Speaker
Description
It is now widely accepted that EU-policies, particularly environmental, have considerable impact on spatial planning in the member states (Evers and Tennekes, 2016; Fernández-i-Marín et al., 2024; Purkarthofer, 2024). This impact can be felt at in all phases of the policy cycle: it can frame the discussion on planning issues (agenda setting), affect the types of policy interventions considered, speed up or slow down planning processes and influence physical development (Tennekes and Evers, 2024). As EU-policies become entwined with everyday conflicts over land use in practice, they can become politicized long after being adopted. Consider, for example, how media reports on housing developments frustrated by air or water quality standards or endangered species serve to mobilize Eurosceptic sentiments in domestic politics. Or consider how domestic politicization is prompted by litigation in the context of the enforcement of European policy. The decisions (hence jurisprudence) made by the Court of Justice can blur the distinction between policymaking and the judiciary, at least in the court of public opinion. This can have ramifications for the next wave of European policymaking by politicizing an otherwise technical matter (Feindt, Schwindenhammer and Tosun, 2021).
The case of the No Net Land Take (NNLT) objective, contained in the Soil Monitoring Law legislative proposal is illustrative (European Commission, 2023). By striving to halt all greenfield development by 2050, this goal cuts to the heart of planning practice – but has hardly entered the planning debate in the Netherlands, one of the member states that would be most affected (Evers, 2024). A quantitative analysis of the public consultation clearly shows the extent to which NNLT was depoliticized: there was an overwhelming support for binding legislation on soil quality, and of the need for rules on NNLT in particular (Evers, Soromenho and Savini, 2024). Like the Nature Restoration Act before it, it was mainly during the Parliamentary and Council phases that opposing viewpoints became heard and mobilized. This resulted in the production of a multitude of amendment suggestions, some of which are contradictory and most weakening the original proposal. At the time of writing, the jury is still out (i.e. the ‘trialogue’ between the three European institutions is still forthcoming).
A form of politicization, however, was achieved within the Netherlands by means of an ongoing interdepartmental assessment instigated to determine the national standpoint in the European Council. This paper argues the Dutch method could be integrated into the European policymaking process to manage or even reduce the politization of policy after it is too late to change it (Bressanelli, Koop and Reh, 2020; Schimmelfennig, 2020). It reflects on the advantages and disadvantages of escalating an issue politically at a particular moment in the process, and whether there is an ideal moment for this (i.e. early or late politicization). More generally, it contributes to the literature on Territorial Impact Assessment and top-down Europeanization by considering a case study grounded in land-use planning.
References
Bressanelli, E., Koop, C. and Reh, C. (2020) ‘EU Actors under pressure: politicisation and depoliticisation as strategic responses’, Journal of European Public Policy, 27(3), pp. 329–341. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1713193.
Evers, D. (2024) ‘Exploring the implications of “no net land take” policy for spatial planning: the case of the Netherlands’, Town Planning Review, pp. 1–22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2024.13.
Feindt, P.H., Schwindenhammer, S. and Tosun, J. (2021) ‘Politicization, Depoliticization and Policy Change: A Comparative Theoretical Perspective on Agri-food Policy’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(5–6), pp. 509–525. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1785875.
Fernández-i-Marín, X. et al. (2024) ‘Tackling blind spots in Europeanisation research: the impact of EU legislation on national policy portfolios’, Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 1–29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2024.2397129.
Purkarthofer, E. (2024) Spatial Planning and the European Union: Europeanisation from Within. 1st edn. London: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003136682.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2020) ‘Politicisation management in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 27(3), pp. 342–361. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1712458.
Tennekes, J. and Evers, D. (2024) ‘A marriage of inconvenience: the coupling of spatial planning to European environmental policy’, European Planning Studies, 32(5), pp. 1078–1096. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2023.2251527.
| Keywords | European legislation; land take; Europeanization; politicization; policy and legislative process |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
