Beautiful Wageningen Foudation

REPORT ON STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS OF BINNENVELD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Introduction 02

II Programme and addresses 05

III Key findings per stakeholder 06

IV Stakeholder analysis

Tool 1 - GOPP 14

Tool 2 & 3 - RAAKS 16

Tool 4 - Venndiagram 20

Tool 5 – DFID tool 24

1 Introduction to the (participatory) spatial planning process in the ‘Binnenveld’ area PPM&E course February 2004

Issues in and around the Binnenveld area History The Binnenveld area used to be a swampy peat soil area in the Middle ages

Reconstruction committee The ‘reconstruction policy’ (reconstructiewet) tries to find solutions for spatial and environmental problems in areas with intensive pig farming. The provinces of Utrecht and Gelderland established a reconstruction committee to make a plan. In this committee different stakeholders take place. Binnenveld is part of a larger area that the reconstruction committee covers.

WERV WERV is an acronym for a regional cooperation (since 2002) between the municipalities of Wageningen, Ede, Rhenen and Veenendaal. The Binnenveld area is the “green heart” between these 4 municipalities and one of the objectives of WERV is to protect this area and to direct developments and spatial planning between these municipalities. In 2003 WERV designed a ‘regional master vision’ (regionale structuurvisie), and multi- stakeholder workshops were part of this process.

‘ Knowledge Landscape’ Wageningen Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) is a large knowledge centre in the natural resources and agriculture related sciences. Wageningen UR owns a large area of Wageningen and is the major employer within Wageningen. Naturally Wageningen UR would like to have a big role in the spatial planning of Wageningen. They aim to concentrate their buildings (departments, research institutes and student dormitories) around the border of Wageningen, in between the city centre and the ‘green’ areas (Binnenveld), and with good traffic connections. When the municipality of Wageningen was working on a new Master Plan, Wageningen UR presented their vision, which was largely taken over by the municipality. A ‘knowledge landscape’ will be established between city centre and Binnenveld, which represents the image of Wageningen als ‘green centre of knowledge’. For the spatial planning in this area some people imagine test fields, small agriculture, water storage, a camping, sports fields and a rowing course. The architecture of the buildings should also be in line with the environmental and landscape objectives and the ecological connection zone should be part of the area.

2 Ecological connection zone To increase migration and biodiversity in the Netherlands, ecological connection zones should be established all over the country. The Binnenveld is an important ecological connection zone between the National Park “Hoge Veluwe” and the valley “Gelderse Vallei”.

Landscape, nature and environment The Binnenveld is a moisty soil area with a small river (“de Grift”) and has special plant and animal species. Part of the Binnenveld has been closed for motorized traffic to become a “silence area” which would help e.g. bird species to develop better. Interesting flora and fauna in the Binnenveld area are vegetation on the banks of streams and ditches, small mammals and bird species: ‘meadow’ birds (lapwing, curlew), owls (barn owl, little owl), breeding storks and swans. A danger exists that the little owl (‘steenuil’) will get extinct in the Netherlands. Reasons are less access to food and disappearance of breeding possilibities (in pollard willows, orchards and old barns). ‘Clean’ electricity can be gained by using windmills in open areas. The Binnenveld has been thought of as a good area to establish windmills. However, some environmental or landscape groups think windmills are “polluting the view” or that the windmills are damaging bird species.

Farming In the Binnenveld the farming activities are mainly agriculture and livestock. Farmers have to deal with 1. the stricter environment and landscape objectives in the area 2. the high water levels in this valley area. The water board considers farmers the main group to deal with water storage and seepage in the area. Many farmers are member of the GLTO, the regional farmers organization.

Water management Water board ‘Vallei & Eem’ is responsible for the water management in the Binnenveld. As it is a wet area that sometimes is flooded by the small river (‘de Grift’), the water board concluded that the water storage area needs to be increased in the Binnenveld area and that farmers should play a large role in the water management.

3 Stakeholders in the Binnenveld area to be interviewed

 Landscape Care South-west Veluwe (landschapsbeheer zuidwest veluwe). This is group of active volunteers that polls willows for the purpose of landscape, view, habitat for owls and other animals, ecological connection zone and division between parcels. They are ‘doers’, not ‘talkers’.

 The Beautiful Wageningen Foundation (stichting Mooi Wageningen) favours a beautiful landscape and view in Wageningen and around, and strongly acted against establishing windmills and more buildings in the Binnenveld area.

 The Working Group on Little Owls (steenuilenwerkgroep) is a group of volunteers that would like to develop a protection plan for the little owls. Volunteers try to find and record the breeding areas of the little owls at day and night, and after that they may establish areas where the little owl can find food and breed. By pubic awareness activities the working group on little owls is asking support from farmers, citizens, the municipality and business companies.

 Farmer in the ‘Kraats’, a part of the Binnenveld. He has livestock (poultry and pigs) and some hectares for rhodondendron, grass and corn. He is an active member of the regional farmers’ organization (GLTO) and has participated last year in a planning workshop for the Binnenveld area, organized by the WERV committee.

 Reporting centre of roads closure (for motorized traffic). This reporting centre is a cooperation between car and motorcycle interest groups. They try to prevent closure of roads for motorized traffic by trying to find alternatives. When in 2001 the municipality of Wageningen decided to close the main roads in the Binnenveld area for motorized traffic, the person to be interviewed sent a letter to the municipality and mentioned that the traffic capacity of other roads would need to be improved then, but without any results. As most stakeholders are concerned about environmental and nature values, this group is often not considered in interactive planning processes.

 Municipality of Wageningen. The person to be interviewed takes part in the WERV committee as representative of the municipality of Wageningen.

 Wageningen UR Design team ‘Knowledge Landscape’ (ontwerpteam kennislandgoed WUR). The person to be interviewed coordinates the design team for the new Wageningen UR buildings along the Binnenveld area. Although he was not involved in the advice of Wageningen UR to the Municipality of Wageningen for spatial planning, he now finds that that e.g. the ecological connection zone is of major influence to their work and asked an environmental action group to join the design team.

4 Binnenveld stakeholder analysis Thursday – Friday morning of Week 1 (February 12 and 13, 2004)

Program

Thursday February 12, 2004 09.00 Project Strategy Design – project/program cycle 09.45 Situation Analysis - Stakeholder analysis 10.30 Presentation Binnenveld by Peter Smits, Reconstruction committee 11:15 Stakeholder analysis continued. Introduction to SSI. Explain fieldwork Binnenveld 12.15 Divide into 7 subgroups (1 per stakeholder) – participants write names on flipchart with stakeholders. Take present & invite for presentation & discussion of findings. 12.30 Lunch 13:30 Preparation SSI fieldwork 15:00 Fieldwork (7 groups of 4-5 persons). Most interviews start at 15.30. 16:45 Synthesis of findings. Each group to write findings on flipchart & each member to copy on file.

Friday February 13, 2004 09.00 Analysis of data and information compiled. Make groups in which interviewers of all stakeholders are represented. Each group applies a certain analysis technique. 11.30 Presentation of findings & conclusions/recommendations to stakeholders. Feedback. Final conclusion 12:30 Lunch Afternoon course program

Fieldwork N Name Organisation Location of Time # pers. Guide / o stakeholde Interview Transport r 1 Vincent WUR design team ALTERRA-Oost. 15.30 4 Ellen / By car Kuypers knowledge Melden bij Leave from WICC landscape Receptie reception at 15.15 2 Marten Beautiful WICC Pomona 15.30 5 Seerp Renkema Wageningen 1 or 2 3 Wilma Pol Wageningen Municipal bldg 15.30 5 Ditte/ By foot Municipality Wageningen, Leave from WICC report at reception at 15.15 reception 4 Joop de Interest group Rijnbandijk 6/A 15.30 4 Anneke / By car Jonge motorised traffic 4024BM Eck en Leave from course Wiel room at 15.00 5 Henk van Farmer WICC, Pomona 15.30 5 Linda Roekel 1 ot 2 6 Henk van Working group little IAC, room 136 16.00 !! 5 Jan Paassen owls Chris Breider Frans Jacobs 7 Aleid vd Kolk Landscape care IAC, room 137 15.30 5 Femke southwest Veluwe (max 1 hr)

5 LANDSCAPE CARE (group 1) SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW

BACKGROUND . Nature, Voluntary Group with approximately 60 members. . Started 22 years ago. . Organize volunteer groups twice a month to do different nature, landscaping activities (e.g. polling willows, trim hedges etc). . They work with farmers and farmers’ organizations willing to work on nature conservation. . Farmers welcome their help, provide lunch (soup, food, coffee) etc. . Group is action-oriented, not interested in debating with government officials, rather go and work in nature. . Receive 2 Euro per tree for their work from the government.

VISION . Preserve northern part of the Binneveld where small scale farms are located. . Provide funding to farmers to keep small scale farms & keep up the landscape management. . Keep further development to only location (agreed upon by surrounding 4 towns/villages). . Believes keeping small farms is cheaper & better than developing all of the Binneveld for nature conservancy.

Landscape Care was not consulted by the WERV Committee on the plan for the Binneveld. The representative of Landscape Care described a wall between the professional and volunteer groups. Landscape Care is sometimes invited to give comments through a coalition of environmental groups. They were once invited by a political party to attend a meeting on the Binneveld held in Wageningen.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE . Town people (and farmers) have a big interest to use area for recreation. . # of visitiors to the region is increasing. . Some local products of farmers are being sold – “Binneveld Bread”

CHALLENGES . Expansion of development . Conflict between developers and nature groups . Difficult for farmers to earn a living (with small plots and restrictions) . Dutch people are not willing to pay a higher price for organic food

SYNTHESIS . Endurance of group (22 years history) . Group wasn’t consulted in development plan for Binneveld . Closely aligned with farmers . Discussion with the representative was a free flowing dialogue.

6 GEMEENTE WAGENINGEN - (Wilma Pol - Planning Co-ordinator)

STAKEHOLDERS:  WERV  PROVINCES X2  WATER BOARD  UNIVERSITY (70% of land of Binnenveld)  GLTO  LAND SCAPE COMMITTEE  WAGENINGEN ONDERNEMBERS CONTACT

I. COORPORATON  Sharing facilities with ERV “network city”  Convenient  Monthly meetings > Councillors (+Province) co-ordinators  Forget boarders of cites > (common interest)  V <> WER (houses road)  WER+PROV+UNIV same line  “Binnenveld” still being defined

II. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION  News papers  Public hearings  WebPages  Strong lobby landscape (university)  Choosing alternative plans  Level of participation

III. VISION  2015 - 2030  Very beautiful  Agri business city with 6000 transport  Blauw Grassland

IV. ISSUES  Road through Binnenveld  House blocks

7 Stakeholder Analysis -Interview with Marten Renkena (Group 2) (Representative of Beautiful Wageningen Foundation)

Characteristics of Beautiful Wageningen Foundation

- The foundation is two and half (21/2) years old - Has 300 members mostly professionals and academicians - Majority of members aged above 50 years old - The foundation has a governing council of 7 members who runs the day to day businesses of the Foundation. Each of these executive members has a well defined roles and responsibilities - has legal status and represented in other commissions - has ability to pursue cases in courts - work in partnership with other groups - The foundation is regional in nature – it has members from all the four provinces - The foundation has yearly regular revenue of 3000 Euros (Membership dues)

Goal of the Foundation: - To see that the beautiful Wageningen is protected e.g. the protection and preservation of historical land marks

Strategies: - Lobbying and Advocacy - Legal processes – Pursuing cases at the law courts - Information sharing and dissemination

Scale and scope of Influence: - It is a regional foundation. Its areas of influence covers four Municipalities namely 1. Wageningen 2. Ede 3. Veenendaal 4. Rhenen

How organized: The members work on voluntary basis to defend and protect nature in Wageningen and its surrounding areas

Contributions to the Area: - Creation of awareness about the protection of nature - Providing alternative development plan/strategies for the area e.g in the caeas of sitting of silos, windmills and relocation of factories Problems encountered - Difficulty in convincing people about the philosophy and ideals of the Foundation - Difficulty in mobilizing new and young people to join the foundation - Difficulty in networking with other Players

8 9 Sustainability Intensive marketing and targeting of more members through publicity (Websites and emails)

Resource mobilization e.g. membership dues -3000Euro per year

Challenges of the Foundation - Multiple groups/players with different ideas and interest - Changes in political commitments - Economic depression

Best Practices of the Foundation - Ability to get update information about what is happening - Each executive member has a unique roles and responsibilities - Common understanding among members (They speak with one voice)

10 INTEREST GROUP - MOTORISED TRAFFIC (Group 3)

I. Characteristics

 Established 8 years ago  Board of 3 members  Supporters 200 motorcycles clubs and about 10,000 car owners and motorcyclists  Scale of operation- nation-wide ( all over Netherlands)  Small group & little is known about the group

V. Purpose/Objectives

 Lobby to prevent closure of roads to motorists  Lobby to re-open the closed roads  Open roads for recreational purposes and easy home-work commuting  Operate through motor cycle clubs, writing to the communities & local authorities, writing in newspapers, internet

VI. Problems

 Small group with limited people, time and fund to actively work for the cause  Opponents are rich and influential with abundant resources  The group not informed/consulted about the closing of roads  Limited response from the communities and local authorities to the group’s appeals about road closure  High costs of time and money going to courts to settle the matters

VII. Vision

 To provide opportunity to the motorists to use the roads in a sensible manner provided it had more support and funds.

VIII. Relationships with other Stakeholders

 Main stakeholders include: 1. Communities who live along the roads 2. Environmentalists 3. Municipalities

 Conflicting interests: 1. Opponents are rich and powerful 2. Little support from the Municipalities

11 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS (Group 4) FARMER Henk van Roekel

CHARACTERISTICS - 300 Farmers in the Association only 3 farming in Binnenveld - 1,700 ha farm land - main farming activities - dairy (av. 40 cows) ) - poultry ) all very intensive - pigs ) - vast majority of farmers full time

PROBLEMS - scattered fields - pollution from animal manure - ammonia - net cost to dispose of the manure high cost of transport - Non enforcement restricting non farmers settling on farm land - Shrinking of farm area because of land use for infrastructure, buildings etc. - Declining subsidies – low profitability - Long time elapsed in implementing the plan

CONTRIBUTION OF FARMERS - Preserving the landscape - Willing to provide 300ha for Nature Reserve (land to be swapped for other) - Ready to apply new anti-pollution measures - Drying,“closed room” transport away from area

VISIONS - Land consolidation through exchange needs subsidies - More liberty to decide how to manage pollution - For the management of the environment/nature farmers require subsidies

OPPORTUNITIES - Improved relationship between interest groups - Farmers willing to preserve the landscape - Increasing price of land, opportunity for selling land and buying bigger farm in another area

RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER ACTORS

- Everyone is OK with the plan at the moment

12 LITTLE OWL GROUP.

Organization: 20-30 people working as volunteers. Focus: Little owls and meadows.

Back-up: this organization is affiliated to the 3rd largest environmental organization in the Netherlands.

Financial support: very weak. The mother company ask them to find means of supporting themselves.

Activity: Map the Little Owls Nests that inhabit the Binnenveld area. Install artificial wooden houses for the little owls.

This group wanted to propose the species to be declared protected by law.

Publicity & Awareness: Some media events were organized, radio talk shows, newsletters, some articles in the local press.

Feedback to those activities The farmers are quite happy with this group's activities. The politicians seems to encourage the group, since they offered free wood for the wooden hoses for little owls.

Position of the group: The group is comfortable with the new plan for the area as long as it is offered a habitat for the owls (it is known that these birds live and nest even in big industrial cities so as long as wooden homes can be provided everything is OK).

Successes: The group obtained compensations from the municipality. One little owl had to be moved from one region and the municipality offered another 2 green areas for natural reservation. The municipality is giving wood for owls homes.

Leverage: Possibly high. I don't know to what extent a law-suit against the municipality will create problems (in case of heavy constructing in the area).

Comment The two successes mentioned above show that the group have some kind of leverage among the municipality members. The fact that the municipality offered compensations may mean two things: 1 they are afraid of this little group for some reason, 2 they want to be regarded as environmental conservators by the population of Wageningen.

13 Weaknesses: The group is not focusing on political battle, but more on actively doing something for the little owls. Low financing. The group is not looking to strengthen its position among the stakeholders.

14 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

An approach for understanding a system by identifying the key actors as stakeholders in the system and assessing their respective interests in that system. The most common types of stakeholder analysis used are:  Goal Oriented Project Planning (GOPP)  Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge System - Actor analysis checklist (RAAKS)  Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge System - Task analysis checklist (RAAKS)  Participatory Rapid rural Appraisal (PRA)  DFID – Importance & Influence matrix

Goal Oriented Project Planning (GOPP) A comprehensive approach for analysing all stakeholders (after making their clusters) in a system and assessing them on the basis of key characteristics, interests, resources, problems and required actions. The situation is analysed using a matrix as shown below.

S Stakehold Cluster Character Intere Resour Proble Required # ers name istics sts ces ms action R.C St.H ol 1 BWF Civil Group - 2 M&WER. Municipality - REP 3 W.G on Nature - L.Owl Pres.Group 4 Landscape - Care 5 Farmers Farmers - 6 W .University E & R - Group 7 Motor Traffic Recre. - Group 8 Water. G Water - Group

Key: BWF - Beautiful Wageningen Foundation, M & WERV - Municipality WERV Representatives W G on L - Working Group on Little owls, W. University -Wageningen University E&R Group - Education and Research Group, Pres. Group - Preservation Group Recre. Group - Recreation Group, RC – Recreation Committee St Hol - Stakeholder Brief Analysis of stakeholders

15 Goal The majority of the stakeholders are aiming at preservation of nature and beautification of the area and re-organisation of the area

16 Problems  Lack of collaboration and co-ordination among stakeholders  Limited resources (Financial as well as human)  Environmental pollution caused by excess manure (producing too much ammonia)

Interests All stakeholders are interested in keeping the area beautiful.

Action Required  Expedited implementation of the plan  Lobbying among and other stakeholders  Co-ordination among all stakeholders

Advantages and disadvantages

Advantage The main advantage of GOPP is that it is a comprehensive tool of analysis as it gives detailed description of all the necessary information required for appropriate project planning.

Disadvantage It is time consuming.

17 RAAKS - Actor Stakeholder Analysis approach (Rapid Analysis of Agricultural Knowledge Systems)

STAKE PRIMARY ACTIVITIES POSITIO EXPECTATIO HOLDER N* NS/ IMPACT* FARMERS/  Preserving landscape (farm). 4 5 LAND  Willing to provide some land for nature SCAPE reserve  Willing to apply anti-pollution measures.

Environment  Environmental protection 3 5 al groups  Preservation of historical landmarks  Protect rare species of birds (little owl) Tourists/Mot  Lobbying (local government, 1 1 orists communities, etc) against closing roads to motorists. Rich citizens  Buy land and build big houses. 2 1 Government  Municipality: Hold public hearing, 7 7 promote agricultural business, and provide funds for roads and highways.  4 municipalities meet monthly for Binnevald and work on areas of common interest.  The provincial government provides funds. Reconstructi  Prepares and facilitates 5 7 on implementation of reconstruction plan committee for Binneveld area. Water board  Find water storage area, provide clean 6 6 water, and protects water from pollution (s)  1 is minimum and 7 is maximum value for both columns.

Conclusions and recommendations 1. Every stakeholder should be consulted and keep informed. 2. Stakeholders should be consulted in their own places. 3. The municipality should be more participatory in inviting stakeholders. 4. More time is needed to gather adequate information and to triangulate what we got. 5. The major players should listen to the smaller ones.  As they can offer new ideas and insights. 6. Development of the “Green Heart” should be balanced between different land use systems.  “Requires compromises.”

18 RAAKS – Task Analysis Approach

Tool description The tool we used is called TAC or Task Analysis Checklist which is a tool from RAAKS (Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems). TAC makes clear which actor or stakeholder does what in a certain process, where there are functional connections between them, and where there are overlaps or gaps in the tasks to be executed. More information on TAC and other RAAKS tools can be fond at http://www.kit.nl/specials/assets/images/__Windows.pdf.

We first discussed which tasks/functions have to be performed by the stakeholders in the entire process of reconstruction of the Binnenveld area. The list is of course unlimited and one can make it as detailed as required, but we decided to limit to six tasks which according to us group the most important activities. These are advocacy and information dissemination: stakeholders have to be able to make their position clear to other stakeholders and have to inform their supporters and other stakeholders about what they are doing and why. Then we decided to include policy development and planning, resource mobilisation, management and utilisation including human resources, funds etc. Furthermore we identified the task of facilitation and coordination of the entire process. And lastly we mention construction and management of the physical infrastructure of the area (the implementation) and monitoring and evaluation.

Then the stakeholders were identified, with the reconstruction committee as a separate stakeholder with coordinating/overseeing role.

After that each stakeholder mentioned in which tasks she/he is involved, keeping in mind that the involvement should be a contribution to the entire overall process of reconstruction of the Binnenveld (i.e. mobilising funds to used for the own organisation is not considered to contribute to the overall process). This was discussed among all stakeholders and where necessary changes were made. Consequently the same was done but now assuming the ideal situation, i.e. in which tasks a stakeholder should or would ideally be involved.

Results

The table below shows the result of our analysis. The first column for each task shows the actual situation, the second column shows the preferred situation. A ☺ means the stakeholder is involved in that task of the process (first column), or would like to be involved in that task (second column). A ☻ means the stakeholder is not involved in that task (first column), or doesn’t want or need to be involved in that task (second column).

19 Stakeholders/ Advocacy Policy Resource Facilitation Physical Monitoring and Develop- Mobilisation, and Co- Infrastruc- and Tasks Information ment and Management ordination ture and Evaluation Dissemina- Planning and Manage- tion Utilisation ment Reconstruction ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ Committee Beautiful ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☺ ☺ Wageningen Municipality ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ Working Group ☺ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ Little Owls Farmers ☻ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ Reporting Centre ☺ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻ ☺ Roads Closure WUR Knowledge ☻ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☻ ☺ Landscape Landscape Care ☻ ☺ ☻ ☻ ☻ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ SW Veluwe

Observations

There were several observations we made and conclusions we could draw from the results of the table. First, there is still potential got some stakeholders to participate in other activities/tasks. According to our observations, there are still tasks where stakeholders that should be involve can get involved. Some stakeholders have really low levels of participation such as the Reporting Centre Road Closure and the WUR Knowledge Landscape team. If you compare the actual with the ideal level of participation the come to 33% and 17% respectively. The Landscape Care SW Veluwe, and Working Group Little Owls are in between with 40% and 50%. Beautiful Wageningen has a participation level of 67% and only the municipality and the reconstruction committee are currently involved in all the tasks where we thought they should have been involved.

Second, some stakeholders were involved early in the process but soon stopped participation, others become involved only later on. But in most cases a more equal spread of involvement in various tasks is important to make sure that goals and objectives are more efficiently being met. For example the farmers, Working Group Little Owls and Landscape Care SW Veluwe are more pragmatic stakeholders mainly involved in the latter steps of the process.

Third, there is a lack of participation by some stakeholders in a number of tasks, whereas we would think that stakeholder should have ideally been involved in them. Fr example, based on the information we received we concluded that the WUR knowledge landscape team only participate physical infrastructure. But considering the expertise and knowledge they have and the funds available to them, they are quite an important stakeholder that should have been more actively involved in the other tasks as well.

20 Finally, participation does not mean that stakeholders should participate in every step, but they have to consider their own limitations. For example a small organisation with little funds, manpower and time like the Reporting Centre Roads Closure cannot be expected to be involved in every task, but they should concentrate on those tasks where they can most effectively influence the entire process.

Recommendations

Based upon or analysis we have come up with the following recommendations:

 The Reconstruction Committee being the overall facilitator and planner should more actively involve stakeholders especially those that are not represented in the Reconstruction Committee itself.

 Stakeholders themselves are to identify and participate more actively in tasks that could or should be done by them. If the want to reach their gals and objectives, they have to make sure that they are being involved.

 Stakeholders should more actively seek information fro other stakeholders since information seems the key to participation. Without knowing the position of other stakeholders or the task in the process being executed, I is impossible to decide whether and how to participate in it.

Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages are that the tool is relatively simple and can be done in short time. Also it clearly shows the relevant tasks to be done by stakeholders and possible overlapping or missing functions as well as levels of participation. A disadvantage is that the selection of tasks to be executed is rather arbitrarily and it is difficult to limit to the most important ones.

21 REPORT ON STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS - Binnenveld AREA (VENN DIAGRAM TOOL GROUP) (11-13 February,04)

Introduction:

Binnenveld area which used to be a swampy peat soil in the Middle ages lies between four Minicipalities namely; Ede, Veenendaal, Rhenen and Waganingen. The area is often times refers to as the “green heart” because of its green vegetation, agricultural potential, presence of special plants and animal species, streams and rivers and also more importantly its historical importance. Intensive agriculture and other forms of land uses over the years have created spatial and environmental problems thus necessitating the need to have future development plan to protect the area and also redirect developments and spatial planning between the four Municipalities.

The design and implementation of the future development plan for the area would obviously have various impacts on the different stakeholders with interests in the area and the interests of these stakeholders need to be clearly identified, analyzed and incorporated into the design and final execution of the development plan to forestall any future conflicts.

As part of PPME course, it was decided to do a stakeholder analysis of the various interest groups in the area. Below is a brief summary of the results of the stakeholder analysis for the group that used the Venn Diagram Tool.

Objective of the exercise:

 To practice the tools for conducting stakeholder analysis in a real setting  Identify the interests of the different stakeholders in relation to the Binnenveld area

Methodology:

Data Collection: Semi-structured interviews were conducted separately with the Representatives of each of the various interest groups namely:

1. Landscape Care South-West Veluwe 2. Beautiful Wageningen Foundation 3. Working group on Little Owls 4. Farmer group 5. Reporting Centre of Roads closure (for Motorized traffic) 6. Wageninge Municipality

Method of Analysis: The information collected was analyzed using the Venn Diagram Tool. This involves, first developing a set of criteria for determining the relative strengths or power of influence of

22 the various stakeholders in the decision making process concerning the areas development plan. Based on these criteria, the information collected was ranked on the scale of 1-6 (6 being the highest power of influence and 1 – the lowest)

The set of criteria developed include:  Number of members of the group (3) – the larger the membership, the higher the possibility of power of influence  Mandate/legal status (1) i.e. is the group legally registered/recognized to operate. A group legally registered is more likely to have power than one without power  Geographic Coverage (4); group which is national or regional character is much more likely to have power of influence than the locally based group  Negotiating capacity (5); Does the group have the expertise and ability to lobby power brokers  Allies/Network with other stakeholders (6); groups which are networking with other groups are more likely to put their case across than the one working alone  Financial strength (2); The higher the financial standing the better

Results

Characteristics of Interest groups Beautiful Wageningen Foudation - 300 members mostly professionals and academicians - has a governing council of 7 members - has legal status and represented in other commissions - has ability to pursue cases in courts - work in partnership with other groups - regional in nature (members from all the four provinces) - Year regular revenue of 3000 Euros (Membership dues)

Farmer - 300 members - owns the land - locally based - little interaction with other groups - moderate financial standing

Municipality

- Big organization made of politicians and administrators - Has legal status - Local in nature i.e has jurisdiction over one municipality - Work with other municipalities, government institutions and other groups

Working group on Little Owls (Environmental group) - 20 members - no legal status - local in nature

23 - low financial base Landscape Care South-West Veluwe - 60 members - work on voluntary basis - local in nature - low financial base - little interaction with other groups

Motorists - 3 members - national in character - limited power to lobby - low financial status

Conclusion and Recommendation  The Municipality is the strongest stakeholder or player in the future development of Binneveld area. Some of the stakeholders are too small in size to have any significant influence on the development planThere is very little interactions between the various interest groups and some case intra- group cohesion appears to be very weak  Linkages between the Municipality and other stakeholders should be strengthened  Improve the membership and organization of the various interest groups  Improve interactions between the various interest groups

24 Membershi Mandate Coverage Neg.capacit Networks Finance p y Beautiful 5 4 6 5 5 5 Wageninge n 30 Farmers 5 5 5 3 4 5 27 Municipalit 6 6 4 6 6 6 y 34 Environme 2 3 1 4 3 4 nt 17 Landscape 3 2 2 2 2 3 care 14 Motorists 1 1 3 1 1 1 8

Landscape

Beautiful Farmers Wageningen Municipality

Environm’t

Motorist

25 DFID (Department for International Development, UK), tool for importance – influence analysis

Group: ???, Jurjen

Objective: Determine which of the six stakeholders interviewed should be included in the reconstruction committee and why

Active one of the key involvement, organisers of incentives the committee importance Gemeente farmer (municipality )

Wageningen is beautiful foundation

Motorised traffic Landscape Little Owl nature group These three: Keep mindful but need no action influence

= stakeholder

= strategy for this stakeholder

Discussion:

We didn’t define ‘importance’ and ‘influence’ very well straight from the beginning and therefore had lots of discussions that wouldn’t have been necessary if we had made proper definitions in the first place.