- Email: [email protected]
Integrated water and wetland management: towards a project approach
Landscape and Urban Planning, 20 ( 1991 ) 257-262 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam
257
Integrated water and wetland management: towards a project approach Piet Glasbergen and Frans Klijn Department c~fEnvironmental Studies, University of Utrecht, Heidelberg&an 2, 3584 CS Utrecht (The Netherlands) (Accepted for publication 23 August 1990 )
ABSTRACT Glasbergen, P. and Klijn, F., 1991. Integrated water and wetland management: towards a project approach, Landscape Urban Plann., 20: 257-262. The management problem of wetlands is the central subject. Integrated water management may be considered a prerequisite for integrated wetland management. An analytical framework for wetland management is presented, based on a distinction between problem field and management field. The problem field is a coherent set of problems, in this case discrepancies between actual wetland qualities and requirements as to its qualities. The management field comprises all the relevant aclors and their interventions. Hence, both the actors with a specific management task (the "managers" ) and those affecting the wetland by using its resources (the interest groups ) are part of the management field. The divergence of wetland characteristics necessitates the selection of a management strategy adapted to the local or regional circumstances. Such a management strategy must be based on characteristics of the problem field and on characteristics of the management network. It may be stated that ineffective management of wetlands therefore results from either: ( 1 ) the intricacy of the problem field; (2) the complexity of the management field; or (3) the relation between management field and problem field. A possible solution to this ineffectiveness may be found in an integrated management plan. This can be defined as a policy document in which management objectives are formulated, as well as the outlines of tasks and responsibilities of all actors essential for realizing these objectives. For the present management authorities a project approach may act as a catalyst, as it facilitates the attack of pressing management problems.
INTRODUCTION Integrated water management, in the narrow sense implies the management of entire water bodies. It is based on a systems approach and aims at Ministry of Transport and Public Works ( 1985): an integration of groundwater and surfacewater management; integration of quantitative and qualitative water management; an integration of functions (use) of water systems. Integrated wetland m a n a g e m e n t is based on -
-
a
n
-
0169-2046/91/$03.50
the same principles, but concerns the whole wetland environment instead of only the water in it. It may be considered integrated environmental management: integrating physical planning, nature conservation, water management and general environmental management. It is directed towards wetland ecosystems. In this article, the management problem of wetlands as to their (wise) use is the central subject. Within this context, integrated water management will receive most attention, because it may be considered a prerequisite for integrated wetland management as a whole.
© 1991 - - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
25S
P (ILASBERGIN\NI)t- KII,IN
The article focuses on the integration of functions, while the integration of groundwater and surface-water management and quantitative and qualitative water management will receive no further attention. First, an analytical framework on management in general and wetland management in particular will be presented. Then, the questions associated with this framework will be put forward. Finally, an attempt to formulate some general conclusions and recommendations on integrated wetland management will be considered. MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS: ANALYTICAL F R A M E W O R K In management problems, a distinction can be made between characteristics of the problem field and characteristics of the management field (Glasbergen et al., 1988 ). The problem field is a coherent set of problems, in this case (a set o f ) discrepancies between actual wetland qualities and requirements as to its qualities. The latter are defined by those who have an interest in its resources: the interest groups. Often, the interest groups also affect the wetland by their use (exploitation). The interest groups may therefore be
considered as "'actors". The mutual relation between interest groups and a wetland is shown in Fig. 1. Hence, the problem field is a clearly distinguishable object, which can be described as a matter of matching wetland qualities on the one hand, and requirements as to its qualities on tile other. Aside stands a second group of actors, who have as a single objective the "'management" of this mutual relation, and to ensure wise use of the wetland as a whole (Fig. 2). They have no interest in the wetland qualities themselves, but a general responsibility for its management. The management field, now, comprises all the relevant actors and their interventions. Hence, both the actors with a specific management task (the managers) and those affecting the wetland by using its resources (the interest groups) are part of the management field. INTEGRATED WETLAND M A N A G E M E N T AS A M A N A G E M E N T PROBLEM In the management of wetlands it is attempted to match the qualities and functioning of the wetland systems on the one hand, and the requirements of the various interest groups on the other. Therefore, management objec-
physical impacts
ACTORS (inte~-ests)
f
WETLANDQUALIT[ES
FeSOUFCeS
Fig. 1. l'hc problem field. ACTORS
ACTORS
(managers)
p h y s i c a l impacts
ACTORS (intepests)
t FequiPements
Fig. 2. Tile management field in relation to tile problem field.
WETLANDQUALI'F2IES
259
INTEGRATED WATER AND WETLAND M A N A G E M E N T
rives must be set concerning the desired use and exploitation of resources, as well as concerning the desired wetland qualities and the acceptable impacts on the wetland environment. To achieve a coherent m a n a g e m e n t of water or entire wetlands, first it is necessary to agree on the management units concerned: wetland or water systems have to be distinguished. Second, it must be investigated how the necessary coordination of m a n a g e m e n t tasks can be achieved: a management field has to be defined and (re) organized. A water system approach is no goal in itself, but a means to locate and understand relations between individual waters and their characteristics. The systems approach refers to a complex unity of interrelated elements including their relations to the context (setting/environment ). Defining the limits of the system is very difficult, especially with respect to water systems. No general rules can be given, as the definition strongly depends on the objectives or questions of the water managers. Different system limits may have to be used for different management questions. In the first instance, one may consider distinguishing geographically defined areas as water systems on the basis of hydrological relations. Such an approach, however, does not always result in units which are practicable for management purposes. Therefore, often more flexible influence zones are distinguished varying with the management problem, instead of clearly delimited geographical areas. According to the first interpretation, water systems could be clearly defined as geographical units (real systems in space), while the management question would concern the most effective management of these units. An objection to this interpretation may be a very limited look at the functioning of the water systems, i.e. disregarding the context. Interventions at other levels especially, which may influence the system and its functions, remain out of sight. Also there are discrepancies in the definition of groundwater and surface-water
bodies, which may require a different scale of approach and have different limits. Only a hierarchical approach with due attention for spatial relations between adjoining systems may take away part of these drawbacks (Klijn, 1988, 1989). The second interpretation, based on varying zones of influence which need attention of the water managers, also enables the geographical delimitation of water systems, but the limits may vary in accordance with the management question. Also, for the various interest groups (such as recreation, fisheries, or nature conservation) the relevant geographical area may not coincide with that of the water system. The functional areas often concern only part of the water system, and different zones of protection are relevant for the different interest groups. In this conception, the systems approach to water management is primarily a m e t h o d of providing an overall and coherent insight into processes to be regulated (Glasbergen et al., 1988). When a wetland is considered to be a system, the question arises of how to manage this system. An ideal management situation would exist under the following circumstances: abundant knowledge of the water (wetland) systems, enabling unambiguous definition and delimitation from the context ( environment ); - only one management authority, in which all tasks and responsibilities of importance for the interests and the functioning of the system are united; unambiguous context ( e n v i r o n m e n t ) of known and uniform influence on both the (water) system and the management organization. Such circumstances would enable one unambiguous management strategy, directed towards sustainability. In practice, the management situation of wetlands will be far more complicated. Knowledge of the system will be either insufficient, or irrelevant for the management problem. -
- a n
260
Often, more than one m a n a g e m e n t authority will be responsible for (partial) aspects of the water system (quantity, quality, surface water, ground water, recreation, fisheries, etc.). Finally, the influence of the context will not be static: m a n y changes in water systems result from unforeseen changes in the context (environment). Therefore, the management field must be considered as an intricate network of actors (Glasbergen, 1989). Such a m a n a g e m e n t network refers to the specific characteristics of the organization of the m a n a g e m e n t field: the distribution of tasks, competence and instruments of the various actors, as well as the interdependence of these actors. Each of these actors will provide only part of the information needed to control the system and part of the instruments needed for the m a n a g e m e n t task. The actors can be positioned on various administrative levels (local, regional, national) and in various management specializations (water management, physical planning, nature conservation, etc. ). Some of these authorities are responsible for mainly strategic planning, while others have more operational ( i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ) tasks. Q U E S T I O N S IN W E T L A N D MANAGEMENT The divergence of wetland characteristics necessitates the selection of a management strategy adapted to local or original circumstances. Such a m a n a g e m e n t strategy must be based on the characteristics of the problem field and of the m a n a g e m e n t network. The problem field has been defined as the total problems in a wetland system. It concerns: -the kind of ( e n v i r o n m e n t a l ) problems and the question, can these problems be controlled, or will they have to be considered external influences; - the present functions of the water system, especially the n u m b e r and kind of functions;
P. GLASBERGEN AND F. KLI.IN
- t h e management objectives, especially the hierarchy of objectives and the possible controversy between these objectives and the present functions of the wetland. The management question may become more difficult with an increasing n u m b e r of functions, less explicit objectives and a greater dependence on external influences. The management network can be defined as all the actors directly or indirectly involved in the wetland management. It concerns: -the n u m b e r of actors and kind of involvement; - the objecti'ves and interests of the actors; - the interdependence of the various actors. The management question becomes more difficult with an increasing n u m b e r of actors, less direct involvement, more one-sided dependence, and a greater degree of autonomy. It may be stated that ineffective management of wetlands therefore results from either: ( 1 ) the intricacy of the problem field; (2) the complexity of the management field; or (3) the relation between management field and problem field (Kuijpers and Glasbergen, 1989). A possible solution to this ineffectiveness may be found in a management plan. This will be elaborated further in the next section. ON THE PROSPECTS OF A PROJECT APPROACH When the intricacy of the problem field and the management network result in a very complicated management problem, elaborating an integrated management plan may help in achieving a more integrated and coordinated management. Such a management plan, in turn, should be supported by a scientific documentation on the characteristics of the wetland, its resources, its use (potential), and its carrying capacity, as well as its problems: a "background document". Both the background document and the m a n a g e m e n t plan itself may be composed in a project approach
INTEGRATED WATER AND WETLAND MANAGEMENT
(Kuijpers, 1988; Kuijpers and Glasbergen, 1989). A main reason for adopting a project approach for wetland management may be a change in management objectives, sometimes resulting from the allotment as "wetland". Such a change in objectives may necessitate a change of attitude and interventions of the various actors. A joint perception on the water system and its management must be developed, which ought to be the basis for each individual intervention of each of the relevant actors. The present relations between actors may need reorganization, implying both structural and cultural changes. Structural changes mean a reorganized task structure, while the cultural changes are needed for support. The project approach should aim at elaborating: - a background document, in which all the physical and land use characteristics of the wetland are dealt with (including potential characteristics), resources, carrying capacity and so forth; - an integrated management plan, in which the overall objectives for the future (strategic plan) and the measures to be taken in the transition phase (operational plan) are made explicit. An integrated management plan can be defined as a policy document in which management objectives are formulated, as well as the outlines of tasks and responsibilities of all actors essential for realizing these objectives. In such an integrated plan the objectives should be specific for the various interests, while attention should be paid to their interdependence. In this respect, a project approach facilitates the establishment of priorities. Also, the essential interventions must be explicit in the integrated management plan. Therefore, all actors determining the developments in an area must be involved in drafting the integrated management plan, as this is a prerequisite for achieving the necessary cooperation. For the present management authorities a
261
project approach may act as a catalyst, as it facilitates the attack of pressing management problems. In that case, the project bridges the gap between strategic planning, focusing on long-term strategies on the one hand, and actual management, concentrating on daily problems in detail on the other. C O N C L U D I N G R E M A R K S AND RECOMMENDATIONS For integrated wetland management an integrated water management is a prerequisite, as water is essential to all ecosystems, and wetland in particular. Designating an area as a wetland and complying with the recommendations of the Ramsar conference is not a sufficient conservation measure. Also the interventions of the relevant actors must be regulated/controlled. The formulation of integrated management objectives can hardly be a painless operation, as it is very unlikely that all actors value the various functions of a wetland to the same extent. Neither is it likely that they regard all necessary measures as equally urgent or seek solutions in the same direction (see also the section "Conflict handling in wetland managem e n t " in this issue). Although integrated management should be based on harmony, the attempt to realize this may often lead to conflict. In the transition phase towards a future balanced management situation aimed at wise use, a project approach to integrated wetland management may be helpful to internalize long-term (strategic) objectives. The development of an integrated wetland management plan may also help to create a new structure for the management network. REFERENCES
Glasbergen, P., 1989. Beleidsnelwerken fond milieuproblemen. V U G A uitgeverij B.V., D e n Haag, 29 pp. Glasbergen, P. and Wessel, J., 1988. S a m e n h a n g en s a m e n spel in her waterbeheer. Her streven naar integraal waterbcheer. Delflse Universitaire Pers, Delft, 129 pp.
262 Klijn, 1988. Milieubcheergebieden, CML-mcdcdelingen 37, Leiden/RlVM rapport 758702001, Bilthoven. Klijn, 1989. Landscape ecological mapping of The Netherlands: groundwater relations. CML mededelingen 51, Lciden/Stiboka rapport 2007, Wageningen (in Dutch with English summary ). Kuijpers, C.B.F., 1988. Bestuurlijke afstemming in het waterbeheer? Voor en nadelen van integrale beleidsplanning.
P. GL-~SBERGENAND F. KLIJN Planologische discussiedagen 1988, Delft, dee111, pp. 411420. Kuijpers, C.B.F. and Glasbergen, P., 1989. Eenheid in verscheidenheid. Bestuurlijke aspecten van integraal waterbeheer. Ministry of Transport and Public Works. Den Haag, 90 pp. Ministry of Transport and Public Works, 1985. Omgaan met water.
257
Integrated water and wetland management: towards a project approach Piet Glasbergen and Frans Klijn Department c~fEnvironmental Studies, University of Utrecht, Heidelberg&an 2, 3584 CS Utrecht (The Netherlands) (Accepted for publication 23 August 1990 )
ABSTRACT Glasbergen, P. and Klijn, F., 1991. Integrated water and wetland management: towards a project approach, Landscape Urban Plann., 20: 257-262. The management problem of wetlands is the central subject. Integrated water management may be considered a prerequisite for integrated wetland management. An analytical framework for wetland management is presented, based on a distinction between problem field and management field. The problem field is a coherent set of problems, in this case discrepancies between actual wetland qualities and requirements as to its qualities. The management field comprises all the relevant aclors and their interventions. Hence, both the actors with a specific management task (the "managers" ) and those affecting the wetland by using its resources (the interest groups ) are part of the management field. The divergence of wetland characteristics necessitates the selection of a management strategy adapted to the local or regional circumstances. Such a management strategy must be based on characteristics of the problem field and on characteristics of the management network. It may be stated that ineffective management of wetlands therefore results from either: ( 1 ) the intricacy of the problem field; (2) the complexity of the management field; or (3) the relation between management field and problem field. A possible solution to this ineffectiveness may be found in an integrated management plan. This can be defined as a policy document in which management objectives are formulated, as well as the outlines of tasks and responsibilities of all actors essential for realizing these objectives. For the present management authorities a project approach may act as a catalyst, as it facilitates the attack of pressing management problems.
INTRODUCTION Integrated water management, in the narrow sense implies the management of entire water bodies. It is based on a systems approach and aims at Ministry of Transport and Public Works ( 1985): an integration of groundwater and surfacewater management; integration of quantitative and qualitative water management; an integration of functions (use) of water systems. Integrated wetland m a n a g e m e n t is based on -
-
a
n
-
0169-2046/91/$03.50
the same principles, but concerns the whole wetland environment instead of only the water in it. It may be considered integrated environmental management: integrating physical planning, nature conservation, water management and general environmental management. It is directed towards wetland ecosystems. In this article, the management problem of wetlands as to their (wise) use is the central subject. Within this context, integrated water management will receive most attention, because it may be considered a prerequisite for integrated wetland management as a whole.
© 1991 - - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
25S
P (ILASBERGIN\NI)t- KII,IN
The article focuses on the integration of functions, while the integration of groundwater and surface-water management and quantitative and qualitative water management will receive no further attention. First, an analytical framework on management in general and wetland management in particular will be presented. Then, the questions associated with this framework will be put forward. Finally, an attempt to formulate some general conclusions and recommendations on integrated wetland management will be considered. MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS: ANALYTICAL F R A M E W O R K In management problems, a distinction can be made between characteristics of the problem field and characteristics of the management field (Glasbergen et al., 1988 ). The problem field is a coherent set of problems, in this case (a set o f ) discrepancies between actual wetland qualities and requirements as to its qualities. The latter are defined by those who have an interest in its resources: the interest groups. Often, the interest groups also affect the wetland by their use (exploitation). The interest groups may therefore be
considered as "'actors". The mutual relation between interest groups and a wetland is shown in Fig. 1. Hence, the problem field is a clearly distinguishable object, which can be described as a matter of matching wetland qualities on the one hand, and requirements as to its qualities on tile other. Aside stands a second group of actors, who have as a single objective the "'management" of this mutual relation, and to ensure wise use of the wetland as a whole (Fig. 2). They have no interest in the wetland qualities themselves, but a general responsibility for its management. The management field, now, comprises all the relevant actors and their interventions. Hence, both the actors with a specific management task (the managers) and those affecting the wetland by using its resources (the interest groups) are part of the management field. INTEGRATED WETLAND M A N A G E M E N T AS A M A N A G E M E N T PROBLEM In the management of wetlands it is attempted to match the qualities and functioning of the wetland systems on the one hand, and the requirements of the various interest groups on the other. Therefore, management objec-
physical impacts
ACTORS (inte~-ests)
f
WETLANDQUALIT[ES
FeSOUFCeS
Fig. 1. l'hc problem field. ACTORS
ACTORS
(managers)
p h y s i c a l impacts
ACTORS (intepests)
t FequiPements
Fig. 2. Tile management field in relation to tile problem field.
WETLANDQUALI'F2IES
259
INTEGRATED WATER AND WETLAND M A N A G E M E N T
rives must be set concerning the desired use and exploitation of resources, as well as concerning the desired wetland qualities and the acceptable impacts on the wetland environment. To achieve a coherent m a n a g e m e n t of water or entire wetlands, first it is necessary to agree on the management units concerned: wetland or water systems have to be distinguished. Second, it must be investigated how the necessary coordination of m a n a g e m e n t tasks can be achieved: a management field has to be defined and (re) organized. A water system approach is no goal in itself, but a means to locate and understand relations between individual waters and their characteristics. The systems approach refers to a complex unity of interrelated elements including their relations to the context (setting/environment ). Defining the limits of the system is very difficult, especially with respect to water systems. No general rules can be given, as the definition strongly depends on the objectives or questions of the water managers. Different system limits may have to be used for different management questions. In the first instance, one may consider distinguishing geographically defined areas as water systems on the basis of hydrological relations. Such an approach, however, does not always result in units which are practicable for management purposes. Therefore, often more flexible influence zones are distinguished varying with the management problem, instead of clearly delimited geographical areas. According to the first interpretation, water systems could be clearly defined as geographical units (real systems in space), while the management question would concern the most effective management of these units. An objection to this interpretation may be a very limited look at the functioning of the water systems, i.e. disregarding the context. Interventions at other levels especially, which may influence the system and its functions, remain out of sight. Also there are discrepancies in the definition of groundwater and surface-water
bodies, which may require a different scale of approach and have different limits. Only a hierarchical approach with due attention for spatial relations between adjoining systems may take away part of these drawbacks (Klijn, 1988, 1989). The second interpretation, based on varying zones of influence which need attention of the water managers, also enables the geographical delimitation of water systems, but the limits may vary in accordance with the management question. Also, for the various interest groups (such as recreation, fisheries, or nature conservation) the relevant geographical area may not coincide with that of the water system. The functional areas often concern only part of the water system, and different zones of protection are relevant for the different interest groups. In this conception, the systems approach to water management is primarily a m e t h o d of providing an overall and coherent insight into processes to be regulated (Glasbergen et al., 1988). When a wetland is considered to be a system, the question arises of how to manage this system. An ideal management situation would exist under the following circumstances: abundant knowledge of the water (wetland) systems, enabling unambiguous definition and delimitation from the context ( environment ); - only one management authority, in which all tasks and responsibilities of importance for the interests and the functioning of the system are united; unambiguous context ( e n v i r o n m e n t ) of known and uniform influence on both the (water) system and the management organization. Such circumstances would enable one unambiguous management strategy, directed towards sustainability. In practice, the management situation of wetlands will be far more complicated. Knowledge of the system will be either insufficient, or irrelevant for the management problem. -
- a n
260
Often, more than one m a n a g e m e n t authority will be responsible for (partial) aspects of the water system (quantity, quality, surface water, ground water, recreation, fisheries, etc.). Finally, the influence of the context will not be static: m a n y changes in water systems result from unforeseen changes in the context (environment). Therefore, the management field must be considered as an intricate network of actors (Glasbergen, 1989). Such a m a n a g e m e n t network refers to the specific characteristics of the organization of the m a n a g e m e n t field: the distribution of tasks, competence and instruments of the various actors, as well as the interdependence of these actors. Each of these actors will provide only part of the information needed to control the system and part of the instruments needed for the m a n a g e m e n t task. The actors can be positioned on various administrative levels (local, regional, national) and in various management specializations (water management, physical planning, nature conservation, etc. ). Some of these authorities are responsible for mainly strategic planning, while others have more operational ( i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ) tasks. Q U E S T I O N S IN W E T L A N D MANAGEMENT The divergence of wetland characteristics necessitates the selection of a management strategy adapted to local or original circumstances. Such a m a n a g e m e n t strategy must be based on the characteristics of the problem field and of the m a n a g e m e n t network. The problem field has been defined as the total problems in a wetland system. It concerns: -the kind of ( e n v i r o n m e n t a l ) problems and the question, can these problems be controlled, or will they have to be considered external influences; - the present functions of the water system, especially the n u m b e r and kind of functions;
P. GLASBERGEN AND F. KLI.IN
- t h e management objectives, especially the hierarchy of objectives and the possible controversy between these objectives and the present functions of the wetland. The management question may become more difficult with an increasing n u m b e r of functions, less explicit objectives and a greater dependence on external influences. The management network can be defined as all the actors directly or indirectly involved in the wetland management. It concerns: -the n u m b e r of actors and kind of involvement; - the objecti'ves and interests of the actors; - the interdependence of the various actors. The management question becomes more difficult with an increasing n u m b e r of actors, less direct involvement, more one-sided dependence, and a greater degree of autonomy. It may be stated that ineffective management of wetlands therefore results from either: ( 1 ) the intricacy of the problem field; (2) the complexity of the management field; or (3) the relation between management field and problem field (Kuijpers and Glasbergen, 1989). A possible solution to this ineffectiveness may be found in a management plan. This will be elaborated further in the next section. ON THE PROSPECTS OF A PROJECT APPROACH When the intricacy of the problem field and the management network result in a very complicated management problem, elaborating an integrated management plan may help in achieving a more integrated and coordinated management. Such a management plan, in turn, should be supported by a scientific documentation on the characteristics of the wetland, its resources, its use (potential), and its carrying capacity, as well as its problems: a "background document". Both the background document and the m a n a g e m e n t plan itself may be composed in a project approach
INTEGRATED WATER AND WETLAND MANAGEMENT
(Kuijpers, 1988; Kuijpers and Glasbergen, 1989). A main reason for adopting a project approach for wetland management may be a change in management objectives, sometimes resulting from the allotment as "wetland". Such a change in objectives may necessitate a change of attitude and interventions of the various actors. A joint perception on the water system and its management must be developed, which ought to be the basis for each individual intervention of each of the relevant actors. The present relations between actors may need reorganization, implying both structural and cultural changes. Structural changes mean a reorganized task structure, while the cultural changes are needed for support. The project approach should aim at elaborating: - a background document, in which all the physical and land use characteristics of the wetland are dealt with (including potential characteristics), resources, carrying capacity and so forth; - an integrated management plan, in which the overall objectives for the future (strategic plan) and the measures to be taken in the transition phase (operational plan) are made explicit. An integrated management plan can be defined as a policy document in which management objectives are formulated, as well as the outlines of tasks and responsibilities of all actors essential for realizing these objectives. In such an integrated plan the objectives should be specific for the various interests, while attention should be paid to their interdependence. In this respect, a project approach facilitates the establishment of priorities. Also, the essential interventions must be explicit in the integrated management plan. Therefore, all actors determining the developments in an area must be involved in drafting the integrated management plan, as this is a prerequisite for achieving the necessary cooperation. For the present management authorities a
261
project approach may act as a catalyst, as it facilitates the attack of pressing management problems. In that case, the project bridges the gap between strategic planning, focusing on long-term strategies on the one hand, and actual management, concentrating on daily problems in detail on the other. C O N C L U D I N G R E M A R K S AND RECOMMENDATIONS For integrated wetland management an integrated water management is a prerequisite, as water is essential to all ecosystems, and wetland in particular. Designating an area as a wetland and complying with the recommendations of the Ramsar conference is not a sufficient conservation measure. Also the interventions of the relevant actors must be regulated/controlled. The formulation of integrated management objectives can hardly be a painless operation, as it is very unlikely that all actors value the various functions of a wetland to the same extent. Neither is it likely that they regard all necessary measures as equally urgent or seek solutions in the same direction (see also the section "Conflict handling in wetland managem e n t " in this issue). Although integrated management should be based on harmony, the attempt to realize this may often lead to conflict. In the transition phase towards a future balanced management situation aimed at wise use, a project approach to integrated wetland management may be helpful to internalize long-term (strategic) objectives. The development of an integrated wetland management plan may also help to create a new structure for the management network. REFERENCES
Glasbergen, P., 1989. Beleidsnelwerken fond milieuproblemen. V U G A uitgeverij B.V., D e n Haag, 29 pp. Glasbergen, P. and Wessel, J., 1988. S a m e n h a n g en s a m e n spel in her waterbeheer. Her streven naar integraal waterbcheer. Delflse Universitaire Pers, Delft, 129 pp.
262 Klijn, 1988. Milieubcheergebieden, CML-mcdcdelingen 37, Leiden/RlVM rapport 758702001, Bilthoven. Klijn, 1989. Landscape ecological mapping of The Netherlands: groundwater relations. CML mededelingen 51, Lciden/Stiboka rapport 2007, Wageningen (in Dutch with English summary ). Kuijpers, C.B.F., 1988. Bestuurlijke afstemming in het waterbeheer? Voor en nadelen van integrale beleidsplanning.
P. GL-~SBERGENAND F. KLIJN Planologische discussiedagen 1988, Delft, dee111, pp. 411420. Kuijpers, C.B.F. and Glasbergen, P., 1989. Eenheid in verscheidenheid. Bestuurlijke aspecten van integraal waterbeheer. Ministry of Transport and Public Works. Den Haag, 90 pp. Ministry of Transport and Public Works, 1985. Omgaan met water.