Governance assessment of a protected area: the case of the Alde Feanen National Park

Figures & data

Table 1. Evaluative questions of GAT (Bressers et al. 2016).

	Quality of the governance context
Governance dimension	Extent	Coherence	Flexibility	Intensity
Levels and scales	Are all relevant levels (EU, national, regional, local) involved in dealing with an issue? Are there any gaps or missing levels?	Do these levels work together, trust each other between levels? Is mutual dependence among levels recognized?	Is it possible to move up and down levels (up scaling and downscaling) given the issue at stake?	Is there a strong impact from a certain level towards behavioural change or management reform?
Actors and networks	Are all relevant stakeholders involved? Are any not involved or excluded?	Do the stakeholders work together? Do they trust and respect each other?	Is it possible that new actors are included or even shifts from one actor to another? Do the actors share and support each other's tasks?	Is there a strong pressure from an actor or actor coalition towards behavioural change or management reform?
Problem perspectives and goal ambitions	To what extent are the various problem perspectives taken into account?	To what extent the governance arrangements in place manage the clash of interests?	Are there opportunities to re-assess goals? Can multiple goals be optimized in package deals?	How different are the goal ambitions from the status quo or business as usual?
Strategies and instruments	What types of instruments are included in the policy strategy? Are there any excluded types? Are monitoring and enforcement included?	To what extent is the incentive system based on synergy? Are trade-offs between different objectives considered? Are there any overlaps or conflicts of incentives created by the included policy instruments?	Are there opportunities to combine or make use of different types of instruments? Is there a choice?	What is the implied behavioural deviation from current practice and how strongly do the instruments require and enforce this?
Responsibilities and resources	Are all responsibilities clearly assigned and facilitated with resources?	To what extent do the assigned responsibilities create competence struggles or cooperation within or across institutions? Are they considered legitimate by the main stakeholders?	To what extent is it possible to pool the assigned responsibilities and resources as long as accountability and transparency are not compromised?	Is the amount of allocated resources sufficient to implement the measures needed for the intended change?

Table 2. Interviewed individuals.

Category	Number of respondents
Overlegorgaan (Consultative Board) representatives from: Province of Fryslân, and nature conservation organisation	3
It Fryske Gea (nature conservation organisation), managers of Alde Feanen	2
Nature quality department of It Fryske Gea	1
Wetterskip Friesland (regional water board)	2
Friese Milieu Federatie (Frisian Environmental Federation)	1
IVN, Instituut voor natuureducatie en duurzaamheid (Institute for nature education and sustainability)	1
Researcher specialized in Ecosystem services of the National Park Alde Feanen	1
Total	11

Figure 1. GAT within contextual interaction theory as an assessment framework for the case (based on Bressers and Lulofs 2010).

Figure 2. Alde Feanen National Park. Source: Nouta 2015.

Table 3. Landscape formation and policy developments of the Alde Feanen area.

From early middle ages	The area was formed by floods and stagnant water and was of low significance for people.
From 800 to 1200	The area was mined by digging drainage ditches mainly from the villages. A direct effect of reclamation was the drastic compaction of peat, which lowered the area and became again sensitive to floods and became uninhabitable and barely usable.
From 1200	The change came after interventions in water management by dewatering of the area via canals incidentally dividing the northern and southern peat core.
1700	Peat digging became on a bigger scale; the peat was pulled deeper under water, and the larger lakes were formed in the area.
End of the nineteenth century	With the peat in the area almost gone; the edges of the Alde Feanen were transformed by humans into meadows and hayfields. Later the area was turned into polders (drained land) on a large scale.
Since 1920	Plans for further land reclamation were not carried out due to the importance of the natural and recreational values.
1934	Manager of the area It Fryske Gea (nature organization) bought 134 acres, and the ownership and management in acreage grew to 2,500 ha.
1939	The last major polder (the Hege Warren, 400 hectares) was created.
1960	Part of the area outside It Fryske Gea ownership was designated for recreation-based development in a municipal zoning plan (bestemmingsplan) for Tytsjerksteradiel.
1990	The Dutch Nature policy is developed and accepted; the concept of ecological main structure is to be carried out.
1990–1993	Many restoration measures have been realized, namely isolation from the basin water, dredging, bio-manipulation and hydrological re-arrangement.
1992	Alde Feanen is included in the Ramsar list of wetlands of international importance.
1992	The committee was formed to discuss Alde Feanen in a broader context, to determine the future of the area.
1994	Alde Feanen is designated as a special protected area.
1995	The committee became the governing body (overlegorgaan), discussing, among other things, a potential management plan for the park.
2000	The nature policy document ‘People for Nature, Nature for People’ expanded nature policy from an ecological focus to include social values of nature.
2003	Alde Feanen signed up to the European Commission as a habitat area.
2006	The area became a national park.
2007	Alde Feanen became a part of the Nature 2000 Network; it is also part of the National Ecological Network.
Since 2010	National government retreated and delegated its responsibilities for nature to lower, provincial levels; the national park is now a responsibility of the province; a daily board of a consultative body of Alde Feanen has been appointed.
End of 2012	Economic perspective of the shipping waterway to Drachten is drawn up.
2012	Former farm area at the south end of the Alde Feanen, de Burd 250 ha, has been added as a new nature area to the Park, thus extending the total area to about 4,000 ha.
2013–2019	LIFE+ project ‘Booming Business’ started in Alde Feanen, aimed at improving water quality, restoring nature and increasing navigability.

Table 4. Key properties of the Alde Feanen focal system.

Biophysical properties: Species, climate variables, changes in the species regime, etc.

Social properties: Policies, networks, nature monitoring programs, economic developments, etc.

High diversity of species in low moor bog (about 450 plant species, more than 100 bird species. Core area for various wetland birds; large number of geese come to breed, affecting farms and nature. Large non-fragmented nature areas, high variation of landscapes. A relatively high position in a low peat zone, therefore the water flows away. replenishment does not take place via ground water from the environment.^7 Some non-native species are introduced accidentally and their number explodes sometimes. Some insects are earlier in the season (e.g. mosquitos), while migratory birds are not yet in place.

Consultative governing body (Overlegorgaan) consisting of 17 stakeholders from almost all level authorities and organizations, is involved in the management and monitoring of the area. Nature 2000 Management plan for the Alde Feanen (2015). LIFE+ project ‘Booming Business’ intends to restore and protect the peat bog area, recover aquatic vegetation, new reed beds, highly endangered floating fens and fen meadows; project consists of clusters of short-term measures.^8 Area offers good possibilities for co-use for recreation. Alternative measures (routes) to shipping waterway in the national park are considered as alternatives to the upgrading of same the waterway.

Figure 3. Legend: alternative routes: (1) broadening and deepening of the current route, also as 0+ variant (crosses Nature 2000 area); (2) alternative route south of the Alde Feanen in two variants; (3) alternative route east of the Alde Feanen in three variants; (4) alternative route via De Leijen and lake Bergummermeer. Source: Province of Fryslân.

Table 5. Visualisation of the governance context analysis.

	Quality criteria
Dimensions	Extent	Coherence	Flexibility	Intensity
Levels and scales	High (+), but no involvement of the national level	High (+), with a certain level of hierarchy in decision-making	Medium (0), with adaptive atmosphere between levels	Medium (0), pressure comes from EU and global level
Actors and networks	High (+), but farmers are not fully considered	High (+), all inclined to cooperate	High (+), room for new actors and potential to shift lead from actor to actor.	Low (−), lack of support for resilience measures
Problems and goals	Medium (0) ecosystem resilience is not emphasized as an issue.	Low (−), big clash of interests	Medium (0), boundary spanning options: longer time scales, bigger geographical scale	Low (−), different priorities with long time-scales for decisions
Strategies and instruments	Medium (0), due to a lack of monitoring and enforcement in certain situations	Low (−),with fragmented policy instruments	Low (−), lack of combined instruments to improve the quality of environmental conditions	Low (−), no common strategy to strongly deviate from current practice
Responsibilities and resources	Low (−), dependence on outside resources	Low (−), fragmented responsibilities as well as resources	Low (−), institutional inertia and separation of funds	Low (−), lack of sufficient resources

Note: (+) Green – high; (0) yellow – medium; (−) red – low.

Bressers, H., N. Bressers, S. Kuks, and C. Larrue. 2016. “The Governance Assessment Tool and Its Use.” In Governance for Drought Resilience: Land and Water Drought Management in Europe, edited by Hans Bressers, Nanny Bressers, and Corinne Larrue, 45–65. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-29671-5_3

 Google Scholar

Carpenter, S., F. Westley, and M. Turner. 2005. “Surrogates for Resilience of Social‐Ecological Systems.” Ecosystems 8: 941–944.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nouta, C. 2015. “Natuurlijk Kapitaal in Beeld: De Ecosysteemdiensten van Nationaal Park De Alde Feanen [Natural Capital: Ecosystem Services of Alde Feanen National Park]; Afstudeeropdracht voor de Opleiding Milieukunde (deeltijd), Major Natuur en Milieu”. Thesis for Environmental Studies, part-time, major in Nature and Environment, Hogeschool Van Hall Larenstein, Leeuwarden.

 Google Scholar

Beheerplan Natura 2000 Alde Feanen. 2015. Opgesteld door Altenburg and Wymenga / Provincie Fryslân [Management Plan Nature 2000 Alde Feanen]. Prepared by Altenburg and Wymenga Ecological Consultancy/Province of Fryslân. http://www.np-aldefeanen.nl/download/NPALDEFEANEN08783.pdf

 Google Scholar