See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/40114714

Environmental co-operatives as institutional arrangement for creating

coherence

Article · January 2001

Source: OAI

CITATION READS

1 130

2 authors:

Henk Renting Jan DOUWE VAN DER Ploeg

RUAF Foundation (International Network of Resource Centres on Urban Agricul… Wageningen University & Research
105 PUBLICATIONS   3,796 CITATIONS    430 PUBLICATIONS   7,215 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

BICAS -- BRICS Initiatives for Critical Agrarian Studies View project

Multagri View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Henk Renting on 05 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85 – 101 (2001)
DOI: 10.1002/jepp.75

Reconnecting Nature, Farming and Society:

Environmental Cooperatives in the Netherlands as
Institutional Arrangements for Creating Coherence
HENK RENTING* AND JAN DOUWE VAN DER PLOEG
Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT An important implication of agricultural modernization has been the break-down of interlinkages between
farming, ecology and society. Historically, farming systems evolved from the specific responses of farming communities to
local ecological conditions. The totality of regionalized farming systems arising out of this co-production moulded the
countryside into an ‘archipelago’ of differentiated ruralities. During the period of agricultural modernization, the nature of
co-production changed thoroughly. The natural elements in co-production were increasingly artificialized or replaced by
industrial artefacts. This paper analyses the emergence of environmental cooperatives in the Netherlands as a movement
towards a renewed embedding of farming in its local environment. Environmental cooperatives are local farmers
associations that promote activities related to sustainable agriculture and rural development and claim to be actively
involved in effectuating rural policies in their locale. Since the foundation of the first cooperative in 1992, numbers have
rapidly grown to over 100. This paper examines the genesis and practices of environmental cooperatives and assesses their
socio-economic and ecological impact. The importance lies most of all, so the authors contend, in that they represent
valuable ‘field laboratories’ for building stimulating and supportive institutional contexts for remodelling Dutch farming along
the lines of environmental and economic sustainability. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: environmental cooperatives; the Netherlands; socio-economic

Agricultural modernization and the
break-down of coherence
An important consequence of agricultural mod-
ernization has been the accelerated break-down
of interlinkages between farming, local ecology
and society. Historically, farming systems
evolved as a result of the specific responses of
farming communities to local ecological condi-
tions — that is, they resulted out of a particular
form of co-production of nature and society. In
an attempt to overcome natural limitations and
valorize endogenous qualities, a wide array of
regionalized agricultural systems developed.
Each of these was adjusted, in its own peculiar
way, to its terroir (Allaire & Sylvander, 1995;
* Correspondence to: Rural Sociology Group, Department of
Social Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 8130, NL-6700
EW Wageningen, the Netherlands. Tel: + 31 (0)317 485039;
fax: +31 (0)317 485475; e-mail: henk.renting@alg.swg.wau.nl
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Barjolle et al., 1998), which is the specific mix of
physical, natural and human resources present in
the area of its emergence. The totality of re-
gionalized agricultural systems or farming styles
(Hofstee, 1946; Ploeg, 1994) moulded the Eu-
ropean countryside into a kind of ‘archipelago’
of differentiated ruralities (Hoggart et al., 1995).
These were exemplified by a diversity of local
farming techniques, regional speciality products,
local breeds of animals and crops, typical rural
architectures, farmed landscapes and particular
ecological values embedded in these (Meeus et
al., 1988).
Thus, regionally embedded farming systems
represented a coherent set of interrelations be-
tween farming as a socio-economic activity, lo-
cal ecology, rural culture and society at large.
This particular type of agricultural development,
in which human land-use and local nature grad-
ually developed side by side over long periods
of time, dominated European history for
Received 15 January 2001
Revised 5 March 2001
Accepted 7 March 2001
86
centuries and persisted until the early twentieth
century (Pienkowski, 1998). With the modern-
ization approach to agriculture becoming domi-
nant in the past century, a fundamentally
distinct set of coordination mechanisms came to
control agricultural development. In particular,
the incorporation of farming into commodity
markets (not only in vertical product filières, but
also in capital and input markets) and the large-
scale introduction of externally developed tech-
nologies have taken over the role of regionally
embedded coordination mechanisms (Ploeg,
1990).
This shift to essentially extra-local coordina-
tion mechanisms resulted in the production of
various disconnections between farming and its
local social and natural environment (Ploeg,
1992). The disconnection of agricultural pro-
duction from local ecology and the various
environmental problems arising from this is
widely recognized by now. Similarly, many lo-
calized social mechanisms that reproduced the
specificity of agriculture, such as common land
uses and community-based forms of labour
exchange, were dismantled in the process
of modernization. Recent experience clearly
demonstrates that the break-down of coher-
ence associated with modernization has now
stretched far beyond the boundaries of farming
and its direct environment. Indeed, the wider
social and institutional relations that surround farm-
ing and food production are increasingly char-
acterized by tensions, disconnections and
distrust (Raad voor het Landelijk Gebied,
1998).1 This is perhaps most obvious at the
level of the relations between farming and soci-
ety at large, where food ‘scares’ and alleged
health risks have become major concerns of
consumers and politicians (Goodman, 1999).
Institutional relations between the farming
sector and the state and rural society itself are
increasingly characterized by a deep and wide-
spread distrust. Even the complex web of inter-
relations between farmers is penetrated by
conflict and distrust. Due to market and policy
developments, the opportunities for expanding
production— one of the crucial mechanisms for
the further ‘unfolding’ of the modernization
model— have become seriously limited. This is
exemplified by market policies such as dairy
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
H. Renting and J.D. van der Ploeg
quotas and by the restrictions set on the avail-
able ‘environmental space’ by spatial planning
and environmental regulations. The generalized
impossibility of expanding total production in-
troduces a ‘zero-sum’ situation: progress for
some farms can only be realized through the
decline or disappearance of others. As a result,
farmers increasingly have to compete with each
other over their limited prospects and enter into
an internal ‘struggle for the future’.
Similar tensions occur between farming and
other rural actors and entrepreneurs. Rural areas
are no longer automatic strongholds of farming.
The increased importance of consumption inter-
ests (Marsden et al., 1993) resulted in the ap-
pearance of a range of ‘rural others’ (Milbourne,
1997); this increased social differentiation,
which again introduced new conflicts and ten-
sions in rural areas. Manuring or the application
of pesticides no longer have to fit in with farm
management strategies and environmental regu-
lations, it may also turn into a source of con-
flicts with neighbours and cause serious
problems in obtaining planning permission. An-
other frequent source of tension has been the
growing importance of nature and landscape
interests (Mormont, 1987). Professional organi-
zations increasingly claim conservation as their
prerogative and set out to create ‘wildlife re-
serves’ that are clearly segregated from farmer-
controlled land.
In short, rural society is deeply divided inter-
nally. There is a generalized distrust between
farmers, the state and other rural actors, and it
consequently results in an increased potential
for conflicts too. It is important to underline
that this distrust is mutual and that the distrust
of one party reinforces that of another. Farmers’
reactions are increasingly understood by the
wider public and within state apparatuses as
expressions of unwillingness, sabotage or ‘slow-
ing-down tactics’ in order not to meet the de-
mands of the wider society towards agriculture.2
Hence, the regulatory burden and culture
grows, implying an ever stronger prescription of
the farm labour process (Frouws et al., 1996) and
fast rising costs for control and surveillance.
The subsequent practical contradictions and
obligatory investment rounds at farm level
(Ward, 1993) and the fact that many possible
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
Reconnecting Nature, Farming and Society
farm development trajectories are blocked off,3
in turn, reinforce farmers’ distrust of state agen-
cies and society at large (i.e. ‘the consumer’).
Moreover, through this mechanism many farms
are drawn into a state of ‘semi-clandestinity’.
Rural development as an alternative
paradigm for farming and society
In spite of the uniforming effects of agricultural
modernization, farming continues to be charac-
terized by a considerable degree of diversity —
as documented inter alia in various farming styles
studies (Ploeg, 1999). The modernization of
agriculture, and its production of disconnec-
tions, is therefore by no means an automatically
‘unfolding’ process. Whilst some farmers opted
explicitly for the modernization model of the
‘vanguard farm’, others actively and consciously
developed ingenious ways of retaining the au-
tonomy of their farm and successfully con-
structed alternative trajectories. For a long time
these alternative development trajectories re-
mained ‘blind spots’ within official political and
scientific discourses, since they were considered
to be temporary phenomena predestined to dis-
appear with the further unfolding of moderniza-
tion. In view of the changing policy goals for
rural areas and the new societal needs articu-
lated for rural areas, we have recently witnessed
a revaluation of the diversity of farm develop-
ment trajectories.
It is widely accepted that the productivist
model of farm development has serious negative
side-effects for food quality and the environ-
ment, and it may at best be a viable develop-
ment model for a small part of the farming
population. Many ‘traditional’ farming systems,
which were foreseen to disappear under the
modernization paradigm, are moving to the
front of the policy agenda again and have been
revalued for their ‘high nature value’ (Beaufoy et
al., 1994) or as providers of regional quality
food (De Roest, 2000). Pluriactivity, once con-
ceived as an indication of ‘insufficient agri-
culture’ (Etxezarreta, 1985), is increasingly
recognized as a persistent phenomenon that
may hold important clues for new viable and
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
87
sustainable livelihood strategies (Kinsella et al.,
2000). Last but not least, a range of new rural
development activities has emerged — including
organic farming (Miele, 2001), agro-tourism and
agri-environmental measures—which are in-
creasingly adopted by farm households as a
means to strengthen their business (Broekhuizen
et al., 1997). Many of these new (and revitalized
‘old’) practices correspond to a development
rationale that is fundamentally distinct from the
modernization approach. They represent the
contours of a new rural development paradigm that
goes fundamentally beyond the postulates of
modernization (Ploeg & Renting, 2000; Ploeg et
al., 2000).
Environmental cooperatives as
carriers for the re-embedding of
farming
The emergence of environmental cooperatives
in Dutch farming should be understood against
this background. Environmental cooperatives4
are innovative associations of farmers based at
local or regional level, which promote and orga-
nize activities related to sustainable agriculture
and rural development in their locale. They also
claim to be actively involved in the formulation
and realization of adequate rural policies within
their operational boundaries. The activities
taken up by environmental cooperatives are
highly variable. In most cases they involve na-
ture and landscape management and the reduc-
tion environmental pollution on member farms,
but may also cover water management, agro-
tourism, regional quality production and organic
farming.
Environmental cooperatives started emerging
in the early 1990s in response to the crisis of
productivist agriculture, a general concern over
the deteriorating public image of farming and,
most of all, the increasing body of environmen-
tal regulations that were seen by many farmers
at that time as unworkable in the practice of
their farms. Since the first environmental coop-
erative was officially founded in 1992, numbers
have grown to more then 100 at present. Col-
lectively, they have developed into a social
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
88
movement for the remodelling of Dutch farming
along the lines of environmental and economic
sustainability. In the remaining part of this pa-
per we will go further into the genesis and
practices of environmental cooperatives and
analyse their impact in rural development terms.
The meaning and (potential) role of environ-
mental cooperatives, we contend, is most of all
that their practices (and certainly those of the
more advanced ones) represent interesting ‘field
laboratories’ for innovations in the institutional
embedding of a transformation towards sustainable
rural development.
The innovative element contained within the
practices of environmental cooperatives is that
they enable the construction of new networks to
facilitate sustainable agriculture and rural devel-
opment in the locality they cover. By (re-)
creating linkages between farming, local ecol-
ogy and landscape, and the wider social and
institutional environment, environmental coop-
eratives play an important role in enabling a
renewed embedding of farming. The following
elements are crucial in this process.
New institutional relations between the state and
agriculture
Environmental cooperatives represent an at-
tempt to build new institutional relations be-
tween the state and the farming population. In
doing so they endeavour to go beyond the
generalized distrust that has permeated state –
farm relations. Environmental cooperatives cer-
tainly criticize and question the overload of
state regulations that apply at farm level. How-
ever, instead of falling into ‘slowing-down tac-
tics’, they generally accept and endorse the
policy objectives set by state agencies. Simulta-
neously, environmental cooperatives claim sub-
stantial reforms and more flexibility in their
implementation. The centralized, top-down pre-
scription of how policy goals are to be imple-
mented at the local level is demanded to be
replaced by a more cooperative policy strategy
that actively involves farmers through legally
conditioned forms of self-regulation. In this re-
spect environmental cooperatives pop up as new
institutional arenas for negotiation and cooperation.
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
H. Renting and J.D. van der Ploeg
The emerging new institutional relations be-
tween farming and state apparatuses essentially
involve the following exchange principle. Responsi-
ble state agencies define clear and quantifiable
policy goals with respect to the environment,
landscape, nature, product quality etc. for the
area covered by the cooperative. The member
farmers of the cooperative in turn promise not
only to endorse these goals, but also to do
everything within their reach to realize these
goals in the most effective way. It follows from
experience that environmental cooperatives are
able, in many cases, to effectuate policy goals
more quickly, more convincingly, more effec-
tively and in cheaper ways than generic state
regulations. Some environmental cooperatives
commit themselves to go considerably further
than the established generic policy goals.
In exchange for this self-chosen obligation (in
Dutch inspanningsverplichting, literally ‘commit-
ment to act’ or ‘obligation to make an effort’),
more flexibility with respect to the exact ways
of policy implementation on member farms is
assigned to the environmental cooperatives.
That is, they are allowed to develop themselves
the measures and instruments that they consider the
most adequate in realizing policy goals in the
particular local context. Environmental coopera-
tives, therefore, represent a decisive step be-
yond the now reigning approach of centrally
imposed generic policy measures.
The exchange deal between state agencies
and the environmental cooperative is contractu-
ally regulated. In most cases, environmental coop-
eratives write their own policy and activity plan,
which both present their view on rural develop-
ment in the area and specify planned activities
(including a strict timetable and necessary bud-
gets). This forms the basis for talks with rele-
vant government departments and agencies, in
which the concrete projects of the cooperative
take shape and where the conditions for these
projects are negotiated (budgets, exemptions
from generic regulations etc.). The negotiated
result is in many cases formalized in an agreement
or covenant signed by all parties. The negotiated
projects and liberties are only open to members
of the environmental cooperative. Other non-
member farms in the area covered by the coop-
erative continue to be subject to generic policy
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
Reconnecting Nature, Farming and Society
measures. Environmental cooperatives are usu-
ally appointed for a number of years to demon-
strate the viability of their approach. If
successful, the agreement is renewed; if not, it is
terminated and member farmers are again sub-
ject to the reigning generic regulations. In prin-
ciple, this excludes free-rider behaviour at the level
of the cooperative as a whole. The same mecha-
nism generally applies to member farmers.
Members who clearly sabotage the agreed mea-
sures or clearly fail to make an effort may be
expelled and hence will again have to resort to
the generic rules.
Rebuilding networks of trust at the local level
At the local level, environmental cooperatives
frequently emerge as vehicles or mechanisms
capable of overcoming existing contradictions
and distrust. They do this by actively creating
new networks and coalitions between the farm-
ing population and other rural interest groups.
These include, amongst others, environmental
groups, professional nature conservation agen-
cies, associations of rural dwellers and organiza-
tions of other rural entrepreneurs (tourism and
leisure, shops etc.). Many environmental coop-
eratives take position explicitly against the in-
creased potential for conflicts between farming
and other land uses in the area covered by the
cooperatives. A statement of one of the cooper-
atives is telling in this respect.
We have become more convinced that develop-
ments in agriculture cannot be seen as isolated
from other functions in our area. We feel that
different interests have become too much drawn
apart. We have come to the conclusion that the
joining of forces and interests may open new
perspectives for our region and its inhabitants.
(VEL, 1994, p. 17)
Instead of viewing the future of agriculture in
isolation, environmental cooperatives advocate
an integrated development of land uses and
economic activities in their region. The com-
monly used term is verweving (integration, liter-
ally ‘interweaving’ of functions at local level). By
going beyond distrust and conflicts, environ-
mental cooperatives open the way for a range of
new coalitions at the local level. Conceptually,
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
89
this may be understood as the building of social
capital (Putnam, 1993) —that is, the consolida-
tion and reinforcement of social networks facili-
tating cooperation between local actors who
may be employed as a resource base for joint
projects at a later stage.
The re-embedding of farming
The efforts of environmental cooperatives to
rearrange institutional relations with state agen-
cies and other actors eventually aim at creating
sufficient room for manoeuvre at the farm level
to establish a re-embedding of farming prac-
tices. At the farm level, a wide range of possibil-
ities exists to realign farming, ecology and wider
society, although the exact lines along which to
proceed may be highly differentiated (De Bruin
& Ploeg, 1991). In order to be able to actually
effectuate these potentials, it is necessary to
alleviate the strong external pressures from mar-
ket forces and prescriptive policy frameworks.
In this respect, environmental cooperatives are
an attempt to restore the wholeness, contextuality
and specificity of farming, inter alia, by reinforcing
the craftsmanship of farmers and their capacity
to produce tailor-made innovations that are
fine-tuned to the particularities of localized set-
tings (Leeuwis, 1993; Eshuis, 2001; for a theo-
retical discussion, see Callon, 1999).
Environmental cooperatives by no means em-
body a simple deregulation of agricultural pro-
duction; rather, they envisage a re-regulation of
farming in line with the needs of their specific
locality. Just as the modernization model could
flourish due to the existence of a favourable
institutional environment of policy incentives,
research and extension, a renewed embedding
of farming supposes a responsive institutional
back-up (Ploeg & Frouws, 1999; Roep, 2000). It
is telling that environmental cooperatives are
among the pioneers in experimenting with new
codes and rules, which might be instrumental in
the building of a new regulatory framework for
regionally embedded farming systems. Nature
management plans, mineral balances, ecological
norms, codes of conduct and farm certification
schemes are some of the examples. All these
institutional innovations have in common, that
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
90
they enable the locus of control of farming and
rural development to be shifted back to essen-
tially locality-specific coordination mechanisms.
On the genesis and practices of
environmental cooperatives
What are the underlying reasons for the emer-
gence of environmental cooperatives? And why
do they occur in the specific form outlined
above? It is not easy to answer these questions
due to the highly specific nature of each initia-
tive. Each environmental cooperative has its
own particular and often highly local roots, and
these contextual factors influence the specific
form taken in each setting, the concrete activi-
ties taken up and the degree of success. The
Appendix summarizes one specific experience in
order to indicate how the general trend towards
environmental cooperatives and the many par-
ticularities of local contexts interact.
The specificity of local contexts influenced
the genesis and practices of environmental co-
operatives in several ways. First, the factors that
triggered off their founding are often highly
localized. As the Appendix shows, the first
environmental cooperatives were often a re-
sponse to local issues—especially related to
practical problems experienced by local farmers
as a consequence of the framework of rigid
generic (environmental) regulations. Local farm-
ers mobilize themselves as a result of a wide
range of regulations. For Vereniging Eastermar’s
Lânsdouwe (VEL) and Vereniging Agrarisch
Natuur en Landschapsbeheer Achtkarspelen
(VANLA), it was the regulatory framework sur-
rounding ‘acidification’ that threatened to block
any further prospect for farm development; in
other situations, for example, it was the obliga-
tion to apply manure through injection tech-
niques being at odds with existing practices of
meadow bird protection. In recent years, the
inspiring examples of existing cooperatives in-
creasingly became a motivation for farmers else-
where to organize themselves along similar
lines.
Second, the exact mix of activities taken up
by the cooperatives is highly differentiated;
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
H. Renting and J.D. van der Ploeg
again, the local level is decisive. A general
pattern is that the curbing down of environmen-
tal pressure on member farms (e.g. through
study groups) and activities related to the farm-
ers’ management of nature and landscape usually
constitute the initial core activities. However,
various environmental cooperatives extended
their reach far beyond this and have taken up
activities as diverse as agro-tourism, water man-
agement, the management of public roads and
footpaths, regional quality production or or-
ganic farming.
Finally, the particular organizational form of
environmental cooperatives is highly differenti-
ated and influenced by differences in regional
culture and history (Hees et al., 1994; Hees,
2000). In some cases, environmental coopera-
tives grew from previously existing farmers’ as-
sociations, such as action groups working on
Third World issues or nature management in
the 1970s and 1980s. In other places, they
revived traditional forms of cooperation and
common land use that had become out of use
during modernization, but now in view of the
new political context had regained their func-
tionality. There are only a few examples of
cooperatives that originated in the regular farm-
ers’ unions. In fact, the incapacity of farmers’
unions to adequately address local issues appears
to be a reason for the emergence of environ-
mental cooperatives. For a long time, conven-
tional farmers’ unions in the Netherlands
remained strong defenders of the modernization
model, an attitude that only started to change
slowly in recent years. In most regions, environ-
mental cooperatives received hardly any support
from the institutionalized farmers’ unions, cer-
tainly in the early days. A more positive attitude
has developed only recently, although there are
again important regional differences. An impor-
tant exception to this pattern has been the
southern region of Noord-Brabant and Limburg,
which maintains a strong pig-farming sector.
Here the phenomenon has been instrumental to
local farmers’ unions in breaking through the
policy impasse surrounding this sector.
In more general terms, it can be hypothesized
that the particular development of policy frame-
works in the Netherlands has been a factor that
triggered off the emergence of environmental
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
Reconnecting Nature, Farming and Society
cooperatives. In view of the strong alignment of
the Dutch expert system with modernization,
policy approaches for the countryside had a
strong agricultural focus until recently (Frouws,
1998). For a long time, rural development pol-
icy was regarded as useful for Alpine and Med-
iterranean regions but irrelevant to Dutch
farming. In this respect, it is telling that the
main European policy framework for rural de-
velopment, LEADER, was hardly implemented:
only in its second phase was the programme
applied in four regions. This does not mean that
the shift towards territorial and ‘bottom-up’ ap-
proaches completely passed by the Netherlands.
A similar approach emerged in the 1990s, but
rather as part of environmental and nature poli-
cies where specific territorial schemes already
applied. To some extent environmental cooper-
atives represent a field response to these par-
ticular policy developments.5 Their practices
embody several elements that are articulated in
other national contexts as part of LEADER-type
programmes (Mannion, 1996; Ray, 2000).
The socio-economic and
environmental impact of
environmental cooperatives
For an assessment of the (potential) role of
environmental cooperatives in rural develop-
ment, it is important to unpack their impact in
socio-economic and environmental terms. Fur-
thermore, this enables us to better understand
the underlying mechanisms and driving forces.
Why do people make the effort to get involved?
What do they gain from participation? It also
helps us to better understand the (potential)
‘value added’ of environmental cooperatives in
terms of various rural development objectives
(Knickel & Renting, 2000; Ploeg & Renting,
2000). In the following, we will explore some of
the available empirical evidence of the impact of
environmental cooperatives, by analysing (i)
their scale and reach (i.e. what is the number of
farms involved and how much land do they
represent?) and (ii) the ‘value added’ of the
activities (i.e. what improvements in environ-
mental and socio-economic performance have
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
91
been realized as a consequence of the member-
ship of an environmental cooperative?).
The scale and reach of environmental cooperatives
It is hardly possible to make a reliable assess-
ment of the number of actually existing environ-
mental cooperatives, and even less so of the
number of farms and the amount of land in-
volved. Environmental cooperatives do not re-
late to any official category, nor have they been
stimulated by any nation-wide policy scheme.
Therefore, their number is not officially regis-
tered. It is clear that the number of cooperatives
increased rapidly after the foundation of the
first one in 1992. An initial inventory in 1993
demonstrated that their number had already
grown to 26 (Hees et al., 1994). The database
on the website of the Innovation Centre
Wageningen (2000), which contains 73 envi-
ronmental cooperatives, gives an indication of
the actual number. The most comprehensive
data comes from the Agricultural Economics
Group of Wageningen University, who in the
mid-1999 traced 81 cooperatives (Polman &
Slangen, 1999). We think that these figures
(partly due to the specific local nature of the
phenomenon) are still an under-estimate and we
consider 100 to be a fair estimation of the
number of existing environmental cooperatives.
The data collected by Polman & Slangen
(1999) gives us an idea of the reach of environ-
mental cooperatives. On the basis of a postal
questionnaire, it was determined that the 81
cooperatives were composed of 6600 members
farms with about 134000 hectares of land in
use. This implies that 6% of all Dutch farms in
1999 were organized in environmental coopera-
tives and that member farms represented 7% of
total agricultural land. Table 1 gives the re-
gional distribution of initiatives.
The data indicate that there are a number of
regional clusters of environmental cooperatives.
One cluster is located in the northern province
of Friesland, where the first environmental co-
operatives emerged, and another one in the
western part of the Netherlands in the provinces
of North and South Holland and Utrecht. This
cluster refers to the ‘Green Heart’—that is, the
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
92 H. Renting and J.D. van der Ploeg
Table 1. Provincial distribution of environmental cooperatives in 1999

Province Number of Number of Percentage of Total area covered Percentage of

cooperatives member total number by cooperatives total agricultural
farms of farms (1000 ha) area

Groningen 6 200 1 7 4
Friesland 16 590 8 23 8
Drenthe 2 70 1 4 2
Overijssel 2 130 1 0 0
Gelderland 12 330 2 4 1
Limburg 6 3030 40 15 11
Utrecht 10 590 13 17 19
Noord-Holland 12 530 6 27 15
Zuid-Holland 12 1060 9 34 18
Zeeland 4 70 1 3 1
Total 81 6600 6 134 7

Source: Polman & Slangen (1999).

highly valued rural area within the large urban
agglomeration of the west Netherlands (Amster-
dam– Rotterdam –Utrecht –The Hague). The
clusters in Friesland and the ‘Green Heart’ are in
line with the experience that there is a relatively
strong institutional support in these areas, from
both provincial governments and regional farm-
ers unions. A third cluster appears to be located
in the southern province of Limburg. This may
be biased, however; for in the case of a few
organizations in this region, all members of
local farmers unions are automatically members
of the environmental cooperative. The regional
clustering implies that in some areas the share of
farms organized in cooperatives is considerably
higher than the national average. In some areas
this may rise to about 10%, whilst the share of
farmland covered may rise to 15 –20%.
The data also make clear that environmental
cooperatives generally attract relatively large,
full-time farms. The average size of cooperatives
is about 70 members with 1600 ha (23 ha on
average per farm). In regions where there is an
environmental cooperative, about 50% of the
farmers are members (Polman & Slangen, 1999).
Environmental cooperatives are rather poorly
represented in provinces where arable farming
predominates (Groningen, Zeeland). Polman
and Slangen report that, in the vast majority
(81%), the land used by environmental coopera-
tives is grassland. An explanation of this is that
in areas of high ecological value in the Nether-
lands, (extensive) grazing is the most common
agricultural land use. Some 10% of grassland of
members of cooperatives is under EC manage-
ment agreements (Council Regulation (EEC)
2078/92, OJ no. L 215, 30.7.1992, pp. 85–90),
representing 15 –20% of all land under manage-
ment agreements nationally.
Environmental impacts
An assessment of the ‘value added’ of environ-
mental cooperatives —be it in environmental or
socio-economic terms —is made difficult by the
existence of large differences in the stage of
development and the mix of activities taken up.
While some cooperatives are still in a start-up
phase, others by now have an experience of
almost 10 years. We have chosen here to focus
on some of the more developed cooperatives.
This is partly for reasons of data availability, but
also because these experiences give the best
indication of what might be achieved through
a further strengthening of environmental
cooperatives.
An impression of the environmental impact
can be obtained from the experience of the
previously described Frisian cooperatives VEL
and VANLA. Two categories of activities are
relevant here: the ‘environmental track’ and the
‘nature track’. The ‘environmental track’ refers to
a range of activities for reducing the environ-
mental pollution on member farms, most of all
through a strategy of reduced use of external
inputs combined with a more efficient use of
internal farm resources. The ‘nature track’ covers

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
Reconnecting Nature, Farming and Society
Figure 1. Nitrogen surpluses on VEL and VANLA member farms compared to regional average.
a range of activities that actively contribute to
the management of ecological and landscape
values on member farms and within the region.
Figure 1 shows the trend in nitrogen surpluses
of member farms and a regional reference group
over the last 5 years (based on VEL & VANLA,
2000). The data make clear that member farms
realize substantially lower nitrogen losses for all
the years. In fact, the losses for 1999 – 2000 are
already reasonably well in line with the national
policy goals for 2003. Still more interesting is
the development in time. In spite of lower losses
at the start, member farms reduced their nitro-
gen losses at higher rates than the regional
average. This indicates that the reduction did
not yet meet a ‘bottom line’ and that the coop-
Figure 2. Distribution of nitrogen surpluses among VEL and VANLA member farms.
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
93
eratives effectively manage to bring modernized
farming back in line with the carrying capacity
of local ecology. The same conclusion can be
drawn from the distribution of nitrogen sur-
pluses among member farms (Figure 2). While
the largest category still realized losses of 360–
400 kg N/ha in 1995 –1996, this had been
reduced to 200– 240 kg N/ha by 1998– 1999.
The fact that several farms even managed to go
below this is an indication of potential future
improvements.
The ‘nature track’ resulted in a similar im-
provement in the state of the local environment.
Whilst participation rates for (landscape) man-
agement schemes have traditionally been rela-
tively high in the region, the cooperatives
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
94
contributed to maintain these and to extend
them into new areas. At present, 270 ha of the
land of member farms is under management
agreements (for protection of meadow birds or
botanic values), field margin measures are effec-
tuated on 80 ha and 240 kilometres of
hedgerows and 220 ponds are actively managed
by farmers. There is no doubt that the existence
of the cooperatives positively influenced the
scale and quality of nature and landscape man-
agement. VEL and VANLA took the initiative
for several new conservation measures, such as
the management of field margins and farmers’
management of nature reserves. The coopera-
tives also initiated that the area open to existing
measures was substantially enlarged. VEL and
VANLA organize courses and study groups,
resulting in the drawing up of long-term nature
management plans for member farms.
Socio-economic impacts
It is difficult to fully quantify the socio-eco-
nomic impacts of environmental cooperatives.
This is due to difficulties in accessing (confiden-
tial) farm economic data, but it is also due to
methodological problems such as the calculation
of reductions in transaction costs. In general
terms, the cooperatives certainly appear to have
improved the socio-economic performance of
member farms. Local leaders point at the ‘re-
newed spirit’ among farmers, which positively
affected the local economy: ‘Farmers again feel
that they make a difference, that their activities
and their search for a more sustainable agricul-
ture are relevant. More farmers would surely
have given up without our cooperative’.
Various mechanisms are involved in the so-
cio-economic impact of environmental coopera-
tives. First, the institutional framework of the
cooperative facilitates members to take up new
rural development activities and thereby to real-
ize new farm revenues. This is most obvious with
respect to payments for nature and landscape
management. On VEL and VANLA member
farms, conservation payments on average con-
tribute €5500 of revenues (VEL & VANLA,
2000), but large differences exist between farms.
A similar effect occurs for other rural develop-
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
H. Renting and J.D. van der Ploeg
ment activities. For example, some member
farms converted to organic production or
started with agro-tourist activities due to their
involvement in the cooperative. Data for the
farms involved are lacking, but it is known from
more general studies that conversion of dairy
farms to organics results in €18000 extra net
value added, while agro-tourism adds on aver-
age €8000 net value added at farm level (Roep et
al., 2000).
The additional effect of environmental coop-
eratives on the uptake of new rural development
activities is that it opens up new opportunities
that would have been impossible to access by
farms individually. VEL and VANLA’s activities,
for example, resulted in the articulation of sev-
eral previously non-existent conservation pay-
ment schemes, such as for the management of
field margins, nature reserves, public roads and
footpaths. The activities of the cooperatives
with other entrepreneurs and the local tourist
agency substantially improved the reputation of
the area as a tourist destination, thereby indi-
rectly creating new opportunities for farms to
enter this market.
Besides creating new ‘markets’ for rural devel-
opment, the environmental cooperatives have
been instrumental in increasing participation
rates. By mobilizing social mechanisms of trust
within the community, farmers more easily
make the step to actually go ahead with new
activities and leave behind the initial distrust
and reluctance that might dominate when ap-
proached by state officials. An example of this is
the new scheme for field margin management:
initially foreseen for 7 – 8 kilometres, within a
few days farmers had signed up for 130 kilome-
tres of field margins! In more specific activities,
such as organic farming or agro-tourism, coop-
eratives play an important role as ‘broker’ be-
tween interested farmers and relevant agencies.
If individual farmers have difficulties in tracing
sources of information and advice, the coopera-
tives play an important, mediating role.
The practices of environmental cooperatives
do not only result in new revenues, but also in
important cost reductions. Part of these relate to
reductions in transaction costs (Saccomandi,
1998) under the new regulatory framework—
and they are hardly quantifiable. Members
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
Reconnecting Nature, Farming and Society
spend less time on bureaucratic regulations,
may sometimes avoid unnecessary investments
and can manage their farms more efficiently if
unworkable situations are resolved through the
cooperative. These benefits at the farm level
are frequently combined with similar cost re-
ductions for state agencies and third parties.
Additionally, there is a sharp reduction in
control costs for the state as compared to
generic policy frameworks. Instead of con-
trolling 200 farmers each year, monitoring is
now conducted to a large extent by the coop-
eratives, and external state control may be re-
duced to one moment in several years.
Evidently, this is related to the distrust be-
tween farmers and agencies, which is over-
come and replaced by a ‘new social contract’
at the local level, based on relations of confi-
dence. By doing so, environmental coopera-
tives effectively manage to curb down the
exploding transaction and control costs associated
with rigid generic policies. The overall reduc-
tion in costs is profited by all parties— farm-
ers, state agencies and third parties alike
— whilst part of the freed-up budget is
rechannelled towards other activities that ef-
fectively strengthen the area.
Other important cost reductions result from
the activities along the ‘environmental track’.
While these primarily intend to curb down
environmental pressure, they also have impor-
tant socio-economic effects. VEL and VANLA
have actively recognized the virtues of low
external input agriculture (Ploeg, 2000) and
they promote measures that simultaneously re-
duce environmental pressure and farming costs
through study groups and on-farm research. In
recent years, experiments were initiated on 60
member farms to identify means for improving
the efficiency of nutrient flows within the
farm. Several of these activities would have
been impossible without the existence of the
cooperatives, since exemption from generic
regulations were necessary and contacts with
research institutes had to be established. The
associated cost reductions amount to about
€135 per hectare, which for an average farm
of 30 hectares implies a benefit of €4000
annually.
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
95
Synergy and the building of social and natural
capital
In the previous sections, the most salient envi-
ronmental and socio-economic impacts of envi-
ronmental cooperatives have been identified. It
should be stressed that these are by no means
isolated effects. On the contrary, the practices
of environmental cooperatives are characterized
by a high degree of overlap and synergy. Activities
to curb down environmental pressure imply im-
portant cost reductions at the same time. The
improved quality of nature and landscape indi-
rectly opens new opportunities for rural tourism
and regional quality production. Rather than
merely improving the economic performance of
individual farms in the short run, environmental
cooperatives constitute a long-term effort to
enhance the local resource base of social and
natural capital to be employed for future devel-
opment. Nature and landscape management
from this perspective is not only a vehicle for
environmental enhancement, but also a poten-
tially important factor in product development
and marketing (Knickel & Renting, 2000). The
construction of clusters of interconnected, mu-
tually reinforcing activities and the additional
synergy effects arising from these appear to be
crucial mechanisms for successful rural develop-
ment (Ploeg & Renting, 2000; Brunori & Rossi,
2000).
The effects of such an integrated approach
can be illustrated by the experience of another
environmental cooperative in the Waterland re-
gion, just north of Amsterdam, renowned for its
typically Dutch open landscape and importance
for meadow birds. Here too, nature and land-
scape management form the core of the cooper-
ative’s activities. In 1997, about €470000 was
paid to the 160 member farms for various
conservation activities (Vereniging Agrarisch
Natuurbeheer Waterland, 1997). Again the fa-
cilitating role of the environmental cooperative
is evident: conservation measures were paid
from regular policy instruments only on 32% of
the overall 8700 hectares, while nature con-
tracts—which would not have existed other-
wise—were established through the cooperative
for an additional 5900 hectares. The ‘nature
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
96
offer’ for the year 2000 made by the cooperative
to state agencies, covering 14700 ha, provides
an indication of future potential.
New activities in the region emerged re-
cently, which explicitly build on the natural
assets of the region and employ its specific
ecology as a crucial element in marketing and
promotion. One initiative is an agro-tourist
farmers’ association called Hotel de Boerenkamer
(Hotel the Farmer’s Chamber), aiming at the
exclusive market of renting farm apartments
(most Dutch agro-tourist accommodations be-
ing small camp sites). In the second year of its
existence (1998) 1300 bookings were made,
resulting in €40000 of new revenues in the
region. Another initiative involves 55 farmers
producing quality Waterland meat under a re-
gional brand name. The specific production
guidelines include on-farm nature management
and result in a particular meat quality that is
highly valued by restaurants. The marketed pro-
duction in 1999 resulted in an overall extra net
value added on participating farms of €150000
(Meulen, 1999). The two examples show how
the improved quality of nature and landscape
indirectly enabled the generation of about
€200000 in the region on top of conservation
payments. There is still substantial potential for
an increase of these indirect effects by further
market development but also through new activ-
ities. The Waterland cooperative, for example,
promotes organic farming with the objective of
10% of member farms being organic in the near
future and proposes to effectuate subsidies for
conversion through the cooperative. Plans also
exist for a green investment programme, making
it possible to refinance farms at lower interest
rates.
Concluding remarks: struggling for
institutional support
The notion of co-production refers to the ongo-
ing interaction, mutual transformation and de-
pendency between humans and nature — that is,
between the social and the natural. Both the
natural and the social are unfolded into particu-
lar forms and relations through co-production
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
H. Renting and J.D. van der Ploeg
(Roep, 2000). Rurality, it might be argued, is
the continuously changing result of this multi-
faceted and highly complex process (Ploeg,
1997). During the epoch of agricultural mod-
ernization, the nature of co-production has
changed thoroughly. The natural materials and
processes entailed in co-production have been
increasingly artificialized, if not replaced right
away by industrial artefacts. Animal manure and
natural recycling were replaced with high doses
of artificial fertilizers; climatic factors became
increasingly regulated in greenhouses, including
the light necessary for plant growth. All this
implied an increasing disconnection between
farming and the local ecology (Ploeg, 1992).
Whilst nature could initially be understood as
a wide range of use values, moulded through
previous co-production and to be used (and
especially reproduced) in new cycles of co-
production (Toledo, 1989), a clear boundary
between nature and farming had emerged at the
end of the modernization epoch. Nature within
farming was reduced to an irrelevant back-
ground, if not a troublesome hindrance. In other
words, farming became increasingly (albeit not
completely) industrialized, whilst nature was
turned into a domain to be safeguarded and
regulated by the state. In wider society, concep-
tions of nature became increasingly dissociated
from farming and dominated by the (essentially
urban) notion of ‘wilderness’ (Mormont, 1987;
Koppen, 1997).
Against this background, environmental co-
operatives emerge as particularly relevant phe-
nomena. Environmental cooperatives represent
an organized endeavour to reconstitute the
essence of co-production and reallocate it again
into the core of the agricultural labour process.
Farming is, within the context of environmental
cooperatives, not limited to the production of
commodities such as milk and potatoes, it also
includes the (re-)production of landscapes, natu-
ral values, a clean and healthy environment and
a countryside that is accessible for its enjoy-
ment. Institutionally, they represent the ur-
gently required organizational pattern to ground
and sustain such a reintroduction of co-produc-
tion into agriculture. And economically, it has
been argued, environmental cooperatives in-
volve the creation of new rural districts that
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
Reconnecting Nature, Farming and Society
reconnect economy and ecology, thereby turn-
ing co-production into a well-understood self-
interest of the involved farming population. In
short, environmental cooperatives are a farmers’
movement to reconstitute rural nature (Renting,
forthcoming) and to restore the ‘middle land-
scape’ that gets increasingly crushed between
urbanity and wilderness (Vos, 2000).
The success of environmental cooperatives
does not only depend on the efforts of the
farmers involved, but it also presupposes a re-
sponsive and favourable institutional environment. Un-
fortunately, the issue of institutional support has
become increasingly problematic. When the
first environmental cooperative was founded in
1992, it received a lot of coverage in the na-
tional press and the initiative was generally
applauded. The positive response even resulted
in a national award and project subsidies from
the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and
the Environment for the ‘most innovative ap-
proach in the management of rural areas’. Since
the number of cooperatives increased subse-
quently, developments at the local level appear
to have gained too much momentum for respon-
sible institutions to respond adequately.
While public opinion and the Dutch parlia-
ment continued to support a further develop-
ment of environmental cooperatives, especially
within the national Ministry of Agriculture, Na-
ture Management and Fisheries doubts were
voiced about the trend towards local gover-
nance. Being used to generic policy regulations
that apply everywhere in the same way, legal
experts of the Ministry started to question
whether further development of localized regu-
latory frameworks could be adequately adminis-
tered and the results sufficiently monitored.
This was the start of a long period of internal
struggle and debate within the Ministry, which
tempered much of the initial enthusiasm of the
involved cooperatives. Only in 1995 did the
Minister for Agriculture give a ‘green light’ to an
experimental policy status,6 initially assigned to
five and later extended to eight environmental
cooperatives. A plan of action was negotiated
for each cooperative, specifying the activities
for an experimental period of 4 years. Although
various demands were approved, it was clear
from the start that the Ministry was very reluc-
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
97
tant to agree on requested exemptions from
generic regulations.
While the policy experiment was in some
ways a recognition of the potential for environ-
mental cooperatives, a major drawback has been
that other cooperatives (besides the eight ‘cho-
sen ones’) were thrown back onto their own
resources. Requests for support were frequently
turned down, arguing that the approach was ‘no
longer innovative’ and that the results of the
experiment should be awaited first. The 1999
evaluation of the policy experiment indicates
that the initial momentum of the movement
towards local governance has been seriously
curbed down. The reason for this is certainly
not that the cooperatives did not meet their part
of the deal. Various positive evaluations pro-
duced evidence of the feasibility of the ap-
proach (IKC, 1998; Hees, 2000). What seems
to have occurred, rather, is that the ‘fourth
power’ of bureaucracy managed to block off any
option to by-pass the rigid generic regulatory
framework. Although the Minister for Agricul-
ture assured parliament that the ‘experiment was
to be deepened’, it is also clear that environ-
mental cooperatives will receive no official pol-
icy status and that further exemptions from
generic regulations are out of the question. A
strengthening of the role of the cooperatives
only appears to be politically acceptable
in programmes for nature and landscape
management.
Of course, this drawback to institutional sup-
port does not mean the end of the ‘bottom-up’
movement of environmental cooperatives. Or-
ganizations continue to be active at the local
level, and in many cases support of national
state agencies is not needed for this. The future
role of environmental cooperatives in rural de-
velopment will mainly depend on their capacity
to mobilize other actors (including government
agencies) and establish alliances at local and
regional levels. We should not forget that the
rise of environmental cooperatives is undeniably
in line with general tendencies in European and
international policy towards more decentralized,
participative and integrated approaches, as was
also recognized in an Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
study on cooperative approaches to sustainable
agriculture:
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
98
The more or less spontaneous formation of farmer-
led eco-cooperatives in the early 1990s, and their
subsequent evolution into laboratories of govern-
ment policy, are both consistent with Dutch insti-
tutional and democratic traditions. From the
Government’s perspective, the emergence of these
groups has proved a useful vehicle for mobilizing
farmer commitment to environmental protection,
and for finding ways to shift more responsibility
over the implementation of environmental policy
to local communities. (OECD, 1998, p. 59)
The more environmental cooperatives develop
into a new kind of districts, embedded in a
multitude of local and regional relationships, the
more irrelevant the position of the Ministry will
be. It might very well be that environmental
cooperatives further strengthen their practices
along these lines, leaving the Ministry as a
spectator on the side-lines of what rural devel-
opment in the Dutch countryside is really
about. It is also not unthinkable that a change of
political climate may put the phenomenon back
to the centre of the national policy agenda.
Appendix: the story of two
environmental cooperatives in the
Frisian Woodlands
Vereniging Eastermar’s Lânsdouwe (VEL) and
Vereniging Agrarisch Natuur en Landschapsbe-
heer Achtkarspelen (VANLA) (both founded in
1992) are amongst the first environmental coop-
eratives. They are located in the Frisian Wood-
lands —a region characterised by a beautiful
man-made landscape in which hedgerows of
different kinds dominate the scenery. These
landscape structures are important carriers of a
range of ecological values. The region belongs
to the best-preserved small-scale landscapes in
the Netherlands, largely because of the tradi-
tionally strong involvement of farmers in its
management.
To counter possible detrimental effects of
ammonia deposition (‘acid rain’) on valuable
landscape elements, the national government
introduced several regulations in the early
1990s. The most important of these — known as
the ‘ecological guideline’— stipulated that ani-
mal husbandry had to be severely limited in the
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
H. Renting and J.D. van der Ploeg
direct environment of valuable landscape ele-
ments (designated as ‘acid-sensitive object’). In
the context of the Frisian Woodlands this would
have serious repercussions: the high density of
hedgerows, ponds etc. implied in practice that
agricultural development would be completely
‘frozen’. The regulation caused strong feelings of
injustice in the farming community:
We are being punished for the fact that we main-
tained the landscape created by our forefathers.
Farmers who destroyed the landscape elsewhere
have no problem of expanding further and in fact
are rewarded. The government turns the landscape
into a stone around our necks.
While some farmers seriously threatened to up-
root their hedgerows, others pursued a more
constructive solution. Arguing that active man-
agement was in fact far more important for the
continuity of the landscape than acid deposi-
tion, the following deal was proposed. Farmers
committed themselves to maintain and even
increase their efforts for preserving nature and
landscape on the condition that these same
elements would not be considered as ‘acid-sensi-
tive objects’. After a period of negotiation,
involving local, provincial and national
governments, the deal proposed by the farmers
was accepted.
The deal over the ‘ecological guideline’ was
the birth of the first environmental coopera-
tives. Since then, VEL and VANLA established
excellent working relations with many organiza-
tions in the area, including various state agen-
cies, ecology groups (VEL received the annual
award of the provincial federation of ecology
groups), private conservation agencies and
tourist entrepreneurs. The range of activities
was extended, essentially involving similar deals.
As part of the ‘nature track’, new schemes for
nature and landscape management were de-
signed and applied massively by member farms.
Along the ‘environmental track’, new exceptions
were negotiated and obtained for 4 years from
the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Manage-
ment and Fisheries. Under strict conditions,
member farms were exempted from the obliga-
tion to inject manure on grassland, another
regulation that resulted in increased pressure on
the small-scale landscape since it could only be
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
Reconnecting Nature, Farming and Society
applied with large machinery. Farmers were al-
lowed to continue spreading manure in tradi-
tional ways, on the condition that they actively
participated in projects to reduce nitrogen losses
in alternative ways. To this purpose, the envi-
ronmental cooperatives organized study groups,
developed new machinery for manure applica-
tion adapted to the small-scale landscape and
started on-farm experiments to improve the
closing of nutrient cycles at farm level by pro-
ducing ‘high quality manure’.
VEL and VANLA are now blossoming organi-
zations with more than 200 farm members in
total. In the case of VEL, member farms repre-
sent 1600 of the 2000 ha of farmland in the area
covered by the cooperative. VANLA covers a
similar acreage in a wider area of 6000 ha.
Sources: De Bruin & Ploeg (1991); Renting et
al. (1994); VEL (1994); VEL & VANLA (2000).
Notes
1. Distrust is the opposite of trust. Distrust might be
characterized as an institutionalized lack of faith
in ‘the system’ (Galjart, 1998). Trust and conse-
quently distrust (as sociological concepts) do not
refer to interpersonal relations—they refer above
all to the relations between persons and institu-
tions, where the latter might be represented by
artefacts (e.g. traffic lights), rules (e.g. traffic
rules) and organizational structures (e.g. police).
Trust makes complex systems (e.g. the traffic
system) function. When a traffic light changes
from red to green, I can accelerate without watch-
ing and studying the drivers on the left and the
right. I ‘trust’ the green symbol, because I am sure
that others will also react according to the traffic
lights system. The notions of trust and distrust are
especially relevant when linked to the notion of
expert system—that is, ‘a system of technical
accomplishment [and] professional expertise that
organises large areas of the material and social
environments in which we live today’ (Giddens,
1990, p. 27). Ministries of Agriculture are func-
tioning as expert systems nowadays. For an exten-
sive discussion, see Ploeg (1999).
2. This is reinforced time and again, both at national
and local level, e.g. by responses of ecology
groups and private nature conservation agencies.
Evidently, the role of the press and the occur-
rence of ‘news spirals’ in media coverage (Miller &
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
99
Reilly, 1995) are also essential in understanding
the construction of public opinions on food and
agriculture.
3. One of the most dramatic (and highly damaging
politically) effects of the generic approach is that
it also blocks the positive ‘moves forward’ pro-
posed by many farmers. Practical solutions other
than those contained in the prescribed policies
are considered impossible and even illegal. The
proposals themselves, such as alternative ways of
tackling environmental pollution, are often per-
ceived by state officials as new ways to sabotage
prevailing policy regulations.
4. The term environmental ‘cooperative’ is rather
confusing. It was first introduced by G. van Dijk,
Director of the National Council of Cooperatives,
who, in view of the strong cooperative tradition
in the Netherlands, proposed that new forms of
cooperative management might be an effective
means to address changing policy contexts (Dijk,
1990). Since then the term has become common
use in reference to newly emerging farmers’ asso-
ciations. In reality, ‘environmental cooperatives’
are legally organized as cooperatives only in ex-
ceptional cases. Most of them are associations or
societies.
5. In this respect, it is telling that several environ-
mental cooperatives located outside areas desig-
nated for territorial policy schemes struggled to
‘upgrade’ the policy status of the areas they cover,
thereby getting access to new policy measures
and corresponding state budgets. An example is
the VEL cooperative, the area of which was
initially designated as a ‘brown’ area, implying
that specialized agriculture would be the priority
type of land use. As proposed by the cooperative,
the area was reclassified as ‘blue’, implying stricter
guidelines for the protection of nature and land-
scape, but also implying access to measures for
supporting farm diversification.
6. Please note that in the same period the general
policy goals regarding environment, nature and
landscape (as endorsed by environmental cooper-
atives) were under heavy attack by radical right-
wing farmers organizations.
References
Allaire G, Sylvander B. 1995. Qualité, innovation et
territoire: Sèminaire Qualification des produits et des terri-
toires. Institut National de la Recherche Agro-
nomique: Toulouse.
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
100
Barjolle D, Boisseaux S, Dufour M. 1998. Le lien au
terroir: Bilan des travaux de recherche et concepts clés.
Institut d’économie rurale, Ecole Polytechnique
Fédérale de Zürich: Lausanne.
Beaufoy G, Baldock D, Clark J. 1994. The Nature of
Farming: Low-Intensity Farming Systems in Nine European
Countries. Institute for European Environmental Pol-
icy: London.
Broekhuizen R van, Klep L, Oostindie H, Ploeg JD
van der (eds). 1997. Renewing the Countryside: An
Atlas with Two Hundred Examples from Dutch Rural
Society. Misset uitgeverij: Doetinchem.
Brunori G, Rossi A. 2000. Synergy and coherence
through collective action: some insights from wine
routes in Tuscany. Sociologia Ruralis 40: 409 – 423.
Callon M. 1999. The role of lay people in the
production and dissemination of scientific knowl-
edge. Science Technology and Society 4: 81– 94.
De Bruin R, Ploeg JD van der. 1991. Maat houden.
In Bedrijfsstijlen en het beheer van natuur en landschap in de
Noordelijke Friese Wouden en het Zuidelijk Westerkwartier.
Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen: Wageningen.
De Roest K. 2000. The production of Parmigiano-
Reggiano cheese: the force of an artisanal system
in an industrialised world. PhD thesis, Wagenin-
gen University.
Dijk G van. 1990. Is de tijd rijp voor milieucooperaties?
Rijswijk.
Eshuis J. 2001. Goede mest stinkt niet. Communication
and Innovation Studies Group, Wageningen Uni-
versity: Wageningen.
Etxezarreta M. 1985. La agricultura insuficiente: La agri-
cultura a tiempo parcial en Espana. MAPA: Madrid.
Frouws J, Broekhuizen R van, Oerlemans N, Ettema
M, Hees E, Ploeg JD van der. 1996. Naar de geest of
naar de letter: Een onderzoek naar knellende regelgeving in de
agrarische sector. Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen:
Wageningen.
Frouws J. 1998. The contested redefinition of the
countryside: an analysis of rural discourses in the
Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis 38: 54 – 68.
Galjart BF. 1998. Ontwikkeling tussen cultuur en structuur.
Rijksuniversiteit Leiden: Leiden.
Giddens A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Polity
Press: Cambridge.
Goodman D. 1999. Agro-food studies in the ‘age of
ecology’: nature, corporeality, bio-politics. Sociolo-
gia Ruralis 39: 17 – 38.
Hees E. 2000. Trekkers naast de trap. Een zoektocht
naar de dynamiek in de relatie tussen boer en
overheid. PhD thesis, Wageningen University.
Hees E, Renting H, Rooij S de. 1994. Naar lokale
zelfregulering: Samenwerkingsverbanden voor integratie van
landbouw, natuur en landschap. Landbouwuniversiteit
Wageningen: Wageningen.
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
H. Renting and J.D. van der Ploeg
Hofstee EW. 1946. Over de oorzaken van verscheiden-
heid in de Nederlandsche landbouwgebieden. Wolters:
Groningen.
Hoggart K, Buller H, Black R. 1995. Rural Europe:
Identity and Change. Arnold: London.
IKC (Informatie en Kenniscentrum Landbouw).
1998. Milieu cooperatief: De beoordeling van een bestuur-
lijk experiment met zelfsturing.door milieucooperaties. In-
formatie en Kenniscentrum Landbouw: Ede,
Netherlands.
Innovation Centre Wageningen. 2000. Database of
farmers associations for nature and landscape man-
agement. http://www.isw.agro.nl [accessed 1 April
2000].
Kinsella J, Wilson S, Jong F de, Renting H. 2000.
Pluriactivity as a livelihood strategy of Irish farm
households and its role in rural development. Soci-
ologia Ruralis 40: 481–498.
Knickel K, Renting H. 2000. Methodological and
conceptual issues in the study of multifunctionality
and rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40: 512–
528.
Koppen C van. 1997. Claims of culture. Social repre-
sentations of nature and their consequences for
agriculture. In Images and Realities of Rural Life: Wa-
geningen Perspectives on Rural Transformation, Haan H
de, Long N (eds). Van Gorcum: Assen, Nether-
lands; 87–305.
Leeuwis C. 1993. Of computers, myths and mod-
elling. The social construction of diversity, knowl-
edge, information and communication tech-
nologies in Dutch horticulture and agricultural
extension. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agricultural
University.
Mannion J. 1996. Strategies for local development in
rural areas: the ‘bottom up’ approach. Paper pre-
sented at the European Conference on Rural De-
velopment, Cork, Ireland, 7 –9 November.
Marsden T, Murdoch J, Lowe P, Munton R, Flynn A.
1993. Constructing the Countryside. UCL Press:
London.
Meeus J, Ploeg JD van der, Wijermans M. 1988.
Changing Agricultural Landscapes in Europe: Continuity,
Deterioration or Rupture? IFLA: Rotterdam.
Meulen HS van der. 1999. Streekprodukten in Nederland:
Inventarisatie, criteria, certificering en case-studies. Wa-
geningen Universiteit: Wageningen.
Miele M. 2001. Creating sustainability: the social
construction of markets for organic products. PhD
thesis, Wageningen University.
Milbourne P (ed.). 1997. Revealing Rural ‘Others’: Repre-
sentation, Power and Identity in the British Countryside.
Pinter: London.
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)
 Reconnecting Nature, Farming and Society
Miller D, Reilly J. 1995. Making an issue of food
safety: the media, pressure groups and the public
sphere. In Eating Agendas: Food and Nutrition as Social
Problems, Maurer D, Sobal J (eds). Aldine de
Gruyter: New York.
Mormont M. 1987. Rural nature and urban natures.
Sociologia Ruralis 27: 3 – 20.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development). 1998. Co-operative Approaches to Sus-
tainable Agriculture. OECD: Paris.
Pienkowski M. 1998. The nature conservation value
of low-intensity farming systems. In Collected Papers
of the European Network for Livestock Systems in Integrated
Rural Development, Laker JP, Milne JA (eds).
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: Aberdeen;
82–90.
Ploeg JD van der. 1990. Labor, Markets and Agricultural
Production. Westview Press: Boulder, CO.
Ploeg JD van der. 1992. The reconstitution of local-
ity: technology and labour in modern agriculture.
In Labour and Locality: Uneven Development and the
Rural Labour Process, Marsden T, Lowe P, What-
more S (eds). David Fulton Publishers: London;
19–43.
Ploeg JD van der. 1994. Styles of farming: an in-
troductory note on concepts and methodology. In
Born from Within: Practice and Perspectives of Endogenous
Rural Development, Ploeg JD van der, Long A (eds).
Van Gorcum: Assen, the Netherlands; 7 – 30.
Ploeg JD van der. 1997. On rurality, rural develop-
ment and rural sociology. In Images and Realities of
Rural Life: Wageningen Perspectives on Rural Transforma-
tion, Haan H de, Long N (eds). Van Gorcum:
Assen, Netherlands; 39 – 76.
Ploeg JD van der. 1999. De virtuele boer. Van Gorcum:
Assen, Netherlands.
Ploeg JD van der. 2000. Revitalizing agriculture:
farming economically as starting ground for rural
development. Sociologia Ruralis 40: 497 – 511.
Ploeg JD van der, Frouws J. 1999. On power and
weakness, capacity and impotence: rigidity and
flexibility in food chains. International Planning Stud-
ies 4: 333–347.
Ploeg JD van der, Renting H, Brunori G, Knickel K,
Mannion J, Marsden T, Roest K de, Sevilla
Guzmán E, Ventura F. 2000. Rural development:
from practices and policies towards theory. Sociolo-
gia Ruralis 40: 391 – 408.
Ploeg JD van der, Renting H. 2000. Impact and
potential: a comparative review of rural develop-
ment practices. Sociologia Ruralis 40: 529 – 543.
Polman NBP, Slangen LHG. 1999. Environmental
cooperatives in agriculture: institutional concepts
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
View publication stats
101
and empirical evidence. Paper presented at the
64th EAAE seminar, Berlin, 27 –29 October.
Putnam RD. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Civic Tra-
ditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press:
Princeton, NJ.
Raad voor het Landelijk Gebied. 1998. Care and
trust: the basis for food production in the twenty-
first century. Report RLH 98/7a. Raad voor het
Landelijk Gebied: Amersfoort.
Ray C. 2000. Editorial. The EU LEADER pro-
gramme: rural development laboratory. Sociologia
Ruralis 40: 163– 172.
Renting H. forthcoming. In search of Arcadia. Build-
ing institutional arrangements for an integrated
development of agriculture and nature & landscape
conservation. PhD thesis. Wageningen University.
Renting H, Bruin R de, Pohlmann E. 1994. Bruggen
bouwen. Een integrale aanpak van landbouw, milieu, natuur
en landschap in Eastermar’s Lânsdouwe. Landbouwuni-
versiteit Wageningen: Wageningen.
Roep D. 2000. Vernieuwend werken. Sporen van
vermogen en onvermogen. PhD thesis. Wagenin-
gen Universiteit.
Roep D, Renting H, Oostindie H, Ploeg JD van der.
2000. RD matrix for the Netherlands. An overview
of the economic importance of rural development
practices. Working document IMPACT pro-
gramme. Wageningen University.
Saccomandi V. 1998. Agricultural Market Economics: A
Neo-institutional Analysis of the Exchange, Circulation and
Distribution of Agricultural Products. Van Gorcum: As-
sen, Netherlands.
Toledo V. 1989. The ecological rationality of peas-
ant production. In Agroecology and Small-farm Devel-
opment, Altieri MA, Hecht S (eds). CRC Press:
Boston, MA; 53–60.
VEL (Vereniging Eastermar’s Lânsdouwe). 1994. It
Lânjuwiel: Voorbeeldplan van de Vereniging Eastermar’s
Lânsdouwe. VEL: Eastermar, the Netherlands.
VEL (Vereniging Eastermar’s Lânsdouwe), VANLA
(Vereniging Agrarisch Natuur en Landschapsbe-
heer Achtkarspelen). 2000. De sporen van twee milieu-
cooperaties. Drachten, the Netherlands.
Vereniging Agrarisch Natuurbeheer Waterland.
1997. Groen licht voor proefgebied Waterland: Aanbod
voor een twaalfjarig natuur- en milieucontract. Vereniging
Agrarisch Natuurbeheer Waterland: Purmerend.
Vos T. 2000. Visions of the middle landscape: or-
ganic farming and the politics of nature. Agriculture
and Human Values 17: 245–256.
Ward N. 1993. The agricultural treadmill and the
rural environment in the post-productivist era.
Sociologia Ruralis 33: 348–364.
J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 85–101 (2001)