NETHERLANDS: Forest policy paragon or NFP failure?

Heiner Schanz and Andreas Ottitsch[1]

1. Introduction

The Netherlands has traditionally taken a prominent and active role in international negotiations on the conservation and preservation of nature worldwide. The Netherlands has signed and ratified all agreements relevant to nature negotiated at the international and European levels, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the EU Habitats and Birds Directive and Natura 2000. Consequently, commitment to and accordance with international agreements on the conservation of nature is explicitly stated as one of the central principles in the official Dutch nature policy programme (MLNV, 2000). The Netherlands has also taken initiatives on the conservation of tropical forests with the establishment of the Stichting Keurhout and partnership agreements with tropical timber producing countries since 1998. The country furthermore has taken a very active role with respect to environmental issues and nature conservation in the countries of the South through the development of respective development programmes and extension activities. The Netherlands is one of the few countries to invest one percent of its GDP in overseas development assistance, and it meets this commitment voluntarily.

In line with the strong international orientation of its nature conservation policy the Netherlands has been fully in support of the IPF proposals for action, including the central emphasis in the proposals on formulating and implementing National Forest Programmes. This is reflected by the fact that the Expertise Center of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries published in 2000 an extension brochure on the formulation and implementation of National Forest Programmes (Savenije, 2000). This publication was intended to support the Dutch embassies in assisting governments and other policy actors in the South in the development of National Forest Programmes. At the European level the Netherlands has actively participated in the preparatory processes of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE), with National Forest Programmes being explicitly adopted as an important policy tool to achieve sustainable forest management in Europe.

However, whether a National Forest Programme exists in the Netherlands itself can be highly contested. On several occasions, such as within the requirements of the EU regulation 1257/99, the Dutch government has reported on the existence of a NFP with reference to the recent Nature Policy Plan, which also includes forests and forest management (Mamali, 2003). And, indeed, several characteristics of this policy plan – such as its holistic and intersectoral approach and the search for partnerships for implementation – appear to be consistent with the principles for NFPs in Europe as adopted by the MCPFE expert level meeting (MCPFE, 2003). Nevertheless, central NFP principles – such as participation and the characteristics of an iterative process aiming at institutional and policy reforms of the forestry sector – have not played a role in the formulation of the existing Nature Policy Plan. Furthermore, by providing a set of definitions at its third session the IPF has clearly indicated that the concept of a NFP has a superior standing to the classical endeavors of planning at an operational and strategic level (Egestad, 1999, p. 13). The existing Dutch Nature Policy Plan must therefore be characterised as a far reaching and innovative strategic policy plan, but it cannot be seen as the full equivalent to a NFP (Van Tol and Savenije, 2003). This interpretation is supported by the fact that several European countries have started the process of formulating a NFP explicitly in addition to their already existing national forest policy strategies (Schanz, 2002). However, despite the generally strong orientation towards the international forest policy dialogue in the Netherlands, almost no voices are heard about the formulation of a NFP, neither in support nor in opposition. The question that immediately arises is, therefore, how the obvious mismatch between the attention given to the formulation and implementation of NFPs at the international level and on the national level in the Netherlands can be explained.

2. Characteristics of the Dutch forestry sector – impeding factors for NFPs?

Several good overviews on the structure of the Dutch forestry sector have recently been published (Oosterveld 1997; Schmidt et al., 1999, Wiersum and van Vliet, 1999). Based on these overviews three main characteristics of the Dutch forestry sector, which could possibly form impeding factors for the formulation of a Dutch NFP, can be distinguished:

1. Relatively low forest cover in a highly urbanised environment

The Netherlands is one of the most densely populated areas in Europe with an average population density of approximately 460 persons per square kilometre. The forest area is 335,000 hectares, which approximates to just 10% of the total land area. This means that the per capita forest area is only 0.02 hectare. These forests are relatively young. Due to overexploitation and conversion of forests to agricultural land around 1880 there were only 220,000 hectares of forests. Thanks to major plantation efforts, the forested area has since increased by 50%. This increase is still continuing with an annual increase of approx. 1,000 hectares. The Dutch government aims for a forest area of approximately 400,000 hectares by 2020.

The Netherlands is not only densely populated but is also highly urbanised. According to the OECD Rural Indicator Project approximately 85% of the country is predominantly urbanised. In an affluent society, people have increasing leisure time (Oosterveld, 1997). People's attitudes to forests are predominantly shaped by the perception of forests as antipodes to urban areas, characterised by naturalness and quietness. Consequently the most recent Dutch nature policy programme (MLNV, 2000) not only stresses the role of forest in and around urban settlements, but also particularly emphasises the role of forests for recreation, landscape and biodiversity. Forest policy has thus become a sub-sectoral issue of nature conservation policy and forest management in the Netherlands and – in contrast to tropical forestry – has not become the subject of widespread political discussion at national levels.

While at the local level “classical forest conflict situations” sometimes occur (Konijnendijk, 1997), especially in the context of urban forestry, at the national level there is a low level of conflict over forest resource use in the Netherlands. One potential reason could be the low economic relevance of timber use for most forest owners. A further contributory factor is that several relevant topics have been devolved from the national level to sub-national levels. For example, hunting regulations have become the responsibility of the provinces, while the municipalities have jurisdiction over general green space zoning and planning, as well as local restrictions.

2. Traditional strong role of nature conservation organisations

Nature conservation organisations traditionally play a strong role in Dutch forest management. Nature conservation organisations took a strong foothold in the discussions on efforts to reforest large devastated areas of heather around 1900. One of the most prominent nature conservation organisation managing forests in the Netherlands is the association Natuurmonumenten (lit. translated: nature monuments), with more than one million members (out of a total population of 16 million). In total, nature conservation organisations manage about 20% of the total forest area in the Netherlands.

Some of these organisations are mainly engaged in managing nature reserves (including forests), but others act as lobby groups advocating more attention to environmental protection and nature values. The latter are rather critical of the prevailing forest management practices, and have been very influential in stimulating discussion on new approaches to forest management (Zevenbergen, 2003).

At present, nearly 50% of all Dutch forests are publicly owned. Most of these public forests (62%) are owned by the state, approximately 30% by the municipalities, and the remainder by provinces and public organisations such as water supply companies. Around 1940, the areas of forests owned by municipalities and the state were more or less equal, but since then the state forest area has increased considerably. This reflects the prevailing view for most of the 20th century, that due to the long production cycles, as well as the multiple functions of forests many of which cannot be financially rewarded through market mechanisms, the state holds a major responsibility to maintain forests. Up until the 1970s, the state thus took over many private forests being sold by their owners. The Dutch Forest Service (SBB) has traditionally been in charge of managing these forests. Since then, however, forests have increasingly been bought by nature conservation organisations, in many cases with financial support from the government.

There is thus a relatively high diversity of owner-characteristics, including within state- and NGO-owned forestlands in the Netherlands, resulting in differing interests as regards the management and use of forest resources. There is not, therefore, one type of “public” forest management in the Netherlands, but rather several different “forestries”, which very rarely appear as “one forest sector” in public discussions on the use of forest resources. Because it does not have to rely on one single organisation as a partner in the management of public forestlands, the Ministry is in the comfortable situation of being able to initiate a certain level of competition amongst different public owners of forest (and nature) land. Nevertheless, the state forest service SBB is certainly the strongest and most significant amongst the public forest owners, if only by virtue of being the largest organisation with the most amount of land under its control. Recently it has gained an enhanced profile as an organisation with expertise in the management of other types of public real estate, for example large-scale historical sites.

This variety of “forestries” becomes even more diverse when privately owned forests are also taken into consideration, as will be shown below.

3. Fragmentation and smallness of private forest ownership

Although for many forest owners the financial gains from forestry are not the major motive for maintaining forests, the continuous financial losses in maintaining forests have forced several private forest owners to sell their forests. Consequently, during the last fifty years the area of private forest ownership has decreased by 25%. Only recently has private forestry again increased somewhat, mainly due to the afforestation of farmlands (Grayson, 1993). But the afforestation of farmlands is still low compared to other countries, as there is no tradition of mixed agricultural –forest farm enterprises in the Netherlands.

In contrast to the relatively large tracts of state owned forest, the forest plots owned by private individuals are characterised by their small size. Approximately 45% of private forest plots are between 0.5 and 5 hectares in size; only 18 private owners have a forest area that exceeds 500 hectares. The total number of forest owners is estimated to be around 16,000 minimum. However, only 1,713 forest owners are officially registered, as their forest property size exceeds the limit of 5 hectares. About 70,000 hectares of private forests are not registered with the Industrial Board for Forestry (in Dutch Bosschap, a non-governmental organisation representing the forest sector, with limited governmental liabilities delegated by the responsible ministry). This means that little is known about the large number of small scale forest owners and that about 20% of the total forest area is neither coordinated by the forest policy administration nor are subsidies paid for it. But as this situation has not resulted in conflicts, there is consequently limited interest from the ministry in investigating the situation of the smallest forest owners.

For most private owners forestry is not their main means of livelihood. Rather forests are kept as part of their estates, as ancestral lands, or as an outdoor recreation area for the family. Especially for small private landowners the motives for maintaining forests are mostly amenity and conservation, rather than production and financial (Van der Ploeg and Wiersum, 1996). Consequently, forest owners tend to be rather individualistic, and many are not professionally oriented to forestry. This attitude is backed up by a relatively liberal Forest Law. When the Forest Law was established in 1922, its main aim was to support an increase of forested area, without interfering too much with the interests of the individual forest owner, as it was feared that this would be counterproductive to the reforestation efforts of that time (Van de Kamp, 1998). Consequently forest management plans were not required for private forest owners. This has been confirmed by the last revision of the Forest Law in 1961 in which the obligations of private forest owners have been limited to announcing harvesting in advance, complying with certain phyto-sanitary standards, registering with the Bosschap and the general duty to reforest after cuttings.

The Forest Law furthermore provides Dutch forest owners with the right to restrict open access to their forest property. Forest surveillance through state agencies has always been limited to state forests and other public forest lands, with the exception of the short period of the German occupation during World War II. Having thus become associated with the negative experience of the occupation, the concept of surveillance of private forests has been discredited and has not been reintroduced since (Van de Kamp, 1998). It is only more recently that the property rights of the private forest owners have been restricted more rigidly by the new Nature Protection Act, which subordinates management goals to conservation, and particularly species protection aims (Van Vliet et al., 2002).

The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries has tried to stimulate cooperation between forest owners. However the role of regional cooperative groups is limited to technical management aspects. They have hardly had any impact on policy formulation– if any at all. Traditionally the state coordination of private forestry has concentrated on financial instruments, such as subsidy schemes as well as specific grants and tax regulations.

In summary, forest politics has become a sub-sector of nature conservation politics, which is reflected both in the administrative structure and the high importance of nature conservation NGOs as forest owners (20%) in the Netherlands. For the past decade there has been no basic disagreement on behalf of conservation NGOs with the national policy objectives for forest resources. Large conservation NGOs have established clientele relationships with the Ministry LNV, thus preferring direct contacts and lobbying to public action or campaigning at the national level. They have also been involved in the formulation of relevant policy documents such as the programme Nature for People – People for Nature, which is currently considered to be the major public policy document on nature conservation – and thus also for forest policy – in the Netherlands. NGOs thus have little to gain from a further institutionalisation of public debate on forest resource management, such as the formal initialisation of an NFP process in the Netherlands.