Waves of shock went through the nature sector after the present Cabinet announced its intention to make cuts in the budget for nature. The Cabinet is planning to cut the budget by a staggering 40%, while a total of around 2% will be retrenched. The decision to scrap plans for ecological links connecting the main natural areas in the Netherlands was also met with criticism. A disjointed National Ecological Network [EHS] would be even worse than no Ecological Network. A network of areas and connections is essential if we are to preserve biodiversity and stimulate nature´s potential to adapt (to climate change, for example). So nature is now facing serious problems, but is this really all down to the new Cabinet?
There are at least three sides to the current crisis in the nature sector. The first is government policy itself; legislation and regulations. Accumulated policies are causing a problem (several different categories of policy sometimes apply to a single natural area: nature reserve, national park, Natura 2000, etc.), as is complex legislation and the erosion of political support. The second side relates to the level of support among citizens and businesses. Most people feel very committed to forests, nature and the landscape, particularly in their direct surroundings, but few people understand the official control and management side. The third side involves civil society, the home of nature conservation organisations, the Netherlands National Forest Service [Staatsbosbeheer] etc. The cuts will be felt most severely on the actual management side.
This brief analysis of the problems in policy on nature shows that the issue is more deeply-rooted than the consequence of measures taken by the present Cabinet. Accumulated policies, obscure legislation and erosion of the base of support have evolved over many years and have probably prompted the latest round of cuts. The nature sector itself is also to blame. The sector has become introverted, too ‘eco’-centric with too little regard for social and political involvement. It needs to come down from its ivory tower, lose the jargon and get to grips with social debate. And it needs to do it now. Where are the public figures like Wijffels, Nijpels and Winsemius? While the arts & culture sector embarks on a process of redefining its role, the green front is still eerily silent (apart from the Society for the Preservation of Nature in the Netherlands). This must change!
And it can change; behind the scenes, the nature sector has been busy reviewing its nature policy for years (albeit mainly on paper). First, it needs to be more dynamic. We must move away from strict targets and fixed resources towards more flexible policy that is better geared to today’s natural and social dynamics. Secondly, nature management should be linked to social sectors such as agriculture, economics and leisure. And thirdly, legislation and regulations (including international legislation and regulations), must be streamlined and simplified. These are all worthwhile ideas that have come from the sector itself and which can be used as a solid basis for further debate with the present Cabinet.
Bas Arts
Professor of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy