Pushing the Radical Nature Development Policy Concept in the Netherlands: An Agency Perspective

Abstract

In the 1990s, Dutch nature policy adopted a new policy concept, 'nature development', whereas, until then, 'nature preservation' had largely dominated both the discourses and practices of nature policy-making. Nature development can be regarded as the Dutch counterpart of concepts such as ecological restoration, emerging simultaneously in other national nature policies. This paper argues that the rise of the nature development concept in the Netherlands is mainly due to the entrepreneurial strategies of a relatively small group of individuals. To study the impact of the latter's entrepreneurial strategies on the adoption and implementation of the new concept, we first made a content analysis of nature-policy documents issued between 1977, when the concept of nature development was coined for the first time, and 2012. Next, we analysed newspaper articles covering the debate on Dutch nature policy. Third, we conducted semi-structured interviews with the key individuals involved. This article deliberately takes an agency perspective, emphasising the complementary roles that policy entrepreneurs played in the different phases of the policy change process, with concept developers, early adopters and translators, and early implementers. Their success is to be attributed to a smart combination of discursive and network strategies. KEYWORDS Nature development, policy entrepreneurs, policy change, discursive framing SIMON VERDUIJN et al. 56 Environmental Values 24.1

Governing with nature: a European perspective on putting rewilding principles into practice

“…Two ecologists working for the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, hereafter LNV) contemplated the spontaneous sequence of natural processes on the OVP and the role of geese grazing in 'steering' ecological succession and the rich and unique nature that emerged. Inspired, they wrote a policy brief for government decision-makers where they presented the OVP as a 'unique ecological experiment' and introduced 'nature development' as a feasible option for spatial planning policy [17,20]. Their concept of nature development was formally acknowledged in the 1990 Nature Policy Plan [21], and OVP was designated as a nature reserve in 1991 with nature development as its guiding concept.…”

Powerful Individuals in a Globalized World

“…In contrast to this, for example, Verduijn et al. () describe how a small group of policy entrepreneurs convinced by a concept of radical natural development accomplished a policy change within Dutch ministries, leading to programmes such as the ‘Naturpolitikplan’ for a more ecological infrastructure between natural sites.…”

“…They are policy entrepreneurs according to how, for example, Verduijn et al. () describe them. Both types of individuals, social and institutional (policy) entrepreneurs, develop viable shadow alternatives early on and already establish their innovations in niche‐regimes, so that a change of the dominant (mainstream) system to a more sustainable one becomes only possible by using their advancements (Moore and Westley, ).…”

“…Tommy Koh was an entrepreneurial leader rather than a policy entrepreneur because the international community had given him the mandate to negotiate the UNCLOS III. In contrast to this, for example, Verduijn et al (2015) describe how a small group of policy entrepreneurs convinced by a concept of radical natural development accomplished a policy change within Dutch ministries, leading to programmes such as the 'Naturpolitikplan' for a more ecological infrastructure between natural sites.…”

“…Institutional entrepreneurs are 'actors or groups of actors who seek to change particular institutional arrangements and who leverage resources to create new institutions or transform existing ones' (Moore and Westley, 2011, p. 5). They are policy entrepreneurs according to how, for example, Verduijn et al (2015) describe them. Both types of individuals, social and institutional (policy) entrepreneurs, develop viable shadow alternatives early on and already establish their innovations in niche-regimes, so that a change of the dominant (mainstream) system to a more sustainable one becomes only possible by using their advancements (Moore and Westley, 2011).…”