1. Challenge the future Delft University of Technology Identifying long-term monitoring needs Coastline management in the Netherlands 1st EEEN Forum, Leuven, 9–10 February 2012 Leon Hermans Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

2. 2 Outline of presentation 1.Long-term monitoring and environmental evaluation 2.A framework that is fit for multi-actor complexity 3.Applying the framework in retrospect: coastline management in the Netherlands 1985 – 2010 4.Conclusions

3. 3 Long-term monitoring and environmental evaluation Necessary for ‘evidence-based’ learning Long-term horizon Uncertainties, including in underlying science Competing interests “Data rich but information poor” syndrome? Can one predict policy issues ten years ahead? Economist, 2011

4. 4 Researching long-term monitoring Aim: Support design of long-term monitoring programs fit for policy-oriented learning in multi-actor context Conceptual design of approach: actors and policy-oriented learning Historical test of design: What happened without support? Two cases, one in the Netherlands, one in South-Africa.

5. 5 Designing an approach for monitoring Network context of policy-making: interdependent actors as drivers Outcomes of policy-processes as result of interactions among actors Learning to be done by these actors Actors central in identification learning agenda policy processes

6. 6 Capturing the essence of actor interactions: Game theory For each game: Decisions Rules and procedures Players For each player: Goals – preferences, mandates, responsibilities, interests (what they want to achieve) Means – resources, interventions, connections (what they can do) Perceptions – assumptions about the game and the system (what they think)

7. 7 Games and Learning over Time: Rounds and Levels

8. 8 Coastline management in the Netherlands, 1984 - 2011 Three rounds included in analysis: 1990: Policy decision: Coastline preservation 1990 – 2000s: Annual programming sand nourishments Current: Long-term strategy for coastline (Sand motor?) Pictures: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Deltaprogramma

9. 9 Game 1, 1980s Coastal erosion & Finalizing Delta Works

10. 10 Game 1 Players and Coalitions Engineers ‘Rijkswaterstaat’ Scientists: Delft Hydraulics, Universities, … Minister Public Works & Water Management Cabinet / Finance Minister National Parliament Union of Water boards Coastal provinces Coastal municipalities Nature organisations Residents coastal areas Owners beach pavillions Other coastal businesses Public at large (citizens) Coastal Experts Budgetholders Societal stakeholders

11. 11 Solution space (opened up by storm event)

12. 12 Game 2, 1990s Annual programme sand distribution – Technical and administrative procedures

13. 13 Game 2 Coalitions and their interests {Rijkswaterstaat, Waterboards}: Safety National Coast: Coastline preservation, longer timespan {Municipalities, Waterboards}: Regional tailoring: Sometimes little bit ‘extra’, for regional economy (beach width) and safety (small dunes), shorter timespans {Nature,Waterboards}: Nature / no disturbance No disturbance dune areas, for nature but also to maintain safetyof water defense structures, longest timespan Different coalitions with (sometimes) different interests in amount and frequency of sand nourishments at specific locations

14. 14 Game 2: Sand nourishment programming Nature Coastline preservation Regional development Safety interest accepted by all No extra budget for additional interests of players Game has no shared solution space

15. 15 Games and Assumptions Issue to be decided Main coalitions Outcome (decision) Assumptions Establishing a coastal policy (pre- 1990) How to respond to coastal erosion Coastal experts, Budget holders, Societal stakeholders 1990: Coastline preservation, with annual budget Sand nourishments most efficient way to control erosion and maintain base coast line. Costs: 60 MHfl / 6 – 8 Mm3/y sand. Best way to serve nature and restore natural dune dynamics Annual sand distributions (1990 – …) Annual distribution of sand for coastline preservation Water safety, regional (recreation), nature Annually: nourishment programmes, guided by safety concerns Policy of sand nourishments ‘works’. Nature best served by keeping dune area undisturbed. Recreational interests best served by stable beach widths.

16. 16 Monitoring assumptions Game 1 Assumptions in GamesPossible Indicators Maintaining the base coast line through sand nourishments halts coastal erosion. Actual/momentary coast line with the base coast line as reference Volumes of sand used for nourishments This means that safety is ensured. Calculated safety levels (with volume, width, height as variables?) Actual incidents, damage done Sand nourishments halt coastal erosion in an efficient way. Costs of sand nourishments (with estimated costs of alternatives as reference) Sand nourishments better for nature than hard maintenance interventions. Biodiversity: species, population age groups, etcetera. At dunes, beaches, but also sea (sand mining). Influenced by frequency and size of disturbance (sand nourishments), timing (seasons), location, sand quality (particle size),…

17. 17 Monitoring assumptions Game 2 Assumptions in GamesPossible Indicators Maintaining the Base coast line serves safety interests As above, coastline and safety indicators Maintaining dunes for safety easiest to organize by prohibiting other activities Safety indicators above. Costs for dune management water boards Recreation interests served by stability – i.e. keeping pavilions and coastline on fixed locations, certain width of ‘dry beach’ Turn-over at beach pavilions, comparative, for varying dry beach width dynamics & correcting for other variables (€/y) Local economic development served by allowing more access to dune reserves Local production, jobs – for varying access regimes (correcting for other variables) Nature best served by leaving nature undisturbed See above for nature indicators (biodiversity) Main alternative to sand nourishments would be ‘hard’ measures like dikes and concrete water works ?? Cannot be tested, is (partially) a ‘mental construct’

18. 18 Monitoring in coastline management Since (pre-) 1990: Safety indicators 2009: Agreement on research nature effects sand nourishments 2009: Two reports with cases on sand nourishments and recreation

19. 19 Emerging picture: partial monitoring Only part of assumptions were monitored ‘Just happened’ Experts, analysts and budget Rijkswaterstaat all ‘safety’ oriented Consequences: We ‘know’ sand nourishments ‘work’ for safety We do not ‘know’ their effects on nature and recreation Is this bad? Should it have been differently? Who is responsible?

20. 20 Conclusions from this case Looking at policy processes as ‘games’ with players who make assumptions helps uncover monitoring needs May suggest a broader focus for monitoring, covering needs for multiple actors But: who is responsible for ‘more’ monitoring?

21. 21 Conclusions on methodology Long-term framework IAD + rounds Enabled organizing data Game theory Useful for suggesting concepts for analysis of actor interactions Added value of full game theory models for identification of monitoring agendas is limited Assumption-based planning / assumption surfacing Critical for translation from games to monitoring needs Important to identify assumptions for multiple actors – game theory helpful but other approaches for actor analysis also possible

22. 22 Thank you for your attention! Leon Hermans L.M.Hermans@tudelft.nl A more detailed working paper can be downloaded from: http://www.nextgenerationinfrastructures.eu/index.php?pageID=19&itemID=580908