IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p2297-d502705.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing Sustainability Transitions through State-Led Participatory Processes: The Case of the Dutch North Sea Agreement

Author

Listed:
  • Susan de Koning

    (Wageningen Marine Research, Wageningen University & Research, Haringkade 1, 1976CP Ijmuiden, The Netherlands)

  • Nathalie Steins

    (Wageningen Marine Research, Wageningen University & Research, Haringkade 1, 1976CP Ijmuiden, The Netherlands)

  • Luc van Hoof

    (Wageningen Marine Research, Wageningen University & Research, Haringkade 1, 1976CP Ijmuiden, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Following the Paris Agreement, investing in renewable energy production at sea is perceived as a promising development. In addition, food security challenges place increased focus on utilizing seas and oceans while biodiversity and ecosystem integrity must be safeguarded. In the North Sea, these three challenges are combined by the Dutch government in a deliberative governance agreement, involving key stakeholders, aimed at establishing a marine spatial allocation strategy. This paper outlines the development and first outcomes of this agreement. Using concepts of sustainability transitions and deliberative governance, we examined the role of the Dutch government in creating sustainability solutions through cross-sectoral participation processes. Based on our results, we argue that only the government can bring together parties that do not actively seek cooperation, like fisheries organizations and wind farm developers. This is in line with the government’s role to ensure compliance with international and national agreements, while also representing local (national) stakes. By opening up a discussion between parties that in the past were competing for marine space, the Dutch government has managed to make progress in obtaining transition goals. One of these transitions is the transition of the governance system itself, moving towards a more egalitarian style of policy making.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan de Koning & Nathalie Steins & Luc van Hoof, 2021. "Balancing Sustainability Transitions through State-Led Participatory Processes: The Case of the Dutch North Sea Agreement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2297-:d:502705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2297/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2297/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sherry R. Arnstein, 2019. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 85(1), pages 24-34, January.
    2. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
    3. Smits, Coco C.A. & van Leeuwen, Judith & van Tatenhove, Jan P.M., 2017. "Oil and gas development in Greenland: A social license to operate, trust and legitimacy in environmental governance," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 109-116.
    4. Nathalie Steins & Victoria Edwards, 1999. "Synthesis: Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common-pool resources," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 16(3), pages 309-315, September.
    5. Zwartkruis, Joyce V. & Berg, Holger & Hof, Andries F. & Kok, Marcel T.J., 2020. "Agricultural nature conservation in the Netherlands: Three lenses on transition pathways," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Jentoft, Svein & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2009. "Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 553-560, July.
    7. Wright, Glen, 2015. "Marine governance in an industrialised ocean: A case study of the emerging marine renewable energy industry," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 77-84.
    8. Raoul Beunen & Jasper R. de Vries, 2011. "The governance of Natura 2000 sites: the importance of initial choices in the organisation of planning processes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 1041-1059, November.
    9. Nathalie Steins & Victoria Edwards, 1999. "Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common-pool resources," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 16(3), pages 241-255, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Murat Sartas & Piet van Asten & Marc Schut & Mariette McCampbell & Moureen Awori & Perez Muchunguzi & Moses Tenywa & Sylvia Namazzi & Ana Sole Amat & Graham Thiele & Claudio Proietti & Andre Devaux & , 2019. "Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Johnson, Nancy & Ravnborg, Helle Munk & Westermann, Olaf & Probst, Kirsten, 2001. "User participation in watershed management and research:," CAPRi working papers 19, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Charles Heckscher & John McCarthy, 2014. "Transient Solidarities: Commitment and Collective Action in Post-Industrial Societies," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 52(4), pages 627-657, December.
    4. Takako Izumi & Sangita Das & Miwa Abe & Rajib Shaw, 2022. "Managing Compound Hazards: Impact of COVID-19 and Cases of Adaptive Governance during the 2020 Kumamoto Flood in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Karin Andrea Wigger & Dean A. Shepherd, 2020. "We’re All in the Same Boat: A Collective Model of Preserving and Accessing Nature-Based Opportunities," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(3), pages 587-617, May.
    6. José Ribas, 2014. "An Assessment of Conflicting Intentions in the Use of Multipurpose Water Reservoirs," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(12), pages 3989-4000, September.
    7. Anabel Sanchez-Plaza & Annelies Broekman & Pilar Paneque, 2019. "Analytical Framework to Assess the Incorporation of Climate Change Adaptation in Water Management: Application to the Tordera River Basin Adaptation Plan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, February.
    8. Domenico Dentoni & Verena Bitzer & Greetje Schouten, 2018. "Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 333-356, June.
    9. Peter Jones, 2013. "Governing protected areas to fulfil biodiversity conservation obligations: from Habermasian ideals to a more instrumental reality," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 39-50, February.
    10. Nicolas Faysse, 2006. "Troubles on the way: An analysis of the challenges faced by multi‐stakeholder platforms," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 30(3), pages 219-229, August.
    11. Das, Nimai, 2009. "Understanding of Social Capital in Gender-based Participatory JFM Programme: An Evidence from West Bengal," MPRA Paper 15304, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Muñoz Escobar, Marcela & Hollaender, Robert & Pineda Weffer, Camilo, 2013. "Institutional durability of payments for watershed ecosystem services: Lessons from two case studies from Colombia and Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 46-53.
    13. Inga C. Melchior & Jens Newig, 2021. "Governing Transitions towards Sustainable Agriculture—Taking Stock of an Emerging Field of Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, January.
    14. John Selsky & Barbara Parker, 2010. "Platforms for Cross-Sector Social Partnerships: Prospective Sensemaking Devices for Social Benefit," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 21-37, July.
    15. Sartas, Murat & Schut, Marc & Hermans, Frans & Asten, Piet van & Leeuwis, Cees, 2018. "Effects of multi-stakeholder platforms on multi-stakeholder innovation networks: Implications for research for development interventions targeting innovations at scale," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(6), pages 1-20.
    16. Josefina Erikson & Oscar L. Larsson, 2020. "How platforms facilitate collaboration across organizational boundaries: fighting human trafficking in Sweden," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 181-203, March.
    17. Weingart, Anne & Kirk, Michael, 2008. "Escaping poverty traps?: Collective action and property rights in post-war rural Cambodia," CAPRi working papers 89, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. Helle Ravnborg & María Guerrero, 1999. "Collective action in watershed management -- experiences from the Andean hillsides," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 16(3), pages 257-266, September.
    19. Michiko Iizuka & Jorge Katz, 2011. "Natural Resource Industries, ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ and the Case of Chilean Salmon Farming," Institutions and Economies (formerly known as International Journal of Institutions and Economies), Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya, vol. 3(2), pages 259-286, July.
    20. Brisbois, Marie Claire & Morris, Michelle & de Loë, Rob, 2019. "Augmenting the IAD framework to reveal power in collaborative governance – An illustrative application to resource industry dominated processes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 159-168.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2297-:d:502705. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.