The Netherlands is a country that relies heavily on good management of local waterways, as dikes line rivers to stop flooding. Following the turn of the 21st century waterways began to become mismanaged, as the protection of them were being trumped by property development and spatial planning. This change in management sparked a renewal in policy and the institutional makeup of how the rivers in the local area were governed, moving from monistic management to integrative planning. The new regime that emerged was the Space-Water-Adjustment Management Principal (SWAMP).[1] A strong emphasis pushed through this ideology was removing the hierarchical style of governance, or in other words re-instituting pluralism in how the rivers were managed. Unfortunately the new method undertaken was not implemented however, and so the new mode of institutionalism was left redundant. Below is a table that shows the shift towards integrative management, which has remained somewhat theoretical.
Wolsink et al., 2006.
In 2001 a small municipality named Oolderveste planned to rebuild a group of houses in a small territory of Herten, Merum and Ool. 850 luxury houses were planned to be built to facilitate the livelihoods of a growing population of elderly people. However, the new location for building was located on floodplains that had been recently exposed to levels of flooding. The housing project was confronted by a number of protestors who argued that the risks were averse and further environmental degradation would take place if allowed to proceed. Under SMARTS the civic community presumed that their voices would qualify, but in this case they did not. The construction proceeded as per usual and the IMS was poorly reflected. Oolderveste reverted back to a judicial means of addressing claims, and the Netherlands Court of Highest Appeal judged against the appeals of the citizens in August 2001.[1] Not only was Oolderveste supported by local authorities and the central government, it also used technocracy to sideline accusations and concerns of the public, using the past institutional methods as a means to justify the current operations. The truth of the matter is, institutional adjustments on paper by no means equates to reformed governance.
This is the same issue facing the Manawatu River. Of late there have been some substantial attempts to re-galvanize efforts for a cleaner waterway, but implementation has yet to materialize. The 2010 Voluntary Agreement and the One Plan are two key steps to establishing an effective IMS, but as shown in the case of the Netherlands, it may not depict a wider consensus when practicalizing it, which involves higher treatment standards, tougher permit qualifications, sharper monitoring standards and greater public discussion. In order for the Manawatu River to be revitalized there are two key operations required, and this is reformed institutions and then reformed practice.
[1] Maarten Wolsink, “River Basin Approach and Integrated Water Management: Governance Pitfalls for the Dutch Space-Water-Adjustment Management Principle,” Geoforum 37, no. 4 (2006): pg 474.
[2] Maarten Wolsink et al., pg 481.