Een kwestie van natuur : een studie naar de aard en het verloop van communicatie over natuur en natuurbeleid

This dissertation sets out to investigate recurring patterns in communication about nature and nature-policy among different stakeholders.<em>Chapter 1</em> describes the context in which the research took place. The time of the study, was marked by limited acceptance of many governmental policies, including those concerning nature. This problem is associated with an increasing complexity of society, and limited involvement of citizens, administrators and politicians. As a result, we has marked increased recently attention to improving the communication between government and citizens. In this context, many speak of 'administrative renewal'.Subsequently, chapter 1 deals with several methodological concerns. The study has been carried out from an anthropological perspective. The central starting point is that society is always dynamic, with continuously changing inter-dependencies among (groups of) people. I explore three methodological problems in relation to qualitative social science research:the nature and use of concepts;the relation between researchers and their object of study;criteria for evaluating social-scientific research.These explorations lead to the formulation of methodological guidelines for qualitative research which adhered to during the research process.In <em>chapter 2</em> I introduce theoretical insights which help me to connect nature, culture, communication and policy. By looking at communication as a process which takes place in a dynamic context, dimensions of the process can be identified which tend to remain obscure in more narrow approaches which look at communication as an isolated activity. I discuss the concept of culture which I describe as the dynamic mechanism through which people communicate. Starting from the assumption that communication and culture presuppose each other, I analyze communication problems in connection with existing or emerging cultural differences. In doing so, I use two theoretical perspectives: 1) Norbert Elias' established-outsider perspective which connects conflict situations with changing power-balances and processes of mutual stigmatization (we against them), and 2) autopoiesis theory, which holds that (groups of) people tend to become self-referential.Subsequently, I look at nature as a topic for communication. On the basis of an analysis of different visions on nature-conservation, I conclude that such visions can be seen as the (temporary) result of socio-cultural and political processes which determine what is to be conserved and/or produced as nature, and what not. In the context of nature-conservation, perceptions of nature are often perceptions of what is <em>desirable</em> societal change.In relation to the subject of policy and communication, I discuss the policy network approach as one of the operationalizations of administrative renewal. Although communication for purposes of policy making is a central theme within the policy network approach, little attention is paid to power struggles among the actors during all phases of the policy process, and consequences of such struggles for communication respectively non-communication. Associated with power struggles and shifting power balances are the (flexible) ways in which actors continuously construct arguments and identities -of themselves and others- in their interaction with others.Finally, I combine these insights in an analytical framework in which the following four themes are central:nature perceptions;inter-dependencies;the construction of identities;the construction of arguments.In each of the following three chapters, which present empirical studies on nature(policy) and communication, these themes will be elaborated upon in connection with the empirical material.<em/><em>Chapter 3</em> presents a study of communication between the government and farmers following the introduction of the Nature Policy Plan. I have explored the views and opinions of farmers about nature and nature-policy, and the way in which these views have been shaped. In this study, the theoretical notion of <em>policy acceptance</em> has served as an important starting point.The study indicates that most of the farmers interviewed have a very specific perception of nature. For them, nature is 'everything that grows, blossoms and lives'. Starting from this point of view, farmers assert that nature is doing well. Hence, the problem which lies at the root of the Nature Policy Plan is neither recognized nor accepted by the majority of farmers.Similarly, the policy measures which are taken in order to conserve nature are not regarded as acceptable either. The Nature Policy Plan is seen, just as one element in a series of governmental decisions which have detrimental consequences for farmers. Farmers tend to perceive the government as an enemy.Underlying the arguments that farmers use to defend their perception of nature and to denounce the government's nature policy are a few more fundamental contradictions. The central concern for farmers is the survival of their farms under reasonable conditions. However, they increasingly feel that they are confronted with developments that form a threat to their right to exist. As a result, they tend to withdraw under the motto: 'as long as we can avoid it, we don't do anything'. The attitude of farmers towards the government is characterized by negative stigmatization: the worst examples and experiences are repeated over and over again in order to support the argument that nothing good can be expected from the government. In all, the communication between farmers and the government about nature policy takes place in the context of a troubled relationship. Thus, the implementation of the Nature Policy Plan, which is explicitly based on voluntary cooperation from farmers, is seriously hampered.During the course of the research, however, the feelings of mutual dependency tend to increase, on the side of both the farmers and the government. For the government, this feeling was induced by the lack of acceptance of nature policy. The farmers, in turn, increasingly realized that nature policies are inevitable, and felt a need to alleviate the adverse conditions which confront agriculture in general. As a result, both parties made attempts to (re)engage in communication about nature policy.In <em>chapter 4</em> a second empirical study is presented concerning the communication among government, farmers and nature conservationists about nature and nature policy in the Brabant Peel region. In recent decades, agricultural development in this region has been explosive, resulting in a strong and intensive agricultural sector. However, the Brabant Peel region is also known for a number of special nature and landscape values. In this context, rules and regulations concerning agricultural practice are becoming ever more strict. This development has created very severe tensions between those who represent agriculture and those who represent nature.In 1993 the Peel Environmental Cooperative (PEC) was established. In this institution farmers and horticulturists cooperate with a view to maintaining an economically viable agricultural sector in the Brabant Peel, recognizing that this will only be possible if sufficient attention is given to the preservation of nature and the environment. Right from the start, the PEC has involved itself in a network of relationships with other actors with whom it negotiates in order to further its goals. The research effort was geared mainly to investigating the way in which different relationships have influenced each other, and the consequences this has had on the functioning of the PEC with respect to its aspirations. For this purpose, I have studied the relationship of the PEC with various actors. More specifically these actors are:the government;the regional organization of nature conservationists: Working Group Save the Peel (WGSP);the agrarian community.Furthermore, the study started from a theoretical framework in which (conditions for) communication and negotiation were central concepts.The study shows that the PEC has the complex task of managing a network of relationships in which different, and often mutually exclusive, demands are made. This creates a continuous danger for the PEC to end up in a 'boundary role conflict': the different parties tend to confront the PEC with pressures and demands which are difficult to agree upon without seriously jeopardizing the opportunity to reach compromise with others. Farmers and horticulturists, for example, consider the PEC as an institution which represents their interests, and which should aim at reaching the best possible result for agriculture in its negotiations with the government. At the same time, the government and WGSP expect the PEC to contribute to a change of mentality among farmers with regard to nature and the environment. In short, the various parties have very different expectations of the PEC. In association with this, the PEC indeed takes on such differential identities in it's predominantly bilateral contacts with others. Thus, it becomes clear that the chains of interdependencies in which the PEC is involved imply unintended instabilities, which are difficult to prevent.<em>Chapter 5</em> investigates the communication among interested citizens about nature and nature policy by means of a discourse-analytical study of a public debate on nature-development among a panel of 30 participants. This debate was organized by the Platform for Science an Ethics following the commotion around the implementation of the Nature Policy Plan, and the conflicts about the deliberate nature-development in particular. The debate resulted in a closing statement by the panel about nature an nature policy in the Netherlands. This closing statement has been presented to Parliament as an advice with respect to the further development and implementation of nature policy.The central starting point of discourse analysis is that language is not a neutral medium for the transfer of information, but a social activity. Wittingly or unwittingly people have a purpose with what they say, how they say it, when they say it, and to whom. Depending on their purposes, people use specific <em>repertoires.</em> The study focused on several repertoires, or clusters of arguments, that the participants draw upon, and on the functions these repertoires have in the debate. In addition, I have looked at whether or not, and if so how, the members refer to their background in the course of the debate.The analysis shows that the repertoires are all used for the purpose of creating maximum support for nature. In addition to several specific target-groups which explicitly serve as point of reference, the support of an undifferentiated 'general public' which participants claim for their arguments is also taken into consideration.During the discussions, the members of the panel refer to, on the one hand, scientific and policy sources, and on the other, personal experiences and feelings. In addition to these two modes of building up credibility, there is a striking third. Often, the participants refer to 'people' in general. The anonymity of those who are represented in this manner implies that such references are difficult to verify. The reference to 'people' in general can also be seen as a way of engaging and speaking on behalf of different societal groups, which serves to strengthen the public nature of the debate.Although a number of nature perceptions and desirable futures are -implicitly or explicitly- brought forward during the debate, this does not lead to making choices for or against particular types of nature in concrete situations. While this obscures the relevance of nature-development vis-à-vis other types of desirable nature, the question of type of nature which should prevail when and why remains unanswered. I relate this phenomenon to the fact that the panel was not constrained by the boundaries that in actual practice are created by politicians and stakeholders. In that sense, the debate and its closing statement are to a degree noncommittal.Finally, the study shows that the panel gradually developed into an 'insider group' as the debate proceeded. In association with this, several 'outsider groups' emerged, which were negatively referred to by the panel, and, in turn, strengthened the panel's identity as an 'insider group'. Interestingly, the outsider groups were largely created on the basis of coincidence. This supports the idea that the insider/outsider mechanism constitutes an important regulating principle that plays a role under specific circumstances.In the <em>final chapter</em> I make an effort to identify some of the overall insights that emerge from this research and formulate them into guidelines for effective communication about nature and nature policy. First, I describe how actors are continuously engaged, wittingly or unwittingly, in constructing arguments and identities (their own and those of other actors) in interaction with others in order to pursue certain ends. This pattern can be seen as an important characteristic of the way in which communication in negotiation processes about nature and nature policy unfold. Moreover, it appears that stakeholders, in their effort to build credibility, tend to present arguments as 'indisputable' facts. As a result, their choices -which are inherently associated with interpretations, interests, values, norms and aspirations, in short their culture- are hardly explicated during discussions with others. Thus, communication about nature tends to take place on the basis of arguments which are considered valid only by those who are already in agreement; others tend to be far less impressed. Some form of trench-warfare is the likely result. The endless discussions aboutwhat is the true perception of nature are an example.Subsequently, I re-analyze the negotiation processes which took place in the Peel and during the public debate on nature-development, and which both aimed at giving a new impulse to the further development and implementation of nature policy. In both cases the outcome was a (preliminary) compromise. In order to further analyze such compromises, I make a distinction between a <em>reactive</em> and a <em>creative</em> compromise. A reactive comprise is the result of a negotiation process that is <em>distributive</em> in nature. The way in which actors operate in such negotiations is characterized by a high degree of reticence with respect to one's own position, by an emphasis on positions, by overcharging in the hope of ending up in the middle, and by a lack of care for the other party. Hence, a reactive compromise is the result of reacting upon each others' proposals. A creative compromise results from an <em>integrative</em> process of negotiation in which actors show both a high degree of openness with respect to one's own situation and intentions, and a certain level of care for the other party in addition to self-care. This enhances the possibility that a new common problem is formulated in which the problems of the various parties are incorporated. This common problem, then, forms the basis for achieving a creative compromise.On the basis of the above, I finally elaborate on the role of communication in policy processes concerning nature. I discuss conditions which need to be fulfilled if communication and negotiation -at various points in the policy process, and in different forms- are to contribute to an acceptable nature policy. The following guidelines for supporting communication in negotiations can be formulated:reflect on the relationship between negotiators;look for 'the will' behind arguments;recognize the differences and search for the similarities;develop targets for the short term;develop a vision for the long term.