Final Case Study version 2 - ruaf.org study Bond van... · Joanna Wilbers – Bond van Volkstuinders (BVV), Amsterdam 6 CASE SUMMARY Location and context of the Municipality of Amsterdam

Social organisations of urban and peri-urban producers. Management models and innovative alliances for policy influencing

BOND VAN VOLKSTUINDERS – BVV (ASSOCIATION OF GARDENERS)

Final Case Study version 2

Amsterdam, The Netherlands By Joanna Wilbers ETC Foundation – Urban Agriculture Programme October 2005

Urban and Peri-Urban Producers’ Organisations Management Models and Innovative Alliances for Policy Influencing

Joanna Wilbers – Bond van Volkstuinders (BVV), Amsterdam 2

INDEX

CASE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 6

PART 1 .................................................................................................................................. 12

1. LOCATION AND CONTEXT .............................................................................................................12 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................12 1.2 Location and context of The Netherlands...........................................................................12

1.2.1 Location of The Netherlands ................................................................................12 1.2.2 Main characteristics of its population ....................................................................13 1.2.3 Socio-economic context.......................................................................................14 1.2.4 Institutional and political organisation...................................................................14

1.3 Location and context of the Municipality of Amsterdam.......................................................17 1.3.1 Location of Amsterdam .......................................................................................17 1.3.2 Main characteristics of the population...................................................................18 1.3.3 Socio-economic context.......................................................................................18 1.3.4 Institutional and political organisation...................................................................19 1.3.5 Legal and normative framework...........................................................................21

PART 2 .................................................................................................................................. 23

2. DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISATION OF THE EXPERIENCE AND ITS PARTICIPANTS........................................23 2.1 Profile of the participants of the experience .......................................................................23 2.2 Profile of the BVV............................................................................................................24

2.2.1 Origin ................................................................................................................24 2.2.1.1 The history of urban gardens in Amsterdam ......................................................24 2.2.1.2 World War 1 and the establishment of the BVV .....................................................25 2.2.1.3 Towards World War 2 and beyond .......................................................................26

2.2.2 Intervention scale, objectives and type of activities................................................27 2.2.2.1 Intervention scale...............................................................................................27 2.2.2.2 BVV objectives ...................................................................................................28 2.2.2.3 Types of activities...............................................................................................29 2.2.2.4 How to become a member ..................................................................................31

2.2.3 Organisation and functioning ...............................................................................32 2.2.4 Infrastructure and accounting situation.................................................................34 2.2.5 Important dates .................................................................................................35

2.3 Alliances for public policy influencing and the access to resources, inputs and markets..........38 2.3.1 Objectives and motives .......................................................................................38 2.3.2 Actors involved and mechanisms used..................................................................39 2.3.3 Participation of women, youth and elderly ............................................................41 2.3.4 Problems identified and possible solutions.............................................................41

2.4 Strategies developed for public policy influencing and the access to resources, inputs and markets ...............................................................................................................................42

2.4.1 Main strategies and actions developed..................................................................42 2.4.1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................42 2.4.1.2 Strategies for influencing local policy formulation ..................................................43 2.4.1.3 Strategies for increased access to resources, inputs and markets............................46

2.4.2 Problems identified and possible solutions.............................................................47

PART 3 .................................................................................................................................. 49

3. ANALYSIS OF THE ALLIANCES AND STRATEGIES ...................................................................................49 3.1 Analysis of the main alliances established..........................................................................49

3.1.1 Types of alliances established ..............................................................................49 3.1.2 Fulfilment of the objectives and the effect of the alliances established.....................49 3.1.3 Duration and evolution of the alliances over time ..................................................49 3.1.4 Effective participation of women, youth and elderly ...............................................50 3.1.5 Strengths and weaknesses in the establishment of alliances ...................................50

3.2 Analysis of main strategies developed ...............................................................................51 3.2.1 Type and effect of the strategies and actions developed ........................................51 3.2.2 Achievement of objectives ...................................................................................51 3.2.3 Effective participation of women, youth and elderly ...............................................51 3.2.4 Strengths and weaknesses in the development of strategies and actions .................51



PART 4 .................................................................................................................................. 53

4. ACHIEVED RESULTS IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ALLIANCES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES .....................53 4.1 Achieved results in the establishment of alliances...............................................................53

4.1.1 Results for the members of the BVV .....................................................................53 4.1.2 Results for the BVV with regard to its organisation, functioning and public policy influencing .......................................................................................................................53

4.2 Achieved results in the development of strategies ..............................................................53 4.2.1 Results with respect to the Structure Plan ‘Choosing for Urbanisation’ .....................54

4.2.1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................54 4.2.1.2 The Structure Plan and the urban gardens............................................................54

4.2.2 Results with respect to the Concept Note on Garden Parks ...........................................56 4.2.3 Other results ......................................................................................................58

PART 5 .................................................................................................................................. 59

5. LESSONS LEARNT AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................59 5.1 Lessons learnt related to the organisation, functioning and public policy influencing..............59

5.1.1 Organisation ......................................................................................................59 5.1.2 Functioning........................................................................................................61 5.1.3 Public policy influencing ......................................................................................62

5.2 Recommendations related to the organisation, functioning and public policy influencing ........63 5.2.1 Organisation ......................................................................................................63 5.2.2 Functioning........................................................................................................64 5.2.3 Public policy influencing ......................................................................................65

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 66

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES ............................................................................................................66 WEBSITES..................................................................................................................................66 OTHER REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................67

ANNEXES .............................................................................................................................. 68

ANNEX 1 – CONTACT DETAILS...................................................................................................68 ANNEX 2 – REPORT VALIDATION/STRENGHTS & WEAKNESSES MEETING......................................69



Table Index Table no. Title Page Table 1 Development of age groups in The Netherlands, period 1950-2005 (%) 12 Table 2 Gross Domestic Product The Netherlands (2001-2004) 13 Table 3 Ethnic composition Amsterdam population 17 Maps Map no. Title Page Map 1 The Netherlands 11 Map 2 A city plan of Amsterdam 16 Map 3 Amsterdam’s city districts 18 Map 4 Location of urban garden parks in Amsterdam 27 Figures Figure no. Title PageFigure 1 Public authorities at national and provincial level in The Netherlands 15Figure 2 The organisational structure of the Municipality of Amsterdam and its

city districts 20Figure 3 Organisation structure BVV 32 Boxes Box no. Title PageBox 1 Sister organisations 32Box 2 The general work 34Box 3 The garden houses 36Box 4 Sewerage construction 43Box 5 New alliances 62



LIST OF ACRONYMS USED1 AGO Amsterdamse Gehandicapten Opvang (Amsterdam Center for Disabled

Persons) AVVN Algemeen Verbond van Volkstuinders Verenigingen in Nederland (General

Association for Gardeners in The Netherlands) BAC Bestuurlijke Advies Commissie (Administrative Advice Commission) BVV Bond van Volkstuinders (Association of Gardeners) CBS Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (Central Bureau of Statistics) CDA Christen Democratisch Appèl (Christian Democratic Appeal) DMO Dienst Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling, Gemeente Amsterdam (Societal

Development Service, Amsterdam Municipality) DRO Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening (Municipal Urban Planning Service) DWR Dienst Waterbeheer en Riolering (Municipal Water and Sanitation Service) EU European Union GDP Gross Domestic Product IDRC International Development Research Centre IPES Promoción del Desarrollo Sostenible (Promotion of Sustainable

Development) IVN Vereniging voor Natuur en Milieu-educatie (Association for Nature and

Environmental Education) MCA Milieu Centrum Amsterdam (Amsterdam Centre for Environment) NIDO Nationaal Initiatief Duurzame Ontwikkeling (National Institute for

Sustainable Development) NME Centrum voor Natuur en Milieu-educatie (Amsterdam Nature and

Environment Expert Centre) PvdA Partij van de Arbeid (Labour Party) RBvV Rotterdamse Bond van Volkstuinders (Rotterdam Association of Gardeners) SZW Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (Ministry of Social Affairs

and Employment) VNG Vereniging Nederlandse Gemeenten (Association of Dutch Municipalities) VROM Ministerie van Verkeer, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu (Ministry of Traffic,

Spatial Planning and Environment) VVD Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (People’s Party for Freedom and

Democracy)

1 Most of the abbreviations have been translated from Dutch to English by the author and therefore may not be the official translation.



CASE SUMMARY Location and context of the Municipality of Amsterdam The Bond van Volkstuinders (BVV) is located in the capital of the Netherlands, Amsterdam. This city is located in the province North Holland, near the coast, in the highly populated west of the country. Currently, the city of Amsterdam has a surface of 21,907 ha, while the total population amounts up to 738,763 persons. This means that, on average, there are 4,435 people per square kilometre. Some city districts however, have a density of more than 20,000 inhabitants per square kilometre. This association, active in the capital city of The Netherlands and one of the most populated areas in the country, was established in 1917, by its own members. Other charitable organisations, rented out the gardens to the gardeners for a relatively low amount of money. The users of the land were meant to work in the gardens in their spare time, mainly for the growing of potatoes and vegetables for their own consumption. The issuing of these gardens therefore had a clear economical goal, the increase of the working class families’ incomes, although there has always also been attention for the other beneficial consequences of having a garden. During the World Wars the gardens had an important function in the food provisioning, but they lost this task fully after the World War was over. Soon, the gardens were used for recreational purposes. Profile of the BVV Currently, Amsterdam counts 6000 gardens in total, with a surface amounting up to 300 ha. These 6000 gardens are united in 37 garden complexes, which are also called garden parks. 24 of these parks are united in the BVV: 21 have a predominantly recreation function, while only 2 are only occupied by gardens producing food products. This last kind of gardens is increasing, mostly because of the growing number of participating immigrants, who, for example, produce vegetables in the gardens from their home country. 1 of the BVV garden parks incorporates gardens with both functions. The recreation parks can be divided into 2 different kinds: (1) garden parks with day recreation, these are parks where decorative as well as productive gardens can be found, with or without a small garden house on the individual parcels and where it is forbidden to stay the night; and (2) garden parks with longer recreation possibilities, which are like day recreation parks but with the possibility to stay the night from April through September. Most of the recreation garden parks can be found in the second category. A garden park is a collection of garden parcels (in the Netherlands, these are called ‘gardens of the people’) from 50 to 400 units, ranging in size from 50 to 300 sq meters, which is located in or close to the city. The terrains on which the garden parks are located are rented directly by the BVV from the local government. Through the boards of the garden parks, the BVV rents these terrains to the members. Objectives and activities of the BVV The most important objectives of the BVV are:

> The protection of the interests of her current members, by enabling them to optimally continue their gardening activities, now and in the future

> The protection of the interests of her future members, by aiming for an increase of the number of gardens in the city

> The contribution to the sense of, and contact with nature of her members as well as to the maintenance of social contacts amongst them

In summary, the following are the BVV’s most important activities:

> Influencing of and negotiation with the local government and its policy (for example in the case of the Structure Plan and the Concept Note, see Chapter 4)

> Providing and improving the access to land > Providing legal support > General administration of the members > Providing financial services



> Provision of technical services and inputs > Provision of access to information and courses > Improvement of the quality of life of her members and their families

Profile of the participants of the experience In total, the association has 7200 members. However, the number of users of the gardens is larger than this, as the family members of the officially registered users also use and enjoy the gardens. The average age of the members is about 55 years, only 2% of the members is younger than 30. Most gardeners live in Amsterdam, on average not further than 5 kilometres away from their garden. The income level can be rated from low to average, and many of the members live in a densely populated neighbourhood. Currently, the garden parks are going through a culture change, as they are diversifying in terms of age, nationality and social background. During the past years, a tendency can be witnessed of an increasing amount of families with children using the gardens, as well as a growing amount of immigrants and working singles (particularly women), part-timers and early retirees. Organisation and functioning Internally, the BVV is made up of several entities:

> The BVV board, which consist of volunteering members, is responsible for the formulation of the general policy and the daily procedures within the association.

> Several commissions that assist the board in its functioning, such as for example the Conflict Commission, Advice Commission, etc. These commissions also consist of volunteers. An important role is played by the Advice Commission, which is made up of representative in the Advice Commission from the garden parks.

> The association office, where several salaried employees work and which is responsible for the administration.

> The garden park boards, also called department boards, which hold the daily responsibilities at park level. The members of these boards are chosen by the members on that specific garden park.

> These boards are also assisted by commissions, such as for example the commission of purchase, the construction commission, the social activities commission, the plants commission, the editorial commission, the general work commission, etc.

Alliances for public policy influencing and the access to resources, inputs and markets There are a number of institutes and/or actors within and outside of Amsterdam, with which the BVV has struck alliances to ensure the access to resources, inputs, markets and political influencing. Alliances with external organisations and institutes are built for different reasons and following from this, at different levels. In the case of the BVV, 2 levels can be discerned: the operational level and the strategic level. Alliances at the operational level are struck to improve the practical conditions in which the organisation or the members are able to perform their specific activity. These alliances can, for example, improve the financial conditions or can increase the gardeners’ capacities of gardening. They mostly have their benefits at the level of the members of the association, the gardeners. At the strategic level, alliances are strived after that will contribute to the continuity and sustainability of the organisation and its members’ activities in time. Cooperation at this level is sought for to enable the increase the number of gardens, or, which is more often the case in Amsterdam, the maintenance of the current number. These alliances initially mostly benefit the association as a whole, but in the longer run also its members. At the operational level, the BVV has established alliances with:

> Amsterdam Nature and Environment Expert Centre (NME) > Amsterdam Centre for Environment (MCA) > Municipal Water and Sanitation Service (DWR) > Municipal Service for Infrastructure, Traffic and Transport > Insurance company > Organisational advice office



With the following organisations, the BVV has established an alliance at strategic level:

> General Association for Gardeners in The Netherlands (AVVN) > Municipal Urban Planning Service (DRO) > National Institute for Sustainable Development (NIDO) > Community and health care institutes > Sister associations in Amsterdam and in the rest of The Netherlands

More informal contacts have been established with:

> Association of Dutch Municipalities (Vereniging Nederlandse Gemeenten, VNG) > Forum for Green Facilities The Netherlands (Groenforum Nederland)

Strategies developed for public policy influencing and the access to resources, inputs and markets The BVV resorts to several strategies to achieve its objectives. Generally speaking it could be stated that the BVV thinks it important to keep the dialogue open with local policy makers at all levels, as well as to feed this dialogue with information on the relevance of the urban gardens. With respect to the objective of the influencing of local policy formulation, the organisation resorts to the following specific strategies:

− Offering information: the association makes sure that the local government departments involved in the policy formulation relevant to the urban gardens is kept well informed with regard to the BVV itself, its activities, the necessities and status of its members, its policy, etc. It does this through: regular written correspondence, organisation of working visits, distribution of its policy plan and sending out press releases.

− Reaction/participation: in local policy discussions by taking part in participation procedures or by organising information meetings on policy issues for its own members and inviting to these meetings the responsible local government official to establish direct contact between the municipality and the gardeners.

− Maintaining an open dialogue: keeping the dialogue open and maintaining it, is considered to be of more importance than choosing a too strong own position, with which one puts oneself outside of the game in negotiations.

− Liaising in ‘crisis’ situations: in difficult situations, when for example a garden complex is threatened by municipal plans to be cancelled or moved, the BVV contacts other players in the field, which could play a role in the defence of the organisation’s cause. By contacting (mostly political) entities in and around the city of Amsterdam, the BVV hopes to establish more understanding and a (larger) support base in situations where this is necessary. The following players have been contacted in this respect: neighbouring municipalities, political parties, provincial government.

− Increasing the added value: by trying to achieve a greater diversity in the characteristics of the gardens and its users, aiming for a better ‘fit’ of the gardens in their near environment and combining the gardens with other city functions, for example by creating outside meeting places, with sports and game functions.

− Organisation of conferences and discussion meetings: to get certain stakeholders together for a discussion all consider relevant, bringing the urban gardens to the fore and putting the BVV in the spotlight both towards the members as well as towards the outside world. Besides bringing the BVV more publicity, this kind of meetings also delivers new contacts.

Achieved results in the establishment of alliances and the development of strategies By establishing alliances and developing strategies, results have been achieved for the members as well as for the organisation in itself. For the members, alliances have led to:

– Increased number of possibilities to enhance their knowledge on gardening and nature as well as all sorts of related matters, which also enhances the extent to which they enjoy the activity.



– Financial benefits as the BVV has negotiated with for example the insurance company for a quantity reduction of the fee.

– Facilitated access to the services of the municipality, which also increase the positive way in which the gardeners experiences their own garden as well as the garden park.

– Increased participation in municipal policymaking and decision-making. – Increased and more secure access to land. – Continuation of location of urban gardens, in several cases. – Increased or sustained possibilities for relatively cheap recreation (in comparison with

for example the costs of membership at a sports club). For the BVV, alliances and the development of strategies have resulted in:

– Organisational reforms and advice on more efficient management. – (Legal) support and advice in the battle with local government, leading to a stronger

position in negotiations. – Larger group of users, herewith expanding its user base and therefore also

strengthening. – Larger awareness with external parties of the importance of the urban gardens for

society – Continuation of the organisation through continuation of the urban gardens. – The creation of a knowledge base on the urban gardens and their significance for the

city and its inhabitants, by the municipality itself. – The start of the formulation of municipal policies, laws and regulations concerning

the urban gardens. – Recognition by the municipality in the policy notes of the societal function of the

urban gardens as well as the need to maintain a balance between the demand and the supply of the gardens and to modernise existing garden parks (often intensification of its use, adding to the multi-functionality of the urban gardens).

Lessons learnt related to the organisation, functioning and public policy influencing The most important lessons learnt from the BVV experience with regard to management and organisation concern:

− The recognition of the importance of the member interest, in order to ensure the sustainability of the organisation, as well as the recognition of the fact that energy has to be put into the maintenance of this interest (for example by rewarding individual initiatives).

− The importance of the adaptation of the organisation and its structure to current times and societal developments in terms of changes in the composition of the urban population and the resulting user groups, and therefore the guaranteeing of its sustainability.

− The recognition of importance of the organisation level in between the board and the members, being the link between the top and the bottom and therefore the spinal cord of the organisation. This recognition should be resembled in the organisation structure and this level should be assisted and enabling conditions should be created by the board.

− The recognition of the importance of communication between all levels: board, garden park boards, members and the outside world. This also in order to keep the reasons for the existence of the overall organisation alive with its members, especially when an organisation already exists for several decades. The bond between the organisation and its members needs to be kept alive.

− Structures designed to enhance participatory decision-making should not lead to situations where all members have to take decisions on everything, even on issues that do not concern themselves. This is even more so in large organisations with high numbers of members.

With regard to functioning, the following lessons can be drawn:



− It is important to communicate with the members on what has been done and what has been achieved with respect to the construction of alliances. By communicating this, members can become more actively involved and express their wishes in which alliances need to be established, how and for what reason.

− It is important to recognise that an organisation should reflect the composition of its members’ group in age, ethnicity and gender, as a more diverse composition will also cater for a diversification of the alliance struck.

With regard to policy influencing, the following lessons can be learned:

− By communicating efforts and results to the members, they are more actively involved in the policy influencing process. This increases the participatory aspects of the organisation’s policy influencing, which gives the organisation’s arguments more strength and body.

− It is important to recognise that an internal consultation process may take up a lot of time, which may not coincide with the political procedures. In order to guarantee a high-quality participation of the members, an organisation may wish to take action and attempt to change ‘the rules of the game’ often set by the government so that these reflect the organisation’s reality better.

− From the BVV’s point of view it is more useful to establish and maintain an open dialogue than to view the other partner in a certain issue as an enemy.

− By linking up with other organisations that have similar objectives and interests as your own, you facilitate knowledge exchange and create a stronger base for negotiation with policy makers.

− By stressing the multi-functionality of the garden parks and involving other public and private stakeholders, the user base of the organisation is enlarged which also provides the organisation with a stronger negotiation base.

Although these lessons can be learned from the BVV experience, they can also be of use to urban gardeners’ associations in general. Recommendations related to the organisation, functioning and public policy influencing To further enhance the effectiveness of the BVV in the areas of organisation, functioning and public policy influencing, it could be worthwhile to look into the following points:

− Creation of a more diversified financial base to guarantee an enhanced financial sustainability of the organisation in the longer run.

− More detailed investigations into the relation between the current management structure and the (generally) relatively low interest of members in BVV activities and meetings.

− Look into what the advantages and disadvantages would be of a changed organisation structure where the board would have a more advisory task, combined with an important information task: externally but also internally – stimulating and facilitating the contact between the garden parks and the garden parks would have more decision-making powers.

− Set-up of a system to facilitate contact between garden parks on the operational level.

− A re-orientation on who its beneficiaries are and whether or not new or different policies, objectives and activities should be formulated and possibly even a review of the BVV’s vision on the own organisation’s identity.

− Establishment of a Public Relations department in combination with an External Relations department (a central point within the BVV office where possibilities and potencies of garden parks are geared to the needs of society’s institutes).

− More research on how to improve the internal communication structure could be beneficial, with specific attention for the efforts and results with regard to the alliance construction and policy influencing (analysis will also serve the internal views on organisation’s monitoring and evaluation).



− More investigations could be favourable, to see whether the expansion of the number of gardens in and outside of Amsterdam should increase, also in light of modernisation possibilities.

− A further expansion and diversification of contacts with other and new organisations in the future deserves attention, such as public housing companies, societal organisations and the private sector.

− A further elaboration on and recognition of the importance of ecological gardening and the relation between nature and people’s health could bring political and financial benefits.

− It could be worthwhile to explore more and new mechanisms to involve more members in the BVV activities, as these now rest on a small group of people.

− It would be useful to explore the possibilities for a professionalisation of the BVV board.

In the first place, these recommendations apply to the BVV and its Amsterdam context, but they could also be of use to urban gardeners’ associations in general.



PART 1 1. Location and context 1.1 Introduction The Bond van Volkstuinders (BVV, Association of Gardeners) is located in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. This chapter will provide information on the location and the context of The Netherlands more in general and of Amsterdam in specific. 1.2 Location and context of The Netherlands

1.2.1 Location of The Netherlands The Netherlands is located in Western Europe, and borders Germany in the east (land boundary 577 km), Belgium in the south (450 km) and the North Sea in the west and the north (see Map 1). Despite the small surface of the country, the Netherlands consists of quite a number of different landscapes, all of which however originate from human interventions. The Dutch landscape is therefore strongly characterised by the construction of dikes, the acquisition of land, the reclaiming of swamps, agriculture and cities and roads. Actual original landscapes are almost absent in the Netherlands and nature is dominated by fields, pastures, moors, which originate from the massive cut of the woods. The woodland currently present in the Netherlands has been planted, which is for example also the case for the ‘Amsterdamse Bos’, the woods on which Amsterdam borders. The terrain in The Netherlands is mostly coastal lowland and reclaimed land (polders), with some hills in the southeast of the country. The lowest point lies at 7 meters below sea level (Zuidvlaspolder), while the highest point is located at +322 m (Vaalserberg). Map 1 The Netherlands

Source: Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken: www.minbuza.nl Generally speaking, the climate in The Netherlands can be characterised as a moderate sea climate with cool winters and mild summers, in which the temperatures are mostly



determined by the location of the country in relation to the sea and the proximity of the warm North Atlantic Gulf stream. The differences in temperature at the coast are therefore smaller than more inland. The highest temperatures occur in June and July, with an average daily temperature of 28 degrees Celsius. In the three winter months, from December through February, the temperature is just below zero, on average. The precipitation is distributed over the year quite evenly, although most rainfall in Amsterdam occurs in the fall. On average, there is a precipitation of 280 mm yearly.

1.2.2 Main characteristics of its population In the year 2000, the total surface of The Netherlands was 4,152,803 ha. Of this total surface, 479,942 ha were occupied by roads and other constructions, which is equal to an urbanization level of 11.5% of the total surface. In July 2005, The Netherlands had a total population of 16,305,526 inhabitants (8,065,979 men and 8,239,547 women) (http://www.cbs.nl). On a yearly basis, the population grows with 95 people on average a day. The population is ageing quite rapidly, as can be seen in Table 1 below. In the past 45 years, the share of people younger than 20 years decreased from one-third (37.3%) to a quarter of the population (24.5%), while the share of people older than 80 has increased more than 3 times (from 1 to 3.5%). Table 1 - Development of age groups in The Netherlands, period 1950-2005 (%) Year < 20 yrs 20-40 yrs 40-65 yrs 65-80 yrs > 80 yrs 1950 37.3 29.4 25.6 6.7 1.0 1970 35.9 28.2 25.8 8.4 1.7 1990 25.7 33.0 28.6 9.9 2.9 2005 24.5 27.4 34.1 10.5 3.5 Source: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2005 (http://www.cbs.nl) Of the total population, 3,122,717 inhabitants are of a different cultural origin (http://www.cbs.nl). The most important cultural groups have their origin in Morocco (315,821 people), Surinam (329,430) and the Dutch Antilles and Aruba (130,538). The majority of the people in these groups have been in The Netherlands for more than 1 generation already. In the year 2004, around 41.6% of the total number of inhabitants lived in highly urbanised areas, 37.5% in peri-urban areas while 20.9% lived in rural areas (Regionale Kerncijfers Nederland, http://www.cbs.nl). The numbers also show that almost half of all inhabitants of The Netherlands live in the west of the country (where Amsterdam is also located). The numbers also suggest that the number of men and women living in this part of the country – compared to the total numbers of men and women in The Netherlands – is almost equal: (46.4% of all men in The Netherlands live in the west, as well as 46.9% of all women). 99% of the population of 15 years and older can read and write. On average, there are 5 family doctors per 10,000 inhabitants; with very low regional differences across the country (the number of family doctors is a little higher in the centre of the country, close to Amsterdam). In February 2005 there were 140 hospitals and 38 regional policlinic posts, with a total of 54,353 hospital beds (http://www.rivm.nl/vtv/home/Atlas/). This means that there is 1 bed available for every 300 people. In 2004, 80.4% of the population reported to be in a good to very good state of health (83.0% men and 77.9% women). Since about a hundred years, the Dutch national government has had a public housing policy. This has resulted in a situation where one cannot speak of a large shortage of houses. It can be stated that the large majority of inhabitants have access to a house with a connection to the power net, to the sewerage system and to safe drinking water. Therefore, the national housing policy is currently more focussed on improving the quality of the houses than their increase in number (VROM, 2004).



1.2.3 Socio-economic context

The Netherlands has a prosperous and open economy, which depends heavily on foreign trade. The economy is noted for stable industrial relations, moderate unemployment and inflation, a sizable current account surplus, and an important role as a European transportation hub. Industrial activity is predominantly in food processing, chemicals, petroleum refining, and electrical machinery. A highly mechanized agricultural sector employs no more than 4% of the labour force but provides large surpluses for the food-processing industry and for exports. The Netherlands, along with 11 of its EU partners, began circulating the euro currency on 1 January 2002. The country continues to be one of the leading European nations for attracting foreign direct investment. Economic growth slowed considerably in 2001-04, as part of the global economic slowdown, but for the four years before that, annual growth averaged nearly 4%, well above the EU average. In table 2 the recent evolution of the Gross Domestic Product of The Netherlands is shown, showing the economic slow down in the last 4 to 5 years. In 2004, the GDP per inhabitant was still almost 41,000 USD per inhabitant. Table 2 - Gross Domestic Product The Netherlands (2001-2004) Year Volume change (as

opposed to previous year) Total amount (in mln. USD, exchange rate 31/12/2004)

2001 n/a 610,884 2002 0.1 634,738 2003 -0.1 649,931 2004 1.7 666,703 Source: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2005 (http://www.cbs.nl) In 2002, The Netherlands had an economically active population of 8,324,000 people (4,600,000 men and 3,724,000 women). During the period 2002-2003 the number of unemployed people in the labour force was 349,000, which means there was an unemployment rate of around 4%. 10% of all inhabitants of The Netherlands have an income at the social minimum level, or below. The social minimum is the amount needed to be able to function normally in society, which has been fixed by the government (minimum wage is EUR 1045 a monthhttp://www.szw.nl, which is equal to USD 12502). Social benefits can be applied for in case of (long term) illness, unemployment, pension, etc. However, if one needs to live at this social minimum level for a long period of time, one becomes ‘poor’. In The Netherlands 4% of the people has been living at this minimum level for a long period of time. Among these people are a lot of children (1 in every 9 children grows up in a poor household), as well as many pensioned people. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2004 30% of all households in the lowest income groups (average income of 14.000 euros per year) state they have a hard to a very hard time getting by financially. It needs to be emphasised however that the poverty that exists in The Netherlands by far does not have the same magnitude or intensity as in developing countries.

1.2.4 Institutional and political organisation

In The Netherlands, the political system is a parliamentary democracy, in which the representation of the people, the parliament, holds the last vote (see Figure 1 for a diagram on the organisation of the public authorities in The Netherlands at the national and the provincial level. The parliament consists of the First and the Second Chamber. The members of the First Chamber are chosen every 4 years, by the members of the Provincial States (see ahead on function). The responsibilities of the First Chamber are mostly at legislation level as

2 Exchange rate of October 19, 2005 (http://www.oanda.com).



it approves or disapproves new legal proposals or changes in current legislation. In addition, the First Chamber also has a controlling function of the government. The Second Chamber is concerned with day-to-day politics, calls ministers to account, gives judgment on new policies and deals with legal proposals more in detail. Members of the Second Chamber are chosen by the Dutch people, every 4 years. In addition, the public authorities are made up of a government with a head of state. In The Netherlands this is the king or the queen. The system is referred to as a constitutional monarchy, which means that the position of the king or queen has been laid down in the constitution. Together with the ministers, the queen forms the government. The Dutch central government counts 13 ministries, such as the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environmental Management, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, etc. Furthermore, the chosen representatives of the people in the 12 provinces (the Provincial States) as well as the provincial governors (County Aldermen and the Queen’s Commissioner) also form part of the public authorities and are responsible for governance at provincial level. The Provincial States are at the head of the provincial management, and members are chosen every 4 years by the people and all belong to political parties. The college of County Aldermen is chosen by the Provincial States, for a period of 4 years. The college prepares and approves policy at provincial level, implements policies for the central government and controls the governance of the municipalities. The Queen’s Commissioner is the president and member of the college of County Aldermen as well as president of the Provincial States (but not a member). The commissioner is chosen by the Queen and the Ministers and appointed for a period of 6 years (www.overheid.nl). At municipal level, we also find representatives of the Dutch people, in the city councils and their mayors and aldermen. More information on the governmental organisation at municipal level can be found in paragraph 1.3.4.



Figure 1 Public authorities at national and provincial level in The Netherlands

NATIONAL LEVEL

PROVINCIAL LEVEL = a part of = chosen by = consists of

Queen State SecretariesMinisters (13

ministries)

Government Cabinet

Parliament

1st Chamber (Senate) – chosen by Provincial States, every 4 years

2nd Chamber (House of Representatives) – chosen by the people, every 4 years

Other members from all political

parties

Provincial States (chosen by the people, every 4 years)

College of County Aldermen – chosen by Provincial States, every 4 years

Queen’s Commissioners (1 in every province, chosen by the Government, every 6 years



1.3 Location and context of the Municipality of Amsterdam

1.3.1 Location of Amsterdam The Bond van Volkstuinders (BVV) is located in the capital of the Netherlands, Amsterdam. This city is located in the province North Holland, near the coast, in the highly populated west of the country (see Map 1). The Amsterdam soil is made up of sediments from the sea, which means it is very soft and swampy. Because The Netherlands is a small country in surface, the climatic differences between the country’s regions are very small. Therefore, the description of the Dutch climate as given in paragraph 1.2.1 also applies to the city of Amsterdam and its surrounding environment. The city is located at 2 meters above sea level. Not all different city districts in Amsterdam are of the same size (see Map 3 for a map of the city districts). The city districts largest in size are located at the fringe of the city. Generally speaking, the population density is largest in the smaller districts, and the districts at the edge of the city have more green spaces than the more centrally located ones. Almost a quarter of the Amsterdam territory is occupied by water (24%), while an almost equal area is occupied by houses (23%). Green spaces take up 12% of the total territory, a number which is gradually decreasing when green spaces are replaced by for example living areas or infrastructure. Map 4 provides more information on the location of the green spaces provided by the BVV garden parks (see also paragraph 2.2.2). Amsterdam does not have any rural areas, which is mostly the consequence of the ‘Compact City Policy’, which was initiated from 1994 onwards. In short, this policy is concerned with the conservation of large open spaces and a clear division between urban and rural areas. Space for new residences and enterprises was to be found within the existing city boundaries (http://www.vrom.nl).

Map 2: A city plan of Amsterdam

Source: http://www.amsterdam.nl



1.3.2 Main characteristics of the population Currently, the city of Amsterdam has a surface of 21,907 ha, while the total population amounts up to 738,763 persons (364.274 men and 374.489 women) (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2004). This means that, on average, there are 4,435 people per square kilometre. Some city districts however, have a density of more than 20,000 inhabitants per square kilometre. However, according to the Municipality, the population growth in the past few years has been marginal. In 2004 it was slightly higher than in previous years. Still there are more people leaving the city to start living in another area in the Netherlands than that there are people from other areas locating in Amsterdam, but the difference is becoming smaller. Moreover, the number of births has gone up slightly, just as in previous years. And there are still more people immigrating than emigrating. Because of the high number of new houses that are being constructed in the city, it is expected that the amount of people moving to another part of the country will remain low. According to the 2003 prognosis the population will grow with 100,000 persons in the period until 2030, to a total of around 835,000 people. Table 3 below provide an overview of the ethnic composition of the Amsterdam population. It can be seen that the Dutch and Surinam population decreased, while the influx of Moroccans and immigrants from non-industrialised countries increased most in 2004. What also becomes evident from the data in the table, is that the number of ‘original’ Dutch people is about equal in size as the group of new inhabitants (at least, when disregarding their period of stay in The Netherlands). Table 3 - Ethnic composition Amsterdam population Ethnic groups 2004 (abs.) 2004 (% of total

population) Change (2004 as opposed to 2003 – in %)

Surinam 71,248 9,6 -1,0 Dutch Antilles & Aruba 11,998 1,6 -1,7 Turks 37,585 5,1 +2,0 Moroccans 63,078 8,5 +3,2 South Europeans 17,823 2,4 +1,5 Non-industrialised countries

86,099 11,7 +3,7

Industrialised countries 71,801 9,7 +1,0 Dutch 379,131 51,3 -0,8 Source: Gemeente Amsterdam, Dienst Onderzoek & Statistiek, 2004 In 2003, there were 6,4 family doctors for every 10,000 inhabitants, which is slightly higher than the average for The Netherlands as a whole. The number of hospital beds in 2001 was 5695, which means there is about 1 bed for every 128 city inhabitant. This number has been increasing over the last years (from 2000 to 2001 the increase was 1.2%), while the number of people being hospitalised decreased in the same period (with 2.9% from 2000 to 2001). This could indicate an increase in the health of the Amsterdam population, which is also supported by the decrease in the number of total days people were hospitalised in the same period (a decrease of 2.4%). Like in the rest of The Netherlands, almost all houses in Amsterdam are connected to the power net as well as to the sewerage system and all inhabitants have access to safe drinking water.

1.3.3 Socio-economic context The Amsterdam economy is mainly characterised by the large service sector (real estate and commercial services 21.7%, trade in consumer articles 13.4%), the health care sector (12.9%) and the financial sector (10.9%), if calculated in the number of people working in these sectors. In 2003, 357,600 people were economically active, which is equal to 91.9% of the working population and 48.6% of the total Amsterdam population. During 2003, the



employment in Amsterdam decreased with 1%, which is equal to the decrease in the rest of the Netherlands. The biggest looser in the city was the commercial service sector, followed with distance by the education and the industrial sector. The unemployment rate in Amsterdam is somewhat higher than in The Netherlands as a whole: 6.9% as opposed to 6.4% respectively. In July 2004, the city counted 52,500 unemployed people, while in July 2003 this number was 47,300. Especially the number of unemployed with a middle or high education level increased during this period. More than half of all households in Amsterdam (55%) consist of one person (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2004). In 2003, 107,308 people received government benefits (14.6% of the total population), because they had been unemployed for longer than 1 year or were physically incapable of working. Around 19.2% of the Amsterdam households received government subsidies for their rent payment, with an average value of 127.83 euros per month per household.

1.3.4 Institutional and political organisation The administration and management of Amsterdam consists of a central city administration and 14 city district administrations (see Map 3). Head of the municipality is the city council. This council consists of 45 members of different political parties. These members are chosen every 4 years by that part of the Amsterdam population entitled to vote. For the current council period 2002-2006 most council members are from socialist parties. The city council has the responsibility over all the important decisions that concern the entire city. It makes decisions about for example the height of the municipal taxes, the appointment of new industrial and residential areas or the public transport. It also establishes the municipal laws. The council meets every three weeks, and all meetings are public. Map 3: Amsterdam’s city districts

Source: http://www.amsterdam.nl The daily management of the city lies in the hands of the ‘College of Mayor and Aldermen’. The 6 aldermen are appointed and dismissed by the city council. Before their appointment they were members of the city council; this membership ends when they become aldermen. The vacant spot they leave behind in the city council is filled by one of their fellow party members. The mayor and the aldermen do not have a vote during the council meetings. Each of the college members has their own portfolio, consisting of subjects for which he or she is responsible. The college has to prepare the decisions that have to be made by the council, and has to execute these decisions once taken by the council. The



council can also discharge a proposal from the college, being the highest authority. To be able to govern efficiently, the city council has delegated a large number of matters to the college. This mostly concerns decisions that are made based on a fixed policy and which therefore do not need to be discussed in the city council anymore. The college meets every week; these meetings are not open to the public. For the urban gardens, the most important aldermen are the alderman responsible for Environment, Public and Green Spaces as well as the alderman for Urban Development. The mayor takes in an important spot in the city administration. He or she is not chosen by the Amsterdam population, but appointed by the Crown (the Queen together with the Ministers) for a period of 6 years. The mayor is chairman of the city council as well as of the college. He or she does not have a vote in the city council, but does so in the college.3 Furthermore, the mayor also has some responsibilities of his or her own. For example, the mayor is chief of police and responsible for the maintenance of the public order. Most proposals to the city council do not directly come up in the council. These are firstly discussed in so-called council committees. These committees are made up of members of the city council, specialised in a certain part of policy. Amsterdam has 7 of such committees, which meet ever 2 weeks in a public meeting. During these meetings citizens can also speak. The two council committees that are most important in relation to the urban gardens are the committee for Environment, Public and Green Spaces, Sport and Recreation and Companies as well as the committee for Urban Development and Water Management. In the beginning of the eighties, the first city districts were established within Amsterdam, with their own management with far-reaching own competencies, an own budget and their own administrative officers. It was expected that the city district management structure would attribute to more efficient and effective policy formulation and decision-making. It was also expected that the local population would feel more involved with the city district management than with the central city. The experiment with the 2 initial city district proved to work out well, and over the years the number of districts increased. After the last elections in 2002, there are now 15 districts in total. 14 of these have their own city district council, as the fifteenth district concern a harbour area with hardly any inhabitants. What the city council is for Amsterdam, are the city district councils for the districts. The members of the 14 city district councils are chosen by the inhabitants of that specific district every four years. This election takes place at the same time as the elections for the city council. The number of members depends on the population number in the district. The council meets every 4 weeks in a public meeting. Every city district has its own daily management body, which members are chosen by the city district council. The city council has handed over many responsibilities and tasks to the city districts (decentralisation), but not those that cannot be decentralised for practical or legal reasons or which are necessary to maintain coherence in the city as a whole. This concerns for example the determination of the municipal budget or the distribution of social benefits. The city district is in charge of the management of the open spaces, for example the garbage collection and the maintenance of parks. The city district furthermore determines the local urban planning as well as its own policy with regard to arts, sports, recreation and certain social affairs. The district council has the financial means at its disposal to support this policy. With respect to the urban gardens, this means that many times, the relevant policies differ from district to district. This is shown in, for example, the fact that the policy with regard to the workman’s gardens differs quite a lot from one city district to the other (e.g. concerning the tariffs or the amount of support the local government offers in the construction of services in the garden complexes).

3 According to article 59.2 of the Municipal Law, there is only 1 case in which the Mayor has a vote in the city council. He/she has the decisive vote when the votes of the council members cease for the second time around.



Figure 2 The organisational structure of the Municipality of Amsterdam and its city districts

MUNICIPAL LEVEL

CITY DISTRICT LEVEL = a part of = chosen by = consists of * The Crown consists of the Queen plus the Ministers.

1.3.5 Legal and normative framework With regard to the case of Amsterdam and the urban producers’ organisation BVV, an effort should be made to describe the (urban) planning procedures according to the Dutch Law, which apply to the Amsterdam situation. Spatial planning in The Netherlands At the level of the central, the provincial and the municipal government spatial plans are formulated. All procedures have been laid down in the Law on Spatial Planning. The central government formulates so-called ‘core decisions on planning’ (planologische

City Council – 45 members, chosen by people of Amsterdam

College of Mayor and Aldermen – 7 members

Council Committees – 7 committees

Mayor – appointed by the Crown*, 6 years

Aldermen – 6 in total, appointed by city council

City District Council – chosen by people of city district, every 4 years

Daily Management Body



kernbeslissingen). These plans provide the framework for the formulation of provincial and municipal spatial plans. The provinces then formulate regional plans (streekplannen). When doing this, they have to take the core decisions on planning into account. The regional plans are already more detailed and function as guidelines for the municipal plans. Municipalities then formulate the development plans, which lay down the destination for the space involved and which are legally binding. The Structure Plan is formulated every 10 years by the Municipality, with which it lays down the spatial policies for the before mentioned period. The Structure Plan concerns the future of the city and provides a framework for the development plans, mentioned before. This plan gives answers to questions such as: where will new residential areas be located in Amsterdam? Where can we find nature? Where recreation? Which roads, train rails and metro lines are needed and which services do we want to have in the city? The most important themes in the Structure Plan are: green spaces (such as for example the BVV garden parks), living, working and traffic and transport. The Streekplan provides the overall strategic framework for planning and management. It thus provides the basic framework for further elaboration of specific programmes of the Municipality. In this process, concept notes may be developed to facilitate discussion and definition of these specific programmes, for example related to protection and promotion of the garden parks (see further 4.2.2). The current Structure Plan for the city of Amsterdam is titled “Choosing for Urbanisation” and describes the urban planning developments up to and including the year 2010. This means that until that time, the municipality has made decisions, which are legally binding. The municipality’s vision on the spatial developments is demonstrated with the aid of a Structure Plan Map. The map and the plan together form the framework for policy and monitoring and evaluation for all further destination plans the municipality makes. In addition, it enables the central municipal office to check whether all the new construction plans developed by the local government offices are in accordance with the policy previously established. The current structure plan nor the current legal framework do not make specific mention of urban agriculture, apart from recognising the garden parks as part of existing green structure of Amsterdam. Participation All stakeholders can provide their opinions on the plans. This participation in decision-making has been arranged for by (national) law and therefore applies to all provincial and municipal matters. Already in the preparation of the development plan the municipality informs her self on the opinion of the population and other stakeholders. This is called the participation. Every municipality has its own participation regulation. Then the municipality formulates a design-development plan, which can be reviewed by all stakeholders during a period of 6 weeks. Stakeholders can give their reaction orally or in written form, to the city council. Within the following 8 weeks, the city council formulates the draws up the second version of the development plan, which is also made available publicly for the review of stakeholders. A 6 week period follows in which reactions can be given to the college of Country Aldermen. In some cases, stakeholders can be asked to explain more on their reaction orally. Within 13 weeks, the final decision of the college is taken. This decision can then also be reviewed during 6 weeks at the municipality, and stakeholders can make their appeal at a governmental organisation at national level. This organisation then has a 12-month period to make a final decision.



PART 2 2. Description and characterisation of the experience and its participants 2.1 Profile of the participants of the experience In total, the association has 7200 members. However, the number of users of the gardens is larger than this, as the family members of the officially registered users also use and enjoy the gardens. The average age of the members is about 55 years. 29% of the BVV members is 45 years old or younger. 36% is older than 45 years but not older than 60, while 35% is older than 60. Of the youngest category, only 2% of the members is younger than 30. In other words: more than two-thirds of the tenants is 45 years or older.4

Picture 1: Gardener at work at food production garden

Source: Spatial Planning Department,

Amsterdam Municipality, ‘Van Volkstuincomplex Naar Tuinpark’, March 2004)

Most gardeners live in Amsterdam, on average not further than 5 kilometres away from their garden, with many of the members living in a densely populated neighbourhood (De Vries & Schöne, 2004)5. In most parks, there is a quite even spread of income levels: about 1/3 consists of low incomes, 1/3 average incomes and 1/3 high incomes. The gardeners do not supplement their total household income with an income derived from the activities in the gardens, as these are mostly meant for leisure purposes and in addition, sales of the garden produce is forbidden. Currently, it can be stated that the garden parks are going through a culture change, as they are diversifying in terms of age, nationality and social background. During the past years, a tendency can be witnessed of an increasing amount of families with children using the gardens, as well as a growing amount of immigrants and working singles (particularly women), part-timers and early retirees. With regard to the increasing amount of immigrants, it can be stated that these members mostly rent in food producing gardens and to a far lesser extent recreational gardens. The reasons behind this could be the interest (a more functional approach of the urban garden), the lower costs (no takeover of the garden houses), but also the higher rate of circulation of the food production gardens instead of the leisure and recreational gardens (De Vries & Schöne, 2004). Because of this, the immigrants are mostly gardening in specific parks, while the original Amsterdam inhabitants garden in other parks. Another tendency is the fact that the gardeners are no longer only from the working classes, but that currently also the more well-to-do people are gardening. A diversification in the kind of people renting a garden can also be seen when it comes to the reasons why certain people have a garden. Among the tenants a distinction can be made between: the traditional gardener, the so-called ‘camping guest’ as well as the ecological gardener. The first group consists of people who have mostly had a garden for a longer period of time, who love gardening as well as the community life that comes with renting a

4 Unfortunately, the BVV does not keep a gender-specific record of its members. 5 The data presented here concerns only the data for the registered tenant; the BVV does not collect the same information on the household members of the registered tenant.



garden in one of the BVV’s parks. The second group consists of a kind of people who have joined the parks more recently. These are often people who do not have the garden to work in it, but to relax in it. They are therefore also less interested in the maintenance of the shared green facilities of the park and need more stimulation to keep on performing these tasks. In general, these people do not keep their garden for a very long time, as they start to realise that it involves quite a large deal of work. However, some of them learn to appreciate it along the way. The last group is made up of people who have joined the BVV in even more recent times, and who are supportive of the ecological way of gardening, and want nature to follow its course. They do not believe in too much maintenance, as this is viewed as an inhibition for nature’s development. The increasing diversity in members sometimes makes it harder for the BVV as an organisation to cater to the needs of its members. 2.2 Profile of the BVV

2.2.1 Origin 2.2.1.1 The history of urban gardens in Amsterdam Already as early as in the 18th century, the phenomenon of the workman’s garden was first seen, as is shown by the work of the ‘Society for the Use of the General’ (Maatschappij tot Nut van het Algemeen), dating back to 1784 (Jansen, 1967). The objective of the Society was ‘to improve the general happiness of the people, according to the principles of Christianity’. One of the means by which the Society tried to improve the living conditions of the working class, was the renting out of land for urban gardens to working class people. To this end, the Society, along with other charitable organisations, rented out the gardens to the gardeners for a relatively low amount of money. The users of the land were meant to work in the gardens in their spare time, mainly for the growing of potatoes and vegetables for their own consumption. The issuing of these gardens therefore had a clear economical goal, the increase of the working class families’ incomes, although there has always also been attention for the other beneficial consequences of having a garden. The fact that they were able to work on their own little piece of land, which a/o lead to an increase of their incomes and therefore made them less dependent on public support, must have given the working class people the feeling that they were placed on a higher societal level. The Society for the Use of the General believed that the only way to improve the situation of the whole society was by improving the situation of the individual. However, it is noteworthy that, during this period, the gardeners did not have a say in the management of the garden complexes. As 26% of the working class population could not read or write, this made them unable to stand up for themselves or to negotiate for their own purposes. The well-to-do class in Dutch society wanted to do good for the working class, was attending international congresses on working class gardens, but without a lot of consultation of the working class people in the process. This was also somewhat the case with the Committee for Working Class Gardens (Comité voor Volkstuinen), which was established 31 March 1909 in Amsterdam and which can be seen as the predecessor of the BVV. The objective of the Committee was to stimulate the construction and use of working class gardens for the population of Amsterdam (Jansen, 1967). A membership could only be attained upon invitation; it was not possible for just any person to join the association by paying a contribution. The organisation was largely operating from the social perspective, more so than from an economic one, and wanted to fight the excesses of the urban society. They wanted to ‘provide urban families on a large scale with the possibility to have happiness, pleasure, health and clean air in life by bringing nature closer’. All garden complexes had a rather independent management form, while the president of their board was elected by the central Committee board. This president was also a member of the Committee board, and was present in its meetings. Although the central Committee board mainly had financial responsibilities, it did have the power to undo decisions made by the local boards of the garden complexes.



The Committee’s first garden group (named ‘Tuinwijck’, or Garden Quarter) was established November 1st, 1909. The complex had 250 gardens but received around 600 applications! The resulting group of garden renters was quite heterogeneous in composition with regard to employment backgrounds: there were schoolteachers, factory labourers and municipality clerks. The complex had a paid keeper who lived on the premises and also had the responsibility to provide information on gardening methods to the urban gardeners, who often lacked the gardening knowledge. The garden produce was meant for own consumption and its sale was prohibited. However, the Committee’s regulations prescribed the obligation of growing flowers on 10% of the garden plot. This rule came forth from the Committee’s ideology: the gardens were not only meant to serve economical interests for the working class people, but also were intended to lead to ‘a greater love for immaterial values’. The garden complex entailed the cooperation between the gardeners, bringing people together who beforehand did not know each other to work on the joint purchase of requisites or on the development of courses and lectures. The establishment of the Committee’s second garden complex was supported by the municipality. Because of the large popularity of the urban gardens, the Committee was looking for new land to start up a new complex. It issued a request to the Municipality, asking permission to rent a certain piece of land, owned by the Municipality. This request was granted as the Committee was prepared to offer the Municipality the same amount of rent they would otherwise have charged if the land were used for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the Municipality had not planned to develop the land for construction in the next 10 years. In addition, the Public Construction Service of the Municipality assisted in the construction of a road leading to the terrain. During discussion on who was supposed to pay for the construction of this road, the Committee negotiated on behalf of its members. Considering its popularity, the Committee had expected a larger spin-off to take place in the city: they had expected large companies would construct urban garden complexes for their employees. However, none of this took place in the end. A large part of the urban population still perceived the gardening activities to be awkward in the urban context. 2.2.1.2 World War 1 and the establishment of the BVV During World War 1, which started in 1914, the workman’s garden became subject of government policy. Directly from the beginning of the war, it was obvious that the food supply in the Netherlands would be problematic. During the course of the war, the food shortage amounted to such proportions that the Ministry of Agriculture decided that all municipalities had to stimulate the construction of the workman’s gardens. In Amsterdam, the Municipality established 5 large complexes, where they provided information on the gardening activities for the often-inexperienced urban inhabitants. All took place in a fairly ad-hoc manner because of the war situation. The Municipality provided security guards to prevent the theft of the vegetables and, at the end of the day, the signal was given when all gardeners had to hand in the tools, which were also provided by the Municipality. The Municipality further set up a number of vegetables, which were obligatory to grow: potatoes, pees, brown beans and red, white and savoy cabbage. The returns in the first year were estimated at an amount of 123,000 Dutch guilders, which was considerable, also given the fact that the gardeners were inexperienced in food production. Soon after the start of the exploitation of the municipal gardens in Amsterdam, groups formed to defend the common interests the gardeners seemed to share. Due to the fact that the Municipality wanted to implement more and more changes and restrictions, at times unfavourable for the gardeners, it was felt necessary by the gardeners to defend their interests in an organised form. Separate groups were formed, alongside the Committee, as it was felt that the Committee was not sufficiently active in new parts of the city of Amsterdam to acquire new land for new gardeners. In 1917, some of these groups got together and formed the Association of Urban Gardens (Bond van Volkstuinders, BVV).



At first, the BVV was intended to have more practical goals, such as the organisation of the transport of goods from garden complex to the other and the paving of the paths within the complexes. But soon after its establishment, the BVV’s members decided to extend this goal into one which was the striving after the maintenance of the existence of the gardens and therefore the organisation itself. In this respect, the BVV applied for a legal status. It was defined that the goal of the organisation was to be achieved by the following means or actions:

> improvement of the rent agreements > increase of the returns of the soil > acquisition of gardens > purchase of goods for the members > carrying out of certain work for the members (e.g. construction of paths) > issuing of a periodical and other writings > organisation of lectures > cooperation with other associations with similar goals (Jansen, 1967).

The garden complexes pertaining to the BVV were installed as departments of the organisation, which all had 1 representative in the BVV board. One of the actions of the BVV was the organisation of a poll among the members, which provided the image of many urban inhabitants enjoying their gardening. The BVV forwarded these results to the Municipality, asking it to continue the gardening also after the end of World War 1. It also advised the Municipality to make certain changes in the exploitation of the gardens, such as the cancellation of the obligatory crops, acting as a true mediator between the Municipality and the gardeners. 2.2.1.3 Towards World War 2 and beyond The years in between the 2 World Wars were not without turmoil for the BVV. The year 1921 meant a turning point in the use of the urban gardens. With the ending of the First World War, the food shortage no longer existed either and more and more people abandoned their gardens. The character of the urban gardens changed into a recreation one. Nonetheless, the BVV remained at its position and negotiating for a continuation of the gardens with the Municipality. In order to increase the interest of the urban population for gardening, a public open-air meeting was organised. In the same year, the BVV received a subsidy from the national government as an acknowledgement for the use and social meaning of this form of recreation. In 1922, the Municipality discontinued the rent of 3 out of the 4 BVV garden complexes. The reasons were the construction of sports fields and implicitly the employment of many jobless people. The BVV organised a large propaganda meeting, inviting the authorities and representatives of the press. At the meeting, drawings were shown, demonstrating the incorporation of the urban garden complexes into a public park. It resulted in the delay of the rent cancellation in some cases or in the appointment of replacing land in others. During 1923 until 1925 the activities of the BVV had been reduced to mere practical needs. Because of the economical hardships, the gardeners did not want to spend anything on their gardens, on the contrary: the gardens had to provide them with some economic benefits. In order to increase the interest for the gardens, the BVV used propaganda means and organised a congress and an exhibition on the topic. To account for the economic difficulties, more tasks were centralised, such as the Commission of Purchase. In the expansion plans of the Municipality only economic matters counted, the aesthetic values of the gardens were overlooked. During the crisis years, the tenants could not pay for their gardens and the BVV tried to negotiate lower rents with the Municipality. However, the Municipality itself had trouble paying their bills, which made negotiations very problematic. During the crisis years of the 30s and during World War 2, the workman’s gardens returned to its former use, food supply.



The Municipality appointed unemployed people to work in the gardens. It was during the crisis years however, that the BVV contacted its fellow garden organisations in other large cities in The Netherlands, inviting them for a congress with the aim to set up a national gardening organisation. This resulted in the AVVN, the General Association for Gardeners Associations in The Netherlands (Algemeen Verbond van Volkstuinders Verenigingen in Nederland). Soon after the end of World War 2, the attention and interest for the gardens declined and many gardens had to make room for the construction of houses, industry and roads and were either moved to the edge of the city or even cancelled. There was one difference with the past situation however: now the garden complexes were transferred to a location destined for the permanent establishment of gardens. The BVV tried to combat the decreasing amount of interested gardeners by advertising and promoting the gardens in this way. In the 50s, a renewed attention for the gardens could be witnessed, caused by the increasing prosperity, which turned the food gardens into gardens with a more recreation function: resulting in gardens with more decorative plants instead of vegetables. With the changing use of the gardens, new rules and regulations were formulated; one for example prescribing that the gardens could only have 30% built on. This was to stimulate the gardening activity, which should be the most important one, and to prevent people from covering their gardens with tiles. In 1961 the municipal regulation on urban gardens was realised. Its main aims were to provide a definition of an urban garden, to direct the urban gardens in an orderly fashion and to counteract on the establishment of unorganised complexes on private property. Currently, a trend to more and more urban gardeners growing herbs and other food products can be witnessed again.

2.2.2 Intervention scale, objectives and type of activities 2.2.2.1 Intervention scale Currently, one can find 2 types of gardens in Amsterdam: private or backyard gardens and gardens located in communal garden complexes, also called garden parks, located on municipal land. Amsterdam counts with 37 garden parks (see Map 4 for the location of garden parks across the city of Amsterdam). Amsterdam counts 6000 gardens in total, with a surface amounting up to 300 ha and uniting around 6,000 gardens. 24 of the 37 garden parks are united in the BVV, of which 21 have a predominantly recreation function, while only 2 are only occupied by gardens producing food products. This last kind of gardens is increasing, mostly because of the growing number of participating immigrants, who, for example, produce vegetables in the gardens from their home country. 1 of the BVV garden parks incorporates gardens with both functions. In total, the garden parks of the BVV add up to a surface of around 250 ha (http://www.bondvanvolkstuinders.nl/orgbvv.htm). The recreation parks can be divided into 2 different kinds: (1) garden parks with day recreation, these are parks where decorative as well as productive gardens can be found, with or without a small garden house on the individual parcels and where it is forbidden to stay the night; and (2) garden parks with longer recreation possibilities, which are like day recreation parks but with the possibility to stay the night from April through September. Most of the recreation garden parks can be found in the second category. A garden park is a collection of garden parcels (in the Netherlands, these are called ‘gardens of the people’) from 50 to 400 units, ranging in size from 50 to 300 sq meters, which is located in or close to the city. The terrains on which the garden parks are located are rented directly by the BVV from the local government. Through the boards of the garden parks, the BVV rents these terrains to the members. At the moment, the renting contracts are mostly contracts for several years, with a 3-month period of notice. Renting fees are reasonable (around 76 eurocents per m2, see paragraph 2.2.4), yearly heightened with the inflation



index. See paragraph 2.2.3 to learn more about the internal organisation of the BVV and the tasks and responsibilities of each part of the organisation. Below, the BVV’s most important activities are described.

Map 4: Location of urban garden parks in Amsterdam6

Source: Spatial Planning Department, Amsterdam Municipality, ‘Van Volkstuincomplex Naar Tuinpark’, March 2004, p. 10.

2.2.2.2 BVV objectives

Currently, the most important objectives of the BVV are: > The protection of the interests of her current members, by enabling them to

optimally continue their gardening activities, now and in the future > The protection of the interests of her future members, by aiming for an increase of

the number of gardens in the city > The contribution to the sense of, and contact with nature of her members as well as

to the maintenance of social contacts amongst them. More in practical terms and details, the former implicates the goals to be strived after by the BVV:

> the rent or the achievement of ownership of the land for the foundation and management of urban gardens for the members

> the defence of the interests of the members > to carry on propaganda on gardening in the garden parks as a form of recreation > the consolidation of urban garden parks with a permanent character > the improvement and promotion of knowledge on the environment, flora and fauna

in general and on the growing of flowers, plants, vegetables and fruits in particular

6 For a list of general characteristics of the garden complexes in Amsterdam, please see the report by De Vries & Schöne (2004), titled ‘Volkstuinen in Amsterdam; de sociaal-culturele dimensie’ (Alterra, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2004) available on http://www.dro.amsterdam.nl/Docs/pdf/Eindrapportage%20Volkstuinen%20Alterra330.pdf.



> to propagandise the most environmental and nature friendly use of the garden parks in which the urban gardens are located, in accordance with the policy as followed by the governments

In the process of achieving these objectives, the BVV operates a number of key concepts in her policy and management:

> continuation > accessibility in price and space > ecology > cooperation with other key actors > strengthening of the internal organisation

2.2.2.3 Types of activities In summary, the following are the BVV’s most important activities:

> Influencing of and negotiation with the local government and its policy (for example in the case of the Structure Plan and the Concept Note, see Chapter 4)

> Providing and improving the access to land (by negotiation with the municipality, see for example Chapter 4)

> Providing legal support (e.g. when a garden park gets involved in a conflict with a contractor, the BVV can provide legal support in the form of a lawyer)

> General administration of the members > Providing financial services > Provision of technical services and inputs (e.g. by providing courses on certain

(technical) subjects) > Provision of access to information and courses > Improvement of the quality of life of her members and their families

With regard to the financial assistance, it can be added that the costs for the gardening in the city are kept as low as possible, so that this activity is accessible to all population groups in society. In the past, the gardens were mostly occupied by lower income groups. Today however, the gardening has become a spare time activity for all social layers of society. But, the financial weaker groups are still taken into special account. Some of the actions the BVV takes, to guarantee financial accessibility of the gardens, are:

• maintenance of the possibility of a loan from the BVV for the purchase of a garden house, also in the case of a takeover

• exploration of the possibility to let members pay for the yearly costs in quotas

• keeping collectives services on the parks at a moderate level so that collective costs are low too

• achievement of additional local government funding for activities negotiation with local government to keep governmental payments to a minimum

• negotiation with insurance companies for quantity rebates on insurances of the houses in the gardens

With respect to the provision of information and courses, the website of the BVV and its periodical magazine ‘Vroegop’ play an important role. Through this media, as well as the organisation’s magazine, the members of the BVV are being kept informed of activities of the BVV itself, or other local associations offering lectures, demonstrations, etc., such as for example the IVN, the Association for Nature and Environmental Education (Vereniging voor Natuur en Milieu-educatie). Information is given about the specific activity, whether arrangements are present or have been made for the participation of handicapped people, whether provisions have been made for children, costs involved and about where additional information can be obtained. The BVV’s periodical is issued 4 times a year and is sent to members and apprentice members, with 8,000 copies per edition. Plans exist to increase the moments of issuing in order to improve the information provision, which could be made



possible with a small increase of the member contribution. Many departments also have a website and a periodical, which informs members on activities and management information on department level. Likewise, the website is meant to keep members informed on the policy influencing activities of the BVV. In this way, members can follow the processes the BVV sets in motion when influencing the policies of the municipalities, which (could) have an influence on its activities. Other sources of information that can be found on the website are: minutes of board meetings, letters to the Municipality, descriptions of the internal organisation, statutes and regulations, municipal plans, activities for members, speeches, etc. Information can also be obtained from the BVV during the weekly consulting hour at the BVV office. Once every two years, the BVV board visits a garden park. This also provides a moment in which information can be exchanged, but due to low human resources capacity the visits cannot take place more often. A large part of the organisation of the courses, as well as the other social activities, is placed in the hands of the departments. The departments organise most courses, lectures (e.g. on nature and environment, insects, gardening skills, flowers, painting, sculpturing, but also first aid) and social activities (games, social nights, special activities for children, etc.) themselves (volunteers) or, in the case of courses organised by external organisations, make an inventory of the needs for this specific course and inform the BVV office, who then contacts the external organisation. In some parks, guided tours are organised for visitors or local government officials. The BVV also makes available courses for its members, by achieving subsidies and grants from, for example, the central municipality and/or the local municipality departments, with which nature and environmental education projects can be implemented in the garden parks.

Picture 2: Food production garden at city border


Amsterdam Municipality, ‘Van Volkstuincomplex Naar Tuinpark’, March 2004

To better inform members on activities and political processes the BVV is involved in, the organisation holds information meetings, where it invites the local government officials as well, who can then directly give an explanation of policies and their implications to the urban gardeners. This invitation is also a good strategy to involve the government officials in the organisation, establishing direct contact between the government and the people involved. Besides information provision, the meetings also serve as an opportunity for the members to express their opinion on the issue, towards the local government but also towards the board of the BVV, which enables the last party to better attend to the interests of its members. Much of the information sharing is also done by the garden park boards, which also organise information meetings for their members, in addition to their member meetings (see paragraph 2.2.3). Some of the garden parks send their presentations in written form to their members in advance of the meeting, so that people are prepared for what will be discussed and have everything in writing in case they want to revisit what has been presented afterwards. To form a notion of the opinions of members on certain issues, some garden park boards send around a survey to gather information.



The contribution the BVV makes in the improvement of the quality of life of its members, is the making available of a piece of land, where people can grow plants and produce at their own discretion, where they can be in contact with nature and where they can be in contact with other gardeners. Many of the garden parks resemble a small community, where social contacts are still many and intense, which has become a rarity in the contemporary Western urban society. The BVV also improves the quality of life for other urban residents. A special example is a little house built in one of the garden parks, which is equipped with special facilities for handicapped people, where it is possible for people coping with a physical disability to stay for a week, together with a companion. More and more garden parks are recognising the importance of the ecological growing of foodstuffs and decorative plants. The number of garden parks that facilitate courses for their members in ecological gardening and which are issuing ecological certificates is growing. More in general, the BVV stimulates an environment and nature friendly design and management of the garden parks. At the moment certain activities within the ecological certification theme are already taking place, such as the organisation of lectures and excursions on ecological gardening, giving more attention to ecological gardening in the BVV Magazine, stimulation of the use of public transport and the bicycle and paying attention to the physical accessibility of the garden parks by these environmental friendly means of transport, the optimal limitation of the individual use of heavy materials, the stimulation of the use of sustainable, environmental friendly materials during the construction of the parks and the garden houses, stimulation of the use of sustainable (non-fossil) energy, the abolishment of chemical pesticides as well as the diffusion of a list of ecological pesticides. 2.2.2.4 How to become a member To become a member of the BVV, one has to register as a so-called ‘apprentice member’, because many garden parks have a waiting list. From the age of 18 years and older, it is possible to get a registration. Many people register with anticipation, to be able to rent a garden in the longer run. One can be put on the waiting list by the secretary of the garden park where one wants to rent a garden. The registration takes place at a meeting of the garden park board. The dates for these meetings are communicated through the notice boards at the garden parks or on the website of the garden park. The registration bears a onetime cost of 30 euros in it, which includes the membership of the BVV, the subscription to the BVV periodical as well as a contribution in the BVV’s membership of the AVVN, the General Association for Gardeners in The Netherlands, and the MCA, the Amsterdam Centre for Environment (all BVV members consequently also receive the AVVN periodical). It is possible to register with more than one garden park. However, one has to register with every park. As long as one does not rent a garden yet, one has to pay a yearly contribution of 27.60 euros (http://www.bondvanvolkstuinders.nl). If one is an ‘apprentice member’, one can apply for the gardens that are for rent, but only at the garden park where one is registered. There is no maximum for the length of the rental of a garden. This also applies to BVV membership in general. The plants, the house and the possible other constructions which are in the garden are to be purchased from the old garden tenant. The assignment of the empty gardens takes place according to one’s position on the list of rankings. This means that the person with the longest registered waiting time holds the first rights. The prices of the houses can vary considerably: from 3,000 euros for a shed to 12,000 euros for a well-kept little house. However, there are also parks with gardens without houses (see paragraph 2.2.2). The prices of the houses and the plants are assessed by a taxation commission, which prevents their unlimited sale (see also Box 3, on garden houses). The length of waiting lists varies from garden park to garden park. In general, its can be stated that 10% of the gardens get another tenant every year.



2.2.3 Organisation and functioning The BVV is an association with full legal capacity, with departments without legal rights. This means that the departments cannot close a legal agreement with a third party and that this has to be done through the BVV. For example, if a garden complex wants to hire a builder to construct a new clubhouse, the BVV closes the contract and not the department. Every garden park that comes under the BVV represents one department. Internally the association is organised as follows (see also Figure 3):

> The BVV board is responsible for the formulation of the general policy and the daily procedures within the association. The board consists of at least 5 delegates from all garden parks and its members are elected during the yearly association meeting. Board members are appointed for periods of 2 years. Resigning members are eligible for re-election. (Bond van Volkstuinders, 1993). It is entirely made up of volunteers.

> In its functioning, the board is assisted by several (permanent) commissions, such

as for example the Conflict Commission, Advice Commission, etc. These commissions also consist of volunteers. The Advice Commission’s help is, for example, asked for when the BVV needs to give a reaction on local government plans and policies. In the case of the Concept Note on Garden Parks, the BVV first consulted the opinions of the members during a special information meeting. The opinions gathered during this meeting were joined together, and then discussed with the Advice Commission internally, before it was shared with the municipality. Every garden park has 1 representative in the Advice Commission, which increases the participation of the garden parks and their members in decision-making procedures and policy formulation. The garden parks’ representatives are chosen during the Member Meeting at departmental level, and are mostly also the presidents of the departmental board (Interview Van Rij, 2005). The Advice Commission meets once a month. On a more informal level, the BVV can rely on the advice of the Senior Circle (Nestorkring), which consists of former board members who have retired but can still be consulted on BVV matters if required.

> Furthermore, the board is supported by the BVV office, where several salaried

employees work and which is responsible for the administration. The salaries of the office employees are paid for by the contributions of the members. There is 1 full-time policy advisor, plus 3 part-time employees for the member administration, accounting and for the printing of the BVV’s periodical as well as those of the garden parks.

> The board has placed the responsibility of the daily procedures in the garden parks in

the hands of garden park boards, which are also called department boards. The members of these boards are chosen by the members on that specific garden park. The department boards meet regularly (often once a month), but in summer times when the park life is more active, they meet more often. These meetings are public and therefore accessible to all members. When board members resign, new members are appointed by the Departmental Member Meeting. This member meeting takes place once a month, and the agenda for each meeting is circulated to the members in advance. The board does not have the possibility to sanction a garden park board in case the last party does not act as agreed upon.

> These boards are also assisted by garden park commissions, such as for example

the commission of purchase, which offers gardening products to its members without profit, the construction commission, the social activities commission, the plants commission, the editorial commission, the general work commission, etc.

It is worth noting that all activities organised by the BVV for its members and all management tasks are done by volunteers, except for 4 mostly administrative employees at the



association’s office. If it were not for these volunteers, the BVV would not be able to exist. As the BVV depends on its volunteering members for the fulfilment of most tasks within the organisation, it is therefore sometimes a challenging task to fill certain positions. Especially at garden park level this issue rises. The consequence hereof is that in many cases, once appointed a member to a board or a commission remains in his/her position until he/she resigns. Figure 3 Organisation structure BVV Every year, an Association Meeting is held, which brings together the Board of the BVV, the Garden Park Boards, the Advice Commission, representatives of the other Board Commissions, representatives of the sister associations in Amsterdam (see also Box 1) and of the General Association for Gardeners in The Netherlands (AVVN). In these yearly meetings the minutes of the last meeting are approved or adapted, announcements are made on yearly events, the yearly report and financial report are discussed (and whether or not approved), as well as the accountant’s report, the report of the Central Cash Commission and the budget of next year. Furthermore, the meeting is meant to install or re-install new commission members, approve or disapprove suggested changes in the regulations as well as the appointment of the people who will be joining the General Meeting of the AVVN.

Box 1 – Sister organisations The term sister organisations is implemented within the BVV to refer to organisations within Amsterdam and in the rest of The Netherlands, which have the same activities as the BVV and therefore often have the same goals and interests (paragraph 2.3 provides a list of other urban gardening associations in Amsterdam). In a way, they are therefore part of the same family of organisations, from which the term ‘sister’ is deducted.

Comm. 2 Comm. 2

Comm. 1

Park Board Park Board Park Board

Comm. 1

Comm. 2

Comm. 1

Board of the BVV BVV Office

Garden Park … Garden Park 2Garden Park 1

Conflict Commission

Advice Commission

Other Commission

Gardeners (members)

Gardeners (members)

Gardeners (members)



Decisions in these meetings are taken by vote. Important decisions at organisational level, which for example constitute a change of the statutes or the regulations, are taken by all members. All members receive a vote and per garden park these votes are counted. Every member can authorise 1 other member to vote for him or her, which sometimes causes lobbying in cases when there is an important decision to be made. A representative of the garden park then takes the resulting vote of the garden park to the annual Association Meeting. At the meeting the garden park votes are collected with a final decision as a result. Within the BVV, the number of young people is relatively low. The young people that are there usually do not take up an organisational position due to the fact that they often still have young children and a job. This means that the opinions of young people are often less heard.

2.2.4 Infrastructure and accounting situation All the land the urban garden complexes associated to the BVV is rented from the city districts. The BVV does not have the ownership of any land. This makes the association very dependent on its landlord, the Amsterdam Municipality. For the BVV it is not a possibility to buy the land from the Municipality in order to be more independent and to be able to make own decisions. The land has a very high value and purchasing it is not an option, as the BVV also does not have a lot of own means. A long lease tenancy form would be possible (erfpacht)7. It would bring the BVV more security of tenure but would also cost more. A large part of the revenues of the BVV are created by the contributions of the members. An additional small amount of revenues comes from interest from savings. Furthermore, the garden parks receive a contribution from the respective city districts as a compensation for the maintenance of the public green resources in the city. However, because these municipal contributions go directly to the garden parks, these are not revenue for the BVV as a whole. Because of the large financial dependency of the BVV on its members, it has been discussed at board level to search and apply for funds or other financial subsidies. However, it was agreed not to pursuit this plan as this would make the BVV financially dependent on other organisations and this might lead to less independent way of agenda setting. Now that the BVV is not dependent on other organisations or institutes, it is freer to negotiate. Departments have their own administration of accounts: each department draws up its own budget, has its own incomes and its own expenses. All members within a garden park pay their yearly contribution to the department. In this contribution, the following items are included:

> yearly contribution to the BVV (includes member’s contribution to the BVV’s membership of the AVVN and the MCA)

> insurance of the house > water (depending on garden park this facility is charged individually or collectively) > rent of the own garden (around 76 eurocents per square meter) > rent of the common park surface > garbage disposal (amount and collecting method varies per city district) > local taxes, such as real estate taxes and environmental taxes

7 Erfpacht is a (rather old fashioned) long term lease form in The Netherlands, where the long leaseholder pays a ground-rent to the owner of the land. The long leaseholder is not the owner of the land but does have very similar legal rights as the owner, but the land is owned by someone else. This form is used in order to enable the rightful owner to maintain his or her control.



> yearly contribution to park maintenance > yearly contribution to park financial reserve > incidental costs (such as dredging)

On a yearly basis, this comes down to around 400 to 500 euro per member. Although not very expensive, this does amount to around 40 euros a month (which is 4% of the minimum wage in The Netherlands) (http://www.szw.nl). In addition, the members contribute to the garden park in kind, as every member has the obligation to work 20 hours per year on the ‘general work’, which is the maintenance of the shared facilities of the park, such as the paths (see also Box 2). Many members pay the yearly contribution in 2 or 3 different terms. The departments have to remit part of the membership contributions to the BVV (contribution BVV, contribution AVVN, insurance, rent and local taxes) as these payments are made centrally by the BVV to external parties. The other part can be utilised at the department’s own discretion, such as for example the purchase of technical appliances. Departments are not supposed to make a profit with their incomes. For example, the courses that are held at the parks have a price, but this price only includes material costs and does not include employee costs. The same applies to the purchases done by the Purchasing Commission of the parks. These commissions purchase gardening necessities at a larger scale at the auction, in this way creating a financial benefit for the members. If a small profit happens to have been collected, this is invested into the garden park. Marketing of products from the gardens is forbidden. As the garden parks receive a contribution from the city district for the maintenance of the land on which the parks are located, making a profit from these lands is considered to be inappropriate. Use of the garden has always been seen to be for one’s own direct, immaterial benefit. If there is a budgetary deficit, this is also charged to the individual gardener’s account. Yearly, the financial report of the accounts of the association’s office as well as the financial reports of the departments are made available to the members. They are not available to a larger public.

2.2.5 Important dates

Box 2 – The general work Every gardener has to work 20 hours per year performing general tasks in the park, and in this way contributing to the park’s functioning in kind. Activities include the maintenance or construction of paths, the trimming of trees, the maintenance of the ditches, etc. In every park a special commission is in charge of the general work: making the working schedules, deciding on what jobs are needed when and who will be doing what. The activities also contribute to the integration of different groups of gardeners from a cultural and societal perspective and therefore the social cohesion of the garden parks, as the work brings people together and stimulates cooperation and contact. Every park has its own methods in organising the work and also its own methods of coping with gardeners who, despite the obligation, refuse to do their community tasks. For example, in garden park Lissabon people who do not perform their general duties for the first time, are sent a letter asking them to join the work the next time. If they then do not show up, they have to pay a fine. In order to be able to check people’s participation to the general work, all members have received a card. Every time they come and work, the supervisor will sign their card. At the end of the year, the cards have to be submitted to the board to see who has fulfilled their duties and who has not (Interview Van der Bosch, 2005). According to the general work commission at garden park Sloterdijkermeer, it is especially important to explain and teach people on what they are doing and why it is necessary. This will increase the enthusiasm and the fun with which people do the work (Interview Rodenburg, 2005). In some parks it is possible to redeem one’s general work duty, but this could quickly add up to a cost of 140 euros per year. However, it can be stated that this measure does not correspond with BVV principles.



In paragraph 2.2.1, the origin and history of the BVV has been described in broad outlines. The following dates and according events or trends have been of importance in the more recent history of the BVV:

1975 Increasing prosperity Due to the increasing prosperity, people with gardens depended less and less on their gardens for their leisure activities. Because of the growing number of possibilities at their disposal, some people could both keep their garden as well as go on a holiday abroad. This meant that some started using their garden less and less. Among others, this has important consequences for the interest among the members for the BVV and the number of members making themselves available as a volunteer.

1980 Decentralisation of Amsterdam Municipality As was stated in paragraph 1.3.4, governance at the Amsterdam Municipality was decentralised in the early eighties and local responsibilities were handed over to local city district offices. This change has changed a great deal for the BVV as well, making contact with the Municipality much more labour intensive and time-consuming. Before the city districts were established as such, the BVV board had direct contact with the central Municipality and the responsible alderman in the College of Mayor and Aldermen, the highest governing authority in the city of Amsterdam. Currently, to close agreements on 29 garden parks, deliberations have to take place with 11 different local municipal offices or municipalities. Instead of contacting one alderman, participation procedures have to be followed, which requires more time and energy – and therefore money (see also paragraph 1.3.5).

1993 Organisational reform of the BVV In 1993, it was decided within the BVV that an organisational reform was necessary. Before 1993, the organisational structure of the BVV had been the same ever since its beginning in 1917. During the 20 years before, the board had been coming together once a week, and this worked quite well on that scale of operation. But, the association had been growing over the years and changes in external circumstances asked for an organisational adaptation (e.g. different governance system of the Amsterdam Municipality, increasing government rules and regulations). Improvements were needed to bring the organisation up to more current standards. For the reorganisation a legal expert was consulted for advice. Part of the reorganisation was the change and adaptation of the rules and regulations. From the initial version, around 200 amendments had been formulated, which needed to be incorporated. Furthermore, there were a lot of informal rules in use that had never been formalised but were implemented as official rules. To ensure clarity for all stakeholders in what is allowed, and what is not, all these informal rules were made official so that misunderstandings and conflicts could be prevented. This has resulted in association statutes, general regulations, regulations at department level and separate regulations on renting, the construction of the garden houses (see Box 3) and conflicts. Current observations, however, tell us that perhaps now there are too many rules, too narrowly defined, leaving no room for incidental and/or local adaptations at department level. Another important part of the organisation’s restructuring consisted of a change of the management structure. Before 1993, the BVV board consisted of 29 members, all representatives of the 29 garden parks. At the yearly BVV member meeting, the daily management board was chosen by the members. This lead to the fact that there were 2 bodies within the organisation with decision-making power: the BVV board and the daily board. To clarify duties and responsibilities and to make the decision-making more efficient, decision-making power was centralised to one BVV board consisting of at least 5 members, which was the former daily board. This daily board reports to the Association Meeting, which



takes place once a year. In return, the board cannot decide which people take a seat in the departmental boards; this can only be done by the members, who are also the only ones who can discharge a member of the department board.



The former general BVV board, consisting of 29 members, was converted into the Advice Commission (Bestuurlijke Advies Commissie, BAC). This Commission does not have any decision-making power and a pure advisory function. However, all board decisions that have consequences for the policy of most garden parks are need to be passed by the Advice Commission for approval. If the Advice Commission disapproves a certain decision or measure, this first needs to be discussed at the yearly General Member Meeting of the BVV with all members. Before 1993, the general BVV board could decide on what the daily board did; the Advice Commission nowadays cannot (Interview Boelman, 2005). The Advice Commission is entitled to provide the BVV board with advice whether or not the board has requested this. Furthermore, the board can always ask the Advice Commission for advice, even when it concerns a decision for which this is not specified in the BVV statutes. As the BVV board is the only organisational body within the BVV, this means that the garden parks do not have any legal decision-making power. However, due to the lack of sanction possibilities with the board, the board does not have any formal ways to sanction a garden park board if it is not following agreements (e.g. does not submit financial or monitoring reports). The board therefore does not have any means to control or direct the garden park boards. 2.3 Alliances for public policy influencing and the access to resources, inputs and markets

2.3.1 Objectives and motives Alliances with external organisations and institutes are built for different reasons and following from this, at different levels. In the case of the BVV, 2 levels can be discerned: the operational level and the strategic level. The 2 levels can also be intertwined in some cases, where an alliance with a particular organisation or institute is both for practical (or operational) as well as for strategic purposes and therefore serves both goals. Alliances at the operational level are struck to improve the practical conditions in which the organisation or the members are able to perform their specific activity. These alliances can, for example, improve the financial conditions or can increase the gardeners’ capacities of gardening. They mostly have their benefits at the level of the members of the association, the gardeners. The alliances at the operational level should lead to an increased access to resources, inputs and markets. At the strategic level, alliances are strived after that will contribute to the continuity and sustainability of the organisation and its members’ activities in time. Cooperation at this level is sought for to enable the increase of the number of gardens, or, which is more often the case in Amsterdam, the maintenance of the current number. These alliances initially mostly benefit the association as a whole, but in the longer run also its members. The alliances at the strategic level should lead to an increased level of policy influencing.

Box 3 – Garden houses As over time, the gardens functioned more and more for recreational purposes and the gardeners were also staying the night there, they started to construct nicer and better garden houses. Initially the houses were shacks constructed of cheap materials, where tools were kept, but these as the years passed people improved them, adding facilities such as a kitchen and a bath room. Nowadays, these houses are quite fancy, little houses with values of several thousands of euros. Construction regulations were formulated to avoid the houses from becoming to big, as is for example shown by the rule stipulating that the house can only have one storey. Special valuation commissions were installed, to be able to estimate the value of the houses in the case where people would move or cancel their house. New members, when assigned a garden, take over the house situated in the garden at the value estimated by the valuation commission.



2.3.2 Actors involved and mechanisms used

At the operational level, the BVV has established alliances with:

> Amsterdam Nature and Environment Expert Centre (NME) - NGO This nature education centre provides support to the BVV in the education of the members, e.g. by giving nature courses and lectures. Adding to the knowledge of the members increases their capacities and can contribute to the extent to which these enjoy the gardening activities.

> Amsterdam Centre for Environment (MCA) - NGO

Cooperation with this environmental centre covers the same grounds as the previously mentioned NME.

> Municipal Water and Sanitation Service (DWR) – Local government

This municipal service is hired by the garden parks to perform specialised duties the parks cannot do themselves, for example during the general work. Most of the times, this involves the dredging of the ditches and other water bodies in the parks. Dredging is an important part of the maintenance of the garden parks and greatly enhances its user enjoyment and is favourable to the park’s ecology.

> Municipal Service for Infrastructure, Traffic and Transport – Local government This municipal service develops all policies that concern traffic and transport issues and implements these policies through the realization and management of the infrastructure in the city of Amsterdam, with the final goal to optimize the efficiency and safety of the population’s movements. In the case of the BVV, its role is limited to the repair and maintenance of the streets around the garden parks. Better accessibility to the garden parks for pedestrians, cyclists and cars is not only favourable to the garden park members, but also makes it easier for non-members to find their way to the parks, which increases the use of the parks by the other urban inhabitants.

> Insurance company – Private sector

The gardeners have to insure their houses in the gardens. In order to get a quantity rebate, the BVV has negotiated with the insurance company, striking an agreement with them for a lower insurance rate, which benefits the members financially and which also lowers the threshold financially for new members.

> Organisational advice office – Private sector

Recently, the BVV has called in the help of an organisational advice bureau. The need arose from the growing complexity of the organisation (growing number of members, growing number of municipal affairs, diversification of the kind of members, etc.). The bureau has been asked to help the BVV reform the organisation and assist in clarifying with the BVV its joint goals; also towards the formulation of the second policy plan (the last one covers the period 1998-2007). A reform of the BVV’s internal organisation will hopefully lead to a more efficient and effective functioning of the association.

With the following organisations, the BVV has established an alliance at strategic level:

> General Association for Gardeners Associations in The Netherlands (AVVN) – National urban farming association This is the umbrella organisation of gardening associations in The Netherlands. The AVVN argues in favour of regulations on and protection of small-scale gardening at a national level, a/o by studying systems in other countries in Europe. This organisation assists the BVV in matters such as policy formulation, internal organisation as well as



the maintenance of policy dialogues with the municipality and other government bodies. Members of the AVVN participate in the yearly Association Meetings of the BVV, while members of the BVV participate in the AVVN General Meeting. The BVV president is member of the AVVN board.

> Municipal Urban Planning Service (DRO) – Local government

This is one of the central services of the Amsterdam Municipality. Employees of the Municipal Urban Planning Service provide advice to the city council on the policy issues regarding urban planning, do research and develop urban plans and designs. The department cooperates with the other municipal services, the city council and the districts. The DRO develops the Structure Plan (see paragraphs 1.3.5 and 4.2.1). Broadly speaking, the service has 2 main areas: the green branch, which is concerned with the green urban spaces and the public areas in the city, and the red branch, which is mostly occupied with construction issues. The organisation has 10 teams, which are linked to a specific project area in the city or a specific theme. With regard to the urban gardens, the following three theme-based teams are most important: Living, Services and Urban Recreation; Public and Green Spaces and Urban Ecology; and Infrastructure (http://www.dro.amsterdam.nl). The BVV maintains a close contact with this municipal service and its responsible Alderman, as this is the department where spatial policies are shaped and formulated, and therefore where land is allocated to or from the garden parks.

> National Institute for Sustainable Development (NIDO) - NGO

This institute, together with the BVV, develops and implements projects to stimulate the societal discussion on the relationship between nature on one hand, and the health and well-being of people on the other hand. Working together with the NIDO, the BVV strives to prove its important meaning for a healthy urban context, herewith also defending its right of existence in an ever busier Amsterdam.

> Community and health care institutes – Community associations

Several of these institutes rent gardens from the BVV to be used by their patients or focus groups. These are:

• The Foundation Client Focussed Initiatives and Projects, which uses the gardens as a therapy space for their psychiatric patients.

• The AGO, a social organisation where mentally handicapped people are offered a job, and which provides guidance to a number of people from their focus group working in the garden parks.

• Fontis, an organisation of nursing homes for elderly people, which rent gardens of the BVV so that the inhabitants of their homes can spend a day outside in the garden parks.

• The Kingma School, which provides education to children with learning disabilities and which rents gardens of the BVV to provide their students a place where they can learn about nature, plants, flowers, but also a place where they can do useful duties.

Creating a cooperative relationship with these institutes diversifies the BVV’s types of users in the urban environment and therefore also contributes to their right of existence and their local support base.

> Sister associations in Amsterdam and in the rest of The Netherlands (see Box 1) –

Other local and/or national organisations of urban farmers Striking alliances with other organisations in Amsterdam with the same activities and goals, mostly serve as a way to join forces and make a stronger stand in negotiations with the municipal government (sister organisation in Amsterdam) as well as with the provincial or national government (hereby also including sister organisations outside of Amsterdam). In the policy intentions formulated for the year 2004-2005 the board expressed plans to invite the sister organisations for a cooperation relation or more



structured deliberations, with the help of an agreement. Furthermore, the sister associations are occasionally invited to the board meetings of the BVV. The most important sister organisations in Amsterdam are (more than 100 gardens):

- Association of Amateur Gardeners (Vereniging voor Amateur Tuinders, VAT)

- Garden Park De Swaenen - Garden Park Driemond - Garden Park Linneaus

The most important sister organisations outside of Amsterdam are:

• Rotterdam Association of Gardeners (Rotterdamse Bond van Volkstuinders, RBvV)

• The Hague Association of Amateur Gardeners (Haagse Bond van Amateurtuinders)

• Leyden Association of Amateur Gardeners (Leidse Bond van Amateurtuinders)

> Nature education centres NME and MCA - NGOs

The BVV also maintains strategic ties with these nature education centres, as the organisations consult each other yearly (or more often if necessary) on mutual points of interest, also with regard to policy lobbying. The BVV also comments on the policy plans of both centres, and vice versa.

Contacts with the following organisations are to be explored further (these have so far only consisted of personal contacts and participation in mutual discussion meetings or conferences):

> Association of Dutch Municipalities (Vereniging Nederlandse Gemeenten, VNG) – National NGO This association supports Dutch municipalities in their negotiations with other governmental levels and provides advice on several policy themes, such as Environment and Water, Spatial Planning, Traffic and Transport, etc.

> Forum for Green Facilities The Netherlands (Groenforum Nederland) – National NGO This organisation is a platform of organizations and private sector companies that want to stimulate policy makers to invest more in green facilities. 2.3.3 Participation of women, youth and elderly

According to the discussion in the Validation Meeting (see Annex 2 for a report), most of the boards do not have a representative composition for society as a whole nor for the association or the garden parks. The BVV does not have a specific policy with regard to the participation of women, neither in their internal organisation nor among their members. This is reflected in the fact that their member administration does not display whether a member is male or female. However, there is a trend visible in the composition of the group of association members: before it would be mostly retired and older people tending the gardens, while these days more and more single (female) people, one-parent families (also mostly headed by women) and families with children have gardens. This would imply a probable increase of women being urban producers as opposed to men.

2.3.4 Problems identified and possible solutions Many of the alliances constructed by the BVV with external organisations are intended to provide the members with more and better information on gardening activities and to increase the sense of community between the BVV members. Since the beginning of its existence the BVV has made an effort to organise courses such as growing fruit or pruning, hereby attracting experts from outside of the association. However, currently the members of the BVV generally show much less interest in the courses, resulting in the cancellation of



many of the courses and social activities and consequently less or less strong relationships with other organisations and urban actors. In the alliances with social institutes within the framework of enlarging the user base of the gardens, the limited capacity of the BVV’s human resources is an important barrier to further development and expansion of this kind of relationship. The existing arrangements completely rely on the goodwill of a small group of (volunteering) people of which one can only ask so much. Furthermore, the current reorientation of the BVV with respect to the increasing diversity of the urban population and its user groups also implies a diversification of the organisations in society with which alliances should be constructed or intensified. However, this is a recent issue, which the BVV will be taking up in the near future. 2.4 Strategies developed for public policy influencing and the access to resources, inputs and markets

2.4.1 Main strategies and actions developed 2.4.1.1 Introduction It is quite safe to say that most of the BVV’s work consists of defending the interests of its members towards the policies of the (local) government, and more in detail, it can be said that much of this work concerns the maintenance of the land upon which the garden parks are located. Since the city of Amsterdam suffers from a considerable population pressure (within the period of 2010 to 2030 the municipality has to build 50,000 extra houses within the current city limits to accommodate for the growing demand for houses, following the Compact City Policy described in paragraph 1.3.1), as well as a growing economy with the accompanying demand for office space, there is consequently a high demand for the available land. For the garden parks this also represents a serious threat. As the municipality is the legal owner of the land the garden parks are located upon, it is often likely to find another destination for this land when formulating new urban plans. Most of the BVV’s work therefore consists of protecting the current spaces by influencing the local policy formulation, extending the use potentials of the garden parks so that other population groups within the city can also profit from them, as well as negotiating with the local government for more space for new garden parks to accommodate the future urban gardeners. The BVV aims to stay in contact with the central municipal office in Amsterdam as well as with the municipal district offices (please see Figure 2 in paragraph 1.3.4 on the institutional and political organisation of the Amsterdam Municipality). With the central municipal office, the BVV maintains contacts on a local government level, and aims to participate in and stimulate the dialogue on the planned and implemented municipal policy with regard to the city gardens. With the district municipal offices, the BVV maintains the dialogue on the issue on a lower local government level. In this regard, it mostly concerns policy formulation on district level. Within the BVV board, one member holds the portfolio ‘Strategy and Policy’. This person specialises in the contact with governmental bodies and the development and implementation of strategies for policy influencing. Paragraph 2.4.1.2 is dedicated to the description of a number of concrete strategies the BVV has applied to lobby and influence local policy makers, while paragraph 2.4.1.3 focuses more on the strategies developed to ensure the access to resources (mostly land) as well as the construction of new alliances. Although a division has been made, it is important to remember that certain strategies serve both ends. Where this the case, it will be mentioned in the text.



2.4.1.2 Strategies for influencing local policy formulation The BVV resorts to several strategies to achieve its objectives. Generally speaking it could be stated that the BVV thinks it is important to keep the dialogue open with local policy makers at all levels (municipal as well as the city district level), as well as to feed this dialogue with information on the relevance of the urban gardens. With respect to the objective of the influencing of local policy formulation, the organisation resorts to the following specific strategies:

> Offering information The association makes sure that the local government departments involved in the policy formulation relevant to the urban gardens are kept well informed with regard to the BVV itself, its activities, the necessities and status of its members, its policy, etc. More in concrete it therefore sets in motion the following specific activities:

· Keeping local government informed on developments, needs and activities by corresponding with them in writing

· Inviting local government officials (from the Amsterdam Municipality and the concerning city district as well as from the neighbouring municipalities) to working visits to the urban gardens and to informative walks through the garden parks or by inviting the former to the New Year’s Reception of the BVV. Often the before mentioned visits are also an opportunity to raise certain policy issues and they often lead to active discussions.

· Writing and making available of the policy plan. Although writing a policy plan for an organisation in the first place serves internal goals, it also helps in the communication outwards as it states the organisation’s important current internal discussions, societal developments it wants to address, strategies to achieve the goals that have been set, which important partners it will need to cooperate with and other intentions for the future. Making the policy plan available to a large public is a good way of letting the political world know in a clear way what the organisation stands for, where it wants to go, how it wants to do this and who it wants to involve.

· The intention to form a promotion team for the Public Relations work, which provides staff for stands at conferences and demonstration events, and other activities. The set-up of the promotion team is part of a larger plan to give the urban gardens greater exposure and publicity and a better image, so that they can maintain their position in a rapidly developing city like Amsterdam. The public relations activities will be directed towards 3 groups: the city inhabitants, local government and political parties.

· Informing the public as well as local government on developments in specific cases, by sending out press releases and by keeping a website.

> Reaction/participation

The BVV actively participates in local policy discussions by taking part in information or reaction meetings organised by the municipality and the city districts involved, but also by organising information meetings on policy issues for its own members and inviting to these meetings the responsible local government official to establish direct contact between the municipality and the gardeners. The organisation also participates actively in the discussion on urban policy development unasked for (when there are no official participation rounds), by writing reaction letters to the municipality. In the case of the formulation of the Concept Note (see paragraph 4.2.2 for more information), the BVV even asked the Municipality to give them more time during the participation procedure in order to be able to consult the members. A meeting was organised for the members for which also the municipal officials were invited to give a presentation in order to give a more detailed explanation on the Municipality’s policy plans. During the



meeting the board as well as the government officials were able to hear the opinions of the members. After this meeting, the BVV wrote its official reaction to the Municipality in which the opinion of the members was incorporated. Before sending it to the Municipality, this reaction was reviewed by the Advice Commission, after which a definitive reaction was prepared, which was sent to the Municipality. The extra time needed to let the internal consultation and participation process take place, had to be fought for considerably by the BVV. Even though participation in governmental decision-making has been made possible because of the participation procedures, it often takes more time for an organisation to consult its members, than the procedure allows for. The above described consultation process was experienced as very positive by the BVV as it enabled many more members to take part in the municipal policy formulation and have their say, but the process does not fit in the timelines often set by the Municipality. If the BVV wants to proceed with this internal procedure, it will have to engage in the fight for time much more often with the Municipality.

> Maintaining an open dialogue One of the clear BVV strategies in policy influencing has to do with the way in which the dialogue with the local government is held, both with the city district offices as well as with the central Municipality. A lot of energy is put into keeping the dialogue open and creating a friendly atmosphere, considering the policy makers as respectable partners instead of seeing and treating them as enemies in battle. Keeping the dialogue open and maintaining it, is considered to be of more importance than choosing a too strong own position, with which one puts oneself outside of the game in negotiations. It is important to separate the policy maker from the politics. An example of how the BVV attempts to create this atmosphere is the appointment of one of the municipal officials as an honorary member of the BVV.

> Liaising in ‘crisis’ situations In difficult situations, when for example a garden complex is threatened by municipal plans to be cancelled or moved, the BVV contacts other players in the field, which could play a role in the defence of the organisation’s cause. By contacting (mostly political) entities in and around the city of Amsterdam, the BVV hopes to establish more understanding and a (larger) support base in situations where this is necessary. The following players have been contacted in this respect:

· neighbouring municipalities As Amsterdam borders directly on other, smaller municipalities, it needs to coordinate its policies with these municipalities. Many of the phenomena that play a role in Amsterdam, surpass municipal borders and occur in the neighbouring municipalities as well. This is also the case with the urban gardens. Some of the BVV garden parks are located in these neighbouring municipalities, which is why the association not only strives to influence policy development in Amsterdam but also in the neighbouring cities. Gaining support from these municipalities for the agreement on conditions under which garden parks maintain their location and can strengthen their functions will also help in the struggle for these causes with the Amsterdam Municipality.

· political parties Besides contacting the political parties explicitly during certain specific situations, it should also be noted that the BVV makes sure to write the political parties during the period when they are formulating their electoral programme, intending to make use of the opportunity to put the urban gardening on the political agenda. A note in this regard was made by one of the BVV board members: it is important to not only focus on the political parties that are known for their favourable position with regard to nature green facilities in the urban environment as opposed to construction, the so-



called ‘green parties’. Making contact with these parties could be rather easy. According to the BVV board member, it is also important to keep an eye open for and to make contact with those political parties, which have a large vote in the political arena in a city, such as the CDA, VVD or PvdA that constitute the more stable political parties in Amsterdam. These parties may not always have a favourable perspective, which is exactly why it is very important to maintain a good relationship with them.

· provincial government The BVV occasionally contacts the provincial government on issues when the local governmental bodies disagree and developments are stalled because of that. An example is the construction of the sewerage. Please see Box 4 for a more detailed overview of this matter.

> Increasing the added value

Another way to guarantee the continuation of the location of many urban garden parks is the increase of the added value of the parks for the city as a whole. For the BVV it is important that the municipality starts to realise that the municipality itself has a choice in elevating the urban garden parks to the level of a metropolitan facility. The BVV is trying to generate this added value, and the accompanying municipal realisation, by:

· Trying to achieve a greater diversity in the characteristics of the gardens and its users, for example by aiming for new focus groups within the population, or by making the gardens easily accessible for the public (although this has its consequences, e.g. safety issues).

· Aiming for a better ‘fit’ of the gardens in their near environment, for example by

making available the clubhouses for socio-cultural activities, so that the garden parks contribute to the neighbourhood activities. Another example is the qualities the garden parks have to offer to office areas: in their lunch breaks the office employees can enjoy the parks to go for a walk or even to do some light gardening work as an alternation to the office work. Some parks also provide classes on nature education to primary schools in the neighbourhood, admit non-gardeners to their courses and organise excursions for visitors.

Box 4 - Sewerage construction In 2005 all gardens have to be connected to the urban sewerage system. However, the project is not progressing as expected, as its financing has proved to be an obstacle. After a lot of deliberation between the central municipality, the local municipalities, the municipal Water and Sewerage Department and the Environmental Department, the local municipal offices have now taken in an expectant position with regard to the issue. The responsible member of the city council had ordered the local municipalities to pre-finance the construction works, and to later negotiate the costs with the garden park organisations involved (for example to increase the rent of the land and earn back the construction costs in this way). To give an example of the costs involved: for one park, Nieuw Vredelust in the south of the city, the construction of the central part of the sewerage will cost around 200,000 euros, which comes down to around 2,000 euros per member. Even with a favourable loan provided by the city district, this still comes down to a cost increase of 100 euros a year. In addition, every member has to contribute around 600 euros for the construction of the individual part of the sewerage system. This means that members will have to pay 2 to 3 times the normal yearly contribution (Interview Van Rij, 2005). After an initial promise of the local municipal departments, one of them has now withdrawn the earlier made promise on the issue of a favourable loan. The BVV has contacted the provincial authorities to ask how to resolve the issue further, hereby stating that it is merely a tenant of the land, on the basis of agreements with a duration of only 1 year, which are prolonged silently, and that there is no legal basis for a user of the land, not being the owner, to be obligated to provide for services when disposal on the surface is no longer allowed. The issue with this particular city district is still pending.



· Combining the gardens with other city functions, for example by creating outside

meeting places, with sports and game functions.

> Organisation of conferences and discussion meetings Every now and then, the BVV organises discussion meetings and/or conferences on a specific theme that concerns both the urban gardens as well as other actors in society. An example is the discussion meeting, which was organised as a result of the report issued by the Health Council on Agriculture and Green Spaces for a Healthy Society. In this report the relationship between green spaces and a healthy life is explored. The topic of discussion was the contribution of the urban gardens in specific to the health of the urban population. For the meeting, several stakeholders were invited, such as the responsible alderman of the Amsterdam city council, the former director of the Association of Dutch Municipalities, a member of the Health Council, etc. and of course the BVV members. Organising meetings like this get certain stakeholders together for a discussion all consider relevant, bringing the urban gardens to the fore and putting the BVV in the spotlight both towards the members as well as towards the outside world. Besides bringing the BVV more publicity, this kind of meetings also delivers new contacts. 2.4.1.3 Strategies for increased access to resources, inputs and markets The BVV implements several strategies in order to increase its access to resources, inputs and markets. The following strategies can be identified:

> Offering information to the larger (urban) public As has been mentioned before, the BVV provides information on its activities, objectives and future intentions to a larger public (Amsterdam inhabitants as well as organisations and institutes) by writing a policy plan, sending out press releases, maintaining a website and by formulating plans for a Public Relations department. Informing the Amsterdam inhabitants can attract new members. This implies a larger financial base for the association (increased access to financial resources) but it also implies a larger societal base: more people registered as an aspiring member means that the actual need for the urban gardens can be demonstrated to the local government. Furthermore, it can increase the knowledge of the general urban population on the urban gardens and the recreational possibilities the garden parks offer to non-members in urban society. This will increase the number of people using the garden base, which is also beneficial to the BVV’s political fight for conservation and expansion. Further, by informing the larger public and hereby educating the city population on the importance of urban green spaces, it is possible the public is also influenced in its voting behaviour. A consequence hereof could therefore be that these people will start voting for the so-called ‘green parties’, which favour green spaces above construction. Lastly, providing information to other urban actors may favour the construction of alliances between the BVV and these organisations and institutes.

> Organisation of conferences and discussion meetings The conferences and discussion meetings as organised by the BVV (see paragraph 2.4.1.2) bring the urban gardens into the spotlight with different stakeholder groups, increase the existing knowledge base on the importance of the urban gardens for the urban society and add to the understanding of the multi-functionality of the garden parks among these stakeholder groups. Next to political benefits mentioned in the previous paragraph, this could lead to increased possibilities of constructing alliances



with other urban stakeholders. These can then lead to increased access to resources and inputs.

2.4.2 Problems identified and possible solutions Communication with the local government At the moment, communication with the local government can be troublesome because of the diffusion of authorities among the different municipal departments and/or local municipal offices. The roles fulfilled by the different city district with regard to the garden parks vary to a high degree from district to district. The policy 1 city district implements, varies greatly on a number of aspects. In one park, large scale maintenance work on the publicly accessible parts of the park (such as on paths, ditches and bridges) are done by the city district, while in another park this work has to be organised and done by the gardeners themselves. With a large number of these local offices the contacts are very good and fertile deliberations are taking place, however, it is obvious that when the policy with regard to the garden parks would be managed centrally, results would be attained in a more efficient manner. From the change in the Amsterdam governing system, not only efficiency problems arose, but also practical ones. For example, with the central Municipality the agreement existed that the BVV would get back 40% of their rent payment as a compensation for the maintenance the green resources of the city. This agreement had been made with the Department for Land Matters of the Municipality and all garden parks would therefore get the same percentage. However, this agreement was never formalised into a contract. When the management of the garden parks was handed over to the different city district offices, the responsible city district council members made clear to the BVV in the acquaintance meeting that they were fully autonomous in their decision-making and that they had nothing to do with the agreements once made with the Department for Land Matters of the central Municipality. In practice, this meant for the BVV that the contribution went down from 40% to 20% maximum. In many city districts this percentage is lower, as every city district can decide for itself how much it will return. So far, this agreement has not been formalised in an agreement either even though this is always a returning subject of negotiation between the BVV and the municipal district. Another agreement, which has not been formalised, is an agreement struck with the Department for Land Matters and refers to the case when a garden park has to move. In this informal agreement, the Department for Land Matters promised the BVV to provide a new piece of land to the forcefully moving garden park, plus a financial compensation. Although this agreement has never been formalised, it has always been followed-up correctly by the Municipality. However, the moving of garden parks is still an issue and it is envisaged that this issue will become more and more difficult to resolve, as the space in and around Amsterdam is limited. Other consequences of the decentralisation of the Amsterdam Municipality are of a more financial nature. Firstly, the maintenance contribution from the Municipality has decreased. The city districts can now decide per district on the height of the contribution and most have installed a lower percentage than the central municipality worked with before. This has to be compensated by the gardeners and members of the BVV who now have to contribute more. A strategy used by the BVV to cope with the municipal subdivisions is that all BVV board members have been given a number of city districts in their portfolio, often including the one where they live or where they have their own garden. In this way, deliberations with the city districts do not fall under the responsibility of one single person (as was mostly the case before the subdivision) or of the entire board. The board members function as a representative of the BVV towards the city districts and report back to the board after deliberations.



Another coping strategy has been the joining together of garden complexes in every city district, hereby forming regional groups of garden parks, which have regional consultations amongst themselves and discuss local issues with their own city district office, all coordinated by the responsible BVV board member. However, this system so far has not been functioning sufficiently and still needs more structure for it to work fully. Opening up of the parks The opening up of the parks for the public so that other urban citizens who do not have a garden are able to visit the garden parks and enjoy these ‘urban green facility’ does not always comply with the wishes of the gardeners. Many feel resentment towards outsiders prying and feel that their sense of privacy is harmed. The fear of vandalism and robberies is also present and parks need to take measures to limit the likelihood of the entry of people with bad intentions. Some parks have a special person to open and close the park gate, but this is a luxury not all parks can dispose of. In some parks, surveillance cameras have been placed to keep an eye on the park and the belongings of the members (Interview Van De Bosch, 2005). Integration of immigrants One of the spearheads of the BVV policy is the role the association can play in the urban society when it comes to the integration of immigrants. This new group in the city population is quite extensive and the number of members with an immigrant background is also increasing within the BVV. Before the rules and regulations of the organisation stated that a member had to have the Dutch nationality and had to live in The Netherlands. This rule as been adapted, assuring that one does not have to have the Dutch nationality in order to be able to rent a garden. Mostly the immigrants are interested in the gardens to produce vegetables, so as to provide in their family’s food demand. However, attention needs to be paid to the fact that measures are taken within the gardens to improve the social integration of the immigrants and to stimulate the contact between them and the ‘original’ garden users. The problem identified here is that many of the garden parks either have the so-called ‘original Amsterdam population’ or a population of immigrants. Garden parks with a fairly even mix between the 2 groups are hardly non-existent because of the different demands the 2 groups have regarding the purpose of having a garden. Integrating 2 groups does not really become an issue or a possibility if 1 group is highly over represented. Furthermore, management of the garden parks where immigrants are over represented has proven to be difficult for the BVV. Although original gardeners, board members of garden parks as well as immigrants approach each other with an open attitude, cultural differences make it hard to communicate and to understand one another’s point of view. This is for example reflected in the compliance of immigrants with the BVV rules and regulations, as the explanation of the reason behind many of these rules is difficult and the immigrant members do not feel a lot of ties with the organisation and its structure. In the past, whether or not BVV materials needed to be translated in Moroccan, Turkish or Arabic has been a point of discussion at board level. However, due to financial barriers this has not proven to be an option. In rare occasions, garden parks have constituted a board in which both original gardeners as well as immigrants take in positions. This however, cannot be regarded as conventional, as mostly the garden park boards consist of original gardeners.



PART 3 3. Analysis of the alliances and strategies 3.1 Analysis of the main alliances established

3.1.1 Types of alliances established As was indicated above, the BVV has been able to establish different types of alliances: operational alliances and strategic alliances. The operational ones allow the BVV and the gardeners to perform their activities better, easier and cheaper, while the strategic ones are established to guarantee the BVV’s and the gardens’ continuity in the longer run as well as to enable the organisation to expand. While the alliances at the operational level are generally easier to establish, as the mutual benefits are more evident, the alliances at strategic level sometimes require more efforts from the side of the BVV. At times, it is necessary to persuade other actors of the benefits of the alliance before the alliance can actually be established. Mostly, alliances at the operational level are established by the employees of the BVV office. For example, in the case of the insurance company, negotiations were done by the BVV office upon request by the BVV board. At this level, it can be noted that alliances with the environmental education centres NME and MCA could be inhibited by the lower participation of BVV members in collective activities. Alliances at the strategic level are mostly established by the BVV board members. Although most alliances have a solid institutional base (especially the non-political ones, such as with AVVN), some are based on personal contacts. This could be limiting to the implementation of the alliances, in the case where one of the board members decides to lay down his or her responsibilities (see also paragraph 3.1.5).

3.1.2 Fulfilment of the objectives and the effect of the alliances established So far it can be said that the alliances at operational level are effective as for example, they lead to greater capacity of the members of the organisation to perform their activities, to a decrease in the costs for the individual gardener, etc. Effects of the strategic alliances with governmental organisations and departments are more precarious as these depend to a large extent on personal relations. Government changes after elections also mean that sometimes alliances have to be built up from the beginning, which puts all previous relations and efforts into question again. As the objectives of the BVV change, its need to form alliances with new and other parties and external actors increases. For example, in its attempt to do more with the growing immigrant population of Amsterdam, the BVV wants to achieve a relationship with DMO, the Societal Development Service of the Amsterdam Municipality. This relationship has not been materialised yet, perhaps because the BVV should in general make the societal relevance of the urban gardens more explicit, such as for example demonstrate the relationship between the urban gardens and the integration and/or emancipation of immigrants (Interview Van Schaick, 2005).

3.1.3 Duration and evolution of the alliances over time The BVV’s alliances with nature education organisations have existed since the origin of the organisation. However, these alliances still exist but the intensity of the contact has been put to the test because of the low participation of the BVV members in the services provided by these organisations. The strategic alliances with the municipality also have their roots in the origin of the organisation but have changed a great deal with the decentralisation of the



municipal responsibilities from the central municipality to the city districts. Relationships have become more diverse, more indirect and more complicated.

3.1.4 Effective participation of women, youth and elderly During interviews it was stated by many people that a specific policy to increase the participation of female members in the organization is not necessary as women in The Netherlands are seen to already have achieved equal opportunities as men. However, although it is not felt to be a very important theme, it was also stated that most departmental boards, as well as the BVV central board, do not have an even distribution of men and women. Ever since the establishment of the BVV, the number of men taking up management positions has been a lot higher than the number of women. To some this does not imply a bad thing, as they state it should not matter who is doing the job, as long as it is done right, whether this person is a man or a woman. But, because there are still quite some garden parks where task divisions and relationships are still very traditional, this often limits the participation of women in, for example, board positions and therefore decision making. In addition, most of the board members are of an elderly age, which is caused by the fact that all work within the BVV is done by volunteers (see also paragraph 2.2.3). As many of the management functions take up considerable amounts of time, most volunteers in these positions are retired people. For example, the function of BVV board member can take up to 12 to 20 hours a week. This is very hard to sustain if one also has a regular job. The high number of pensioned and older people in management positions could have its implications for the way in which matters are managed, it sometimes being quite conservative and little progressive. It was also mentioned that it is important for the BVV’s continuity and sustainability as an organisation to involve young people, and make them an active part of the organisation today already.

3.1.5 Strengths and weaknesses in the establishment of alliances In the establishment of the alliances, the BVV has shown that it is a consistent partner with strong values on the importance of the gardens in the urban environment. It has been able to build reliable alliances and relationships and especially the ones with a historical base and background are strong (e.g. with the AVVN). According to its members as well, the BVV performs this role well, although it could maybe do a little more (‘people always want more’ , statement during Validation Meeting, 2005). In general, members feel that the cooperation between the BVV and third parties improves their situation as gardeners. In this regard, the BVV members feel that the BVV joins the forces of all BVV members in Amsterdam in their negotiation and contact with other parties and the outside world. Once, this was the main reason for the origin of the BVV and it apparently is valid today. However, it could be questioned whether the ‘average gardener’ (who does not have any managerial tasks) knows about the achievements of the board in this field. Participants at the Validation Meeting felt that most members do not know, that most of the board’s actions In this regard take place rather detached from the members, mostly because there is a lack of communication and a growing lack of interest among the members: “Many members create their one little world on their garden and do not take the trouble to read the BVV magazine”. An additional observation could be made on the fact that particularly the strategic alliances are often based on individual and personal contacts, and could be structured and formalised more into for example agreements or declarations of intentions. Depending on individuals too much can endanger the continuity of the relationships and have its influence on the whole organisation and all members. Furthermore, it could be stated that the image of the BVV to the outside world is quite invisible also as Public Relations have not been a priority. This can also have its influence on alliance building. Lastly, so far, the international contacts of the BVV have been limited. It



could be questioned whether and how the international market could be of interest to the organisation, for example to establish further contacts and linkages with similar organisations in Europe of the USA and/or Canada so as to facilitate mutual learning and possibly policy influencing. 3.2 Analysis of main strategies developed

3.2.1 Type and effect of the strategies and actions developed Most of the BVV’s strategies are on the one hand concerned with the involvement of policy makers in the organisation, in its activities and with the members, and in this regard are concentrated on information exchange and dialogue. On the other hand, the organisation seeks alliances with other institutes for the defence and the expansion of its ‘raison d’être’ in an ever-busier urban environment to provide a solid existence base for the urban gardens, which will also assist in its dialogue with local politics. The effect of these efforts is very difficult to measure and mostly become visible in the final versions of the governmental plans. The formulation phases of 2 important recent spatial plans have been described in the following chapter, with special attention for the efforts of the BVV and the final outcomes.

3.2.2 Achievement of objectives One of the most important objectives of the BVV is the continuation of the gardening activities in the urban space where they are located now plus the achievement of additional terrains for the expansion of the quantity of urban gardens in the city of Amsterdam. The efforts with respect to the continuation of the gardening activities in their current location have mostly taken place in the form of strategic alliance construction. The results of these strategies have been quite positive and are described more in detail in the next chapter.

3.2.3 Effective participation of women, youth and elderly With regard to the policy influencing the participation of the BVV members in general mostly takes place at moments arranged by the BVV where members can discuss matters with local government officials or where they can just express their opinions on policies. By creating these moments, the BVV wants to stimulate the participation of its members in policy influencing. However, its does not undertake special action to involve women, youth or elderly in particular. As was described above, the number of elderly people within the organisation is high while the number of young people is low. This makes the participation of particularly young people in policy influencing more problematic.

3.2.4 Strengths and weaknesses in the development of strategies and actions One of the major strengths of the BVV in developing strategies and actions to influence policy or to increase access to resources is the fact that they develop many different strategies. The organisation does not resort to just 1 or a few strategies but looks for different ways in which to achieve their goals. In case one single strategy does not work, the others may still have effect. On the other hand, some strategies serve more than 1 objective. This is for example the case with the information strategy (both operational as well as strategic goals, see paragraph 2.4.1.3). Another strength is that the BVV, with its strategies, tries to involve all parties and stakeholders involved and provides opportunities for these stakeholders to meet and discuss certain matters with each other. In this way, the BVV makes the issues they bring forward not only theirs but also those of the other stakeholders in the urban environment. Linked to this, is another strength, which is the way in which the BVV approaches other stakeholders: not as opponents but as partners in a dialogue. Sharing information also plays an important factor in this.



Strategy development and implementation now rests mostly on the shoulders of one BVV board member. The reason behind this could be the expertise this specific member can bring in from his professional experience. Putting this important task on the shoulders of a small group of people (or even just one person) bears the danger in it that when this small group has to cease its activities in this field for whatever reasons, there is hardly anyone to take over the job. This could jeopardize the sustainability of the policy influencing activities.

Picture 3: Hoeing gardens around housing construction in the

South-Eastern part of Amsterdam

Source: Spatial Planning Department, Amsterdam Municipality, ‘Van

Volkstuincomplex Naar Tuinpark’, March 2004



PART 4 4. Achieved results in the establishment of alliances and the development of strategies 4.1 Achieved results in the establishment of alliances

4.1.1 Results for the members of the BVV For the members, the alliances struck by the BVV have led to the:

> increased number of possibilities to enhance their knowledge on gardening and nature as well as all sorts of related matters, which also enhances the extent to which they enjoy the activity

> financial benefits as the BVV has negotiated with for example the insurance company for a quantity reduction of the fee

> facilitated access to the services of the municipality, which also increase the positive way in which the gardeners experiences their own garden as well as the garden park

> increased participation in municipal policymaking and decision-making > increased and more secure access to land > continuation of location of urban gardens, in several cases > increased or sustained possibilities for relatively cheap recreation (in comparison with

for example the costs of membership at a sports club)

4.1.2 Results for the BVV with regard to its organisation, functioning and public policy influencing

For the organisation as a whole the alliances have lead to:

> organisational reforms and advice on more efficient management > (legal) support and advice in the battle with local government, leading to a stronger

position in negotiations > a larger group of users, herewith expanding its user base and therefore also

strengthening > a larger awareness with external parties of the importance of the urban gardens for

society > continuation of the organisation through continuation of the urban gardens

4.2 Achieved results in the development of strategies With respect to the influencing of policies, the BVV has already achieved a considerate number of results, mostly for its members and through that, also for the organisation itself. The defence of the interests of its members is mostly shown in the struggles with the municipality: against increases of costs, against movement of the gardens, etc. Before, the land upon which many of the gardens were situated was property of the municipality and in many cases it concerned land for which a destiny had not been found yet. When the municipality did find a destination for the land, the gardeners would have to leave. Because the land was owned by the municipality, they could not do much to prevent this from happening. Because of intervention of the BVV, the gardens cannot be abolished anymore, without the municipality offering the gardeners an alternative piece of land, and also providing them some sort of financial contribution in the costs of moving. In 1970 all gardens in Amsterdam were even declared permanent, which by the way does not mean that they cannot be moved anymore. It does mean that the gardeners, since 1970, have the right to be offered an alternative piece of land, and that this is no longer a favour. Another result from negotiations with the city district offices and which implies a financial revenue for the members has to do with the garbage collection. This municipal service is performed by the city districts. Due to the fact that the BVV and all its departments (garden



parks) are seen as companies, they receive a reduction in the price charged for garbage collection. This financial advantage is transferred to the members, who pay a lower yearly contribution. Recently, the BVV has been struggling successfully for the maintenance of her gardens with respect to the Structure Plan. Currently, there is furthermore a participation procedure ongoing regarding the Concept Note on Communal Gardens, a policy plan of the Amsterdam Municipality especially formulated on the gardens, in which the BVV also wants to have a say. Both struggles are dealt with more in detail below.

4.2.1 Results with respect to the Structure Plan ‘Choosing for Urbanisation’ 4.2.1.1 Introduction The current Structure Plan for Amsterdam is titled “Choosing for Urbanisation’. This particular ‘Structure Plan’ was agreed upon by the city council on April 16th, 2003. The time horizon for this plan is 2010. According to the plan, predominantly intensive and so-called mixed urban environments are created, especially so where the accessibility by public transport is of a good quality. This accessibility needs to be improved, both via road, rail and waterways. Furthermore, the plan intends to improve and increase the quality of green, water and public spaces. On the one hand, the plan enables the progress of running projects, and on the other hand it provides space for new developments. According to the Amsterdam Municipality, the fact that many new residential areas need to be constructed should not lead to an unliveable situation. Therefore, the Structure Plan assumes a number of essential existing qualities of Amsterdam with respect to the spatial development of the city and the region:

> the qualities of characteristic and valuable landscapes in the region, and therefore no urbanisation in these areas

> the quality of a good accessibility through public transport, and therefore the concentration of urbanisation around stations and locations which are well accessible by public transport

> the quality of urban environments, and therefore the dedication of Amsterdam to the environments which are strong here: urban environments with a lot of mixture (combining living, working as well as services provision), high densities and many meeting places

Because of these three starting points, the choice has been made to realise a large part of the regional construction programme within the existing urban area in Amsterdam. To prevent the city from completely being over flooded by construction, 2 spatial structures have been appointed: one for water and one for green spaces (Main Green Structure or Hoofdgroenstructuur). Within these assigned structures it is forbidden to build. 4.2.1.2 The Structure Plan and the urban gardens The choice for urbanisation, made by the current Structure Plan, has made life difficult for the urban gardeners, as quite a number of garden parks were threatened by the Structure Plan to be cancelled in their old location and moved to elsewhere. In the preparation process of the Structure Plan the municipality (its Spatial Planning Department) first formulated a discussion note. With this note, certain issues on which official and governmental choices had to be made were presented to all stakeholders. These involved parties were given three ways in which they could express their opinions: a general information meeting, three meetings with selected parties and during the regular governmental discussion platforms. With the information that sprung from this discussion the city council formulated a so-called ‘Note of Answering’. In this note all reactions received by the city council are summarised,



with a preliminary reaction of the council. A special Advice Committee to the city council was established on Urban Development and Water Management, consisting of city council members. This Advice Committee was meant to apply itself to the Structure Plan and to advice the city council on the subject. The committee held a special hearing, where all stakeholders that previously had given a reaction to the notes pertaining to the Structure Plan, could give a more detailed explanation of their reaction. The hearing also provided the committee with an opportunity to ask the stakeholders questions on certain insecurities. After the hearing, the city council presented its final Note of Answering to the Committee. From this step on, it was no longer possible to participate in the development of the Structure Plan by the other stakeholders. The initial discussion note a/o mentioned the Municipality’s position with respect to the urban gardens:

> the garden parks located outside of the main structure for green spaces (see previous paragraph) should be relocated to well accessible spots at the city limit, and/or its truly neighbourhood bounded services should be taken up in the city itself

> the garden parks that stay will be stimulated more towards ecological management and opening up to a broader public

> food producing gardens with a social function and a ‘short’ usage time should be taken up in the neighbourhood, while larger scale complexes, that often harbour second residences, should be moved to the urban fringe

> an analysis should be made of the need/the excess of urban gardens Also in the subsequent discussion note, as well as in the conceptual Structure Plan the Municipality’s position remained quite threatening for many garden parks. At all occasions where this was possible, the BVV reacted by stating clearly its position with regard to the Structure Plan as well as by pointing out the clear advantages of the urban garden parks for the city as a whole. Likewise, it always pointed out its willingness to cooperate with the Municipality and other community organisations, and to jointly think of solutions for the problems the city is facing, currently and in the future. Nevertheless, the organisation’s position largely consisted of the following four demands:

> the Municipality should cross out the plans to construct residences at current garden park locations and if residences absolutely need to built in the area, the garden parks should be fitted into the design

> it should order an investigation into the needs developments of the population with respect to the communal gardens and its green spaces

> it should develop an integral policy on the garden parks > it should look for additional locations for expansion of the number of garden parks

Furthermore, the BVV made an effort to mention the following advantages pertaining to the garden parks:

> their ecological and natural value for the city, as well as their value from a landscape architectural and cultural historical viewpoint

> as more and more houses are built without an adjacent garden, the need for recreation green space will increase. The urban garden parks can replace the lack of private gardens.

> the possibility to join the garden parks to existing city parks and ecological corridors and connecting structures

> the possibility to intensify their use > the possibilities of urban gardens parks for office employees > their social value arising from the fact that also the less fortunate people in the city

have access to their own piece of land where they can cultivate their own produce



> their economic value as it has been showed that the work in the garden helps prevent many health problems with the gardeners

Now that the final version of the Structure Plan has been formulated, and the city council has accepted it as their spatial policy plan for the coming 10 years (April 2003), it can be said that the efforts of the BVV have paid off in some favourable results. Although the BVV could not prevent the redefinition of the function of some garden parks, three out of the four garden parks, which were under threat to be moved, where given permission to stay at their old location for another 10 years. Unfortunately, the BVV could not influence the Municipality to take up a desirable amount of urban gardens in the Structure Plan. Neither has the BVV’s wish for the Municipality to implement a needs assessment among the Amsterdam population with regard to urban green spaces, and the urban gardens in particular, been granted. As the BVV has been coping with waiting lists for their gardens for years now, the organisation was sure the research would indicate a clear need for the presence of the gardens in the city. In this regard, it also tried to stimulate the Municipality to perform an information campaign so that people know what the possibilities are, but this effort was without result. In the context of the Structure Plan the Municipality ordered the Municipal Urban Planning Service to make a spatial inventory of the present garden parks in Amsterdam and to do a study into the possibilities of modernisation of the current parks in terms of increasing their use intensity. It also ordered a university research institute to do a study on the socio-cultural dimension of the garden parks. This has significantly added to the knowledge base that exists specifically on garden parks in Amsterdam. However, the BVV regrets that up until now, the created knowledge has not been communicated towards the larger population. And although the BVV’s actual contribution in the increase of the before mentioned knowledge base is unclear, it did stimulate the municipality to start an investigation into the use of the communal gardens for the liveability of the city, which will provide the basis for the development of a municipal policy on the urban garden parks. So far the Municipality had not expressed herself in any kind of document on her position with regard to the urban gardens, let alone formulated any kind of policy or laws and regulations. In the meantime, the development of this policy plan, the Concept Note on Garden Parks, has already taken place. The process is described below.

Picture 4: Low cost technology in food production garden


Amsterdam Municipality, ‘Van Volkstuincomplex Naar Tuinpark’,

March 2004

4.2.2 Results with respect to the Concept Note on Garden Parks A specific Concept Note about the garden parks has been formulated, which describes the Amsterdam Municipality’s vision on the meaning of the urban gardens for the city environment. What importance does the Municipality attach to the gardens? And what does the city want to do with these gardens in the (near) future? At the moment the last concept version is under revision at the central Municipality.



The Concept Note was developed by the Amsterdam Municipality as a result of a long period of insisting from the side of the BVV. The association believed this policy plan was needed since it is very important that a city like Amsterdam, with such a high population density, is aware of the importance of recreation in and around the city for the well-being of its citizens. Before a city Municipality can regulate anything, it first needs a policy plan. The goal of the Note is to create clarity on the location, function and state of the garden parks in Amsterdam, now and in the future, as well as a protection of the parks on the long term, a/o by optimising the use of the existing parks. To start the process an initial meeting was held by the Municipality to inform all parties involved on the meaning of the Concept Note, as well as the motive for developing the Note. The motive was the fact that the garden parks are always oppressed in new urban planning processes, as was also the case with the Structure Plan (see above). This oppression results from the lack of a central municipal policy on garden parks in the city of Amsterdam. The Concept Note is meant to fill this gap, and to be the start of a comprehensive and central urban policy on garden parks, so that these will be placed on the same level with other functions such as living, working and other green facilities for which a policy does exist. Further along in the process, information meetings were held with all local boards of garden parks as well as the responsible municipal departments, which were mostly held to inform all participants involved in the process on the progress made. In the meanwhile the Concept Note has been accepted in its final version. At the moment (October 2005), this last final version is being reviewed after the last participation round and the final Note is now being formulated. In the last version, the central municipality indicates that it wants to maintain a certain number of gardens in the city, so that supply and demand with regard to the gardens are kept at the same level. At the same time, it wants to modernise the existing garden parks. In the Concept Note a number of actions are mentioned, which are meant to stimulate the modernisation process. Furthermore, in the Structure Plan the gardens with a so-called societal function have been marked. Lastly, for each garden park an individual action plan will be formulated. In these action plans, the responsible garden park organisations will indicate in which way they would like to modernise their park, such as for example the increase of the accessibility, the expansion of activities and services in the park and the exemplary function of nature and environmental friendly gardening. As long as the final and definitive version of the Note on Garden Parks has not been made public yet, it is hard to tell what the final outcome of the BVV’s efforts is in this respect. Although the BVV is very content with the fact that the Municipality is formulating policy on this theme (this Note would be the first municipal policy formulated on the issue in The Netherlands), it would prefer to see the Municipality extend this policy into a local bylaw, as it also expressed during the participation round. This is not the case yet and will probably also be difficult to realise, in the eyes of one of the BVV board members. Due to the decentralisation of the Amsterdam Municipality, it would take time to clarify whose responsibility the formulation of a bylaw on urban gardens actually is: the central Municipality or the city districts from which the BVV rents the land? If a bylaw of this kind would be formulated and implemented in Amsterdam, this would be the first one in The Netherlands and the law would therefore have an influence at the national level (Interview Van Schaick, 2005). Furthermore, the BVV has indicated to the Municipality that it wants the gardens to become a part of the Main Green Structure as this would provide the gardens with more protection, and has asked the Municipality with what criteria the garden complexes have to comply in order to be eligible for integration in the before mentioned Structure.



4.2.3 Other results

When gardens are relocated, BVV maintains the contacts with the local municipal office so as to be able to inform the members involved on the progress. It further organises public days during the establishment of the new garden park so that the moving members as well as new members are able to see how the park is evolving and are, in this way, involved in the process (e.g. Buikslotermeer). If local municipal offices are redesigning areas, in a way, which influences the garden parks or its surroundings, the BVV comes into action as well. In one of the city neighbourhoods, Bos en Lommer, the municipality wanted to redesign the parking area of the gardeners, at the expense of 200 parking spaces. The BVV then starts negotiating with the local municipal office, to increase the number of parking spaces, which will be left ultimately.



PART 5 5. Lessons learnt and recommendations 5.1 Lessons learnt related to the organisation, functioning and public policy influencing

5.1.1 Organisation Since the garden parks in Amsterdam that fall under the responsibility of the BVV are geographically widely spread over the city territory (some of the garden parks are even located outside of the city limits, in other municipalities), and every garden park has its own local circumstances, needs and specifics, their management and organisation is a big challenge. Over the years, the BVV has gained a lot of experience in this respect, and is currently still learning lessons. This paragraph presents some of the most important ones. 1. Recognition of the importance of the member interest, in order to ensure the sustainability of the organisation, as well as the recognition of the fact that energy has to be put into the maintenance of this interest (for example by rewarding individual initiatives). One of the organisational challenges within the BVV is the low interest of its members to take up management positions and/or other tasks at garden park level as well as to take part in the BVV community life. Many of the public duties in the garden parks are obligatory but it is often difficult to maintain this rule. Finding volunteers for managerial positions is even harder, also because members usually feel more committed to the garden park than to the organisation as a whole, all of which makes the burden on the other few even larger. Depending on a small base of volunteers for duties in the park bears the risk that, if one of these has to drop out for whatever reason, these activities have to be stalled as well. Furthermore, the lack of interest of the members to take up managerial responsibilities is reflected in the situation that many of the board members stay in their position for much longer than one period. This creates a situation with a low circulation of managing ‘staff’. BVV members (with or without management responsibilities) state that if the situation continues as it is, the continuity of the BVV could get in danger. Because of developments in society over the last 30 years, such as people working more and society, people becoming more individualistic, not wanting to have anything to with the other gardeners in their park and having a garden to (passively) relax in, all with a low commitment as a result, the ‘recruitment’ of volunteers for managerial positions, organisation of social activities, maintenance of the shared spaces in the parks, is troublesome. The participation of the members is important for the continuation and sustainability of the park, as well as the BVV. It was stressed that members should not only participate in the maintenance of their park, but also in the social activities, so as to retrieve the sense of community, which once existed. One participant in the Validation Meeting stated: “Because of the social and maintenance activities you get to know one another better, but some people really hate doing it.” Hiring people to do the job is not an option, as this would increase the individual contribution considerably. Therefore, it is of vital importance to develop mechanisms or strategies to stimulate or support the commitment of the members to the own garden park (or decentralised unit) but also towards the organisation as a whole. When their involvement is lost, the organisation can cease to exist. One way to achieve this would be to create an enabling organisational structure. On a more positive note however: in the Alterra report on the urban gardens in Amsterdam by De Vries and Schöne (2004), the example of the garden park Buitenzorg illustrates how strong and positive the influence of a small group of people can be. In the recent past, this park had a lot of issues with outstanding maintenance because of the lack of member commitment. Now that these issues are dealt with by a small group of people with a lot of energy and enthusiasm, the enthusiasm among all gardeners in the park has increased as a consequence. When new gardeners apply for a garden, they are already informed and educated on the voluntary tasks that come with renting an urban garden at a garden



complex. In another park, Sloterdijkermeer, the participation of the gardeners in the maintenance activities of the park has been increased by adding an educational factor to the maintenance work: explaining them why certain work needs to be done, providing them with extra information on the plants they are working with, etc. In the park Buitenzorg, the effects of the rejuvenation of the tenants are also estimated as a positive influence rather than a negative one. 2. The importance of the adaptation of the organisation and its structure to current times and societal developments in terms of changes in the composition of the urban population and the resulting user groups, and therefore the guaranteeing of its sustainability. Another organisational challenge has to do with the above and concerns the increase of work due to a larger number of members, the different governance system of the Amsterdam Municipality, the increased number of government rules and regulations and the fact that the members have become more emancipated with more conflicts as a result. If this is combined with the lack of volunteers and the lack of finances to hire more paid employees, it is clear that a sustainable solution needs to be found. The lesson learnt here is that, when managing an organisation, it is always very important to keep an eye on the sustainability, taking into account the intended goals, the means available to achieve these and the developments at large in society, hereby not only trying to develop a system which works in the present situation but which can be repeated in the future. 3. The recognition of importance of the organisation level in between the board and the members, being the link between the top and the bottom and therefore the spinal cord of the organisation. This recognition should be resembled in the organisation structure and this level should be assisted and enabling conditions should be created by the board. Due to the current organisation structure, there is no direct influence of the garden parks on what issues are being discussed within the organisation. The garden parks have their representatives in the Advice Commission, which does not have any decision-making power and which cannot put together the agenda of discussion within the BVV. Their function is to react on policy or strategy points put up for discussion by the board, not to put up points for discussion themselves. Because of this, the response from the Advice Commission on board issues is sometimes low. The contact between the board and the garden parks (read: members) is also low, because of the low participation of the members in BVV meetings (see also point A in this paragraph) and because of the high number of garden parks and members, which makes it very hard for the BVV board members to keep close contacts with all parks and all members. At times the minimal contact between the BVV and the different departments even leads to the departments stating they would prefer to be independent from the BVV, so that they can have their own legal status and entirely make their own decisions. An example of an independently acting garden park can be given in the context of the Concept Note on the urban gardens. In this case, one of the department boards of a garden park had sent its own reaction to the municipal plans, without prior coordination of its actions with the BVV. This kind of actions undermines the authority of the BVV as well as its public status. One can wonder what the relation is between the lack of interest of the BVV members and their wish to be independent on the one hand, and the fact that the Advice Commission does not have any decision-making or agenda formulating powers on the other hand (although it can provide the board with advice whether this has been requested or not). Therefore it is important to develop an organisational structure, which ensures an active link between the members and the (executive) board and which provides the possibility for the members to influence policy and decision-making (or at least gives them this feeling). 4. The recognition of the importance of communication between all levels: board, garden park boards, members and the outside world. As in all organisations of any kind, communication between all levels is very important and often a difficult issue. As also comes forth from the previous points, it is important to establish more and better contact



between members, garden parks and the BVV board to shorten the distances often felt between the different levels. The communication means as available now apparently do not function sufficiently. It can be said that establishing efficient and high-quality communication lines should be one of the most important priorities for an organisation, as well as their periodical evaluation in new (and possibly different) times. 5. Related to the previous lesson learnt, it is important to keep the reasons for the existence of the overall organisation alive with its members, especially when an organisation already exists for several decades. The bond between the organisation and its members needs to be kept alive. There seems to be a low visibility of the efforts of the BVV among its members. Due to the large distance between the board and the members – as perceived by the members, the low participation of the members in BVV meetings at overall level and at park level and the lacking communication between the parties involved, it is often not clear to the members what the added value of being a member of the BVV is for them personally. Especially the BVV’s efforts at strategic level are overlooked by the members. To prevent members from looking at the association as being of little use to them, it is important to make an organisation’s achievements (more) visible. 6. Structures designed to enhance participatory decision-making should not lead to situations where all members have to take decisions on everything, even on issues that do not concern themselves. This is even more so in large organisations with high numbers of members. Many of the decisions that have to be taken by the BVV are taken with an input from all the members, because of the voting system that is being used (see paragraph 2.2.3). Although this enables the participation of all members in important decision-making, it also sometimes causes all members to have to decide on issues that are not of any specific interest to them. An example in this respect is the decision that had to be made on the construction of electricity in garden park Buikslotermeer in the north of Amsterdam. Although the association’s rules prohibit this, the gardeners in the mentioned garden park did want electricity. Since this decision involved a change in the regulations, all members of all parks had to be involved in the decision. This resulted in all members voting on the construction of electricity in a park with which most of them had nothing to do. Another example is the decision on the increasing of the allowed construction percentage in food producing gardens. 7. An organisation should try to keep a close watch on its members and their demands and attempt to adjust the internal organisation structure as well as the services and products delivered to these demands. With the diversification of the kind of members (in nationality, in income, in composition of the households, etc.), the interests and demands of the members also become more diverse. Some are more traditional and have a garden because they enjoy gardening as an active way of recreation. Others just want to have some additional space in the crowded city and put less of their efforts into the gardening or the park as a community with accompanying responsibilities. This leads to more tensions at garden park level but also requires a growing flexibility from the BVV, even at the level of questioning its own identity, goal and mission statement: is urban gardening still the same now as it was in 1917?

5.1.2 Functioning With regard to the construction of alliances, the following lessons have been learned: 1. It is important to communicate with the members on what has been done and what has been achieved with respect to the construction of alliances. By communicating this, members can become more actively involved and express their wishes in which alliances need to be established, how and for what reason. From the Validation Meeting (2005), it became clear that with many members, the efforts made by the BVV and the results of these efforts are not known. The organisation is quite



modest in communicating its achievements, which results in members not knowing what the activities of the BVV are and what they are gaining in the end with their membership. 2. It is important to recognise that an organisation should reflect the composition of its members’ group in age, ethnicity and gender, as a more diverse composition will also cater for a diversification of the alliance struck. According to some members, the BVV image as well as the image of the urban gardens towards the outside world could be characterised as rather old and archaic. The traditional image the BVV displays is probably mostly caused by the high number of older people active in the association. According to some board members, it even leads to a lack of a critical attitude towards the members, the organisation as a whole and the relationship with nature and the environment. It would have to be more attractive to young people, such as for example the garden ‘Ecotuin West’, which means Eco-garden West, in the western part of Amsterdam where young people with a Moroccan background are active (see also the next paragraph).In order to attract more and new contacts, the BVV should modernise its image and therefore its internal organisation structure.

5.1.3 Public policy influencing With regard to public policy influencing, these are the most important lessons learned: 1. By communicating efforts and results to the members, they are more actively involved in the policy influencing process. This increases the participatory aspects of the organisation’s policy influencing, which gives the organisation’s arguments more strength and body. This point is strongly related to the same point in the previous paragraph: also when it comes to policy influencing the successes booked as well as the actions which were needed to accomplish these successes need to be communicated well to the members. It is felt that the way in which the BVV communicates this now, is not sufficient in order for the members to know the added value of being part of the association. 2. An internal consultation process may take up a lot of time, and may not coincide with the political procedures. In order to guarantee a high-quality participation of the members, an organisation can consider taking action and attempt to change ‘the rules of the game’ often set by the government so that these reflect the organisation’s reality better. It is very important to plead with local policy makers that sufficient time is provided during decision-making procedures for the polling of the opinions of all stakeholders within the organisation. The BVV experiences shows that putting a lot of energy in this is worthwhile if one values the members’ participation in this decision-making. 3. It is more useful to establish and maintain an open dialogue than to view the other partner in a certain issue as an enemy. In the policy influencing area, the BVV has always tried to keep relationships with governmental bodies open and friendly. They have chosen to view the government as a partner in dialogue instead of an opponent in a debate, even though the opinions and wishes of the 2 parties often (initially) do not coincide. 4. By linking up with other organisations that have similar objectives and interests as your own, you facilitate knowledge exchange and create a stronger base for negotiation with policy makers. 5. By stressing the multi-functionality of the garden parks and involving other public and private stakeholders, the user base of the organisation is enlarged which also provides the organisation with a stronger negotiation base.



5.2 Recommendations related to the organisation, functioning and public policy influencing

5.2.1 Organisation Regarding the internal organisation, the following recommendations can be made: 1. Creation of a more diversified financial base to guarantee an enhanced financial sustainability of the organisation in the longer run. This will make sure that the organisation will become less dependent on 1 financial source and will increase possibilities. Subsidies could be sought for on a project base: more short-term, and not for policy matters but for small assignments (such as for example the needs assessment of immigrants with regard to urban gardens). 2. More detailed investigations into the relation between the current management structure and the (generally) relatively low interest of members in BVV activities and meetings. In the same respect, it should be looked into what the advantages and disadvantages would be of a changed organisation structure where the board would have a more advisory task towards the departments, combined with an important information task: externally but also internally – stimulating and facilitating the contact between the garden parks. And also: what would be the advantages and disadvantages of decentralising more decision-making powers to the garden parks. Opinions in this regard seem highly divided, and an independent investigation would maybe take away some misunderstandings. 3. Set-up of a system to facilitate contact between garden parks on the operational level. In the light of the previous recommendation, it would be recommendable to set up a system to facilitate contact between garden parks on the operational level: sharing of working methods, tackling of issues, services provided to the members, ideas for low cost organisation of social activities, management styles, etc. This would prevent re-inventing the wheel in some cases. For example, this could consist of the development of management guidelines for the garden park boards and their board members, with tips and advice on how to deal with the specific issues that come along with managing a garden park. 4. Re-orientation on beneficiaries and whether or not new or different policies, objectives and activities should be formulated (and possibly even a review of the BVV’s vision on the own organisation’s identity). In current times, where developments in society diversify to a large extent the urban population, and therefore the members of the BVV and the users of the garden parks, knowledge in this area would also enable the organisation to develop more tailor-made mechanisms to motivate its members (as a whole or sub-groups). Also the BVV’s vision on the own organisation’s identity can change because of these developments, and efforts should be made to see whether this is actually the case. It might also be worthwhile for the BVV to develop one common goal for the whole organisation, but to additionally formulate goals and objectives at park level. 5. Establishment of a Public Relations department in combination with an External Relations department (a central point within the BVV office where possibilities and potencies of garden parks are geared to the needs of society’s institutes, Interview Van Schaick 2005). Communication as it now is seems to be insufficient, both internally as well as externally. Therefore, the establishment of a Public Relations department should be given priority as well as that more research is needed in how to improve the internal communication structure. During the Validation Meeting (2005), the low interest of members for management and maintenance tasks could even be seen as a consequence of a lack of communication with the members as well. New members, with new wishes on the use of the gardens (more individual, less interest in the gardening activity or the community life) might actually not know what it means to have a garden, possibly leading back to a lack of communication.



6. An exploration of the possibilities for a professionalisation of the BVV board could be useful, as the current board is made up of volunteers, which can only perform their managerial tasks in their own spare time. Furthermore, the tasks and responsibilities are considerable and require certain managerial capacities. It would also improve qualitatively and quantitatively the contact between the board and the garden parks (both their boards as well as the members).

5.2.2 Functioning Regarding the functioning, the following recommendations are relevant: 1. More research on how to improve the internal communication structure could be beneficial, with specific attention for the efforts and results with regard to the alliance construction. Mechanisms for more and better communication with members on BVV’s efforts and results with regard to the construction of co-operations with other actors should be developed. This exercise will also help the internal monitoring and evaluation of the BVV: what have we done? What have we invested and what have been the results? In the communication towards the members special emphasis should however be made on the individual benefits. This could be done by the Public Relations department or the formulation of a promotion team. One idea for a mechanism would be to publish achievements on the bulletin board in each of the garden parks (short, focussed messages on results achieved). 2. More investigations could be favourable, to see whether the expansion of the number of gardens in and outside of Amsterdam should increase, also in light of modernisation possibilities. Currently, opinions on this theme are internally divided. Increasing the number of parks would enable the development of more modern style parks, while the older and more traditional parks could remain as they are now. Also, the expansion would create benefits of scale. On the other hand, it would also increase the workload for the organisation and at the same time complicate consultations and the controllability of the organisation. 3. A further expansion and diversification of contacts with other and new organisations in the future deserves attention, such as public housing companies, societal organisations and the private sector. Due to the societal changes referred to in the previous paragraph, as well as the ever-increasing limitation of the urban space in Amsterdam, it is important for the BVV to expand its contacts with other organisations in the future. See Box 5 for new alliances to be established by the BVV.

Picture 5: Combination of residential area with food production gardens


Amsterdam Municipality, ‘Van Volkstuincomplex Naar Tuinpark’,

March 2004



5.2.3 Public policy influencing

With regards to public policy influencing, these recommendations can be made: 1. More research on how to improve the internal communication structure could be beneficial, with specific attention for the efforts and results with regard to the policy influencing. In the field of policy influencing, the communication with members on efforts and results is also important, and in this respect in specific on the achievements for the organisation as a whole and the members with regard to policy influencing. As in the previous paragraph, this could be handled by the Public Relations department or a promotion team. 2. A further elaboration on and recognition of the importance of ecological gardening and the relation between nature and people’s health could bring political and financial benefits. In its policy plan, the BVV has indicated that it wants each individual park to develop a separate design and management plan, as the association believes that the urban gardeners fulfil an exemplary function when it comes to the management of a natural terrain in the midst of a city. These gardeners therefore need to be stimulated to jointly work on the improvement and maintenance of the environmental quality and the natural values of the terrain they are working on. It wants to do this by offering strategic persons within the garden parks free courses, after which these persons can give their knowledge on to the other members of the garden park. Although certain activities in this regard are already taking place, the significance of the pursuit of this theme in political respect should not be forgotten. This also holds for the link between health and nature. Politically, there is currently a lot of attention for the relationship between people’s health (both physically as well as mentally) and the extent to which they are in contact with nature is also increasing. Particularly in a city environment where green spaces are rare and the density of constructions and population are high, the (health) necessity for city gardens is considerable. 3. For the sustainability of the external relations with regard to policy influencing, it would be important to find more and new mechanisms to involve more members in the BVV activities, as these now rest on a small group of people.

Box 5 – New alliances From interviews done in the light of this case study, the BVV has plans to establish new alliances with: * Societal Development Service (DMO) – This municipal department is active in 6 different policy fields: Training, Youth, Education and Integration, Sports and Recreation, Arts and Culture and Societal and Health Care. The department has 6 policy sub-departments, according to the before mentioned policy fields (http://www.dmo.amsterdam.nl). In the past, the BVV has been attempting to get into contact with the director of this service, as the urban gardens also have a societal significance, but so far this has been without a concrete result. * Public housing companies – Contact so far with public housing companies has been incidental, but the BVV hopes to extend this into a more structural contact so as to jointly discuss the possibilities of the integration of food production gardens between the housing blocks and the possibilities that exist to support these plans with an organisation structure and regulation. Quite a number of public housing companies state to provide housing with a lot of attention for the social aspects; these might also be more interested in cooperating with the BVV in the before mentioned manner. * Societal organisations * Private sector



REFERENCES Bibliographic references Bond van Volkstuinders. 1993. Statuten en reglementen van de Bond van Volkstuinders.

Amsterdam: Bond van Volkstuinders (BVV) (Laatste amendementen 2004). Bond van Volkstuinders. 1998. Samen sterk, Beleidsplan 1998-2007. Amsterdam: Bond van

Volkstuinders (BVV). Gemeente Amsterdam. 2004. Kerncijfers Amsterdam 2004. Amsterdam: Gemeente

Amsterdam, Dienst Onderzoek en Statistiek. Jansen, L. 1967. Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van het volkstuinwezen in Amsterdam.

Amsterdam: Bond van Volkstuinders. Maarschall, S., N. Bosch & H. van der Haagen. 2004. Van volkstuincomplex naar tuinpark:

Ontwerpverkenningen naar modernisering van volkstuincomplexen in Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening (DRO).

Vries, S. de & M.B. Schöne. 2004. Volkstuinen in Amsterdam; de sociaal-culturele dimensie.

Wageningen: Alterra, Onderzoeksinstituut voor de Groene Ruimte. VROM, Ministerie voor Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM).

(2004). Nota Mensen, Wensen, Wonen: Wonen in de 21e eeuw. Den Haag: VROM. Websites - Bond van Volkstuinders http://www.bondvanvolkstuinders.nl - Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek http://www.cbs.nl - Dienst Onderzoek en Statistiek, Gemeente Amsterdam http://www.os.amsterdam.nl - Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening, Gemeente Amsterdam http://www.dro.amsterdam.nl - Dienst Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling, Gemeente Amsterdam http://www.dmo.amsterdam.nl - Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid http://www.szw.nl - Central Intelligence Agency http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html - Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (Nationale Atlas Volksgezondheid) http://www.rivm.nl/vtv/home/Atlas/ - Dutch Government http://www.overheid.nl - Vereniging Nederlandse Gemeenten http://www.vng.nl - Groenforum Nederland http://www.groenforumnederland.nl - Amsterdam Municipality http://www.amsterdam.nl - Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) http://www.minbuza.nl - Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment) http://www.szw.nl - Ministerie van Verkeer, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu (Ministry of Traffic, Spatial Planning and Environment) http://www.vrom.nl



Other references Interviews with: Trudi Ruardy, member of Amstelglorie and De Vijf Slagen, 4 July 2005 Henk Smit, member of Eigen Hof, 4 July 2005 Reijer van Rij, board member of Nieuw Vredelust, 6 July 2005 Joke van der Bosch, board member of Lissabon, 6 July 2005 Johan van Schaick, BVV board member (Strategy), 7 July 2005 Andre Rodenburg, secretary to the BVV board, 8 July 2005 Jacob Boelman, senior BVV office employee, 27 July 2005 Validation Meeting on 27 July with: Trudi Ruardy Henk Smit Reijer van Rij Andre Rodenbrug (see above for functions within the BVV)



ANNEXES ANNEX 1 – CONTACT DETAILS General details City Amsterdam Country The Netherlands Name of the experience Bond van Volkstuinders (BVV)

(Association of Gardeners) Official address Johan van Cuijkstraat 23

1067 XG Amsterdam Telephone +31(0)20 613 28 93 Fax +31(0)20 613 32 76 E-mail [email protected] Website(s) www.bondvanvolkstuinders.nl

www.avvn.nl Case study coordination Name: Joanna Wilbers Organisation: ETC Foundation – Urban Agriculture Programme Tel: +54 9 341 5 81 30 84 (cell phone Argentina)

+31 (0)33 432 60 00 (office phone The Netherlands) Fax: +31 (0)33 494 07 91 E-mail: [email protected] Participants in project activities Trudi Ruardy, member of Amstelglorie and De Vijf Slagen Henk Smit, member of Eigen Hof Reijer van Rij, board member of Nieuw Vredelust Joke van der Bosch, board member of Lissabon Johan van Schaick, BVV board member (Strategy) Andre Rodenburg, secretary to the BVV board Jacob Boelman, senior BVV office employee



ANNEX 2 – REPORT VALIDATION/STRENGHTS & WEAKNESSES MEETING 21 July 2005 Garden Park Sloterdijkermeer, Amsterdam Present Trudi Ruardy, member of Amstelglorie and De Vijf Slagen Henk Smit, member of Eigen Hof Reijer van Rij, board member of Nieuw Vredelust Andre Rodenburg, secretary to the BVV board Marije Pouw, ETC Urban Agriculture Joanna Wilbers, ETC Urban Agriculture Not present Joke van de Bosch, board member of Lissabon Johan van Schaick, BVV board member (Strategy) Backgrounds The Validation Meeting on the 21st of July took place within the framework of the international project entitled ‘Social Organisations of Urban and Peri-Urban Producers: Management Models and Innovative Alliances for Policy Influencing’. In this project, the BVV (the Amsterdam Association of Urban Gardeners) has the role of reference case, for the other Latin American cases, given the fact that it has a long-term history and experience in fields such as internal management of the organisation, alliances with third parties and local government policy influencing. Although many differences can be found with respect to the circumstances and context between the Latin American and the European cases, these last cases are able to provide a practical example which can widen the Latin American perspectives on the possibilities, problems to be expected, practical solutions, etc., all with regard to the before mentioned fields of attention. Goal of the meeting However, before the Amsterdam case can provide tips, advice and learning points, there must first exist a commonly shared idea of the most important issues, which play a role in the internal and external functioning of the urban producers organisation. What is going on at different levels of the organisation? What are the organisation’s better qualities and what qualities need to be reinforced?8 And, why is something going right or wrong? What are the reasons behind this? After this has been identified, priorities can be assigned and both recommendations for improvement can be made towards the own organisation as well as that recommendations (or tips) for strengthening or the creation of enabling circumstances can be given towards other urban producers organisations. In this specific meeting, the emphasis lay on the first step: creating a jointly agreed upon image of the most important issues which play a role in today’s management of the organisation. Moreover, the meeting was meant to emphasize what things are going well, more so than what things are not. In the interviews prior to the meeting9, these last issues had already been given a lot of attention, while it is also important to pay attention to the positive aspects, which are definitely also there and often forgotten. Also, when the final goal is to provide ideas, new perspectives, tips, recommendations and advice for other (beginning) organisations, placing emphasis on the good qualities is important.

8 In reality, it would even be better to put all of these issues in a historical perspective, and discuss what issues have played a role in certain time periods. However, given the conditions determined by reality, this exercise has not been carried out. 9 Prior, individual, semi-structured interviews had been held with the participants of this meeting.



Box 1 – Propositions 1 – As a member of the BVV, I can have my say. 2 – As a member of the BVV, I should only have to decide on what concerns me. 3 – The BVV does not have a say in municipal affairs. 4 – The BVV does a lot for her members. 5 – The BVV should be abolished. 6 – The cooperation between the BVV and third parties improves my situation as a gardener. 7 – The BVV board knows which issues play a part among the members. 8 – The BVV finds itself in an identity crisis. 9 – I have all the information I need, at my disposal. 10 – In negotiations, the BVV should give in to the wishes of the municipality. 11 – It is better when more young people and women occupy managerial functions. 12 – Participation of members in joint activities should be obligatory. 13 – The lack of volunteers at the garden parks leads to an unbearable situation. 14 – New gardeners should comply with certain criteria. 15 – In my garden park there are too few immigrants.

The other, equally important goal of the meeting was the validation of the results and conclusions that could be drawn from the previously held interviews. Results At the end of the meeting it was envisaged to have a first, prioritised inventory of the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation. In addition to this, but less tangible, the meeting was intended to result in a growing conscience of the participants on the issues currently playing an important role, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation emanating from these issues. Methods At the beginning of the meeting, the main conclusions drawn from the interviews were ‘given back’ to the participants in the form of 15 propositions. These propositions have been displayed in Box 1 below. In some cases, a proposition exactly represents an opinion, expressed by one (or several) of the participants. In other cases, these represent a stronger version or even the opposite of an opinion expressed earlier on. In their formulation it was taken into account that the propositions are meant to elicit a discussion on the themes incorporated in them. After the presentation of the propositions, the participants were given 5 stickers each. From the 15 initial propositions, they were asked to pick out those propositions they individually felt touched the 5 most important themes within the organisation. They had to disregard the fact whether they agreed with the proposition or not, the only important matter at this point was: ‘which of these propositions represents the 5 most important themes or issues?’ After this individual selection moment, a discussion was held on why they chose this particular proposition (or theme or issue), whether they agreed with the proposition or not, and what are the underlying causes for successes or failure of the BVV on these points. At the end of this discussion the participants were asked to jointly put together a priority list of important themes within the organisation at this moment, which inherently represents a prioritised list of its strengths and weaknesses. The question on how to either strengthen successful points or change unsuccessful ones was kept for another discussion and was not to be dealt with here.



Outcomes The following points were selected by the participants as the most important ones: A. The BVV board knows which issues play a part among the members. All participants agreed that this proposition stands for communication. For the most part, they disagreed with the statement, saying that the board often does not know what is going on with the members nor with the parks. However, they added to it by saying that the members also did not know what is going on in the board. They mentioned the yearly meeting of the board with the members, but also indicated that this event always takes place on a too large scale. The members of the board read out their new policy for the coming year or the BVV’s yearly financial report, but many members do not understand what is actually being said and/or feel that the points discussed do not reflect their own situation. The meeting is therefore often perceived as boring, even by the members who do take the trouble to join because the yearly meetings are generally very badly visited. The meeting was said to be one sided: information from the board to the members, but with a lack of feedback going the other way. Partly because of this, it is also not very well known what the added value of the BVV actually is, which is a shame. The participants mentioned that in these meetings, the sense of contact with the other garden parks was hardly felt, so the communication between the garden parks is also hardly there nor stimulated by the BVV. Therefore, there is no sense of unity between the parks. B. The lack of volunteers at the garden parks leads to an unbearable situation. Many of the public duties in the garden parks are obligatory but it is often difficult to maintain this rule. Finding volunteers for managerial positions is even harder, which makes the burden on the other few even larger. Regarding proposition B, it was stated by the participants that the word ‘unbearable’ might be a bit exaggerated at the moment, but they did state that if the situation continues as it is, the statement would become reality. Because of developments in society in the last 30 years, such as people working more and society, people becoming more individualistic, not wanting to have anything to with the other gardeners in their park and having a garden to (passively) relax in, all with a low commitment as a result, the ‘recruitment’ of volunteers for managerial positions, organisation of social activities, maintenance of the shared spaces in the parks, is troublesome. The participation of the members is important for the continuation and sustainability of the park, as well as the BVV. It was stressed that members should not only participate in the maintenance of their park, but also in the social activities, so as to retrieve the sense of community, which once existed. One participant stated: “Because of the social and maintenance activities you get to know one another better, but some people really hate doing it.” Hiring people to do the job is not an option as this would increase the individual contribution considerably. For one part, the participants also saw the low interest of members for these association tasks as a consequence of a lack of communication as well. They currently witness an influx of members who want to be left alone, who want their individual green space in the city but do not really have a true interest in gardening nor do they actually want to join an association with all the responsibilities involved. The participants wondered whether it was a matter of these new members not really knowing what it means to have a garden, which they saw as a lack of communication. As long as so-called ‘apprentice members’ have the right reasons for joining the BVV (which is the love for gardening and the love for the BVV community life) and have the right goals, there will be sufficient volunteers. C. New gardeners should comply with certain criteria. Associated closely to the deliberations on the previous statements, the participants also selected this proposition, emphasising that it should be strived after that new members know what it expected of them, that they have clear goals for joining the BVV and renting an urban



garden, complying with the goals of the whole organisation. Or as one participant put it: “We are an association, we have to do things together. It seems as though some members have forgotten about that.” For the participants, the term ‘criteria’ should not so much reflect criteria such as income or ethnic background, but more embody a certain mentality. However, concerns were already raised with regard to the likelihood of implementing this. D. The cooperation between the BVV and third parties improves my situation as a gardener. The issue of the part played by the BVV when it comes to the cooperation with other, external parties, to the benefit of the members was also selected. It was agreed on by the participants that the BVV performs this role well, but could maybe do a little more (‘people always want more’). It was selected by the participants because for them it represented the joining of forces of all urban gardeners in Amsterdam, in their negotiation and contact with the other parties and the outside world. This was the main reason for the origin of the BVV and it apparently is valid today. Also in this regard, the participants questioned themselves whether the ‘average gardener’(who does not have any managerial tasks) knows about the achievements of the board in this field. They felt that most members do not know, that most of the board’s actions here take place rather detached from the members, mostly because there is a lack of communication (see also proposition A) and a growing lack of interest among the members: “Many members create their one little world on their garden and do not take the trouble to read the BVV magazine”. The participants recognised, more than once, that all these themes have to be viewed at jointly, since all is part of one reality. E. It is better when more young people and women occupy managerial functions. According to the participants, most of the boards do not have a representative composition for society as a whole nor for the association or the garden parks. Although most participants agreed with the statement, they did not all feel as strongly about the issue. Some said it should not matter who is doing the job, as long as it is done right, whether this person is a man or a woman. However, it was observed that there are still quite some garden parks where task divisions and relationships are still very traditional, and often impeding the participation of women in, for example, board positions and therefore decision making. Due to the fact that all work is done on a voluntary basis, this automatically implies that this work will be done by people with more time on their hands. These are therefore often pensioned and older people. This could have its implications for the way in which matters are managed, it sometimes being quite conservative and little progressive. It was also mentioned that it is important for the BVV’s continuity and sustainability as an organisation to involve young people, and make them an active part of the organisation today already. F. In negotiations, the BVV should give in to the wishes of the municipality. This point was also selected, but with a clear comment from the participants: to them it is important that the BVV strives for the balance between negotiating with the municipality in an open way on the one side, and showing courage and strength on the other side, herein showing their support towards their members. A while ago, it was felt that the BVV board was too indulgent towards the municipality, abandoning its members because of that (‘the BVV has 29 parks, 1 less would still leave 28’). Now it is felt that this has been recovered, resulting in a stronger and fiercer attitude and representing the interests of the members better. Box 2 provides a short prioritised list of strengths and weaknesses, following the discussions above. It should be noted that all points mentioned are interrelated with one another, in some way or another. Exploring these intermediate relationships, however, exceeds the purposes of this meeting.



Agreements on follow-up It was agreed that the participants will be involved in the final phase of the case study writing, by sending them the first final version for comments. Furthermore, the participants indicated that they were interested in organising a follow-up meeting, to brainstorm on ideas on how to turn around or improve the prioritised weaknesses but also on how to further enhance and reinforce the strengths.

Box 2 - Prioritised strengths and weaknesses Strengths Weaknesses 1. Cooperation of BVV with third parties to the benefit of the individual gardener’s situation.

1. Lack of sufficient internal communication on issues and processes – between BVV board and garden parks, between BVV board and members and between garden parks and members (all both ways).

2. Negotiation of BVV with local government, to the benefit of the BVV itself and the individual gardeners.

2. Lack of knowledge with members on activities, achievements and added value of BVV (and BVV board).

3. Growing lack of interest among members for BVV community life (and sometimes even gardening).

4. Lack of (external) communication towards new members on what it means to become a member.

5. Low representativeness of members in board functions, with regard to age and sex

Documents

Final Case Study version 2 - ruaf.org study Bond van... · Joanna Wilbers – Bond van Volkstuinders (BVV), Amsterdam 6 CASE SUMMARY Location and context of the Municipality of Amsterdam