164 Participatory Processes
In fact, the thus presented degree of complexity returns at least twice. For even
though it is possible to conciliate a working whole, it will actually have to be con-
structed subsequently. The seemingly real possibility will have to be realized. This
is only possible if the participants effectively devote themselves to its realization. If
they do not – if in the interim they withdraw or they adjust their projects in a non-
congruent way – it can still go completely wrong. Thus, the trouble experienced
by other participants will appear in vain: it will reveal itself as a cost with no return.
Hence, fragility needs to be considered.
Furthermore, a solution (whichever one) will have to contain a sufficient
degree of acceptability: there will have to be an acceptable balance between advan-
tages and disadvantages, between benefits and costs. If it appears that free riders
can rake in an unequal share of the benefits without sharing the costs of the whole,
this may provoke extensive desertion. The same will occur if some partners have to
carry a more than equal share of the costs.
The uncertainties in question are largely related to the expectations of the
actors involved with regard to the future actions of other, similarly involved, actors.
What will the others do? And to what extent will I be able to influence their
projects? Or rather, to what extent can the developments of my project and that of
the others be integrated so as to create co-evolution? How can fragility be reduced?
How can the required acceptability be achieved?
These are weighty questions, especially if one realises that neither hierarchy
nor the autonomous development of market relations^35 provide an obvious answer
and/or a smoothly functioning mechanism for the construction of such an
answer.
Why and how was co-evolution constructed in this particular case? I will only
mention a few elements here. A first important element was the increasing pressure
from supermarket chains on the large dairy companies to offer a range of organic
products alongside their conventional ranges. Given the hesitation of these dairy
companies to independently start a separate line for processing of organic milk, a
coalition between the initiators of the FEZ and the large dairies became increas-
ingly obvious. The latter eventually participated in 33 per cent of the financing of
the FEZ; more importantly, they also declared that their suppliers were allowed to
change over to the FEZ without having to pay withdrawal fines; furthermore, the
suppliers would have the right to rejoin the companies in question within three
years if FEZ’s results were disappointing.
This clearly indicates a package deal: participation in the FEZ and hence being
able to satisfy the desires of the supermarket chains became possible by offering
good conditions to the potential suppliers. Thus, various projects became interwo-
ven; they were combined into the indispensable connections upon which the new
working whole had to be based. As a result of this package deal, which was defi-
nitely not undisputed, a number of other positive effects occurred relating to dis-
tribution and its costs. If lorries of the large companies stop at the FEZ,
supermarkets could be supplied with a wide range (including organic products)
from one lorry-load.