A Strategic Policy Tool Or Democracy 2.0?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Alderstable: a strategic policy tool or democracy 2.0? An analysis of unconventional types of participation in the Schiphol Airport development policy process Ferrie Förster MSc Thesis Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management Delft University of Technology Platform Nederlandse Luchtvaart June 2013 ii The Alderstable: a strategic policy tool or democracy 2.0? The Alderstable: a strategic policy tool or democracy 2.0? An analysis of unconventional types of participation in the Schiphol Airport development policy process MSc thesis Ferrie Förster Student number: 1260847 [email protected] +31654930585 Graduation committee: Chairman Prof. dr. Bert van Wee (Transport & Logistics) First supervisor Dr. ir. Maarten Kroesen (Transport & Logistics) Second supervisor Dr. ir. Sebastiaan Meijer (Policy, Organization, Law & Gaming) External supervisor Drs. Joris Vlaming (Platform Nederlandse Luchtvaart) Keywords: Alderstable, Schiphol Airport, policy process, interactive policy making, unconventional participation, Q-methodology Source of cover picture: Schiphol Group iii The Alderstable: a strategic policy tool or democracy 2.0? Preface This thesis is the final part of my Master of Science program Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management at the faculty of Technology, Policy and Management at Delft University of Technology. This research has been performed at Platform Nederlandse Luchtvaart, a platform that is committed to an economically healthy, sustainable and safe aviation by providing reliable information and expertise to politics and public. The research provides insight into unconventional types of participation in the Schiphol Airport development policy process, describes its advantages and disadvantages, compares it with other policy processes and asks stakeholders about their opinion on the policy process. I would like to thank all persons that have contributed to my research: my family and friends for their support, my colleagues from Platform Nederlandse Luchtvaart, my interviewees, the respondents of the Q-methodology, Ricky Curran and Warren Walker of Delft University of Technology for providing foreign contacts regarding airport development policy processes, the foreign contacts themselves: Richard de Neufville, Douglas Baker, Andreas Hotes and Andrew Daly, the members of my graduation committee for their feedback and the interesting discussions: Maarten Kroesen, Sebastiaan Meijer, Bert van Wee and especially Joris Vlaming, also for providing me the opportunity to perform my graduation research at Platform Nederlandse Luchtvaart. Utrecht, June 2013, Ferrie Förster iv The Alderstable: a strategic policy tool or democracy 2.0? Executive summary This research gives insight into the advantages and disadvantages of unconventional participation in the Schiphol Airport development policy process. A Q-methodology is performed to identify the perspectives of stakeholders regarding the current and future Schiphol Airport development policy process. The main conclusions of this research are: The Alderstable is a unique policy process, because there are no other policy processes identified that have such a high level of participation, including resident representatives, who co-decide about issues of national importance; There are some clear advantages and disadvantages of unconventional types of participation in the Schiphol Airport development policy process, it is the question whether the benefits such as creating support for decisions regarding the development of Schiphol Airport outweigh the advantages such as putting time and effort in such an extensive policy process; Stakeholders are quite positive about the Alderstable, but they have some comments on the functioning of the CROS, mainly because it has a less prominent role since the introduction of the Alderstable. In addition, the participation of resident representatives creates a new gap between those resident representatives and the residents who they represent. Furthermore, some stakeholders think that the resident representatives have a too important role: the question is what their legitimacy and mandate is and what the best way is to represent those residents; Five perspectives regarding the current and future Schiphol Airport development policy process can be identified: ‘Government, stop the further growth of Schiphol!’, ‘Room for Schiphol’, ‘No room for Schiphol’, ‘Together we can make a broad policy’ and ‘Let the parties mutually come to a decision’; Stakeholders think that the current process is not very effective and efficient, mainly because the expectation management is not good, the role of the Ministry is not active enough and their framework is not clear enough. According to a majority of the respondents, the Ministry should give a main line framework and let the parties mutually come to a decision on the further development of Schiphol Airport in the future policy process. Next to that, the Ministry has to show their colors more and residents are allowed in the decision making process; There is a high level of disagreement between the perspectives on some statements: mainly on the further growth of Schiphol Airport and on the responsibilities of spatial planning and housing construction around Schiphol Airport; The perspectives are divided regarding the characterization of the Alderstable as a strategic policy tool and as democracy 2.0. Overall, it can be said that the Alderstable has solved direct problems and local residents have added knowledge and experience, but the Alderstable can also be used as a tool to involve stakeholders in the policy process. Given the above conclusions, the following recommendations can be done: Include BAS (Bewoners Aanspreekpunt Schiphol, the resident information point and complaints center), in the ORS (Omgevingsraad Schiphol, the Environment Council Schiphol); v The Alderstable: a strategic policy tool or democracy 2.0? Ensure full information and optimal communication by providing all relevant available information regarding the development of Schiphol Airport; Ensure a high level expectation management for the ORS, by clearly defining the level of participation, the roles of the participants, the framework, the final goals, the time scope and the Rules of Procedure; Ensure an efficient and effective structure for the ORS and prevent fragmentation in terms of the introduction of several working groups, committees etcetera; Involve national politicians in the process of introduction of the ORS to discuss the starting points and participants of the ORS; Focus on improvements of the Meeting place which will replace the CROS. Ensure a broad consultation within the ORS that all stakeholders can join who are interested to discuss a variety of subjects regarding Schiphol Airport; Ensure a decision making body of a smaller group of participants within the ORS to propose measures regarding the development of Schiphol Airport, following the example of the Alderstable; Limit the level of participation of the ORS to co-producing of policy proposals for the further development of Schiphol Airport Improve the representation of regional and local authorities and try to reach one representation, for example through a (geographically) clustered system; Improve the representation of local residents, for example through a (geographically) clustered system and make effort to also involve the ‘silent’ citizens; Involve the subjects of long term development of Schiphol Airport and spatial planning and housing construction around Schiphol Airport in the ORS; Enable national politicians to make decisions about the long term development of Schiphol Airport; Perform an external evaluation of the Alderstable process by (policy) process experts; Perform further research on the most effective and efficient structure of the ORS, on the representation of regional and local authorities and on the representation of local residents. vi The Alderstable: a strategic policy tool or democracy 2.0? Summary Dutch citizens have become more involved in policy making the past few decades, because they are more willing to take action when the government prepares unjust decisions and they have the idea they can influence those decisions. In addition, politicians and policy makers have stimulated types of unconventional participation in order to increase the support for their decisions. In the Schiphol Airport development policy process, these types of unconventional participation are present as well. Several consultations have been introduced such as the BRS (Bestuurlijke Regie Schiphol, the Regional Coordinative Consultation); a consultation that discusses issues regarding Schiphol Airport and consists of regional and local authorities. In 2003, the CROS (Commissie Regionaal Overleg luchthaven Schiphol, the Regional Consultative Committee Schiphol Airport) has been established as a deliberative body in which aviation sector parties, regional and local authorities and resident representatives participate. This body has the goal to minimize nuisance resulting from Schiphol Airport and to promote an optimal use of the airport and can currently give a requested or unrequested advice to the Minister. Next to the CROS, the Alderstable (Alderstafel) is functioning since 2006, which is a deliberative body consisting of the Ministry of I&E (Infrastructure and the Environment, Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu), aviation sector parties (BARIN, KLM, Schiphol Group, LVNL),