‘governance without governance’ 1 : how nature policy was...

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 21 November 2014, At: 19:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Critical Policy StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcps20

‘Governance without governance’: hownature policy was democratized in theNetherlandsEsther Turnhout a & Mariëlle Van der Zouwen ba Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, WageningenUniversity , Wageningen, The Netherlandsb KWR Watercycle Research Institute , Nieuwegein, TheNetherlandsPublished online: 16 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Esther Turnhout & Mariëlle Van der Zouwen (2010) ‘Governance withoutgovernance’: how nature policy was democratized in the Netherlands, Critical Policy Studies, 4:4,344-361, DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2010.525899

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2010.525899

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcps20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19460171.2010.525899

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2010.525899

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Critical Policy StudiesVol. 4, No. 4, December 2010, 344–361

‘Governance without governance’1: how nature policywas democratized in the Netherlands

Esther Turnhouta* and Mariëlle Van der Zouwenb

aForest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen,The Netherlands; bKWR Watercycle Research Institute, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands

Trends in governance, including a changing role for the state and increasing civil societyparticipation, are often seen as promising ways to achieve democratic legitimacy. Theprominent presence of these claims and intentions in the new Dutch nature policy plan,‘Nature for People, People for Nature’, stimulated us to look more closely into how thisplan came about. Our analysis shows that the process started with the organization ofseveral informal participatory processes, which involved not only traditional but alsonew actors. However, it ended in a fairly traditional way, with limited participation,which involved mostly traditional actors, and which was strictly orchestrated by centralgovernment. Based on these findings, we argue that although the plan itself was clearlyintended to achieve participatory governance, the participatory characteristics of theprocess can be questioned. For this reason, the case may be seen as one of ‘governancewithout governance’. The article ends by discussing the implications of these findingsfor democratic legitimacy.

Keywords: civil society; participation; governance; nature conservation policy;legitimacy

Governance in Dutch nature policy and the democratization of nature

In 2000 the Dutch parliament adopted a new nature policy plan with the eye-catching title‘Nature for People, People for Nature’. The following quotes taken from the first page ofthe plan show the title’s intriguing meaning (LNV 2000, p. 1):

The Government has opted for a broader nature policy to do more justice to the significanceof nature for society;

The Government wishes to simplify the policy system and introduce programs which integrateobjectives;

The term [nature] as we use it embraces nature from the wildlife on people’s doorstep to theWadden Sea. This is how most people perceive nature;

‘Nature for people’ means that nature should meet the demands of society and should bewithin easy reach, accessible and usable. ‘People for nature’ means nature should be protected,managed, cultivated and developed by people.

[Government] will take responsibility where necessary but [will] also, more than in the past,remind others of their responsibility.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1946-0171 print/ISSN 1946-018X online© 2010 Institute of Local Government Studies, University of BirminghamDOI: 10.1080/19460171.2010.525899http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.informaworld.com

Critical Policy Studies 345

As the citations above illustrate, the rhetoric of the policy plan is clear enough. First ofall, the plan offers a broad and integrated conception of nature. It presents nature as part of acountryside which harbors different interests and functions (e.g. conservation, recreation,agriculture). Second, the plan emphasizes people’s wishes, perceptions and preferencesas a legitimate basis for nature policy. Third, the plan indicates that people, rather thangovernment, should take responsibility for nature conservation. These three elements areconnected: it is expected that if nature meets people’s wishes, the people will in turn protectit, thereby enhancing the legitimacy and efficiency of nature policy.

When compared to its predecessor, this plan constitutes a dramatic change in naturepolicy. The 1990 Nature Policy Plan (LNV 1990) was characterized by a dominance ofnatural science expertise (Turnhout 2003, 2009). Conservation decisions and prioritieswere informed by ecological insights about ecosystems and about the ecological effects ofhuman use and management. It was full of ecological science terms such as gene-reservoir,self-regulation, completeness, intactness, ecosystems and communities. Furthermore, ithad quite a different take on the relationship between nature and people as the followingcitation illustrates:

Minimization of human influence is seen as conditional for maximization of natural values(LNV 1990).

In comparison, it can be argued that the new plan aims for a democratization of nature.Nature is no longer the exclusive domain of ecological experts and the importance of peo-ple’s participation in nature, in defining nature, and in the governance of nature, has beenrecognized.

In this new nature policy plan, the Dutch government, in particular the Ministry ofLNV (Dutch acronym for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality), presents a way of steer-ing that emphasizes state withdrawal and public involvement and participation. It resonateswith current ideas about governance. In the scientific literature from various scientificdisciplines, governance is predominantly conceptualized in terms of processes and pro-cedures (Turnhout 2010). An important issue in the governance literature, for example, ishow to organize the relationships between interdependent actors from state, market andcivil society in an effective, accountable and legitimate way (Van Kersbergen and VanWaarden 2004). Often, the underlying assumption is that these governance processes,almost by default, result in good and legitimate policies. In this article we start withthe content of the policy plan and ask how it was developed, what the role of partici-pants was and how formal participation practices were related to informal participationpractices.

The Dutch context provides interesting opportunities for analyzing processes of par-ticipatory governance. The Netherlands’ political culture is known for its long traditionof corporatism and accommodation (Lijphart 1968, Van Waarden 1992). A lot of policydevelopment and implementation has taken place in sectoral ‘iron triangles’: elites of actorsfrom government, interest groups and parliament who have frequently interacted to makeagreements and resolve differences. This was common in nature policy too. Traditionalsocietal interest groups such as forest and other landowners, site managers and nature con-servation organizations had excellent access to decision-makers and civil servants and inthat way had much influence on policy development. In some other European countriestoo, close contacts traditionally exist between governmental parties and interest organiza-tions as regards nature conservation issues (see for instance Van der Zouwen 2006 for theUK and Spain). A case study on the Netherlands will give insight into what participatory

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

346 E. Turnhout and M. Van der Zouwen

governance looks like in a corporatist tradition which is characterized by participation,albeit in rather closed and elitist structures.

Civil society governance and participation

Among academics and policy practitioners there is much debate about crises occurringin state-led policy processes, gaps between politics and citizenry and a variety of trendsmanifesting themselves in response to these crises. The literature on the term ‘governance’generally assumes that policy processes are characterized by a shift from traditional, hier-archical ‘government’ settings to ‘governance’, emphasizing the complexity and pluralityof policy processes. Multi-level governance, which points to the increasing interconnect-edness of the various political arenas due to processes such as devolution, Europeanizationand globalization (e.g. Hooghe and Marks 2001), is one element contributing to this com-plexity. Also in terms of actors, increasing plurality is recognized. Changing ideas aboutthe role of the state (e.g. Kooiman 2000, Pierre and Peters 2000) have created space forthe participation of citizens and non governmental organizations (e.g. Arts 1998). In thesecomplex processes, as Hajer and Wagenaar (2003, p. 9) state:

There are no pre-given rules that determine who is responsible, who has authority over whom,what sort of accountability is to be expected.

Interactions between actors are increasingly informal, ad hoc and temporary and takeplace outside traditional institutions and outside the exclusive centers of political power(Hajer 2003, Van der Zouwen 2006). Also, ideas about what kinds of knowledge andexpertise are relevant and legitimate have changed, emphasizing the importance of layknowledge and multi- and trans-disciplinary perspectives (e.g. Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993,Gibbons et al. 1994, Jasanoff 1997).

One of the prominent features of current governance theories is the increased roleof non-state actors. The involvement of civil society organizations and the public areconsidered crucial to increase the democratic quality and legitimacy of policy processesas well as their effectiveness and efficiency (Innes and Booher 1999, Bulkeley andMol 2003). Participation is generally seen as a defining characteristic of ‘good gov-ernance’ and is promoted by various international organizations such as the EuropeanCommission and the World Bank. Participatory or civil society governance is increas-ingly recognized as an important concept to set alongside those of hierarchical and marketgovernance.

At the same time, however, participatory governance is complex and contested. Manydifferent methods, tools and forms of participation exist and there is little agreement onwhat exactly constitutes a ‘good’ participatory process. Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of par-ticipation serves the purpose of distinguishing between low levels of participation, whichamount to little more than tokenism and manipulation, and higher levels of participation,which empower the participants. In a similar vein, Goodwin (1998) distinguishes between‘hired hands’ and ‘local voices’. Other authors refrain from such judgments and argue thatdifferent participatory tools serve different ends. Van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp (2002)distinguish between two objectives – achieving consensus and mapping diversity – andargue that both require different participatory tools. In a similar vein, Pellizioni (2001a),Fiorino (1990) and Rowe and Frewer (2000) each offer different typologies of participa-tory tools and their effectiveness in meeting conditions and objectives such as the extentto which they offer possibilities for reflection and discussion, their potential to achieve

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


consensual decisions, the likelihood that the outcomes will be accepted and their potentialto achieve equal relations among participants.

What these authors have in common is a focus on the formal intentions or objec-tives of participation as regards procedures for organizing participation and the choiceof methods or tools. Consequently, they pay little attention to what happens when theseparticipatory intentions and tools are put into practice (Turnhout et al. 2010). Criticalanalyses of participation have demonstrated that participatory practices often deviate fromtheir formal intentions and objectives. Participation has been shown to lead to exclusion,the suppression of differences and the strengthening and reproduction of existing powerinequalities (Mohan and Stokke 2000, Cooke and Kothari 2001, Pellizioni 2001b, O’Neill2001). Furthermore, the relationship between participatory levels or methods and outcomeis not straightforward. For example, Lawrence (2006) has shown how consultation, whichis considered low level participation, did result in genuine involvement and empowermentof the participants.

Recognizing the importance of participatory practices implies looking not only atwhat happens in formal participatory practices, but also at what happens behind thescenes in informal practices. These informal practices are not organized invited spaces,but popular or public ones that emerge organically based on common concerns (Cornwall2002). In contrast to formal practice, informal practices are not driven by pre-given rulesand have the potential for rule alteration and innovation (Cornwall 2002, Van Tatenhoveet al. 2006).

Although these distinctions between formal and informal and between invited and pop-ular are useful for focusing attention on the oft neglected informal forms of participation,they are also overly dichotomous (Kesby 2007). Instead of treating them as distinct anddisconnected, it is important to recognize the many interactions between them and analyzehow formal and informal participatory practices mutually influence and shape each other(Nandigama 2009). Accordingly, participatory processes can be conceived as performativepractices in the sense that the roles that participants play and the interests they representdo not preexist but are shaped in the participatory process: they are performed (Turnhoutet al. 2010). This makes clear that participation cannot be evaluated in terms of objec-tives that were set or tools that were applied. Understanding participation requires in-depthanalysis of the different, formal and informal, participatory practices and the relationshipsbetween them. With this in mind we refer to Van Tatenhove et al. (2006), who describetwo different kinds of strategies that are used to link formal and informal practices: coop-erative strategies and conflictual strategies. Cooperative strategies are used by actors whoset out to strengthen the relationship between formal and informal practices, for exampleby means of mutual learning and reflection. Conflictual strategies are used by actors whoset out to weaken this relation, for example by excluding other actors. In this article wewill use the categories cooperative and conflictual to typify the strategies we encounter inthe case study. However, strategies do not completely determine what happens in practice.It remains to be seen, for example, if cooperative strategies also result in a cooperativerelationship. For the purpose of this article, it is important to look not only at the strategiesand the intentions of the actors that mobilize them, but also at the relationships betweeninformal and formal practices that result from them.

Subsequently, understanding participatory processes as performative practices formsthe basis for discussing democratic legitimacy. Democratic legitimacy comes in (at least)two different modalities: input legitimacy, which is concerned with issues such as whetherthe right tool was selected, the right procedures followed and the right people invited; andoutput legitimacy, which is concerned with the quality of the outcomes of the participatory

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


process (Joerges and Neyer 2003). While achieving input legitimacy is often associatedwith participatory forms of governance, output legitimacy can also be achieved through theplaying of a strong role by central government. In line with our perspective on participationas performative practice, we consider input and output legitimacy as attributes that areachieved in practice.

Based on these theoretical considerations, this article analyzes how the different, for-mal and informal, participatory practices interacted in the development of this plan anddiscusses the implications for democratic legitimacy as it has been achieved (or not) inpractice.

Our reconstruction of the development process is based on extensive research intothe archives of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV). Thearchives of the specific dossier contained approximately six boxes filled with files. Allof these were searched for relevant documents such as letters and correspondence by theministry with participants, minutes of meetings, internal memos and draft documents. Inparticular, we looked for drafts of the new nature policy document, discussions that weregoing on within the project team and the steering group and with the secretary of state,reports on the different participatory meetings that were organized with societal actors,letters that were written in response to the different drafts of the plan, and communica-tion with other ministerial departments. The selected documents were carefully analyzedaccording to date, in order to reconstruct the order of events and the roles of the differentactors in the policy process. In addition, we conducted five interviews with key players inthe development of the policy plan, which were recorded and transcribed (see appendix).The five interviewees comprise the two project leaders, the secretary of state, a projectteam member and a member of a societal group. The respondents were selected to addressspecific issues that resulted from the document analysis regarding the order of events in thereconstructed development process, the roles of the different actors involved, the contentof discussions and the nature of interactions.

Towards a new nature policy plan

This section presents the background of, and the starting points for, the new nature pol-icy plan’s development. These starting points were to a large extent influenced by strongcriticisms of the old plan which focused on the plan’s ecological dominance and top downcharacter (WRR 1998). The old plan also suffered from considerable implementationproblems, which were believed to be due to a lack of citizen involvement and of politi-cal attention to people’s wishes concerning nature (LNV 1994). Subsequently, the DutchAdvisory Council for the Rural Area, which consists of scientists as well as representativesof societal organizations, advised that:

Policy must go further in the sense of including more goals to strengthen the links with societyand the broad spectrum of wishes and expectations people have regarding nature. (RLG 1998)

In 1999, the government evaluated the old nature policy plan. In line with earlier criti-cisms, the report emphasized the importance of broadening nature policy to include societalaspects (LNV and IPO 1999). The evaluation also concluded that nature policy was toocomplex and fragmented and should strive for integral approaches. This related to the wishto simplify the policy system by integrating the so-called ‘green policy documents’: thelandscape policy plan (LNV 1992), the nature policy plan (LNV 1990), the forest policyplan (LNV 1993) and the Vision on Urban Landscapes (LNV 1996).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


Although they largely came from central government and corporatist organizationssuch as the Raad voor het Landelijk Gebied (RLG), these evaluations did give out a strongsignal about the lack of societal support for nature policy and they served as importantinputs for the new nature policy plan. Based on these inputs, the project team for the devel-opment of the new nature policy plan had three main starting points: (1) to integrate nature,forest and landscape policy into the new plan; (2) to broaden the concept of nature: not onlyecological criteria but also the societal values and functions of nature would be includedin nature policy; and (3) to organize the development process in an open and participatoryway. A participatory approach was considered essential for an integrated and broad per-spective on nature in the new policy plan. These starting points are strongly related to thefinal contents of the plan. They emphasize the importance of participation, an integratedapproach and a broad conception of nature.

The project team consisted of 12 members: eight LNV civil servants from differentdepartments (nature, agriculture, rural areas, regional branches), one civil servant fromthe Ministry of Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), one from the Ministryof Transport, Public Works and Water Management (V&W) and two representatives fromregional authorities. The composition of the team reflects the ambition to involve actors fromdifferent administrative levels and sectors. The three starting points were shared among themembers of the project team. For example, the Secretary of State, politically responsiblefor the new plan, was a strong supporter of integration. Referring to her experience in localgovernment she said:

I had enough of all these policy documents from central government and now [as a Secretaryof State] I had the position to do something about it. (Interview 2)

The Secretary of State was also very much in favor of broadening the concept of nature:

We had some discussions on what is nature. And I remember that at a certain point I said ‘it isfrom a plant in a pot to the Wadden Sea’. It is also that people, that was really important to me,can enjoy nature. That you not only have some beautiful places hidden away. (Interview 2)

A member of the project team made the link between broadening the concept of natureand societal support:

At the moment that you say ‘that is not real nature’ . . . then you cut off a lot of support [fornature policy]. . . . If scientists determine this is nature and this is not, then you may questionwhether or not you link up with the interests of the public. (Interview 1)

Opening policy up to people’s wishes also related to ideals on how the process shouldbe organized. A member of the project team stated:

If you want to involve more actors . . . you will only be able to achieve that if you allow themto provide input in the entire development process. That was our intention. (Interview 1)

This section has made clear that already in this early stage, the terms of the new planhad been largely set. The following sections will show how the development process con-tinued and how it shifted from a first stage in which informal participatory practices andcooperative strategies dominated, to a second stage of increasing (conflictual) formalizationand finally to a third stage in which cooperative strategies and informal practices emergedagain while formal practices remained important.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


The first stage: doing things differently

Taking into account the starting points of a broad and integrated perspective on nature, theSecretary of State and the project leader realized that it was important to do things differ-ently. First of all, they organized informal settings (three in total) in which a large variety ofnon-governmental organizations could freely exchange their thoughts about nature policy(Invitation letter Secretary of State 18 January 1999). Interestingly, many of the partici-pants were not part of the group of actors usually consulted on nature policy, e.g. a regionalbranch of the National Agriculture Union (LTO), a cooperative bank (Rabobank), theFederation of Private Landowners (FPG) and the General Building Association (AVBB).According to the project leader, it was the explicit intention to invite new actors andfacilitate new coalitions:

We categorized the [different actors]: the site managers, other ministries, agriculture [and alsoincluded] sectors that were traditionally further removed from nature. . . . We wanted to see ifcombinations were possible. . . . That was a very important change. (Interview 3)

The ‘newcomers’ highly appreciated the openness and the ministry’s willingness to letthem engage in such an early stage of the process. Also, they acknowledged the impor-tance of an integrated perspective on nature. At the same time however, some – especiallythe traditional nature conservation actors – feared that all this attention given to partic-ipation, people’s wishes and integration might come at the expense of traditional naturemanagement and conservation issues (Report of the meeting 26 January 1999).

A second change with respect to ‘business as usual’ participation involved the composi-tion of the project team. Normally, such a project team would consist of civil servants fromthe Ministry of LNV only, but in this case also regional authorities and other ministrieswere also involved in the project team.

Third, the broad and integrated perspective on nature which had to be central to the newnature policy plan made the likely input of internal ministerial nature conservation expertsless self evident. They were even explicitly excluded at the early stage.

Other ministries and regional authorities were also involved in a steering group. Thisformal group did not play a very important role. It met for the first time on 1 April 1999,which was significantly later than the first informal session with new societal actors, andonly five days before the publication of the first draft of the new plan.

In this first draft, the three starting points of integration, broadening the concept ofnature and participation were prominently present. The following quote illustrates thatintegration is assumed to contribute to the overall effectiveness of nature policy:

This policy document replaces three earlier policy documents, the nature policy plan, the land-scape policy document and the forest policy plan. Integration of these documents in one newdocument for nature and landscape will strengthen consistency and efficacy in these policyfields. (p. 6)

Also, participation is emphasized:

This policy document . . . invites the different actors to take responsibility for nature andlandscape . . . It is important to make good arrangements with partners. (p. 7)

An entire section was dedicated to broadening the concept of nature. The followingserves as a nice illustration:

Ideas about the concept of nature change. . . . This means that nature policy can not assumeone central view of nature. Not only large wild areas like the Wadden sea . . . are nature, but

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


also cultivated ‘parks’ . . . Recognizing and acknowledging the diversity in views of natureis an important challenge for the coming years and important for support for nature policy.More and more, people’s wishes become an input for policy processes. (p. 15)

The ministry distributed the draft to more than 100 organizations, several of which werealready involved in the development process. Many actors engaged in this formal partic-ipatory practice by sending their comments to the ministry. The comments were largelypositive: the actors expressed their appreciation of being involved at this early stage andin general endorsed the plan’s main lines, strategies and goals (LNV 1999). Next to thesepositive comments, actors generally asked for further clarifications and elaboration of themain lines of argument, strategies and goals, for example concerning the degradation ofrural areas and the role of agriculture, and the vagueness of terms such as ‘people’s naturewishes’.

Despite this broad support, resistance to the plan arose within the LNV. The Secretaryof State recalls:

It was difficult in the beginning. The mindset within the Nature department [of the LNV] wasvery much dominated by ecologists and biologists. And this was understandable, because theyhad eventually achieved something with the Ecological Main Structure and then someone says‘hey, but that’s not all’. (Interview 2)

Several LNV experts who were excluded from the development process, because theydid not participate in the project team, feared that certain topics in nature policy were nolonger explicitly dealt with and that they were loosing ground as regards their fields ofspecialization. As two project team members recall:

There were also people who felt that they were losing ground. They started to search thedraft to count the number of times that their particular word of interest was mentioned.(Interview 3)

[civil servants involved in] species protection for example were angry because [their topic]wasn’t covered well enough in the plan. Literally, it was about the number of pages in thedocument. (Interview 1)

Based on these concerns, these internal experts were formally invited by the projectleader to deliver specific input on their fields of specialization. The results of this arereflected in the second draft of the new nature policy plan, which was published on 29July 1999.

The second draft, though considerably bigger than the first one, shows no majorchanges in the main lines of the plan. Each of the three starting points is, again, promi-nently present. The draft presents the importance of broadening the concept of nature in away that is very similar to the first draft:

It has become clear that nature, forest and landscape policies should be linked to the wishesof society. (p. 1)

The need for policy integration in this draft is not solely based on arguments related toeffectiveness, but is also clearly linked to the broadening of the concept of nature:

The need for integration comes from the observation that the distinction between nature, forestand landscape is less self-evident than has been assumed in scientific and policy circles. Alsothe concept biodiversity . . . has to link up with what is perceived in society. (p. 2)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


Participation is in this draft explicitly related to ideas of joint responsibility and‘interactive decision-making’:

Increasingly society has proven to be capable in different ways of taking their own respon-sibility for solving problems . . . With this policy document . . . we want to contribute tostimulating this active society in order to achieve and maintain the desired quality of nature,forest and landscape. (pp. 3–4)

Nature may be a . . . right . . . but not without obligations. . . . People for nature means . . .that decision-making about nature requires broad involvement. To stimulate and use thisinvolvement we want to promote interactive . . . decision-making. (p. 22)

This section makes clear that broad informal participatory settings, in which new actorswould be invited to participate, would lead to support for the main lines of the plan.However, some actors were excluded and the struggles this caused eventually resulted inthe publication of a sizeable second draft.

The second stage: formalization and closing down space for participation

The reactions to the second draft were not positive. The Secretary of State qualified it asoverly detailed and lacking vision:

I received a 180 page draft nature policy plan to take on holiday . . . And then I said, I amthrowing this in the bin. I am not even going to read this. Well, I did sort of look through it,but it was just all more of the same. (Interview 2)

She commissioned a new draft of around 20 pages:

I want it to be short . . . with only the essentials. You don’t have to repeat what we alreadyknow. Make it a real policy plan. (Interview 2)

She also appointed an additional project leader alongside the one already in place. Thetwo project leaders were asked to deliver a new draft with a more general character andconsisting of fewer pages. The two project leaders took up the challenge and started writingin relative isolation. Around three weeks later (15 September 1999) they delivered the firstversion of what came to be known as the ‘main lines’ document. They also reduced thesize of the project team to five members, all of whom were from the Nature Departmentwithin the ministry:

We . . . halved the project team. That was not easy, people who had put their energy into it,all of a sudden, they were put aside. . . . I don’t believe that project teams should be big.(Interview 3)

This meant that the ‘new’ actors, from the regional governments and other ministriesdisappeared from the project team. The idea was that a smaller and internal project teamwould ensure more commitment within LNV and a high-quality policy document. Ratherthan delivering the input themselves, the project team would make sure that the relevantinput would be provided by others in the organization:

If a certain topic concerned the department of green space and recreation, I wanted them todeliver the input. . . . Under the direction of the project group, but the content had to comefrom the organization itself. (Interview 3)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


Furthermore, the steering group was replaced by an inter-ministerial advisory group.This group had to formally coordinate the input of the different policy sectors at thenational level. The biggest change was the absence of regional governmental representa-tives in the advisory group. According to the Secretary of State this was necessary becausethe steering group had not functioned well:

It didn’t work and everything was discussed over and over again. It just wasn’t effective.(Interview 2)

In November 1999 the inter-ministerial advisory group discussed a draft of the ‘mainlines’ document. During this meeting, the relative lack of inter-ministerial coordination(due to the malfunctioning of the steering group and its late involvement in the pro-cess) proved problematic. All participants were unanimous in their negative reactions.One of their criticisms concerned the absence of a spatial and financial framework. Asa representative from the Ministry of Finance stated:

To approve the plan is to approve a blank check. (Internal memo Roemers 30 November 1999)

Furthermore, they criticized the plan’s ignorance towards other important policy plansunder development (e.g. the fifth spatial policy plan). Finally, ministerial representativeswere dissatisfied about how their involvement was arranged. As a representative from theMinistry of Economic Affairs put it:

We now have a version which has the approval of the Minister and Secretary of State forLNV. This has taken months and now they are in a big hurry to coordinate things with us.We barely have time to make up our minds and to discuss it properly. (Letter Huiskamp 26November 1999)

Despite these criticisms, a draft of the ‘main lines’ document was submitted to bediscussed in two formal practices. First of all, in an extra meeting of the RijksplanologischeCommissie (RPC)2 on 9 December 1999. Although the RPC expressed its general support,it was critical of the lack of further elaboration of spatial and financial claims. The RPCrecommended submitting it to the Raad voor Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu (RROM)3

as an intended policy. This draft, to which the comments of the RPC had been added, waspublished on 10 December 1999 and was discussed in the RROM meeting of 14 December1999. As it only focused on the main lines, it was much shorter than the second draft. Inthis draft, the integration of forest, nature and landscape policy and the broadening of theconcept of nature are legitimized by an appeal to people’s wishes about nature:

Government chooses to broaden nature policy in order to do better justice to the meaning ofnature policy for society. (p. 1)

It is nature from the front door to the Wadden Sea. This links up with the perceptions ofpeople. (p. 1)

State withdrawal is emphasized to create room for participation and enable other actorsto be actively involved:

A central government is required that . . . leaves space for its partners to maneuver [and]increases the possibilities for citizens and organizations to take responsibility for nature.(pp. 25–26)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


The RROM did not approve the draft. Apparently, this was a disappointment for theproject team:

We had already selected a cover with a winter landscape for the ‘main lines’ document. Butwe didn’t get permission from the RROM to go to parliament with it. (Interview 3)

The Secretary of State, however, explains that sending this draft to the RROM was astrategic, conflictual, move to create a sense of commitment and urgency:

We knew it wouldn’t get approval. (Interview 2)

What we did is that we put this main lines document up for discussion in the [RPC and RROM].With that we created inter-ministerial and political commitment about the main lines, and wemade an agreement that it would be further elaborated. (Interview 2)

This phase saw increasing formalization and exclusion of the ‘new’ actors who wereinvolved in the first phase. In these rather closed processes, the draft had been reducedagain to main lines only.

The third stage: opening up space for traditional actors

The project team realized that the previous phase had been rather closed but intended thatthis should be only temporary:

First we had to decide for ourselves what our priorities would be and from then on the process[of communication and interaction with societal actors, other ministries and the provinces]started again. (Interview 3)

However, this interaction with societal actors had a very different character. Instead ofbroad informal sessions, rather closed, specific and selective meetings took place:

[Participation] was very specific. We . . . actively initiated interaction, formal and infor-mal. Perhaps the informal communication was the most important. . . . Telephone calls,conversations with a bag of peanuts on the table. (Interview 3)

In these formal and informal settings, cooperative strategies were used to create sup-port. They included meetings with, for example, the Inter Provincial Organization (IPO)and the Industrial Board for Forestry and Silviculture and presentations for organizationssuch as the Society for the Preservation of Nature Monuments, the State Forestry Service(SBB) and the national employer’s organization (VNO-NCW). The issues addressedmainly concerned the strategic main lines as presented in the December 1999 draft.

However, not everybody was content with discussing main lines only. Nature conserva-tion organizations in particular wanted more information on how the policy would workout in practice. They were concerned that an integrated and broadened perspective onnature would lead to insufficient attention to species and habitat conservation and thatthe plan would fail to organize the strict spatial protection of nature (internal LNV report19 February 2000). Also the reactions from several organizations, including the IPO, theState Forestry Service, the Recreation Platform (Platform Ruimte voor Recreatie) and theRoyal Dutch Automobile Association (ANWB) to the December 1999 draft showed thatthese actors, in general, supported the main goals and strategies, but were critical as to howthese would be elaborated on in a policy program.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


By now, formal participatory settings had started to dominate the process. The publica-tion of the final draft of the new nature policy plan had a tight deadline. This was related tothe planning of the fifth memorandum on spatial planning, which the Ministry of Housing,Spatial Planning and the Environment was preparing at that time. It was important for theMinistry of LNV to publish the nature policy plan first, because in that way it could havean impact on the spatial policy plan:

[If] ‘Nature for people’ [the nature policy plan] [is] first, . . . that is a good basis for having aninfluence [on the spatial planning plan]. (Interview 2)

Those things that were relevant spatially . . . would have to be included in [the fifthmemorandum on spatial planning]. (Interview 3)

To meet this deadline interactions with the other ministries regarding the elaboration ofthe financial and spatial implications of the new nature policy plan had to be smooth andeffective. According to the project leader, the conflictual strategy of sending the draft tothe RROM in December 1999 to create commitment now really paid off:

The Ministries of Economic Affairs, of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, andof Transport, Public Works and Water Management cooperated very constructively. This waspossible because there was a main lines document that they could agree with. (Interview 3)

The Secretary of State too emphasizes this, even though she does remember that therejection by the RROM was far from pleasant:

It wasn’t nice . . . but with hindsight, the most important benefit was that afterwards there wasa strong commitment, shared by the other ministries, to cooperate. (Interview 2)

Informal settings were required as well to resolve some remaining issues. To dealwith the concerns of the Ministry of Finance that the plan would be a ‘blank check’, theSecretary of State for LNV and the Minister of Finance together agreed on some phrasesthat were to be included in the plan:

I believe that in the final document you can find some formal passages: they occur in three orfour places, I think. It was the Ministry of Finance that required that, a passage to indicate [theextent to which our ambitions were actually covered financially]. (Interview 3)

Another meeting between the Secretary of State and the Minister and Secretary of Statefor Transport, Public Works and Water Management was held to sort out some issues whichpertained to the question of who would be responsible for, and pay for, plans to realize newnature areas along rivers.

The remainder of the development process was relatively unproblematic. On 23 May2000, a draft of the new plan was discussed in the RPC. In general, the participants werepositive and it was felt that the remaining financial and spatial issues could easily beresolved at the highest civil servant level (Internal LNV report 30 May 2000). Finally, on20 June 2000, the RPC concluded that the new plan was ready for final political decision-making and could be discussed in the RROM meeting of 4 July 2000. On 14 July 2000, thefinal policy plan was sent to parliament.

Participatory practices and strategies

What we have seen in the case study is a dynamic process with different strategies andpractices. The first phase was guided by a general desire to do things differently. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


informal meetings with a wide range of new societal actors constitute informal partici-patory practices characterized by cooperative strategies which were aimed at organizingsupport. Judging from the largely positive responses to the first draft, these participatorypractices really paid off and strengthened the formal process. Also, the project team couldbe seen as such an informal participatory practice, as it involved new actors from otherministries and from the regional governments. New actors from the regional governmentswere also involved in the steering group.

However, alongside cooperative strategies, doing things differently required conflictualstrategies as well. Internal experts on nature conservation, who would traditionally havebeen involved, were explicitly excluded from the project team. Also, the late involvementof the steering group (whose first meeting took place only right before the publication of thefirst draft) reflects such a conflictual strategy. Both led to struggles and resistance later onin the process. The project team accommodated the criticisms of the internal LNV expertsby allowing them to provide input. However, this led to a sizeable second draft which wasnot received positively.

The second phase was characterized by the abandonment of informal participatorypractices and increasing formalization. Conflictual strategies were involved in removingthe new actors from the project team, which now had a rather traditional composition ofonly internal LNV civil servants. They were also removed from the steering group, whichsubsequently changed into an inter-ministerial advisory group. Societal actors were alsohardly involved in this phase.

During the second phase, the two project leaders from the Ministry of LNV againreduced the second draft to main lines only. This draft was discussed in the inter-ministerialadvisory group. The group’s negative reaction to the content of the plan as well as to itslimited involvement clearly demonstrates the conflictual and formal character of the discus-sion. The decision of the Secretary of State to send the draft to the RROM, despite thesecriticisms, is very interesting in this respect. Although it certainly has a confrontationaland conflictual ring to it, the intention was that discussing the plan in the RROM – evenif it resulted in rejection – would strengthen the formal process, smooth the finalizationof the plan and create support among the other ministries. In that way, it can be seen as acooperative strategy as well.

In the third phase we find mainly formal participatory practices and cooperative strate-gies. The ministry arranged meetings with (mainly traditional) societal actors to discussspecific topics in order to smooth differences and strengthen support. Also, bilateral meet-ings were organized with other ministries to resolve some remaining financial and spatialissues.

Overall, the development process started with informal participatory practices thatinvolved a wide range not only of traditional actors but also of new societal actors.However, the informal participation settings created in the first phase were quickly aban-doned in favor of the increased involvement of internal LNV civil servants in the secondphase and strictly orchestrated formal participatory practices with mainly traditional actorsin the third phase. Throughout the process, the central government remained firmly incharge and the participatory practices involved ended up strongly resembling the ‘old’corporatist practices so characteristic of the Dutch context.

Was Dutch nature policy democratized?

One of the intriguing findings of the analysis is that, throughout the development process,the content of the policy plan was relatively stable. The plan’s main themes – broadening the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


concept of nature, including people’s wishes, integrating different policies, and changingthe role of government – were present right from the start as lessons learnt from the evalu-ation and as starting points for the project team. Regardless of the dynamics in the processin terms of actor involvement, the actors’ participation changed little in the content ofthe plan.

Based on this, it could be argued that all the participation that was organized, the impor-tance that was attached to inviting new actors, the emphasis on doing things differently,served only to legitimize decisions already taken and priorities already set. Indeed, one ofthe main criticisms of participation is that it tends to assimilate participants into projectswith pre-established objectives and strengthens these projects with a new participatorylegitimacy (Kabeer 1996, Parfitt 2004, Turnhout et al. 2010). Also, there are clear signsthat throughout the process, the central government remained firmly in charge. It was theMinistry of LNV who organized the participatory processes and set the terms regardingwho was invited and what was discussed. The role of the government grew stronger in thesecond and third stage of the process, in which it first closed down possibilities for informalparticipatory practices and later opened up space for participation again, but in a traditionaland rather elitist and corporatist way. Thus, there are ample reasons to question the inputlegitimacy of the policy. Although actors were involved in the process, for example byattending meetings and submitting comments, the stability of the content implies that theirinfluence is, to say the least, difficult to detect. It appears that the use of cooperative strate-gies to involve new actors resulted in practices of assimilation and incorporation ratherthan cooperation.

However, a different reading of the case study is possible as well. Our findings sug-gest that a large number of the actors involved in the process were positive about the newthemes that the plan introduced. They were happy to be involved and they expressed theirsupport for the main lines of the plan. The main criticisms that were received pertained toconcerns about the details of how the main lines would be elaborated. This suggests that theMinistry of LNV has learned from its experiences with the previous nature policy plan.4

That they have effectively dealt with the lack of societal support for nature policy by rec-ognizing the importance of linking up with people’s perceptions and wishes and includingthese in the new plan. The democratization of nature policy, as it is expressed in the newplan, did not result from the development process. Participation was designed to ‘sell’ thenew themes and ideas to a civil society that, apparently, was already ‘willing to buy’. Thepositive reactions to the main lines of the plan throughout the process attest to its outputlegitimacy.

The two readings of the case study show that, while the input legitimacy was question-able, output legitimacy was achieved. The question of whether Dutch nature policy wasdemocratized can now be answered with a qualified yes: democratic legitimacy has beenachieved but in terms of content, not of process. This qualification is important becauseour analysis does not include the actual implementation of the plan. The extent to whichnature policy has been democratized ‘on the ground’ remains to be seen.

It could be argued that democratic legitimacy was achieved not in spite of, but thanksto, a government dominated setting. In a more open setting the outcomes would have beenmore unpredictable. In this case, participation could have resulted in a new plan that didnot include a broad concept of nature and failed to link up with people’s wishes. Therewere actors within civil society as well as within the department of LNV who advocated amore traditional approach and a narrow concept of nature, based on ecological science. Inthe Dutch context, with its corporatist tradition, it is not unlikely that these actors would

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


have been successful in using the participatory spaces available to them to meet their ends.In this case, democratic legitimacy could arguably only have been achieved with a firmgovernment hand.

In much of the literature, civil society governance and participation are seen as promis-ing ways to ensure democratic legitimacy. Governance processes that involve civil societyand imply a changing (more limited) role of government are considered key factors inincreasing the legitimacy of policies and decisions. Our findings demonstrate how, withoutgovernance processes, governance ambitions were institutionalized in a new policy plan.In that sense, our case is one of ‘governance without governance’, or – put another way –‘governance by government’.

Based on this, we argue that the procedural view on democratic legitimacy, which isimplicit in much of the contemporary literature, is an insufficient basis for understand-ing participation and civil society governance and for evaluating democratic legitimacy.In addition to procedures, it is important to consider the ‘outputs’ of these processes, thatis, the content or substance of governance. Second, it is important not to dismiss centralgovernment as an important actor in achieving democratic legitimacy, and to recognizeits potential to play a constructive role in organizing output legitimacy. More impor-tantly though, we feel that to understand governance and participation, it is crucial toinvestigate them as practices, and to focus on the links and relationships between them:for example, the relationship between input and output, or between process and sub-stance, which, as our case has shown, may or may not be straightforward; or the linksbetween formal and informal participatory practices, which may strengthen as well asundermine each other. It is in the practices and the interactions between them that partici-pation occurs, that democratic legitimacy is negotiated, and that civil society governance isshaped.

AcknowledgementsThe study this article reports on was conducted as part of and funded under the EU 6th frameworkproject ‘GoFOR’ on new modes of governance for sustainable forestry in Europe.

Notes on contributorsEsther Turnhout is Associate Professor at the Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group,Wageningen University, the Netherlands. Her research and teaching concern the relationship betweenscience and non-science in the fields of environmental governance, nature conservation, forestry, bio-diversity politics and natural resource management. Current research projects focus on: the labelingof species as invasive in the biodiversity debate; the role of volunteers in biodiversity record-ing; and democratic legitimacy in the EU Water Framework Directive. She has published severalinternational journal articles on topics such as the science policy interface, ecological indicators,classification and standardization, boundary objects, boundary work, volunteer recording and publicparticipation.

Mariëlle Van der Zouwen is a senior scientist at the KWR Watercycle Research Institute, TheNetherlands. Her PhD research focused on multilevel governance and the implementation of Natura2000 in The Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom and resulted in 2006 in the publication ofthe book Nature policy between trends and traditions – dynamics in nature policy arrangements in theYorkshire Dales, Doñana and the Veluwe (Eburon). Before starting her activities at KWR in 2009 sheworked as an Assistant Professor at the Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, WageningenUniversity, the Netherlands. Her research and teaching there concerned policy analysis and trends inmultilevel and global governance. Her current activities at KWR focus on science system assessmentand the functioning and governance of knowledge networks in the water sector.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


Notes1. The title is paraphrasing the much used term in the governance literature ‘governance (or

‘governing’) without government’ (Rhodes 1996, Peters and Pierre 1998).2. The RPC is the committee that is concerned with the inter-ministerial coordination of spatial

planning issues. It mainly consists of top-level civil servants (often director-generals) from allministries. They prepare agenda items that will then be taken to the sub-ministerial Council forSpatial Planning (RROM).

3. The RROM is the sub-ministerial Council for Spatial Planning in which the decisions of theministerial council are prepared. It consists of ministers and state secretaries, complementedwith the chair of the RPC and several top-level civil servants.

4. This reflects a certain degree of input legitimacy to be sure. The starting points of the new planwere based on criticisms of the old plan, which stemmed from society. However, it was the centralgovernment who decided to take these into account and translated them into the main lines ofthe new plan.

ReferencesArnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American planning association,

35 (4), 216–224.Arts, B., 1998. The political influence of global NGOs. Case studies on the climate and biodiversity

conventions. Utrecht: International Books.Bulkeley, H. and Mol, A.P.J., 2003. Participation and environmental governance: consensus,

ambivalence and debate. Environmental values, 12 (2), 143–154.Cooke, B. and Kothari, U., 2001. The case for participation as tyranny. In: B. Cooke and U. Kothari,

eds. Participation, the new tyranny? London: Zed Books, 1–15.Cornwall, A., 2002. Making spaces, changing places: situating participation in development. Institute

of Development Studies, IDS Working Paper 170.Fiorino, D.J., 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mecha-

nisms. Science, technology, & human values, 15 (2), 226–243.Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post normal age. Futures, September,

739–755.Gibbons, M., et al., 1994. The new production of knowledge – the dynamics of science and research

in contemporary societies. London: SAGE.Goodwin, P., 1998. ‘Hired hands’ or ‘local voice’: understandings and experience of local participa-

tion in conservation. Transactions of the institute of British geographers, 23 (4), 481–499.Hajer, M.A., 2003. Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy sciences,

36 (2), 175–195.Hajer, M.A. and Wagenaar H., eds., 2003. Deliberative policy analysis, understanding governance

in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hooghe, L. and Marks, G., 2001. Multi-level governance and European integration. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield.Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E., 1999. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. Journal of

the American planning association, 65 (4), 412–423.Jasanoff, S., 1997. Civilization and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996. Public understanding of

science, 6 (3), 221–236.Joerges, C. and Neyer, J., 2003. Politics, risk management, World Trade Organisation governance

and the limits of legalisation. Science and public policy, 30 (3), 219–225.Kabeer, N., 1996. Reversed realities: gender hierarchies in development thought. New Delhi: Kali

for Women.Kesby, M., 2007. Spatialising participatory approaches: the contribution of geography to a mature

debate. Environment and planning A, 39 (12), 2813–2831.Kooiman, J., 2000. Societal governance: levels, modes, and orders of social–political interaction. In:

J. Pierre, ed. Debating governance: authenticity, steering, and democracy. Oxford UniversityPress, 138–166.

Lawrence, A., 2006. ‘No personal motive?’ Volunteers, biodiversity, and the false dichotomies ofparticipation. Ethics, place and environment, 9 (3), 279–298.

Lijphart, A., 1968. The politics of accommodation, pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


LNV, 1990. Natuurbeleidsplan, regeringsbeslissing. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer enVisserij. Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 1989–1990, 21149, nrs. 2–3.

LNV, 1992. Nota landschap, regeringsbeslissing. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer enVisserij.

LNV, 1993. Bosbeleidsplan. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij.LNV, 1994. Natuurbeleid in de peiling, een tussentijdse balans van het Natuurbeleidsplan.

Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij.LNV, 1996. Visie stadslandschappen, discussienota. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en

Visserij.LNV, 1999. Verzameling reacties of eerste concept, met twee aanvullingen. Ministerie van

Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij.LNV, 2000. Nature for people – people for nature: nature, forest and landscape in the 21st century.

Ministry of LNV: The Hague.LNV and IPO, 1999. Evaluatie van het natuur-, bos- en landschapsbeleid. Ministerie van Landbouw,

Natuurbeheer en Visserij, Interprovinciaal Overleg.Mohan, G. and Stokke, K., 2000. Participatory development and empowerment: the dangers of

localism. Third world quarterly, 21 (2), 247–268.Nandigama, S., 2009. Transformations in the making: actor-networks, elite-control and gender

dynamics in community forest management intervention in Adavipalli, Andhra Pradesh, India.Thesis (PhD), International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University (ISS), TheNetherlands.

O’Neill, J., 2001. Representing people, representing nature, representing the world. Environment andplanning C, 19 (4), 483–500.

Parfitt, T., 2004. The ambiguity of participation: a qualified defence of participatory development.Third world quarterly, 25 (3), 537–556.

Pellizzoni, L., 2001a. Democracy and the governance of uncertainty, the case of agricultural genetechnologies. Journal of hazardous materials, 86 (1), 205–222.

Pellizzoni, L., 2001b. The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and reason. British journalof sociology, 52 (1), 59–86.

Peters, B.G. and Pierre, J., 1998. Governance without government? Rethinking public administration.Journal of public administration theory and research, 8 (2), 223–243.

Pierre, J. and Peters, B.G., 2000. Governance, politics & the state. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Rhodes, R.A.W., 1996. The new governance: governing without government. Political studies, 44,

652–667.RLG, 1998. Natuurbeleid dat verder gaat, advies over voorgang en vernieuwing van het natu-

urbeleid. Raad voor het Landelijk Gebied. Report number 98/8.Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J., 2000. Public participation methods, a framework for evaluation. Science,

technology, & human values, 25 (1), 3–29.Turnhout, E., 2003. Ecological indicators in Dutch nature conservation: science and policy

intertwined in the classification and evaluation of nature. Amsterdam: Aksant.Turnhout, E., 2009. The effectiveness of boundary objects: the case of ecological indicators. Science

and public policy, 36 (5), 403–412.Turnhout, E., 2010. Heads in the clouds: knowledge democracy as a utopian dream. In: R.J. In ‘t

Veld, ed. Knowledge democracy, consequences for science, politics and media. Berlin: Springer,25–36.

Turnhout, E., Van Bommel, S. and Aarts, N., 2010. How participation creates citizens: partici-patory governance as performative practice. Ecology and Society, 15 (4), 26. Available from:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art26/.

Van Asselt, M.B.A. and Rijkens-Klomp, N., 2002. A look in the mirror: reflection on participation inintegrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global environmental change, 12 (3),107–180.

Van Kersbergen, K. and Van Waarden, F., 2004. ‘Governance’ as a bridge between disciplines:cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability,accountability and legitimacy. European journal of political research, 43 (2), 143–171.

Van der Zouwen, M.W., 2006. Nature policy between trends and traditions – dynamics in naturepolicy arrangements in the Yorkshire Dales, Doñana and the Veluwe. Delft: Eburon.

Van Tatenhove, J., Mak, J. and Liefferink, D., 2006. The inter-play between formal and informalpractices. Perspectives on European politics and society, 7 (1), 8–24.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art26


Van Waarden, F., 1992. The historical institutionalization of typical national patterns in policy net-works between state and industry. A comparison of the USA and the Netherlands. Europeanjournal of political research, 21 (1–2), 131–162.

WRR, 1998. Ruimtelijke ontwikkelingspolitiek. Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.Report number 53.

Appendix

Respondents

Interview 1: Former member of the project team, Ministry of LNV.Interview 2: Former Secretary of state for Nature, Ministry of LNV.Interview 3: Second former project leader and member of the project team, Ministry of LNV.Interview 4: First former project leader and member of the project team, Ministry of LNV.Interview 5: Former secretary of the Dutch Industrial Board for Forestry and Silviculture.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

09 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

‘governance without governance’ 1 : how nature policy was...

Documents