While many Flemings are catching their breath in nature this summer, quite a few people in environmental and spatial-planning associations are bent over policy plans. Not about how we can protect more forests or involve citizens more strongly. Rather, to continue justifying their reason for existence. The Flemish government asked them for a plan. But the question is: what plan does the government itself actually have for its civil society?
Of course, a government must know what happens to taxpayers’ money. Policy plans, indicators, and evaluations are not an unnecessary luxury: they make visible the impact organizations achieve. But there is a limit. A government that structurally distrusts its civil society year after year is cutting off its nose to spite its face. After all, a strong civil society can only exist if there is a priori trust in the people who work on solutions every day - and a posteriori oversight to substantiate that trust. Today, that order too often seems to be reversed.
“Small, local or experimental initiatives become so bogged down in red tape.”
Competition undermines necessity
The new subsidy regulations for environmental and nature organizations build in competition as a starting point. Organizations that received recognition for years must now compete with one another for the same or sometimes even fewer resources. That may sound efficient, but in practice it is not always the best that wins, often it is the largest. Those who already have a solid secretariat and communications budget can write better plans, report in a more measurable way and tick more boxes.
Small, local or experimental initiatives thus become hopelessly entangled in red tape. They lose energy to administrative battles, instead of putting it into nature restoration, citizen engagement or innovative collaborations. This weakens the diversity of civil society - precisely the diversity that makes us resilient in times of climate and biodiversity crisis.
Uncertainty stifles long-term thinking
Those who write a policy plan for five years must be able to build on basic security. Structural recognition does not mean there are no expectations; on the contrary. But the certainty that good work will not simply be swept aside provides breathing space. Space to experiment, to forge coalitions, to develop innovative forms of citizen participation.
A subsidy policy that is driven mainly by competition and repeated reassessment creates stress, paralysis and risk aversion. That is not partnership, but control based on distrust.
“A robust midfield deserves certainty as its foundation, not permanent competition as a survival strategy.”
Dear Minister Brouns,
This summer, hundreds of volunteers and professionals are drafting policy plans that are intended to advance our environment and our democracy. They are doing their part. The question is whether the Flemish government is also willing to do its part: placing trust where recognition has already been earned, cherishing diversity, and giving space to critical voices. Yes, accountability remains necessary. But a robust civil society deserves certainty as a foundation, not permanent competition as a survival strategy.
The new decree may be a fact, but how you implement it is not. If the Flemish government can show that there is enough money to buy shares in Zaventem airport, then surely there must also be room to support a strong and diverse civil society of environmental associations?
Give this ‘experiment’ sufficient resources, so that competition makes way for cooperation, and uncertainty for partnership. In this way, together we can build a Flanders that does not play nature associations off against one another, but gives them the certainty to work together toward a liveable future for us all.
Barbara Creemers
Environmental and policy expert at S&L Strategies and Leaders
