Stefan Kuks

Policy Networks in Dutch Water Policy

In addition to the well-known programme for flood protection, Dutch water policy consists of two main subsectors; water supply and ground water protection, and surface water quality management. In this contribution special attention is paid to the characterisation of these subsectors using two network variables; mutual commitment and interrelatedness. The dynamics of change of these features and their relation with policy opportunities are examined. The water supply sector was amalgated into larger companies and developed more cooperation as a result of the pressure of the environmental challenge, which made it impossible to continue pumping and billing. Though the sector in a sense became more integrated, this was accompanied by an increased need to do business with other interests, such as agriculture. The surface water quality subsector also moved from a very integrated community into a more open structure. This openness is, however, to a large extent organised by the sector itself, by incorporating other interests in their councils and committees. Both subsectors increasingly adopt a consensual approach in dealing with these other interests.

Harboring Water in a Crowded European Delta

The Netherlands is a relatively small, crowded country, located in the delta of three European river basins: the Rhine, the Meuse and the Scheldt. The country depends very much on transboundary inflows. Not only in terms of water quality and its vulnerability to upstream pollution sources, but also considering the country’s dependence on over 75 percent of its total water resources coming from rivers abroad. Over 30 percent of the total surface area of the Netherlands lies below sea level, protected from the sea in the west and north by barriers of dunes and dykes. As much as 50 percent of the country’s area is vulnerable to flooding from the sea or rivers. The Netherlands has a population of about 16 million inhabitants, an average of 470 inhabitants per km2, giving it one of the highest population densities in the world. The highest concentrations are in the low-lying urban areas in the west of the country, which is the urbanized area including cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht. All Dutch urban areas together cover about 14 percent of the country’s total surface. More than 50 percent of the country’s area is agricultural land, and about 17 percent is water. Through Dutch history, there always has been a tension between urban, economic and agricultural development on the one hand, and the space naturally claimed by water in a delta area on the other. The need to protect the land from high water from rivers and sea, and the tradition of artificially draining low-lying areas, have given the country a complex hydraulic infrastructure. Through the ages the flow and level of almost every water body in the country have been subject to human control.

The Governance Assessment Tool and Its Use

This chapter introduces the Governance Assessment Tool that has been used in the DROP project and forms the analytical basis of this book. We start with the origins of the tool in Contextual Interaction Theory, and proceed with the dimensions and criteria that form the backbone of the tool, and form a matrix. In these matrix evaluative questions are formulated that can be discussed with local and regional stakeholders. Based on their answers and further information and insights a judgment can be reached to what extent the governance circumstances are supportive, restrictive or neutral for the implementation of measures. A visualization with coloured cells of the matrix can show in one quick glance the governance state of affairs in that region. To create more precise visualization arrows can be added to each box indicating upward or downward trends for that box. The chapter ends with a discussion on the application of the GAT. The tool can both be used in relatively simple ways and as in the DROP-project in a very elaborate way.

Institutional Resource Regimes and Sustainability

This chapter does not attempt to present the voluminous world literature on the topic of institutional regime analysis. Only a small selection of this literature will be dealt with. Our main purpose here is to present the theoretical notions that we have chosen or developed -- standing on the shoulders of many others -- and used in this particular research project. Furthermore, we formulate our hypotheses about regime shift towards integration and the implications of institutional resource regimes for sustainability.

Negotiated Agreements Between Water Suppliers and Farmers in the Context of Changing Water Networks in Europe

Paper presented at the Workshop of the Concerted Action SAGA (FAIR-CT97-3673): Sustainable Agricultural Use of Aquifers in Southern Europe: Integration between Agricultural and Water Management Policies, Milan, 17-18 December 1999

The evolution of the Water Regime in the Netherlands

In this study of the Netherlands national regime, we describe the long-term evolution of water rights (property rights) and public policies in the country over a period of almost 200 years (1800–2000), with an emphasis on the post-World War II period. In fact, water management has a much longer history in the Netherlands. As early as the 11th and 12th century, local communities started to organise themselves to manage water systems. Dykes were built to protect against flooding from the sea and the rivers. At that time, removal of peat (used as fuel) and clay (building material) was already causing land subsidence, demanding additional measures. The first democratic district water boards were established in the 13th century. The rulers of the Netherlands soon recognised them as competent water authorities. They were democratic stakeholder organisations consisting of elected representatives from local farming communities. For a long time (until the 19th century), they remained independent of national developments. In the 15th century, land subsidence was so great that agricultural fields remained water-logged for a large part of the year. More drastic measures were needed, and windmills were introduced to pump the extra water from the land. In the 16th century, windmills started to be used to drain the lakes resulting from peat-extraction, in order to create new land. In the 18th and 19th century more windmills were built to pump water out of local collection canals (‘boezems’) into open waters. The need for central coordination led in 1798 to the establishment of a state water authority ‘Rijkswaterstaat’. This state department became the leading agency for the large-scale construction of a flood protection infrastructure consisting of dykes along the shores and main rivers, as well as for large land reclamation projects. In fact, our analysis of the Dutch national regime starts around the period 1798–1814, since in that period the first attempts at a centralized approach of water management started. In 1814, the Netherlands became a monarchy and received a new constitution after a period of French domination (the Batavian Republic 1795–1806 and the Napoleontic era 1806–1814).

Introduction to Institutional Resource Regimes

Water stress, which is pressure on the quantity and quality of water resources, exists in many places across Europe and results in many serious problems including water shortages, flooding, pollution and ecosystem damage. In fact, water stress is the result of conflicting water uses or requirements. It is not only different economic claims on the use of a water resource that can be in conflict with each other: we only have to think of the limited natural availability of water to meet the demands of industry, agriculture, households and water supply companies. Furthermore, economic demands conflict with other uses. Thus, the circumstances that determine the availability, use, quality, form and status of water across Europe vary considerably. This book takes a close look at these specific circumstances in different European countries and examines the progress that has been made in terms of sustainability.

Policy framework: The Netherlands

Organizational structure. In the Netherlands the drinking water supply is primarily considered to be the government’s responsibility, although it is organized as a public utility. While countries like France and the United Kingdom have opted for privatization of the water supply, the Netherlands still leaves open a supervisory role for public authorities. the general opinion of both the government and the water supply companies themselves is that they disapprove of privatization in the water supply sector. the Dutch government officially declared itself not to be a proponent of full privatization of water supply companies (VROM, 1993). This statement is motivated by the conflict the government sees between the interests of consumers and those of shareholders. the consumers’ interests lie in having a guaranteed delivery of water at a reasonable price level; public health interests lie in having drinking water of good quality that meets the drinking water standards. Both of these require a drinking water price based on actual costs. the Dutch solution, which takes the form of commercial operating companies with public authorities as majority shareholders, is considered by both the government and the water supply sector to be an adequate organizational structure to meet these requirements.

Control Capacity — The Netherlands

In this chapter we discuss the capacity of water suppliers to control the prevention of pollution. This ‘control capacity’ specifically concerns the relationship between water suppliers and farmers. Although water suppliers have no regulatory competence in this relationship, regulations do play a background role. On the one hand, water suppliers are regulated by drinking water quality standards, which force them to produce drinking water above a specified quality level. On the other hand, farmers are regulated by the Dutch national and provincial government, which impose restrictions on the use of fertilizers and pesticides in agricultural operations. In Chapter 7 we described how developments in the environmental regulation of farmers - in particular the manure legislation since 1987 (regulatory context) - as well as increasing groundwater pollution — in particular an expected rise of nitrate levels (problem context) — provoked dynamics in the network context and the way in which water suppliers and farmers regard each other. Despite the regulatory gap in the relationship between water suppliers and farmers, we want to know whether water suppliers do try to bridge this gap by encouraging the prevention of agricultural water pollution by other means. And if they do so, how successful are they? Or, to put it in other words, what is their control capacity?

Comparative review and analysis of regimes changes in Europe

In this chapter we present a comparative survey of regime development in the six European countries that are described in this book. The survey focuses on the main regime transitions in each country and explains what has actually changed in terms of water rights and water policies. We also summarise the most important triggers that have generated the various transitions in a country. Before we review the regime transitions and change triggers per country in sections 3 to 8, we describe in section 2 the common pattern of regime evolution that we found in the country descriptions presented in the previous chapters of this book.