1. W A G E N I N G E N U N I V E R S I T Y Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group Country study – the Netherlands Forest policy paragon or NFP failure? H. Schanz, Wageningen University, Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group The Netherlands

2. W A G E N I N G E N U N I V E R S I T Y Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group An non-existing discussion  Commitment to and accordance with international agreements explicitly stated as one of the central principles in the Dutch nature policy programme  Fully in support of the IPF proposals for action: extension brochure on NFPs for all Dutch embassies  Active participant in the preparatory process of the MCPFE  High potentials of the Dutch forest policy system for reforms: decentralisation, semi-privatisation, contract-based subsidy schemes No voices are heard about the formulation of a NFP, neither in support nor in opposition

3. W A G E N I N G E N U N I V E R S I T Y Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group “Nature for people” An existing NFP?  Dutch government reported on existence of NFP with reference to recent Nature Policy Plan “Nature for People – People for Nature”  Indeed: intersectoral and partnerships for implementation  But: no participation, no iterative process, just a strategic policy document not aiming at institutionl and policy reforms of the forest sector Ministry reference center: “Nature Policy Plan cannot be seen as a full equivalent to a NFP”

4. W A G E N I N G E N U N I V E R S I T Y Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group  Several different “forestries”, which rarely appear as one “forest sector”: e.g. 20% of forest area managed by nature conservation organisations,  No concerted voice of private forest ownership: fragmentation, smaleness and non-professional attitude of most private forest owners  Neither substantial wood- nor recreational-chain developed Forest politics has become a sub-sector of nature conservation politics Sector structure impeding factor?

5. W A G E N I N G E N U N I V E R S I T Y Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group Political culture supporting…  Example of (neo)-corporatisms: explicit invovement of stakeholders in (forest) policy formultion and implementation  High level of societal organisation: informal networks between interest representation organisations and parliamentary/administrative apparatus  Consensual style of policy making: continuous consultation mechanisms, including purposive non- discretion  Strong policy planning tradition: high readiness for change and adaption to changing conditions

6. W A G E N I N G E N U N I V E R S I T Y Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group Political culture …and impeding factors  Corporatism without compliance in the forestry sector: huge member organization or “multitude of forestries”  No interest representation, without a counter organisation: desegregation of existing interests  Pragmatism: to avoid discussions on fundamental issues, shifting of politicall critical decisions from the legislative into the executive sphere  Culture of “trying out and fading away”: premature termination of policies not necessarily seen as too large a problem

7. W A G E N I N G E N U N I V E R S I T Y Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group A Dutch NFP? Recent developments  Pressure to fulfil international obligations  Mismatch national – international policy  Follow-up MCPFE, EU-reg. 1257/99,…  European Council presidency, intenational congress  Re-structuring of the power relations in the sector by attempts to form a strong, united interest representation of private forest owners  Intra-ministerial power issues: ministerial actors (“no need for another new strategic policy process”) vs. minister