Despite all the fine stories about citizen participation in the aviation dossier in the Netherlands, very little changes. The aviation lobby is simply too powerful. The Ministry treats the aviation industry as a partner and residents as an afterthought.

A letter to the Ministry of Infrastructure asking why the aviation industry has so much easier access to the Minister and civil servants than residents. The Ministry responded extensively and the answer reveals — almost unintentionally — how deeply the aviation power is embedded in the Dutch administrative structure. The wording is (naturally) polite, but the underlying logic betrays a system in which the aviation industry is structurally protected, and residents are structurally marginalised.

The ministry writes: “We understand that this may create the impression that the aviation sector has easier access to the ministry or is given more weight.” That is not a denial, but rather an admission. The ‘impression’ arises because the ministry itself constantly communicates visibly about meetings with Schiphol and KLM executives, whereas conversations with residents are almost never shown.

The letter continues: “There is no fixed order in which representatives of aviation companies are received first.” That is a formal truth that conceals reality. The aviation sector has permanent access to the ministry: fixed consultation tables, fixed lines, fixed appointments. Residents have incidental access, depending on election procedures, advisory councils, and the willingness of civil servants to receive them.

The legal structure of aviation policy — from the Aviation Memorandum to the designation of Schiphol as a mainport — is built on the continuity of sector interests. Resident participation is merely an afterthought.

Participation Strike

The Civic Advisory Board Schiphol (MRS) is merely a political construct that channels residents’ power. The MRS is not an autonomous counterforce, but a government-established council with hardly any powers. The minister must respond to advice but is not obliged to follow it. The MRS is an institutional buffer that formalises, neutralises, and incorporates the residents’ voice into a policy process primarily focused on aviation interests. It is therefore not surprising that four of the residents’ representatives in the MRS have gone on a participation strike.

The reasons they give are:

• The necessity of keeping the aviation sector out is not discussed, understood, or appreciated. Yet that was the core of the problem in the old Schiphol Environment Council. You should not sit down at the table with disruptive industries; they have completely different interests.
• An interim evaluation was an excellent opportunity for self-reflection, but this was not utilised. Essential matters were missing from the report that were provided to the researchers but were not processed or included. Consequently, the report couldn’t withstand the scrutiny of even the most basic methodological criticism. “We were particularly disturbed that the opportunity to discuss this critically was not offered during the MRS meetings. Our questions regarding this report proved to be unwelcome.”
• Without discussion, the MRS continues to operate within the aforementioned frameworks. “In name, we are an advisory council, but in practice, we are a glorified submitter of views. We receive ready-made plans for advice. The MRS is not involved in policy preparation; that is where our advice belongs. The Ministry does not take the MRS advice seriously, and we can literally predict the answers. Unsolicited advice is unwelcome in any case, as we noticed with our report on the size of Schiphol.”

It is also ‘striking’ that the MRS leadership completely ignored this criticism and that the members in question were excommunicated without even being heard by the MRS chair, something required by the board regulations. It is possible that the fact that the MRS is effectively part of the Ministry plays a role…

With thanks to Alfred Blokhuizen of SchipholWatch.

Wouter Looman