the 1970s, a combination of factors contributed to the emergence of an alternative approach to adaptation that consisted of river restoration and creating more space for rivers for accommodating peak discharges: a scope widening of water management; community resistance against dike strengthening; experimentation to develop alternatives for dike strengthen- ing; and a sudden political momentum after the two near-miss floods in 1993 and 1995 (Table 6.3; see also van der Brugge et al., 2005; van Heezik, 2007).

Table 6.3 Key drivers that contributed to the emergence of river widening for flood protection (1970s-1995)

Driver Explanation

Scope widening of water man- agement

Since the 1970s, increased environmentalism started to challenge the ‘control paradigm’. The first time this happened at a national scale, was during the public debate that led to a significant alteration of the original construction plan of the Eastern Scheldt storm surge barrier in 1974. Irreversible ecological damage of the salt water environment that would be caused by the closing of the Eastern Scheldt estuary was avoided through the construction of moveable gates that would only be closed under extreme circumstances (Knoester et al., 1984).

Later in the 1980s, the technocratic control paradigm was further chal- lenged by the emergence of the concept of "integrated water manage- ment" that originally aimed to avoid conflicts between different uses of water resources through improved coordination (Saeijs, 1991).

Resistance

against dike

strengthening

In the 1970s and 1980s, many dike strengthening projects were delayed due to public resistance and legal procedures. Opponents particularly argued that flood safety was the only factor that was taken into consid- eration for the planning of these projects and that landscape, environ- mental and cultural values of riversides and surrounding areas were overlooked.

Experimentation with alternatives for dike strengthening

Driven by the resistance against dike strengthening, several small scale experiments were undertaken from the 1980s onwards to develop alter- natives that took landscape, environmental and cultural values into ac- count. In addition, the studies 'Plan Ooievaar' (de Bruin et al., 1987) and 'Living Rivers' (WNF, 1992) showed that integrated approaches that in- cluded river widening could reduce flood risks whilst improving environ- mental values.

Political momen- tum after two near-miss floods

The near-miss floods in 1993 and 1995 created a broadly shared sense of urgency to take adaptation action. Particularly the near-miss flood in 1995 which created great political momentum to take action, as it led to the evacuation of 250,000 people and 1 million cattle.

Within this context, the Room for the River programme was initiated in 2000 and formally established in 2006. In the context of the political momentum that emerged after the two near-miss floods, it could be concluded that river widening was a deliberately planned adaptation action in the Netherlands. The governance for strategic planning of river widening measures operated within the boundaries of the Room for the River Policy Directive of 1996. The governance processes that took place during the initiation phase of the Room for the River programme were principally aimed at establishing a le- gitimate set of flood protection measures. In the design of the Room for the River programme, the overall performance of the flood risk management system and the programme as a whole prevailed over individual projects. The river widening measures were selected through a systems approach for flood protection that considered the complete system of the river Rhine in the Netherlands. The selection process involved active engagement of local politicians to select legitimate and feasible measures and consulted other stakeholders to consider knowledge about the impact and opportunities on their respective interests (e.g. agriculture, business, nature, recreation) in the selection process.

The completion of the initiation phase of the Room for the River programme was demarcated by the establishment of the Policy Decision Room for the River (PKB Ruimte voor de Rivier; see also ten Heuvelhof et al., 2007). This policy document captured the new vision for flood risk management that was based on river widening rather than strengthening dikes and explicitly included spatial planning. Accordingly, it set out the programme’s formal objectives of: 1) improving safety against flooding of riverine areas of the Rivers Rhine, Meuse, Waal, IJssel and Lek by accommodating a discharge capacity of 16.000m3/s; 2) contributing to the improvement of the spatial quality of the riverine area. The secondary objective of enhancing the spatial quality of the river area was included in the PKB as a strategy to involve re- gional stakeholders and thus increase the legitimacy. It provided the oppor- tunity for regional stakeholders to connect local ambitions to the flood safety measures. Furthermore, the PKB provided a planning framework for the im- plementation of the new vision for flood risk management by setting out the boundary conditions and performance criteria for each of the selected river widening projects, and the roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders that would be involved in the planning, design and realisation of these pro-

jects. The PKB was jointly signed by the national government, provinces, waterboards, and municipalities involved to secure commitment to execute the Room for the River programme according to plan.

As such, governance for strategic planning of the Room for the River pro- gramme provided a legitimate set of boundary conditions for the governance during the planning, design and realisation phases of the adaptation meas- ures.