This is a CTP of initiative: Ecovillage Bergen (Netherlands)
The last critical moment refers to something that currently is more like the opposite of a turning point, for it refers to the current stalemate that the ecovillage initiative finds itself in regarding planning permissions. As such, it is rather about the anticipation of a desired critical turning point in the (hopefully) near future.
Three and a half year after the ecovillage initiative purchased the land, they still do not have a planning permission to construct houses or to live on the property, not even temporarily in caravans, tents or yurts. This stalemate is critical in that it stops the further development of the ecovillage, especially in terms of attracting potential residents. This is particularly problematic as the ecovillage aims to become a resident for approximately 80 people, which is a necessary basis to function as an intentional community.
As described by co-founder 3: “The stalemate that we have now with the zoning plan and the changes we want to submit, which they do not want to agree with, as a result of which we do not get a temporary residence permit. As such, no new people can join, we had to borrow money and the social sphere is getting too small. We need to grow bigger. This is a stalemate and I that is really a crossroads”. Also co-founder 1 emphasises the need to move beyond the current stalemate: “Living together in a place is very bonding. If you do not live in a place together, that creates tensions. Facilitating new people is difficult. This cannot last much longer, this phase of not being allowed to live on the premises”.
The current stalemate is primarily the result of (1) the zoning plan of the territory, which still is still marked as a military terrain, and (2) the programme of requirements that was formulated for purchasing the land. In order to change the zoning plan in to a residential area, the residential plan needs to fulfil the programme of requirements. This is where the problem lies. While the original plan of the ecovillage met all the requirements, the people involved always knew that there were certain things that they would like to change if possible.
The main contested items in the programme of requirements are (1) the limited construction of 2000 m2 and (2) the cutting of trees. The programme of requirements sets a limit of 2000 m2 construction of 11 meter high structures, while the ecovillage initiative would rather construct lower buildings on 4000 m2. Also, the initiative would like to keep some of the dozen old military warehouses and reuse them for ateliers and cultural activities, while the limit of 2000 m2 forces them to destroy all warehouses (because they take up too many square meters). Moreover, the programme of requirements prescribes that the trees must be cut, so as to fit within the traditional Dutch landscape view of that area (i.e. empty fields). The ecovillage initiative – together with many visitors and supporters – challenge the idea of unnecessarily cutting down hundreds of old trees. Not just out of principle, but also because the cutting of trees would leave the planned permaculture gardens exposed to strong winds blowing over empty fields.
This is why, in 2014, after several deliberations with the municipality and the provincial government, the ecovillage initiative submitted a new “image quality plan” (Beeldkwaliteitsplan) to argue for some qualitative improvements that would require some deviations from the programme of requirements. What followed was a long process of submitting documents, government reviews, public consultation, and a lot of waiting. In the fall of 2016, the ecovillage initiative is still waiting for its planning permission.
There are several government layers involved in the whole process, including the local government, the provincial government, and the national ministry of Economics.
Within the ecovillage itself, all decisions are taken sociocratically, including those regarding the interactions with government (see CTP IMPLEMENTING SOCIOCRACY). Much of the work is conducted by the ‘organisation circle’, while the decisions are often discussed and decided in the overarching ‘village circle’. More importantly, however, it seems that the current stalemate is experienced to be a barrier to co-production in the sense that it obstructs the involvement of new people and the next steps in the ecovillage development (see more under ‘contestations’).
When asked whether and to what extent the local population in the surrounding village of Bergen is involved, co-founder 3 answers the following: “We have a guided tour once a month. Every time there are around 40 people. In the beginning, the citizens of Bergen came to see what's going on here. (…) They were very enthusiastic about the plans. (...) We had stalls in Bergen here for information. [But] it's a porcelain village; it is very rich and nice and tidy. As long as they leave us alone, that's already great. They do not have to support us fully, as long as they let us be. If they do not talk bad about us, I am already very happy”.
In May 2013, the ecovillage initiative won a bidding for purchasing the land, with a proposal that met all the requirements set out in the programme of requirements.
One year later, in May 2014, the ecovillage submitted a quality image plan to propose improvements in their plan that would require some deviations from the programme of requirements.
On the 27th of November 2014, a draft zoning plan was submitted that would permit the ecovillage to implement its plans. In June/July 2015, the zoning plan was released for public consultation.
In august 2016, the ecovillage initiative was told that in order to receive their planning permission, they would first need to appeal a landscape directive of the provincial government regarding the cutting of trees.
The current stalemate, i.e. the waiting for planning permissions that would enable both construction and temporary residential living, is causing considerable tensions. Co-founder 3 tells us: “We cannot progress with the new group of people. We're going to be on top of each other, that's not healthy. We are now a very small core group of 6, 7, 8 people and even within that group there is a split that cannot really be bridged. It is very important that new people come in to open it up again, to bring in creativity and also take on some work”.
It is for this reason that some people in the core group have argued that it is necessary to make concessions and to give in to the programme of requirements. Co-founder 3 also argues that it is time to “compromise, to be creative and optimistic. Let’s wait a few years and be confident that there will be something good on our path, and in the meantime let’s get more people involved”. After having tried to keep their original goals, with no success, s/he argues that perhaps it is time to accept that the trees need to be cut, and that the houses need to be higher than they would like. “We have tried, but this is not serving as well right now”. Such concession would enable temporary living, which would allow the core group to grow and new residents to join. The hope is also that eventually, after some years, some of the strict rules regarding e.g. the trees and the buildings, would be loosened and changed. But at least in the meantime, they could start living there and move one.
However, making of such concessions is very difficult because of the strong vision underlying the ecovillage plan, which does not concur with the programme of requirements. As formulated by co-founder 3: “There are people who hold on to it. (...) When you have such a dream and have plans that are all aligned with that dream, if you take a small piece out, this affects everything. One thing affects another thing, and it requires a lot of adaptation. The plan is perfect, and if you start nibbling at it, this is not a good feeling. And our men are not so good in dealing with that. (…) But that is again discussed in the group circle so people come with arguments that indicate that it is not so bad and that there are alternatives”.
The current stalemate is also characterised by tensions between the initiative and the local bureaucracy. When asked about the attitude of the local government towards the ecovillage, some co-founders emphasise that there are several people in the government who are sympathetic towards the ecovillage initiative and help to legitimise it in e.g. the council. However, co-founder 3 stresses that “They never came here to gladly welcome us with flowers. There never came any kind of hope or joy from that side”[4]. Even though the initiative tries to “have compassion with a municipality that needs to keep 30.000 people together”, and even though they do have constructive deliberations with several local politicians and policy-makers, some people in the ecovillage initiative are getting increasingly frustrated with the bureaucratic procedures. Co-founder 1 describes the interaction with the local government as “Bloody irritating (…). How regulation collides with our ideal and actually with the ideal of society. I read all kinds of wonderful things [in policy discourse], but nothing ever happens. The municipality has a wonderful vision, and when I show that to a bureaucrat, he says ‘Yeah, that was invented by some bureau. We still have the rules to deal with, so let's go back to the order of the day’. What I am also discovering, is that the city council which we have elected, has very little to say about policy, which is mostly up to the bureaucrats. One bureaucrat that we are dealing with, he says ‘I make the policy around here’. Then I think ‘Oh I thought that since the French Revolution, we had made a separation of the three powers’. Aldermen come and go, and they often have a completely different background and no authority over such a bureaucrat. The bureaucrat has been there for 30 years specialised in the matter, and he can wipe the floor with such alderman, especially when it is an aldermen that has no power. I feel myself getting quite frustrated in this context. The enforcement department, with all due respect, these are often people with little education who then interpret the rules and tell us what we can and cannot do (...) I do not want to deal with the municipality at that level. I think that is a waste of time and I really find this one the major problems, the way in which the government, both provincial and municipal, deals with us”.
To complicate things even further, there is also the history that ecovillage Bergen has with the competing commercial developer (see CTP PURCHASING THE LAND), who is a member of the local council, which leads to a considerable conflict of interest: “There are also the interests of commercial developers who are anchored in the politics. Such a developer who is a chairman of [a political party], that is difficult. Especially in the early stages. The fact that we cannot live here officially, that we cannot just be here and do what we want, that is very difficult. It has been three years already” (co-founder 1). According to co-founder 1, this historical tension has also led to considerable envy which contributes to the current stalemate: “There is envy, a lot of envy. We are here because we were able to buy it with very little money, and we were also able to make it ready for construction with very little money. I see it in all initiatives in the Netherlands: money and legislation, that is really the main problem”.
The current stalemate, and the bureaucratic ‘resistance’ against the ecovillage, was not anticipated. According to co-founder 3: “We were so convinced of our plan that we really did not anticipate resistance. Not at all. Because this place will be public, it is not a cult, the citizens of Bergen can come to visit the museum and eat an ice cream. It is a huge gift to the municipality of Bergen and its citizens, especially after the fence that was around here for 100 years. But no one understands this”.
An important general lesson that is mentioned, is to be less judgemental: “Today I had a beautiful insight: the importance of not judging so much. That was a big insight” (co-founder 3). Because the stalemate is not finalised or resolved yet, it is difficult to draw specific lessons. While co-founder 3 has argued for making more compromises in the plan (e.g. conceding to the cutting of trees and the construction of higher buildings), s/he also still doubts whether that is the right approach: “If you have already done so much for your plan and have already made so many concessions, you reach a point where you start to fight for it. You want it this way, and no other way. I’m not sure what you learn from that. Sometimes you also need to step it up and become a bit feistier in how you act. I think we have not yet learned what is good to do when. We allow a lot of things to come over us. We do not want to take on an antagonistic fighting attitude. But sometimes it might be better to say: ‘No, those enforcers are not just walking in here, they need to make an appointment. They can enter our premises under supervision by one of us’. (…) Not angry, but being clear: ‘Hey, we are the owners here and we will take good care of it, just believe it”.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
