1

Dutch environmentalism in the 1990s Paper presented to the ECPR joint sessions of workshops, Copenhagen 14-20 april 2000 Workshop Environmental organisations: a comparative assessment Hein-Anton van der Heijden University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Political Science Oudezijds Achterburgwal 237 1012 DL Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: vanderheijden@pscw.uva.nl During the last two decades environmental movements have been studied from at least four different theoretical perspectives: the new social movement approach (Brand, 1985; Melucci, 1985, 1989; Offe, 1985; Touraine, 1978, 1982); the resource mobilisation approach (Gamson, 1975; Jordan and Maloney, 1997; McCarthy and Zald, 1976); the political opportunity structure approach (Kitschelt, 1986; Kriesi et al., 1992, 1995; Tarrow, 1983) and, finally, the social-constructionist approach, dealing with the question how environmental problems and solution strategies are socially defined (Eyerman and Jamison, 1991; Hajer, 1995; Snow et al., 1986). While during the 1980s many students of environmental movements organised their research within the framework of one of these four perspectives, nowadays the insight is growing that the four approaches are complementary to one another. In this paper the question will be raised which changes Dutch environmentalism has undergone during the 1990s and how these changes can be explained. In order to answer this question as complete as possible, each of the four perspectives mentioned above will be mobilised. Holland is famous for its sophisticated environmental policies and the high degree of mobilisation and professionalisation of its environmental movement, which have given the country, together with Germany and Sweden, the role of a real forerunner. The other side of the coin, however, are the negative sides of institutionalisation of the environmental movement such as viscosity and the inherent tendency to compromise, even if the result is the giving up of core principles. How did Dutch environmentalism deal with this potential danger during the past decade? Are the developments in Dutch environmentalism also in store for environmental movements in other western countries? According to the new social movement approach important features of new social movements are: an emphasis on post-material values; a predominantly middle class constituency; a decentralised organisational network structure; an orientation towards society rather than to the state; un unconventional action repertoire; an orientation towards the development of new individual and collective identities. In the first section the question will be raised to what extent the Dutch environmental movement still can be called a new social movement, and which changes in this respect have occurred during the 1990s. In the second section one of the key variables from the resource mobilisation approach will be dealt with: organisational growth. During the 1990s the total number of environmental organisations with a constituency of more than 100 rose from 47 to 96; the total constituency from 2.364.000 to 3.700.000 (on a population of less than 16 million). The (nowadays) 96 organisations can be categorised according to their topic of interest (conservation, environmentalist, animal protection, alternative-exemplary) as well as to their organisational form: public interest lobby, mass protest organisation, professional protest organisation, participatory advocacy group (cf. Diani and Donati, 1999: 16). Which changes have occurred during the 1990s with respect to the distribution of the organisations among the different categories and how could these changes be explained? In the third section the influence of the Dutch political opportunity structure on the environmental movement in the 1990s will be assessed. How did the specific features of

2

the Dutch political system impinge on the action repertoire, the organisational form and the impacts of the movement? In the fourth section attention will be paid to the kind of issues Dutch environmentalism has raised during the 1990s. To what extent did it succeed in influencing the public and political agendas and in changing the parameters of the environmental discourse in The Netherlands? In the final section three kinds of conclusions will be drawn: 1) on the changes of Dutch environmentalism during the 1990s; 2) on the fruitfulness of the four theoretical perspectives to conceptualise these changes; 3) on the extent to which the Dutch research results could be generalised to the developments in environmnetalism in other western countries. 1. Still a new social movement? The new social movement approach explains the emergence of new social movements from the late 1960s onwards as one of the consequences of the huge transformations western societies have gone through since the end of the second world war. The development of the welfare state and an unparalleled level of economic growth; the transition from an industrial to a consumerist post-industrial society; an enormous increase in the level of education; youth resistance against hierarchical authority relations: all these factors contributed to the emergence of a new kind of social movements which were basically different from old movements like the labour, religious, national and farmers movements. In order to meet the criteria of the new social movement approach, an environmental movement basically should be a society-directed, loose network of local groups with an unconventional action repertoire, identity oriented with an overrepresentation of postmaterialist young people from the middle classes (Brand 1985; Offe, 1985). Like in many other western countries, during the 1970s and early 1980s the Dutch environmental movement to a large extent answered to these criteria. During the 1970s 700 new local environmental groups were founded. During the heydays of the anti-nuclear conflict (1976-1981) they were joined by 300 anti-nuclear groups at the grassroots level. The average number of members of these groups was (far) less than 100, most of them originating from the new middle class. The development of new individual and collective identities played a crucial role, partly by means of a highly unconventional, challenging action repertoire. From the late 1980s/early 1990s onwards, however, as in many other Western countries, emphasis shifted from the local to the national level as is illustrated by the growth of the number of national groups. Table 1 Development of the number of national groups and their constituency, 1992-2000 1992: 47 2.363.000 1993: 50 2.467.000 1994: 60 2.891.000 1995: 67 3.017.000 1996: 77 3.288.000 1997: 79 3.339.000 1998: 82 3.467.000 1999: 87 3.560.000 2000: 96 3.700.000

3

Between 1992 and 2000 the total number of national groups with a constituency of more than 100 rose from 47 to 96. Parallel with this growth ran the growth of the total constituency of the environmental movement. In the 1970s and early 1980s the most important part of the movement activists did not belong formally to any environmental organisation. The total constituency of the organisations amounted to less than half a million people, most of them belonging to conservation groups. From about 1987 onwards, however, figures began to rise dramatically: 1,5 million in 1989; 2,3 million in 1992; 3,7 million now. The major part of the current constituency is constituted by the members or supporters of the 'big three' (Greenpeace, WWF and the conservation association Natuurmonumenten), constituents who restrict their participation to annual donations (checkbook activism) and (sometimes) reading the magazines published by the organisations, but in no sense of the word could be labelled as movement activists. According to research results (Becker et al., 1996) this constituency could be labelled as an almost perfect crosscut of the Dutch population in general, both with respect to sex, party affiliation and educational level, as to age and value orientation. In other words: both with respect to class origin and age as with respect to value orientation, the most importants parts of the Dutch environmental movements (in quantitative terms) nullify the validity of the assumptions of the new social movement approach. Also with respect to the variables of identity orientedness and action repertoire the assumptions of the new social movement approach no longer hold. In the literature on social movements (Cohen, 1985; Kriesi et al., 1995) the distinction has been made between instrumental and identity-directed groups. Instrumental groups, like pressure groups, follow a logic of instrumental rationality, aimed at substantive political inputs, e.g. the closing down of a polluting factory. Identity oriented groups are primarily oriented at the (re)production of individual and collective identities. Examples are ecological communities and the radical parts of the anti-nuclear movement which (re)produced their identities by means of violent confrontations with the police. As will be demonstrated in the next section, the major part of the present 96 groups with a constituency of more than 100 belong to the instrumental, not to the identity oriented wing of the environmental movement. As for the action repertoire, finally, the deradicalisation of the environmental movement can be shown by a comparison with the anti-nuclear part of the movement. While only 15,2% of the actions of the anti-nuclear groups can be labelled as 'conventional' (lobbying etc.) and 84,8% as unconventional (demonstrative, confrontative, violent), only 57,4% of the environmental actions were unconventional; this means that not less than 42,5% of all environmental actions were pressure group-like activities. However, as in many other countries, during the 1990s in the Netherlands the emergence of a new wave of radical environmentalism could be observed. Mainly due to the growing institutionalisation of formerly radical environmental organisations like Friends of the Earth, especially during the second half of the 1990s a number of radical protest events occurred. The Earth Liberation Front claimed responsability for a long list of bomb alerts at local McDonald's restaurants; the Animal Liberation Front committed arson at chicken farms and meat-packing industries and 'liberated' hundreds of minks. The Barry Horne Brigade and the action group Red Cock claimed responsability for a large number of similar actions.

4

Groenfront! finally, the Dutch branch of Earth First!, squatted tens of houses at a previsioned new freight train line to Germany (Betuwelijn) and stayed there for almost one year. Apart from this, Groenfront! also occupied the little village of Ruigoord near Amsterdam, which was planned to be completely destroyed in favour of the extension of the Amsterdam harbour. All these actions can be conceptualised as new social movement actions: an emphasis on post-material values (e.g. animal welfare); a predominantly young, middle class constituency; a decentralised organisational network structure; an orientation towards society rather than to directly influencing politics; un onconventional action repertoire and an orientation towards the develoment of new individual and collective identities. In other words: while during the 1990s the mainstream environmental movement succesively lost all the features of a new social movement, the new wave of radical environmentalism distinguished itself from the mainstream by these very features. 2. Organisational growth and organisational change The environmental movement industry, the sum total of all environmental organisations in a country (McCarthy and Zald, 1976: 1220) can, and has been, subdivided in many different ways. As regards the content of the goals Dalton (1994) simply distinguishes between conservation and ecology groups. Conservationists generally accept the existing socio-political order and its norms and values; ecologists, in contrast, advocate a basic change in societal and political relations as a prerequisite for adressing environmental problems (Dalton, 1994: 47). However, as in the 1990s in all Westeuropean countries only a very few groups persisted in rejecting the values of the prevailing soicial order, Dalton's distinction fails to be a useful analytical tool. Rucht (1989) and R¸dig (1990) make a distinction between conservationism, environmentalism and ecologism, three currents which, according to them, together constitute the environmental movement. The first current refers to the protection of nature for aesthetic, ethical and/or religious reasons. Environmentalism is defined by Rucht as "a pragmatic attitude to the preservation or improvement of the human environment in a very broad sense, focusing on the exploitation of natural resources, problems of noise, pollution of air, soil and water, healthy food etc.". Ecologism finally "goes far beyond a certain range of environmental problems and their corresponding policies. This concept implies a holistic vision of a decentralised, democratic and egalitarian society, existing in harmony with nature" (Rucht, 1989). During the 1990s both in the Netherlands as in other Western countries two developments have taken place that made the tripartisation by Rucht and R¸dig a bit obsolete. As the 'environmentalist' wing is still alive and kicking, many ecologist groups have developed into alternative-exemplary organisations, aimed at creating ecological communities or presenting ecologically sound alternatives within contemporary society (windmills, organic food, biodynamic farming), rather than at completely changing that society. Secondly, partly from the conservationist wing a separate and very important animal protection wing has developed. As the main goal of many conservation groups is the protection of the flora and fauna of a specific geographic region (a country, a province, a wetlands area etc.), most animal protection groups are primarily aimed at protecting wildlife in general (e.g. WWF), birds (the different national, long standing bird protection organisations), certain species (monkeys, seals, butterflies) or at campaigning against the abuse of animals (for instance vivisection, fur or the bio-industry). Until the early 1990s only a few people gave a second thought to the abuse of animals for food, clothing and other purposes. As Scarce puts it, "Vast industries have built up

5

around what Animal Liberators see as the 'exploitation' of non-human animals. Experiments on animals for medical research, consumer products, and the like annually kill a 100 million or more rabbits, rats, cats, dogs, monkeys, guinea pigs, horses, goats - almost any non-human animal that a researcher might want to use. And that number is small compared to the estimated six billion animals killed for human consumption everu year" in the US (Scarce, 1990:116, 118). Also in the Netherlands the abuse of animals, for instance in the bio-industry, has skyrocketed. Nowadays the number of pigs surpasses the number of inhabitants, and so it is not surprising that during the 1990s a large number of new animal welfare or animal protection groups has been founded. In conclusion for heuristic resons we propose to subdivide the Dutch environmental movement industry in four wings: environmental groups, conservation groups, alternative-exemplary groups and animal protection groups (2). Apart from their goals, the groups belonging to the environmental movement industry also can be categorised with respect to their resource mobilisation strategies and to their action repertoire (3). As for resource mobilisation strategies environmental groups may choose between, on the one hand, the mobilisation of money in order to hire professional staff and to become a professional organisation, and, on the other hand, the mobilisation of time of its constituency (activism). As for their action repertoire environmental groups may choose between conventional pressure and disruptive action (Diani and Donati, 1999: 15-16). By combining these alternatives (professional vs. participatory resources; conventional vs. disruptive forms of pressure), Diani and Donati sketch the emergence of four organisational types: 1. The public interst lobby. This is a political organisation managed by professional staff, with weak participatory inclination and a strong emphasis on traditional pressure tactics. This organisational form comes closest to the conventional interest group. 2. The participatory protest organisation. Here the emphasis on participatory action and subcultural structures, combined with a strong inclination to disruptive protest. This model is closest to the classic idea of the decentralised grassroots SMO. 3. The professional protest organisation. This model shares with the public interest lobby the emphasis on professional activism and the mobilisation of financial resources. However, it includes confrontational tactics among its tactical options, along with more conventional ones. 4. The participatory pressure group. Simailarly to the participatory protest organisation, in this type of group rank-and-file members and sympathisers are involved in organisational life but the focus is on conventional lobbying techniques rather than protest (Diani and Donati, 1999: 16-17). Before applying this typology to the Dutch environmental movement industry, three remarks should be made. First, by focusing on environmental organisations with a registred constituency, grassroots groups with a disruptive action repertoire are excluded from the analysis. These groups cannot be labelled as formal but as informal organisations, most of whose activists do know each other personally. This means that groups like Groenfront!, Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, mentioned in the first section, are not taken into account. In other words: one should realise that the environmental movement industry does not cover the whole environmental movement. Secondly, one could distinguish between many different forms of participation. Diani and Donati emphasise pressure and protest-like forms of participation, but do not pay much attention to activities like volunteer work in animal protection groups (for instance in relief centres for seals and birds) and 'alternative-exemplary' activities (for instance

6

the construction of windmills or biodynamic farming). However, one could argue that these activities also could be labelled as forms of participation. A final remark is that Diani's and Donati's typology is an ideal-type and that many environmental groups cannot be categorised unanimously within one of the four cells. Greenpeace, for instance, not only combines conventional with disruptive action forms, but (less commonly known) also mobilises both professional and participatory resources. For instance, in the early 1990s the Austrian branch of Greenpeace invited the Austrian population to participate in a symbolic anti-nuclear energy game. With the objective to denounce the nuclear industry in the countries surrounding Austria, the Austrian population was invited to hand in their own (90 cm. high, arbitrary long) banners in order to prepare the longest banner in the world. While the aim was to cover the complete fence of the nuclear plant in the Chech village of Tepelin, the banner should have a total lenght of 10,3 kilometer. The action did succeed (Knappe, 1994: 95-96). This all being said, we can turn to the core question of this section: how are the Dutch environmental organisations distributed among the different categories, which changes took place during the 1990s, and how do the different branches look like? Between 1992 and 2000 the number of groups belonging to the Dutch environmental movement more than doubled: from 47 to 96. Table 2 Development of the number of groups among the different branches, 1992-2000 1992 1995 2000 environmental 11 13 13 conservation 21 25 33 animal protection 12 21 34 alternative-exempl. 3 8 16 total 47 67 96 However, as table 2 shows, the growth within the four branches was very unbalanced: both the conservation branch, the animal protection branch as well as the alternative-exemplary branch experienced an enormous differentiation (taken together from 36 to 83 groups), but the environmentalist branch only generated two new groups. The lagging-behind of the environmentalist branch is reflected even more sharply in the relative share of the numbers of members and supporters. Table 3 Relative share of the number of members and supporters among the four branches, 1992-2000 1992 2000 environmental 972.000 = 42% 753.000 = 20% conservrtion 729.000 = 30% 1.292.000 = 35% animal protection 644.000 = 27% 1.627.000 = 44% alternative-exemplary 17.000 = 1% 34.000 = 1%

7

Whereas in 1992 the environmentalist branch was by far the largest wing of the Dutch environmental movement, encompassing 42% of its total constituency, in 2000 this branch ranked only third (20%) after the animal protection (44%) and the conservationist (35%) branches. As for the distribution among Diani and Donati's four organisational types no significant changes could be observed during the 1990s: nowadays 3/4 (74 out of 96) of the Dutch environmental groups can be categorised within the cell of public interest lobbies. In 1992 this percentage was identical (36 out of 47 groups). How does the composition of the Dutch environmental movement industry and its four different wings look like? In January 2000 the total constituency of the 96 groups amounted to 3,7 million. In table 4 the groups with more than 20.000 members of supporters were listed. Table 4 Environmental organisations in the Netherlands with more than 20.000 members/supporters (c = conservationist, ap = animal protection, env. = environmentalist) 1. Association for the Conservation of Nature Reserves 950.000 (c) 2. WWF 730.000 (ap) 3.Greenpeace 618.094 (env) 4. International Fund for Animal Welfare 271.000 (ap) 5. Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals 191.976 (ap) 6. Dutch Society for Bird Protectio 122.634 (ap) 7. Monkey Foundation 53.070 (ap) 8. Association for the Protection of the Wadden Sea 46.200 (env) 9. South Holland Landscape 45.400 (c) 10. Seal Relief Centre Pieterburen 44.000 (ap) 11. NIVON (nature eduction) 42.156 (c) 12. North Holland Landscape 40.661 (c) 13. Guelders Landscape 35.910 (c) 14. Cyclists Association ENFB 33.942 (env) 15. Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth) 32.500 (env) 16. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 30.000 (ap) 17. Fur for Animals 29.800 (ap) 18. Frisian Bird Protection Association 25.902 (ap) 19. Brabantine Landscape 23.800 (c) 20. Utrecht Landscape 23.732 (c) 21. World Society for the Protection of Animals (NL) 22.313 (ap) 22. Proefdiervrij (anti-vivisection association) 21.272 (ap) In terms of membership numbers the Dutch environmental movement industry falls apart in two parts: three mammoth organisations with a total constituency of 2.298.000 or 62% of the total constituency of the Dutch environmental organisations, and 93 other groups. Among the 96 organisations six have more than 100.000 members or supporters, 31 more than 10.000, 43 more than 5.000, 71 more than 1.000. The average size is 38.541 members or supporters, but when one excludes the 'big three' this number falls to 15.075. When taking a closer look at table 2 it turns out that three out of the four wings of the Dutch environmental movement are represented by a mammoth group:

8

Natuurmonumenten represents the conservationist wing, WWF the animal protection wing and Greenpeace the environmentalist wing. The alternative-exemplary wing is not represented in the list of organisations with a constituency of more than 20.000; its biggest group (Small Earth) only ranks 30th with a constituency of 10.322. The environmentalist wing Apart from Greenpeace the most important 'environmentalist' organisations are the Association for the Protection of the Wadden Sea (no. 8), the Cyclists Association ENFB (no. 14), Milieudefensie (the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth; no. 15) and the Foundation for Nature and Environment (no. 27; 11.233 donators). The Dutch branch of Greenpeace is the biggest of all Greenpeace branches in the world (4). In the period 1985-1991 its constituency skyrocketed from 170.000 to 830.000. Between 1992 and 1994 it declined to 600.000 and in the years thereafter it succeeded in retaining this number. As in most other countries, the Dutch branch of Greenpeace could be called a professional protest organisation, combining an emphasis on professional activism with confrontational tactics. The Association for the Protection of the Wadden Sea distinguishes itself from a conventional conservation group by its outspoken attitude of political ecology. By means of conventional and non-conventional actions it actively participates in political decision-making processes with respect to oil drillings, military exercises and industrial settlements in and around the Wadden Sea, one of the most extensive and important wetlands in Europe. The way this group succeeded in becoming the 8th biggest EMO in the Netherlands is exemplary for the specific resource mobilisation techniques of environmental organisations in the Netherlands. Due to the tradition of pilarisation the Dutch media landscape is highly diversified and fragmented. Apart from five national commercial networks, there are more than a dozen public broadcasting organisations, most of them having more than twenty hours of broadcasting time a week. In the early 1990s, during the heydays of the second environmental wave (Brundtland, Rio) several broadcasting organisations 'adopted' an environmental group, which gave these groups a lot of free publicity. After a full evening's television program by broadcast network NCRV, the constituency of the Wadden Sea Association overnight doubled from 33.000 to 65.000. In the years to follow this number slightly declined, but 46.000 is still quite respectable The Cyclists Association ENFB originally was on the edge between a public interest lobby and a participatory pressure group. During the 1990s its constituency steadily grew from 25.000 to 34.000, going along with an increasing level of professionalisation, definitely turning the group into the status of a public interest lobby. Vereniging Milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth International, during a long time was on the edge between a participatory protest organisation and a participatory pressure group. It has more than 100 local chapters and these groups are deeply involved in all kinds of conventional and unconventional environmental political activities. At the national level the Dutch branch of FoE has always followed a two tracks strategy, combining lobbying and participation in various government advisory boards with disruptive actions. During the 1990s, however, partly due to the successes in the lobby arena, the number of unconventional actions steadily declined. The Foundation for Nature and Environment, finally, is the most important lobby organisation of the Dutch environmental movement. The number of individual donators is relatively small (11.000) but the group represents the interest of more than twenty affiliated organisations, among which Natuurmonumenten and the twelve provincial landscape organisations.

9

The conservationist wing The conservationist wing, covering 1.292.000 members or 35% of the Dutch environmental movement, in its turn can be subdivided in three parts: - the Dutch Association for the Protection of Nature Reserves (Natuurmonumenten): 950.000 members; - the twelve provincial landscape protection organisations with a sum total of 240.000 members; - 20 other groups among which NIVON (no. 11), an organisation for nature education. While all environmental groups mentioned in the previous section have been founded after 1965, most conservation groups have their origin in the first half of the 20th century. The Dutch Association for the Protection of Nature Reserves (1905) is the first and most important of the Dutch conservation groups. It cannot be categorised easily within the typology of Diani and Donati because its most important strategy is not pressure or protest but the acquisition of lands, nature reserves. Nowadays its total estate property amounts to 81.000 ha. (in sum 30 x 27 kilometers). Most provincial landscape protection organisations were founded in the period between 1927 and 1936. In 1992 the total constituency amounted to 192.000; during the 1990s this amount steadily grew to 240.000 (+26%). The main activity Natuurmonumenten performs at the national level - the acquisition and management of valuable nature reserves - is performed by the provincial landscape groups at the provincial level. Like Natuurmonumenten these organisations have a very low membership treshold. For about 10-15 euro members get an admission pass to the lands of the organisation and a subscription to the magazine; much more is not required from them. The twenty other groups have a total constituency of about 100.000, from which NIVON takes the lion's share (42.000). The average membership number of the remaining 19 organisations is about 3.000. Most of the groups deal with nature education, nature protection at a regional level, the protection of specific species (e.g. fungus), or are concerned wth specific professional groups (e.g. 'Artists for Nature'). The animal protection wing In social scientific research into environmental movements the topic of animal protection always has played a marginal role. Some students don't categorise animal protection under the lable of the environmental movement; most students do, but don't pay any further attention to it. In analysing the goals of environmental groups, often a continuum is used ranging from anthropocentric to ecocentric (Eckersley, 1992; Young, 1992). As the heading indicates, anthropocentric groups attribute a central role to human beings and conceptualise nature and environment from a human perspective: which role could they play for human beings (resources; health; ethic, aesthetic or spiritual satisfaction, etc.). The ecocentric approach, on the other hand, also recognises the rights to exist and the intrinsic value of non-human nature, among which those of animals. The 34 animal protection organisations from our list of 96, as well as the twelve animal protection groups from table 4 are of a very different kind: old and new, anthropocentric and ecocentric, moderate and radical, aimed at one specific species or at all animals together, aimed at animal protection or at animal liberation. The distinction between animal protection and animal liberation corresponds with the distinction between an anthropocentric and an ecocentric approach, and in practice parallels the application of a moderate or a radical action repertoire. According to animal protection groups, the exploitation of animals by men is justified, but suffering by animals should be restricted to a minimum. The animal rights or animal liberation approach, on the other hand, aims to finish all abuse and exploitation of

10

animals, both in the production of food, clothing and safety of consumers, scientific research and entertainment. As animals are bearers of rights - in particular the right to live - we are not entitled to use them, as we are not entitled to use men. Among the ten largest environmental organisations, not less than six can be labelled as animal protection organisations: the World Wildlife Fund, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals, the Dutch Society for Bird Protection, the Monkey Foundation and the Seal Relief Centre Pieterburen. WWF and the Animal and Bird Protection Associations are not basically different from their foreign counterparts, apart from the size of their constituencies. The Monkey Foundation and the Seal Relief Centre Pieterburen are aimed at the protection of one specific species and, as so many other groups, can be labelled as public interest lobbies, although they are not very state-oriented. The International Fund for Animal Welfare is, as the name says, an international organisation for animal protection with chapters in the US, Canada, South Africa, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy and Australia. It was founded in 1969 and has a worldwide constituency of 1,4 million, among which 271.000 in the Netherlands. Action campaign themes include, for instance, the protection of the African elephant, the trade of wild animals, the protection of whales and the abuse of experimental animals. The alternative-exemplary wing Among the 96 environmental organisations, 16 could be labelled as alternative-exemplary. In 1992 there were only three, which means that most of the organisations are newcomers. The names of the groups reflect their topics of interest: the Windmill Associations and Cooperations; Biodynamic Association; Association for Ecological Living and Farming; European Centre for Eco-Agro Tourism; Organisation for Sustainable Energy; Foundation Global Alternative; Association for Integral Biological Architecture. All sixteen groups are small and all taken together they have a constituency of 34.000: only 1% of the total constituency of the Dutch environmental movement. The most important distinctive feature of this wing of the movement is its subcultural, apolitical character. These groups are not aimed at directly influencing or changing politics, but at developing and practicing of environmentally sound solutions. One of the core ideas within this wing is the alleged correspondance between, on the one hand, absenteeism, inflation, unemployment and the increasing need for welfare state care and, on the other hand, environmental pollution. Environmental pollution is caused by the greedy and idle culture in which we live; especially transnational corporations contribute to the strengthening and reproduction of this culture at a global level. Contradicting the dominant pragmatic tendencies of the 1990s, people belonging to this wing are very sceptical about the advantages of the increasing technologisation of society. They advocate certain forms of de-industrialisation rather than the ecological modernisation of production and consumption. This partial de-industrialisation can be realised by gradually changing an export-oriented economy into an economy which is more based on the principles of self-suffiency and production for local markets. Most of the groups belonging to the alternative-exemplary wing can be labelled as particpatory pressure groups, although, as we have seen, they are society rather than state-oriented. 3. Political opportunity structure and the transformation of the environmental movement The third perspective in the study of social movements emphasises the connection between the action repertoire, the organisational form and the successes of social movements on the one hand, and political opportunity structures on the other hand (Diani and van der Heijden, 1994; van der Heijden, 1997; Kitschelt, 1984; Kriesi et al., 1992,

11

1995). The formal institutional structure of the state (e.g. federal or unitarian), the informal elite strategies with respect to 'challengers' (e.g. assimilative or repressive) and the nature of electoral systems (e.g. proportional vs. majority systems) all impinge, the hypothesis runs, on the distinctive features of environmental movements in individual countries. In a federal state the need for powerful national organisations will be less strong than in a unitary state; assimilative elite behaviour will invoke a different action repertoire than repressive elite behaviour; a proportional electoral system will offer more chances of succes to green parties than a majority system, which in its turn will determine the nature of the electoral program of those parties (e.g. more 'deep green' like in Britain, more 'shallow green' like in Germany (Richardson and Rootes, 1995). What can be said about the influence of the Dutch political opportunity structure on the changes in Dutch environmentalism during the 1990s? The Dutch political opportunity structure has been characterised as a system of 'informal cooptation'. In a relatively strong and centralised state, comparable to states like the Swedish and French ones, 'challengers' like environmental groups have no formal but a high degree of informal access to the decision-making centre. Because of the assimilative elite strategies, the level of repression is low, contrary to countries like Germany and France but similar to a country like Sweden. Challengers have no possibility of veto like in Germany and Switzerland, but they are able to reach substantive concessions (van der Heijden, 1997: 28-31; Kriesi et al, 1992: 225). According to theory, the relatively strong Dutch state, combined with the prevailing inclusive elite strategies, creates favorable conditions for proactive inputs, because government is at the same time both willing and able to make concessions to new social movements and to respond positively to their demands (Giugni, 1995: 214). What is the impact of these features of the Dutch political opportunity structure on the organisational form, the action repertoire and the outcomes of the environmental movement? Because of the centralised character of the Dutch state, the national level is by far the most important one for environmental groups to pursue political influence. As political elites are very open to challengers, environmental groups have a strong impetus to organise themselves as large, centralised, professionalised and bureaucratic organisations at the national level. Because of the high level of interaction between government officials and environmental profesionals, these two groups are strongly inclined to adapt to each other. Their problem definitions and solution strategies are increasingly becoming similar, resulting in a discourse coalition guided by the principles of ecological modernisation. With respect to the organisational form, the tendency aforementioned is reflected in the tendency for environmental groups to develop from participatory protest organisations to public interest lobbies. As we have seen, the best example of this tendency is the development of the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth from a participatory protest organisation into a public interest lobby, resulting into the intended merger with Stichting Natuur en Milieu, the public interest lobby par excellence . The tendency to professionalisation leads to an ever widening gap between the bureaucratic top and the rank-and-file constituency of environmental groups. At the same time the techniques to mobilise resources are becoming very sophisticated, environmental groups cooperate with professional PR-bureaus and prominently figure in tv-commercials. However, the way in which potential constituents are adressed appeals less to a collective counter-identity (e.g. against the construction of new motorways or nuclear plants) but, instead, emphasises a hardly differentiated feeling of consensus and community ('If you love the Netherlands you become a member of Natuurmonumenten'). As we have seen, the only wing which is able to avoid these tendencies is the alternative-exemplary part of the environmnetal movement, not oriented at directly

12

influencing politics. Most of the new groups of this wing can be labelled as participatory pressure groups. As for the action repertoire during the 1990s a clear dichotomy between the institutionalised and the radical part of the environmental movement can be observed. Within the institutionalised part unconventional actions became ever more rare, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth being almost the only exceptions. At the same time, however, as we have seen, partly due to the tendencies towards institutionalisation, in the second half of the 1990s a strong revival of radical environmentalism occurred. Whereas Dutch political elites are very receptive with respect to environmental groups and activists who speak their language and share their rules of behaviour, they are very repressive towards groups who don't. ELF, ALF and, to a lesser extent, GroenFront! are handled as criminal organisations, and this kind of framing is adopted by the media. With respect to outcomes, finally,four different kinds of impacts can be distinguished. Procedural impacts refer to to the access to decision-making bodies a social movement or (some of its) organisations manage to achieve. Substantive impacts refer to material results, for instance the closing down of a nuclear plant. Structural impacts refer to changes in institutional or alliance structures, for instance a Green party's participation in government. Sensitising impacts, finally, refer to changes of the political agenda and in public attitudes (Giugni, 1995: 209 ff.). As for sensitising impacts one could say that, superficially seen, the Dutch environmental movement has been extremely succesful during the 1990s. Its total constituency skyrocketed, reflecting a high degree of environmental awareness among the Dutch population. At the same time there were ample opportunities to influence the agenda-making process. However, one may wonder what these developments really mean. One could argue that there is a substantial difference between environmental awareness and environmental behaviour, as there are substantial differences between different forms of environmental behaviour. A bi-weekly visit to the bottle bank is an excellent means to compromise a consumerist with an 'environmental' attitude, but cannot be compared with a conscious reduction in meat consumption, car driving and air travelling. With respect to the influence on the agenda building process, it can be argued that this influence mainly applies to those groups that share the problem definitions and solution strategies of the relevant government officials. These groups can be attributed a high level of procedural impacts, resulting in the attempts to arrive at the so-called 'green polder model'. During the last two decades Dutch economic and social policy making processes and the resulting economic growth have become famous through the tripartite cooperation between government, employees and employers organisations. From times immemorial Dutch politics was characterised by its ability to compromise divergent interests (pillarisation, neo-corporatism). This social-economic 'polder model' was the success story of the 1980s and 1990s, and many leading politicians argued for an extension from socio-economic to environmental policy making by means of the 'polder model'. This should be realised by the establishment of an Environmental Council with far-reaching competencies with respect to environmental matters. In this Council all kinds of social interest groups (trade unions, employers organisations, road users associations, environmental groups) should be represented. However, the price the environmental movement should have to pay was to accept the decisions taken in the Environmental Council, and to give up the weapon of grassroots actions. As yet the Environmental Council or another variant of the Green polder model has not been realised, but the most important parts of the movement (Foundation for Nature and Environment, Friends of the Earth) are eager to particpate in the Green polder model, whatever shape it would take. With respect to structural impacts, contrary to neigbouring countries Belgium and Germany, the Dutch green Party did not participate in any governement during the 1990s. Contrary to countries like Belgium, France, Germany and Italy, the Netherlands never

13

had a Green minister for the environment, and the influence of the Green Party at environmental politics or at the power relations within the party system has been very marginal indeed. The substantive impacts of Dutch environmentalism, finally, are closely related to the most important issues it has raised during the 1990s. That will be the subject of the next section. 4. The social construction of environmental problems Which role did the environmental movement play in the social construction of environmental issues, which themes dominated the Dutch environmental debate in the 1990s? Three (clusters of) issus can be distinguished: infrastructural projects, 'new nature' and ecological modernisation. infrastructural projects The three most important large-scale infrastructural projects during the last decade of the past century were the possible construction of a second national airport in the Nort Sea; the building of a high-speed train from Amsterdam to Paris, and the construction of the Betuwelijn, a freight train connection from the harbour of Rotterdam to the German hinterland. Schiphol Airport is one of the five bigest airports in Europe with a yearly number of air travellers of more than 30 million. As future scenarios pointed to a possible growth to 100 million passengers per year, and as there are strict environmmental limits to the extension of the present site, plans were raised to build a new, second national airport in the North Sea. So in the second half of the 1990s the environmental movement had to fight two battles. The first one was the battle against the continuous stretching of the environmental limitations at the present location, by means of participating in all kinds of polder model-like consultation structures and (sometimes) direct action. This battle was lost. The second battle was about the building of a second national airport. It took place in the media and the public discourse and pointed to the megalomania of the project and the damage to the Dutch coasts. This battle (provisionally) was won: Dutch government commissioned a new series of feasability studies, a tried and tested method to cancel intended policy. The high speed train to Paris and the new freight train line to Germany led to a split within the environmental movement. At one side there were the 'deep greens' who protested against the ever growing mobility in an ever growing consumerist society, and pleaded for an 'economics of enough'. They were joined by many local protest groups who feared the attack to their local nature and environment. At the other side there were the more moderate, reformist environmentalists who argued that rail traffic is more environmentally sound than air or road traffic. The dividing line even crossed trough the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth. The national top supported the government plans, the local groups, joined by radical activists from GroenFront! kept resisting them. The outcomes typically reflected the Dutch political culture of compromise. The resistance of the environmental movement against the high speed train to Paris was buyed out by a 900 million guilders tunnel under a part of Hollands celebrated 'Green Hearth'; the plans for the (relatively less important) northern track of the Betuwelijn were cancelled. new nature The Netherlands are one of the most densely populated countries in the world and the remaining stock of nature is threatened constantly. In order to counter this development the Dutch branch of WWF launched an ambitious plan to double the national area of 'real nature' from 200.000 to 400.00 hectare (400 square kilometers) within a period of 15 to

14

20 years. WWF aims to realise this goal by acquiring agricultural lands, river forelands etc., and transform them into nature reserves. The attempts to double the area of 'real nature'' is a hot item in the Dutch environmental discourse and a highly illuminating example how the social construction of environmental problems and solutions works in daily practice. According to its critics, WWF claims that transforming farming lands into 'new nature' is the one and only form of nature development. New nature is depicted as primeval nature which can do without human interference and human management. However, there are other forms of nature protection and conservation, each with their own social basis. Examples are nature conservancy by farmers, and the conservation and strengthening of natural elements in man-made landscapes. According to its critics, WWF neglects these kinds of nature; 'nature' are only those large areas which officially have been earmarked as nature; the rest is 'non-nature' in which man unrestrictedly may go his own way. Another criticism is that by exclusively promoting the protection of nature, the protection of the environment is compromised. By reducing the existing stock of agricultural land and transforming it into new nature, environmentally sound forms of agriculture are being obstructed. This is because clean production requires more lands, for instance for a more frequent crop rotation with which the usage of pesticides can be restricted. ecological modernisation The third issue that played a prominent role in the Dutch environmental debates in the 1990s was the ecological modernisation of production and consumption. From the late 1980s onward a discourse coaltion of government, science and important parts of the environmental movement has formed, in which countless ideas about cleaner forms of production, traffic, consumption etc. have been developed and implemented. During the late 1980s and 1990s about fifty covenants have been concluded between government and industry about topics like the reduction of phosphates in detergents, the reduction of packing materials and the usage of cadmium in synthetic beer crates. Friends of the Earth succesfully negotiated with a big bulding material chain on the sale of unsustainably produced tropical hardwood. Energy saving and the part-exchange of used electrical household appliances have been stimulated under pressure of the environmental movement, and the late 1990s swine fever led to a reduction in the consumption of bio-industrially produced meat. The parameters of the Dutch environmnetal discourse are set by these kinds of issues. On practical solutions like the ones aforementioned a high level of sophistication has been reached, but most environmental groups have stopped talking about topics that lie outside this 'discursive space': reduction of meat consumption, car driving and air traffic; living in smaller houses etc. 5. Conclusion The institutionalisation of the Dutch environmental movement that started in the late 1980s has progressed during the 1990s. Both the number of formal environmental NGOs and its total constituency doubled within a decade. The environmental movement has developed from a new social movement into a network of environmental NGOs, and many of these NGOs have become part of the discourse coalition of ecological modernisation. Partly as a reaction to these tendencies a radical countercurrent (ELF, ALF, GroenFront!) has emerged during the late 1990s. Within the institutionalised part of the movement a substantial shift in relative size took place from the environmentalist to the conservation and animal protection wings of the movement. Whereas the number of conservatiion groups increased from 21 to 33, that of animal protection groups from 12 to 34 and that of alternative-exemplary groups from 3 to 16, the environmentalist wing only succeeded in generating two new groups (from 11 to 13).

15

In 1992 the constituency of the environmentalist wing constituted the most important part (42%) of th environmnetal movement. The constituency of the conservation wing contributed 30%, that of the animal protection wing 27%. In 2000 the animal protection wing was by far the largest part of the movement (44%), followed by the conservation wing (35%). The environmentalist wing ranked only third with a meager 20%. This shift clearly reflects a depolitisation of the environmental problematique. The way conservation and animal protection issues are framed is definitely less 'political' than the way Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Foundation Nature and Environmnet use to frame environmental issues. Perhaps a bit surprisingly, the relative share of public interest lobbies did not increase during the 1990s, mainly due to the fact that most new alternative-exemplary groups, and some new animal protection and conservation groups, were participatory pressure groups. In this paper four different theoretical perspectives were used to analyse the changes in Dutch environmentalism during the 1990s. In retrospect one could say that all four perspectives have proved to be useful. The prism of the new social movement approach shows us the transformation of the environmental movement from a new social movement into a network of EMOs, but also the significance of the emerging radical countercurrent in the late 1990s. The toolkit of the resource mobilisation approach helps us to analyse the diferences between the environmental movement and environmental movement organisations, and the developments within the environmental movement industry (organisational growth, institutionalisation). The political opportunity structure approach originally was designed to compare social movements within different political contexts. However, it can also be useful to analyse developments within one country during a specific time period. Although the formal institutional structure of the Dutch state didn't change during the 1990s, the informal elite strategies more and more were aimed at including or coopting the moderate part of the environmenatl movement, and at excluding or criminalising the radical part. The social-constructionist perspective, finally, helps us to understand discourse coalitions, for instance with respect to the issues of 'new nature' and ecological modernisation. To what extent do developments within Dutch environmentalism reflect more general trends? When we restrict ourselves to Western countries that witnessed the emergence of an environmental movement from the late 1960s onwards, a number of common trends can be observed. First of all, from all countries a tendency towards institutionalisation is reported. This institutionalisation manifests itself in a growing professionalisation, bureaucratisation and organisational growth, going along with a de-radicalisation of the action repertoire (Dowie, 1996; van der Heijden, 1997; Rootes (ed.), 1999). Probably, however, institutionalisation in the Netherlands has progressed most of all countries in the world, due to the pecularities of the Dutch political opportunity structure (cf. van der Heijden, 1997). The size of the constituency of the Dutch institutionalised environmental movement shows that EMOs in other countries still have a world to win (at least if they want to live in world like that). A second common trend is the tendency towards ecological modernisation. If the Netherlands, together with Germany and Sweden, could be called forerunners in this field, recent developments in other countries show a tendency to adopt ecological modernisation strategies (Environmental Politics, 2000,1: forthcoming). A final development I want to mention has to do with the discursive struggle about the issue of 'new nature'. Because the Netherlands are one of the most densely populated countries in the world, this country was the first to 'discover' the need for new nature. Although the issue is controversial, as has been shown, one could hypothesise that in the new century 'new nature' will become in important issue in other countries as well. In this

16

respect the europeanisation of conservation politics (Birds Directive, Habitat Directive, Natura 2000) creates a new challenge to the environmental movement, not only at the national, but also at the local and the European level. But that is a topic for another paper.

17

Notes 1. The membership numbers have been derived from a yearly inventory by the Dutch radio broadcasting program 'VARA's Vroege Vogels'. Neither double-memberships nor family-memberships are taken into account; they are supposed to neutralise each other. A person may be a member or supporter of different organisations, but on the other hand different members of a family only count as one member of an environmental organisation. 2. Of course, this subdivision, like any categorisation, generates a number of borderline cases. For instance: should WWF be considered as a conservationist or as an animal protection organisation.? Is Greenpeace an environmental group when it campaigns for the closing down of an oil refinery and an animal protection group when it advocates the protection of whales and seals? In this paper this kind of questions has been solved pragmatically by looking at the most important or most frequently occurring kinds of activities of the different organisations. 3. In the literature (e.g. Dalton, 1994) often a correspondance is supposed between the goals (radical vs. moderate), the organisational form (grassroots vs. bureaucratic) and the action repertoire (unconventional vs. conventional) of a social movement organisation. Radical goals are supposed to go along with a grassroots organisational form and a predominantly unconventional action repertoire, whereas moderate goals more belong to bureaucratic groups with a conventional action repertoire. Although this parallelism sometimes holds, in many other cases it does not. Greenpeace, for instance, combines a predominantly unconventional action repertoire with a bureaucratic organisational form. 4. Greenpeace US, after its collapse in the mid 1990s, nowadays has a total constituency of about 240.000, the constituency of Greenpeace UK amounts to 330.000 while the German branch of Greenpeace ranks second after the Netherlands with 550.000 supporters.

18

References - Becker, J.W. et al. (1996), Publike Opinie en Milieu. Rijswijk: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. - Brand, K.W. (Hrsg) (1985), Neue Soziale Bewegungen in Westeuropa und den USA. Ein internationaler Vergleich. Frankfurt: Campus. - Cohen. J. (1985), Strategy or Identity? New Theoretical Paradigms and Contemproray Social Movements. In: Social Research, 52, p. 663-716. - Dalton, R. (1994), The Green Rainbow. Environmental Groups in Western Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press. - Diani, M. and P. Donati (1999), Organisational Change in Western European Environmental Groups: A Framework for Analysis. In: Environmental Politics, vol 8, no.1, p. 13-34. - Dowie, M. (1995), Losing Grounds. American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge (MA): MIT-Press. - Eyerman, R. and A. Jamison (1991), Social Movements: a Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press. - Gamson, W.A. (1975), The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood (Ill.): Dorsey. - Giugni, M. (1995), Outcomes of New Social Movements. In: Kriesi et al., p. 207-237. - Hajer, M. 1995), The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological Modernisationa and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - Heijden, H.A. van der (1997), Political Opportunity Structure and the Institutionalisation of the Environmental Movement.In: Environmental Politics, 4, p. 25-50. - Heijden, H.A. van der (1999), Environmental Movements, Ecological Modernisation and Political Opportunity Structures. In: Environmental Politics, 1, p. 199-221. - Jordan, G. and W. Maloney (1997), The Protest Business? Mobilising Campaign Groups. Manchester: Manchester University Press. - Kitschelt, H. (1986), Political Opportunity Structures and Social Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies. In: British Journal of Political Science, 16, p. 57-85. - Knappe, M. (1993), Das Geheimnis von Greenpeace, Wien: Orac. - Kriesi, H. et al. (1992), New Social Movements and Political Opportunities in Western Europe. In: European Journal of Political Research, 22, p. 219-244. - Kriesi, H. et al. (1995), Social Movements in Western Europe. A Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. - Melucci, A. (1985), The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements. In: Social Research, 52, p. 781-816. - McCarthy, J.D. and M.N. Zald (1976), Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: a Partial Theory. In: American Journal of Sociology, 82, p. 1214-1241. - Melucci, A. (1989), Nomads of the Present. Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. - Offe, C. (1985), New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics. In: Social Research, 52, p. 818-868. - Rootes, C. (ed.) (1999), Environmental Movements: Local, National and Global. London: Frank Cass. - Rucht, D. (1989), Environmental Movement Organizations in West Germany and France. Structure and Interorganizational Relations. In: P. Klandermans (ed.), Organizing for Change, Social Movement Organizations in Europe and the United States. Greenwich (Con.): JAI-Press. - R¸dig, W. (1988), Peace and Ecology Movements in Western Europe. In: Westeuropean Politics, 1, p. 26-39. - Scarce, R. (1990), Eco-warriors. Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement. Chcago: The Noble Press.

19

- Snow, D. et al. (1986), Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Particpation. In: American Sociological Review, 51, p. 464-481. - Tarrow, S. (1983), Struggling to Reform: Social Movements and Policy Change during Cycles of Protest. Ithaca (N.Y.): Cornell University, Western Societies Program Occasional Paper 15. - Touraine, A. (1978), La Voix et le Regard. Paris: Seuil. - Touraine, A. (1982), Mouvements Sociaux d'aujourd'hui. Acteurs et Analystes. Paris: Ed. Ouvieres. pag \* arabisch1 # $ , - . / w & G ñ Ó q1 •1 ÁA B iB ÅB Q SR lV œV W

20

W *W /W ÷[ 6\ ðg h ]i gi #k Sk àp °p Œq Áq ut õt ⁄u Ûu Nx Öx ‡y z m| Ä| ~ $~ ìà ∏à åä ä ™í ì ü Û·”ø·Û≥®≥®ú®≥®ê®ê®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®ú®≥® 6Å@à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ mH >*@à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ mH @à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ mH 5Å@à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ mH &Åj 5Å@à¸ˇCJ OJ QJ UmH Å5Å@à¸ˇCJ OJ QJ mH #Åj 5Å@à¸ˇCJ OJ QJ UmH 5Å@à¸ˇCJ OJ QJ mH 8 / 1 Ü ≈ ∆ · 1 T v w Ë

21

y ° ª % & F G N ƒ ï ñ Ì Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û $*$ ∆ `˙ ú / 1 Ü ≈ ∆ · 1 T v w Ë

22

y ° ª % & F G N ƒ ï ñ Ì Ó - - 3- J- a- x- è- ¶- Ω- æ- 1 &! å( à* â* V- «. y0 p1 q1 §1 •1 _2 ö4 Œ7 ‘9 /< ¤? Ω@ æ@ ÖA C D ÙE

23

G 4H £H ‰J ›L àP ÅQ Q Q RR SR ÆR ØR S \S ∞S T 0T çT éT ◊U iV lV ŒV œV /W ÄW “W !X qX rX ÅY ƒZ 5[ ’[ ÷[ 6\ \ eÌ Ó - - 3- J- a- x- è- ¶- Ω- æ- 1 &! å( à* â* V- «. y0 p1 q1 §1 •1 _2 ö4 Œ7 ‘9 /< Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û $*$ ∆ `˙ ú /< ¤? Ω@ æ@ ÖA C D ÙE

24

G 4H £H ‰J ›L àP ÅQ Q Q RR SR ÆR ØR S \S ∞S T 0T çT éT ◊U Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û $*$ ∆ `˙ ú ◊U iV lV ŒV œV /W ÄW “W !X qX rX ÅY ƒZ 5[ ’[ ÷[ 6\ \ ~\ …\ 0] ï] Í] ;^ í^ Ú^ A_ ú_ Ù_ Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û $*$ ∆ `˙ ú \ ~\ …\ 0] ï] Í] ;^ í^ Ú^ A_ ú_ Ù_ P` ™` a aa ∂a b _b ¥b

25

c jc ∑c d d e

26

f Ôg ðg h Ii k fil Ñp Œq rt ÿu ⁄u Ûu Çv Âv Ew ôw Jx ¤y i| ~ ~ ~ $~ >• ÄÅ «Ç ∑É ∑Ö á èà ãä åä ä Gç Cé Òë ©í ™í í ì ì ï Œó [ò Gú ú ≈ü Ω° X¢ b§ r• …®

27

´ YÆ ÀØ µ —∂ è∑ ê∑ ≈∑ ∆∑ ‚∏ „∏ ∏ j∫ ¢æ ®¡ √ √ √ ƒ í» F G eÙ_ P` ™` a aa ∂a b _b ¥b

28

c jc ∑c d d e

29

f Ôg ðg h Ii k fil Ñp Œq rt ÿu ⁄u Ûu Çv Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û $*$ ∆ `˙ ú Çv Âv Ew ôw Jx ¤y i| ~ ~ ~ $~ >• ÄÅ «Ç ∑É ∑Ö á èà ãä åä ä Gç Cé Òë ©í ™í í ì ì Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û $*$ ∆ `˙ ú ì ï Œó [ò Gú ú ≈ü Ω° X¢ b§ r• …®

30

´ YÆ ÀØ µ —∂ è∑ ê∑ ≈∑ ∆∑ ‚∏ „∏ ∏ j∫ ¢æ ®¡ √ √ Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û $*$ ∆ `˙ ú ü éü ›ü ðü ° ∫° Ä• ë• ¤® „® ´ *´ kØ Ø ± a± &µ 8µ ÿ∂ Î∂ ê∑ ∆∑ „∏ ∏ √ √ G œ – P W ðÏ Ï Ì 2Ì Ì ÕÌ MÓ \Ó ÉÓ ºÓ bÔ xÔ •Ô ıÔ 6ð \ð éð ð 0Ò äÒ +Ú AÚ ÃÚ ‚Ú Û HÛ ðÛ Ù 9Ù UÙ «Ù ÌÙ ı Uı œı fiı Yˆ vˆ †ˆ ıˆ Ę è˜ ª˜ Ô˜ °¯ ¯ [˘ p˘ î˘ —˘ S˙ ÛËÛË‹ËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛË–ËÛËÛËÛË–Ë–Ë–ËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛËÛË 5Å@à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ mH 6Å@à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ mH @à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ mH >*@à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ mH R√ √ ƒ í» F G À yŒ œ œ – – -“ Ô” ∂÷ ≈◊ ∆◊ õ⁄ °‹ Y› Z› ffi C· É‚ ( O V WÂ Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û $*$ ∆ `˙ ú ` À yŒ œ œ – – -“ Ô” ∂÷ ≈◊ ∆◊ õ⁄ °‹ Y› Z› ffi C· É‚ ( O V W Á 3È ÏÎ ÔÏ Ï Ï Ì ‚Ì nÓ ‡Ó ëÔ ð wð «ð Ò Ò PÚ ÛÚ sÛ $Ù cÙ Ù Éı ðı äˆ ˜ °˜ ¯ ˘ ˘ Ì˘ Å˙ ;˚ v˚ ⁄˚ Ê˚ ˚ ˚ ¸ <W Á 3È ÏÎ ÔÏ Ï Ï Ì ‚Ì nÓ ‡Ó ëÔ ð wð «ð Ò Ò PÚ ÛÚ sÛ $Ù cÙ Ù Éı ðı äˆ ˜ °˜ ¯ Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û $*$ ∆ `˙ ú ¯ ˘ ˘ Ì˘ Å˙ ;˚ v˚ ⁄˚ ‹˚ ›˚ fi˚ fl˚ ·˚ ‚˚ ‰˚ Â˚ Ê˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Ò Ò Ï Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò › Œ Ò Ò Û $*$Ñ`˙dÅ˝ ∆ `˙ü $*$

31

Ñâ˙dÅ˝ ∆ `˙ü dÏˇ $*$ ∆ `˙ ú S˙ o˙ ñ˙ Á˙ Q˚ f˚ ç˚ ƒ˚ ⁄˚ ¤˚ ›˚ fi˚ fl˚ ‡˚ ‚˚ „˚ Â˚ Á˚ Ë˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ÛËÛËÛËÛË· fi fi fi ”ƒ”ƒ”ƒ” Ë j @à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ UmH @à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ mH CJ j CJ U@à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ mH >*@à˝ˇCJ OJ QJ mH 00 P ∞–/ ∞‡=!∞†"∞w#ê–$ê–%∞ ∞–∞–“‘ Ä Ä Ä Ä Ä Ä Ä Ä Ä – . . . . ( ) ( ) ) ) ( ) ( )