Islanders and ‘other-siders’: the case of Texel
3 Islanders and ‘other-siders’: the case of Texel
3.3 Politics, policies and planning
Chapter 3 Islanders and ‘other-siders’: the case of Texel
Spatial practices refer to production and reproduction, and are the realm of the social, cultural and economic objectives. This dimension of space is created and lived in interaction. As we have seen, on Texel there is a shift from agriculture to nature conservation and tourism as the principal spatial practice. Representational spaces are conceived as imagined spaces, which are mental constructions within the realm of the life world and can provide the focus for identity.
The increasing dominance of tourism in the production of the place called Texel strengthens processes of commodification on the island. In more recent years, however, conceptualizations of the nature of commodities have broadened from a focus on the production and consumption of material goods to encompass non-material or symbolic elements. In the creation of tourism places, more intangible qualities of places are being utilized (Meethan, 2001). These intangible qualities are represented in certain forms of narratives that encapsulate selected readings of the environment, as in tourism promotional literature and brochures. These meaning, narratives and symbols, which are the raw materials that are commodified to produce tourist space, are however derived from lived experiences. At the level of imagined spaces, therefore, struggles over the symbolic construction of space ‘are struggles to objectify meanings, to impose upon, or appropriate from the environment a particular order, a dynamic process of contestation and appropriation through which particular interests are maintained and legitimised’ (Meethan, 2001:37). Represented spaces are conceptualizations of space in terms of policies and planning, and thus are the spaces of politicians, planners and technocrats. It is the realm in which organizations on the island and from the mainland conceptualize, discuss, organize and plan the future of the island.
Assessing the impacts of tourism on liveability should acknowledge this ‘multilayeredness’
of space. There is a clash between spatial practices and between spatial practices and representational space on the one hand, and the represented space on the other. At first sight, many discussions on liveability address the consequences of particular spatial practices. Tourism facilities are, or are perceived to be, built in the wrong places, tourism creates crowded places and traffic jams before getting on or off the island, and tourism developments, nature conservation and environmental regulations obstruct agricultural development. However, this realm of minor complaints (which the local Texelse Courant tends to inflate) reflects more profound struggles over the symbolic production of space. Complaints about other-siders and tourists have been heard throughout time and divide them from us, here from there, the vernacular and the universal. Nevertheless, these complaints need to be acknowledged. More generally, one could even propose that tourism rather than being the agent of change, is indicative of other processes (Meethan, 2001:169). Perhaps local residues of economic, cultural and political globalization processes or the influx of other-siders buying first or second houses on the island equally affect the feelings of loss of control and sense of identity – in other words, the quality of life.
48
Chapter 3 Islanders and ‘other-siders’: the case of Texel
49
(Philipsen et al., 2003). The results of this project were translated in 2002 into a new policy vision on the island (Gemeente Texel, 2002) and in 2003 into a Policy Document on Recreation and Tourism (idem, 2003). These policy documents illustrate that on the one hand the planning horizon is lengthening, but that on the other hand aspects of liveability are still insufficiently acknowledged and dealt with.
Against the background of booming tourism, in 1974 the Municipality of Texel issued its first Recreation Blueprint, which stipulated the maximum number of tourism beds as 47,000. This figure is still used by all parties on the island as a reasonable ceiling for tourism growth. The 2003 Policy Document on Tourism and Recreation on Texel (Gemeente Texel, 2003) once again affirmed this upper limit. The number of tourism beds currently amounts to approximately 43,000. This maximum is not an unambiguous criterion for limiting tourism growth. Many households unofficially offer beds, with or without breakfast. Also, the island’s tourist season now lasts 12 months. A main reason for this is the growing significance of nature-oriented tourism, which does not depend on warm weather. Official statistics give no decisive answers to the question of volume and growth. The consequence is that the assessment of tourism growth is under permanent debate and exemplifies the importance of the imagined state of affairs.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the political climate of Texel did not reflect the need to extend the planning horizon or to cope with uncertainty. Generally speaking, due the small scale of the island, municipality and people were and still are closely tied. However, this has its disadvantages. First, the interdependence between political parties, local administration, civil servants and population possibly influences integrity and objectivity. The Lindeboom Overleg (a regular meeting held in the Lindeboom restaurant) exemplifies this interlacing of interested parties. In this informal gathering of mayor, aldermen and some major stakeholders, issues concerning the future of the island are explored and discussed. The meetings, however, are closed and membership is restricted (Duim et al., 2001: 59). Remarkably, the 2003 Policy Document proposes the establishment of a comparable ‘Tourism Platform’ for the tourism sector, aldermen and civil servants. The current intention is to exclude from the platform organizations other sectors and those opposing tourism developments.
Second, the weave between people and administration on Texel, and the specific local culture, have another consequence: they promote a focus on minor issues and the neglect of long-term planning. Many locals complain about the municipality’s lack of vigour (Duim et al., 2001). The traditional island way of ‘back-room decision-making’ paradoxically does not support a defensive attitude against tourism growth. On the contrary, while key entrepreneurs with tourism interests often publicly complain about not being acknowledged, they in fact easily find their way to local political representatives in order to further their interests – and the proposed Tourism Platform will sanction this. An opposing attitude is found among islanders who do not take part in the tourism production and among other-siders who have pro-environmental attitudes. They are suspicious about the commodification of space, and are considered ‘progressive’. For them, not only does the more traditional political system support the growing domination of tourism, but tourism development is associated with inadequate and uncontrollable policy-making.
Chapter 3 Islanders and ‘other-siders’: the case of Texel
A comparison of 13 policy documents from between 1989 and 2000 (see Lengkeek and Velden, 2000) shows that only four pay some attention to liveability. In the Recreation Blueprint (Recreatie Basis Plan) of 1989 (Gemeente Texel, 1989), liveability is an abstract and rather unspecified subject.
The planning document aims at recreational zoning and at saving vulnerable nature areas. The document states that recreational developments may not have negative effects on liveability. It is unclear, though, what criteria should be used to assess negative impacts. Other recreation planning documents (Gemeente Texel, 1998a and 1999a) pay attention to the consequences of growth in tourism, but they analyse the developments that are taking place rather than provide a strong policy perspective. They raise the issue of liveability incidentally without specifying it as a policy target. In the development plan for the municipal countryside (Gemeente Texel, 1996 and 1998b), issues of liveability do not appear. In three documents on safety and liveability (Gemeente Texel, 1991, 1999b; Grontmij, 2000), liveability is defined according to specific problems such as noise and other hindrance around cafes and discos, criminality, employment, provisions for the elderly, and day nurseries (see Lengkeek and Velden, 2000).
In Texel, liveability as a feeling – which is often hardly specified – is very much related to a feeling of loss of control over a changing situation. These feelings have much to do with a lack of citizen involvement in decision-making. Nevertheless, seven more recent documents have been produced with the involvement of local participants (Lengkeek and Velden, 2000: 23-27).
This involvement can be understood as an aspect of liveability, but involvement is limited to organizations and does not include individuals. In their research, Lengkeek and Velden (2000:35-36) demonstrate a gap between the issues dealt with in policy documents and the issues raised in interviews with locals. The policy documents present spatial issues such as multiple land use, housing, the quality and diversity of the landscape, as well as such economic and social-cultural measures as improvements of agrarian nature management, subsidies for historical landscape elements and the improvement of the tourist product and local provisions. In the interviews with local people, however, many more aspects pop up. Respondents raise issues concerning the identity of the villages, the one-sidedness of the tourist population (i.e. predominantly rich tourists), a growing scepticism about ‘real Texel products’, the importance of the local newspaper and local traditions, and the influence of citizens and their commitment to local politics and policies. Although the 2003 Policy Document on Tourism and Recreation (Gemeente Texel, 2003) acknowledges liveability aspects, these aspects give no direction to the policy document or course of action for the coming ten years. They are bypassed in favour of village development plans, which have to be prepared by village development committees as, according to the municipality: ‘liveability is only a picture at a given moment of time of which only citizens are able to acquire knowledge’ (Gemeente Texel, 2003: 35; author’s translation). The active participation of villagers and village development committees has become one of the main issues of local policies (Gemeente Texel, 2002). This is a significant change in the approach of local policy.
However, the biggest village on the island (Den Burg) does not have a village development committee. The democratic role of village committees is also discussed. Recent research shows that despite the small size of the villages, the members of these committees are not well known and most people were either ignorant of or were not enthusiastic about the functioning of these committees (Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek, 2001).
50
Chapter 3 Islanders and ‘other-siders’: the case of Texel
51
In sum, feelings of discontent are not adequately represented in terms of policy and planning, or at least they are not perceived as being adequately represented. To overcome the distrust of local politics by certain groups, the most recent policy document once again stresses the importance of promoting participation and strengthening the social infrastructure (Gemeente Texel, 2003).
Also important is the way Texel is conceptualized by people and institutions on the other side, because it creates commotion and confusion. Texel is impinged upon by governmental policies at the provincial, national and European levels, by certain principles of nature conservationists and by the practices of tourism entrepreneurs from the ‘other side’. The rather strict national planning system with its particular focus on the protection of the Wadden Sea area, the implementation of guidelines for the conservation of birds and habitats, and the possible inclusion of the Wadden Sea on UNESCO’s list of World Heritage Sites are just a few of the developments Texel is facing.
But the drawbacks or advantages of the building of new restaurants and a discotheque in De Koog and the construction of bungalows by companies from the mainland, and rumours about the possibility of competition from or even the take-over by ‘other-side’ companies of the TESO company (the Texel ferry company, which is largely owned by shareholders living off the island) are also enlarged upon in the Texelse Courant.
As discussed in chapter 2, a good understanding of the grounds for discontent is the first step towards solving problems. As Lengkeek and Velden (2000:15) state, part of the solution is the recognition of the problem and the creation of trust in the process of resolving the problems. It is exactly because trust in local politics has been lacking on Texel that sometimes local actors take over the roles of the municipality, as in the case of the 1999/2000 exercise in scenario-building for assessing the future, called Texel 2030. The Texel 2030 process, which was instigated by the Texel Tourism Board (VVV), was formally aimed at making a contribution to the public debate and decision-making on a new Tourism Master Plan for the island. However, it also served to increase the power of the tourism sector in local policies (Philipsen et al., 2003). The process was meant to develop scenarios for the future of Texel. It included a ‘search’ conference in 2000 to discuss possible future developments for Texel. A key role in this discussion was played by tourism.
The conference brought together a range of experts (e.g. environmental planners, nature conservationists, tourism experts, farmers, representatives of cultural institutions) from both the mainland and the island. The conference resulted in four different scenarios for the future. These were presented to and discussed with the local community of Texel during a ‘choice’ conference (also in 2000), at the end of which the local community was asked for their preferences. The Texel 2030 process was aimed at producing an integrated portrayal of the future of Texel. The result was turned into a new, fifth scenario called ‘Texel: Unique Island’. It was intended to give more direction to short-term planning and policies (Philipsen et al., 2003; see also Sidaway, 2005).
The project seemed very promising in terms of participatory planning. It certainly had its merits in terms of creating an understanding of the future of Texel and in terms of joint learning and innovation. This is well illustrated by the fact that the scenarios, as well as nine representations of individual opinions on the character and future of Texel, are now permanently on show in Ecomare, which is the island’s most visited attraction (over 300,000 visitors in 2002). However, in other respects the Texel 2030 project was not as successful as once presumed (Philipsen et al., 2003). Although islanders, especially those in the tourism sector, initiated the project, experts
Chapter 3 Islanders and ‘other-siders’: the case of Texel
from the mainland dominated it. Political, scientific and technocratic discourses prevailed. For many of the islanders, the issues at stake were too abstract, the scenarios were too extreme and the time frame (2000-2030) was too long (Duim et al., 2001; Philipsen et al. 2003; Sidaway, 2005). Although a considerable number of islanders were involved in the process, including students from secondary schools, it was not perceived by everyone as a process ‘owned’ by them.
This was confirmed by the results of the research performed by Duim et al. (2001). Even though the local newspaper and television announced the Texel 2030 events for weeks, only half of the people interviewed were aware and informed of this process. Only 17% answered the question whether their voice was heard. Two thirds of this group felt that their opinion was not taken into account. An additional problem was the inability of participants to disconnect the overall development perspectives from their direct interests: some of them felt strongly threatened by some or even all of the perspectives.
Furthermore, the municipality, as anticipated, was ambivalent and did not take a leading role, as it was used to a more ambiguous political process. According to Philipsen et al. (2003), on the one hand the municipality facilitated the process by its membership of the Board of the Texel Tourism Board and seemingly supported the need for a balanced and integrated vision on the future of the island. On the other hand, it re-adopted the existing policy of divide and rule the moment resistance emerged from farmers and, to a lesser extent, from Ten for Texel. Both separately submitted a report to the municipality in which they questioned the results of Texel 2030. Ten for Texel particularly voiced the issue of liveability. As a result, the municipality had to take seriously the reports of the Texel 2030 process, as well as those of the farmers and Ten for Texel, and it contracted a consultant from the mainland to make a new vision for the island. This vision was published in 2002, once more after an extensive process of consultation, meetings and discussion (Gemeente Texel, 2002).