Problems and Purpose

Zoöp was designed to address a structural limitation in contemporary organisational governance: the systematic exclusion of other than human life from decision making processes that shape ecosystems. Within prevailing legal and economic systems, organisations typically treat ecological impacts as externalities, compliance issues, or technical constraints, rather than as interests requiring representation within governance itself. This human-centred structure contributes to degenerative ecological relations, as organisational decisions are guided primarily by financial and operational priorities.

The method responds to this problem by embedding representation of other than human life within organisational governance. Through the appointment of an independent Speaker for the Living and the implementation of a structured annual learning cycle, Zoöp introduces mechanisms for identifying and modifying degenerative relations between the organisation and the ecosystems in which it participates. Its purposes are to ensure that ecological interests are actively represented in organisational decision making, to reframe organisations as participants within ecosystems rather than external actors, to identify and transform specific degenerative material and relational practices, to institutionalise iterative learning processes aimed at increasing life supporting organisational actions, and to foster internal cultural change so that ecological responsibility becomes embedded in organisational practice. Zoöp does not aim to replace existing governance structures or create new public decision making forums; it modifies existing organisational governance from within.

Origins and Development

Zoöp was developed in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2021 through research projects and institutional experiments initiated by Klaas Kuitenbrouwer at Het Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam.

The earliest origins trace to the 2018 Terraforming Earth workshops, organised alongside the Gardening Mars exhibition at Het Nieuwe Instituut. During one workshop, participant Jay Springett wrote a short fictional story about a baker entering into an explicit agreement with yeast to collaboratively produce bread, framing yeast as a cooperative agent rather than a passive resource and introducing the core concept of a multi-species cooperative in which other than human life could be treated as a governance partner. The name "Zoöp," derived from the Greek "zoe" (life), was proposed shortly after, though at this stage the concept existed only as a narrative device with no organisational model yet designed.

In 2019, Kuitenbrouwer curated Neuhaus Academy for more than human knowledge at Het Nieuwe Instituut, framed as a response to the Bauhaus centenary. Within Neuhaus, a strand focused on "collective bodies" brought together lawyers, designers, researchers, and practitioners to develop a concrete organisational model for structurally including more than human life in institutional governance. This marked the transition from conceptual narrative to institutional design. Legal structuring followed in collaboration with legal professionals, eventually producing a finalised architecture consisting of a single Zoönomic Foundation responsible for appointing and remunerating Speakers for the Living, a Zoönomic Institute supporting implementation and coordination, and individual organisations contracting into the model. As the governance structure developed, it became clear that representation alone would not necessarily change organisational behaviour, and the model was expanded to include a structured baseline assessment and annual learning cycle.

The first complete version of Zoöp was publicly presented at the Venice Architecture Biennale in 2021 as part of the Dutch contribution. Het Nieuwe Instituut subsequently became the first formal Zoöp, marking the transition from experimental model to operational method. Zoöp acknowledges inspiration from Rights of Nature developments, particularly the recognition of the Whanganui River, Te Urewera forest, and Mount Taranaki as legal entities under New Zealand law, and references indigenous guardianship practices and the concept of Pachamama recognised in Ecuador's constitution. Rather than replicating legal personhood models, Zoöp translates guardianship principles into a European organisational governance context.

Zoöp remains an evolving method. Its core structure with independent representation combined with an annual learning framework has stabilised, but its application continues to adapt across different organisational contexts.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Entry into Zoöp is self-selecting. Organisations typically become Zoöps because they are already concerned with ecological questions and are actively looking for a governance approach that goes beyond standard sustainability or certification frameworks. Klaas Kuitenbrouwer emphasises that Zoöp is unlikely to function in an organisational environment that is punitive, highly hierarchical, or hostile to experimentation. Instead, the method presumes an "enabling environment" where leadership is willing to commit publicly to a learning pathway and where staff can test interventions and learn from unintended outcomes. Organisations that have adopted or piloted Zoöp include cultural institutions, community and civic organisations, municipal or urban experiments, international pilot partners through Bauhaus of the Seas, and more complex organisations with larger supply chains.

Once an organisation enters Zoöp, participation is typically organised as a cross-sectional internal cohort rather than a specialist team. Human participants commonly include representatives from multiple organisational levels and functions such as governance and leadership roles, management roles, and staff and working groups involved in day-to-day operations and material flows such as facilities, production, gardens, communications, and programme teams. Selection is pragmatic and role based: participants are chosen because they hold practical knowledge of how the organisation operates in the world and where ecological relations are created through routine decisions. The aim is not statistical representativeness but organisational coverage across decision levels and operational domains.

Although Zoöp is primarily an organisational governance method, some Zoöp inspired processes are implemented through place-based workshops involving local publics. In these contexts, participants are typically recruited through existing community and site networks and may include residents, site users, community organisers, stewards, and people carrying local narratives and histories about a place, with recruitment prioritising lived experience and relational proximity to the site.

The most formalised expert role is the Speaker for the Living. Speakers are selected through a joint search and agreement process involving the Zoöp organisation and the Zoönomic Institute. Candidates are assessed against a general profile covering ecological knowledge, ability to work with humans in organisations, ecocentric orientation, and domain knowledge relevant to the organisation. A key selection constraint is independence: a Speaker cannot be an employee of their own Zoöp. They are appointed and paid through the Zoönomic Foundation to safeguard independence.

More than human beings are not recruited as individual stakeholders. Instead, their participation is made present through the method's architecture: through representation via the Speaker for the Living's mandate to bring other than human interests into organisational governance; through recognition via mapping and observation practices that identify which beings, habitats, and ecological processes are entangled with the organisation's activities; and through documentation via practices such as biodiversity surveys or BioBlitz style observations in some Zoöps.

How it Works: Process, Interaction and Decision-making

Zoöp is a governance and learning method installed within an organisation. It is not a time-limited deliberative event. Instead, it combines a formal governance commitment with a recurring annual learning cycle designed to help organisations act in more life supporting and ecologically regenerative ways. It assumes the organisation is willing to treat itself as a learning system over multiple years.

Installation

Implementation requires an extended setup period, typically months rather than days, because Zoöp includes formal governance steps and recurring annual commitments. Before adoption, organisational leadership must be willing to sign a formal contract, accept a multi-year learning horizon, ensure sufficient psychological safety to experiment and accept unintended outcomes, and allocate staff time, facilitation capacity, and a budget for interventions.

Becoming a Zoöp involves several structured steps. The organisation and the Zoönomic Foundation jointly select a Speaker for the Living, who must fit both a general ecological profile and the specific context of the organisation and is appointed and paid by the Foundation to maintain independence. The organisation then formulates a flexible list of thematic areas or "Zoöp Matters" in which the Speaker will advise. These may include procurement, spatial management, biodiversity, programming, or governance. This list can evolve over time. The board formally installs the Speaker and commits to following the Zoönomic Annual Cycle by signing the Zoöp Contract and paying an annual fee to the Zoönomic Institute, most of which funds the Speaker's role. The remainder supports facilitation, baseline assessment, knowledge sharing, and network development. The installation phase concludes with the Zoönomic Baseline Assessment.

These steps embed the method within governance structures rather than treating it as a voluntary add-on.

The Zoönomic Baseline Assessment

The Zoönomic Baseline Assessment is typically structured as a facilitated workshop involving approximately 10 to 15 participants from across organisational roles. The baseline follows five categories that structure the first round of the Zoönomic Annual Cycle.

1. Identifying

Participants identify which “bodies” form the Zoöp.

“Bodies” include:

1. Human bodies (staff, board members, audiences, neighbours)
2. Non-human bodies (plants, animals, soils, waterways, microorganisms)
3. Organisational bodies (departments, teams)
4. Legal bodies (contracts, regulatory frameworks)
5. Material bodies (buildings, infrastructure, energy flows)

This stage surfaces who and what the organisation is already entangled with.

2. Sensing & Listening

Participants explore the lifeworlds of these bodies.

Questions include:

1. What are their needs?
2. How do they experience this site or organisation?
3. What roles do they play?
4. How do they affect and depend on one another?

In place-based contexts, this stage may include ecological walks, biodiversity mapping, storytelling, or observation exercises. It often introduces the concept of “ecosystem citizenship,” recognising that humans are one species among many in a shared environment.

3. Characterising

Participants assess relationships between bodies.

They examine:

1. Which relationships are regenerative?
2. Which are degenerative?
3. Which relations support life?
4. Which constrain or degrade it?

The outcome is a relational map that visualises how the organisation interacts with its ecosystem through infrastructure, contracts, material flows, and practices.

This mapping is collective and deliberative. Participants negotiate interpretations and refine the map together.

4. Focusing

Because not all relations can be addressed at once, participants prioritise.

They identify:

1. Which degenerative relations require transformation this year;
2. Which regenerative relations should be strengthened;
3. Which goals are feasible within organisational constraints.

Prioritisation is typically achieved through structured discussion and emerging consensus rather than formal voting.

5. Intervening

Participants design concrete, measurable interventions to transform priority relations.

Interventions may include:

1. Spatial redesign (e.g., removing sealed surfaces)
2. Habitat creation or restoration
3. Procurement changes
4. Operational shifts
5. Programme redesign
6. Biodiversity monitoring practices

The organisation then formulates and publishes a Zoönomic Annual Plan, outlining goals and interventions for the coming year.

The Zoönomic Annual Cycle

After the baseline year, the method becomes cyclical: updating relational mapping, focusing priorities, implementing interventions, evaluating changes, and adjusting goals. The Annual Plan is revisited and updated each year, embedding ecological deliberation into ordinary governance rather than isolating it in a single participatory event.

Interaction within the method varies by stage. Baseline workshops are highly interactive and facilitated, resembling collaborative systems mapping rather than adversarial hearings, with participants working across departments and organisational levels to construct shared understanding. During prioritisation and planning, interaction shifts toward practical negotiation across roles as participants discuss feasibility, trade-offs, and sequencing of interventions. During implementation, interaction becomes embedded in everyday governance and operational routines, with the Speaker for the Living participating across board meetings, management sessions, and working groups as an independent advisor. Zoöps are also connected through knowledge sharing supported by the Zoönomic Institute, with Speakers linked through a Council for the Living enabling exchange across cases. Some Zoöps additionally develop public workshops, biodiversity monitoring events, or site based programming involving local communities, though broad public participation is not required for the governance method to function.

Zoöp does not introduce a new voting mechanism. Decisions occur through three interlinked mechanisms: prior commitment, through which the organisation commits by signing the contract to integrating life supporting criteria into decision making; deliberative prioritisation, through which goals and interventions emerge through facilitated discussion and emerging consensus during mapping and focusing phases; and the standing advisory role of the Speaker for the Living, who does not replace existing governance authority but influences how decisions are framed and ensures that more than human interests remain structurally present.

The contract establishes that ecological regeneration must be considered. The central shift is from asking “whether” to include more-than-human life to asking “how” it will be integrated.

Influence, Outcomes and Effects

Zoöp is designed to influence organisations as ecological actors, reshaping how institutions understand themselves as participants within ecosystems with responsibilities toward more than human life. Its primary object of influence is organisational governance itself — decision making routines, planning processes, spatial management, procurement, programming, and institutional culture.

Reported outcomes across early Zoöps, particularly Het Nieuwe Instituut and Bauhaus of the Seas pilots, indicate several recurring organisational effects. Deliberative framing in board and management settings has shifted, with ecological consequences receiving more sustained attention in everyday decisions. Cross-departmental coordination has increased: at Het Nieuwe Instituut, staff from curatorial, facilities, communications, and management teams began working together on ecological questions in ways that had not previously occurred. Evaluations note that this process moved the organisation beyond project based sustainability initiatives toward more structural forms of change. The Zoönomic Annual Plan has increased institutional transparency by publicly committing organisations to specific regenerative goals and interventions on an annual basis.

Documented ecological outcomes in early cases include removal of sealed surfaces to restore soil permeability, creation of ponds, compost systems, and habitats, measurable increases in biodiversity, reduction of invasive species, and increased insect and bat activity following habitat interventions. At Het Nieuwe Instituut, biodiversity monitoring through BioBlitzes and national species databases documented increased species presence and habitat activity over time, with some ecological responses emerging as unplanned, such as bat boxes becoming inhabited after composting increased insect populations.

Beyond material outcomes, participants report increased awareness of ecological entanglements and a reframing of institutional identity, with organisations beginning to see themselves as ecosystem participants rather than isolated entities. In place based Zoöps, public workshops and tours have fostered what organisers describe as "ecosystem citizenship." Through collaborations such as Bauhaus of the Seas Sails, Zoöp has been embedded within broader urban experimentation frameworks in cities including Hamburg, Malmö, and Genoa, contributing to ongoing discussions about corporate responsibility, urban regeneration, and legal recognition of more than human interests. The development of the Council for the Living — a network of Speakers for the Living across Zoöp organisations — supports knowledge exchange and contributes to the emergence of a practitioner community around more than human governance.

Several unintended effects have also been documented. Positive unintended consequences include ecological emergence such as spontaneous species habitation, and spillover effects where staff apply relational mapping or biodiversity practices beyond the original Zoöp context. Challenges have also emerged, including increased complexity in governance processes and ethical tensions when regenerative commitments conflict with financial or operational constraints. These tensions are generally treated within the Zoöp model as part of the learning process.

Reported outcomes derive from interviews with Klaas Kuitenbrouwer and early practitioners, internal institutional reports, Bauhaus of the Seas pilot documentation, and emerging academic analyses. No comprehensive independent cross-case evaluation has been published at the time of writing.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Zoöp represents a form of democratic innovation that reconfigures governance at the organisational level. Rather than expanding participation among human constituencies, it introduces a structural mechanism for representing the interests of ecosystems within institutional decision-making. Through the installation of a Speaker for the Living and the implementation of the Zoönomic annual cycle, Zoöp institutionalises relational representation. The focus shifts from "who is represented?" to "how does the organisation participate in relationships that sustain or undermine life?" a reframing that positions ecological regeneration as a standing governance consideration rather than a discretionary afterthought.

The Speaker for the Living occupies a formally recognised role within this governance structure, appointed and remunerated through the Zoönomic Foundation to maintain advisory autonomy from the host organisation. Interview material suggests the Speaker functions less as a singular representative and more as a catalyst for distributed attentiveness, scaffolding relational thinking across organisational processes rather than concentrating epistemic authority in one individual. Whether such diffusion leads to durable cultural and procedural transformation depends on organisational uptake beyond the formal existence of the role, and early evaluations indicate that project-based changes were often easier to implement than deeper structural transformations such as procurement systems or travel practices.

A central element of the method is the relational baseline assessment, through which organisations identify the bodies with which they are entangled and evaluate relationships as generative or degenerative. These categories are not fixed or binary, a single relationship may exhibit regenerative and extractive dimensions depending on temporal scale, ecological perspective, or social context. The mapping exercise functions less as a compliance audit and more as a reflective device, rendering visible socio-ecological entanglements that may otherwise remain operationally invisible. Because the assessment relies on participatory mapping facilitated by the Speaker and Zoöp facilitators, it reflects the organisation's current knowledge horizon; certain ecological processes or indirect systemic effects may remain partially understood, and the balance between participatory relational interpretation and scientific verification remains an evolving aspect of the method. Because the method is implemented internally and voluntarily, it relies on reflexive integrity rather than external enforcement or audit mechanisms, the organisation evaluates its own generative and degenerative relationships, which places significant weight on the willingness of organisational actors to surface uncomfortable or structurally challenging findings.

A notable design feature is that while Zoöp is institutionally bounded in the sense that a specific organisation adopts the model and assumes responsibility for the annual cycle, the relational methodology is ecologically open: baseline assessments extend to supply chains, external ecosystems, and infrastructural networks beyond the immediate organisational site. The organisation becomes the site of intervention while the object of reflection reaches across broader socio-ecological systems.

The model does not require constitutional reform or legal personhood, presenting relatively low barriers to adoption compared to rights of nature frameworks, and the annual cycle establishes iterative learning as a routine obligation rather than a one-off exercise. The transformative capacity of Zoöp is partly contextual: the method operates within broader political-economic systems that shape organisational incentives and market dependencies, and while relational mapping may reveal extractive supply chains or degenerative economic relationships, it does not mandate restructuring of property regimes or macroeconomic arrangements. This positions Zoöp as a meso-level governance innovation, one that can shift institutional cultures and practices from within, while the broader conditions for systemic ecological transformation depend on developments beyond any single organisation's scope.

See Also

The following Participedia entries are directly relevant to Zoöp as a more-than-human democratic innovation:

1. Rights of Nature – Provides background on legal personhood for ecosystems and guardianship models that informed Zoöp’s development, particularly the recognition of rivers and forests as legal entities.
2. Zoöp Three Rivers – A UK-based case of Zoöp implementation within a community arts organisation, illustrating how the method is applied in a place-based, participatory context.
3. Bauhaus of the Seas Sails Zoöp Pilots – Early European pilot applications of Zoöp within coastal urban contexts, demonstrating adaptations of the model within EU-funded innovation programmes.
4. Zoöp Het Nieuwe Instituut – One of the earliest full implementations of the Zoöp model, providing insight into how governance restructuring and ecological interventions were operationalised within a cultural institution.

References

[1] Klaas Kuitenbrouwer, Interview with Claudia Fernandez de Cordoba Farini (Transcript), 2025.

[2] Klaas Kuitenbrouwer, Second Interview Recording (Transcript), 2025.

[3] Zoönomic Institute. “What is a Zoöp?” Official document. Available at: https://zoop.earth

[4] Zoönomic Institute. “Why Zoöp?” Official publication. Available at: https://zoop.earth

[5] Zoönomic Foundation documentation on the Speaker for the Living and governance structure.

[6] Bauhaus of the Seas Sails. D3.1 Report on BOSS Zoöps for Pilots, 2023.

[7] Pedroso-Roussado, C., Kuitenbrouwer, K., Fearns, V., Pestana, M., Nisi, V., Light, A., & Nunes, N. J. (2025). Zoöp Futures: Towards an organisational framework for ecological cooperation between humans and more-than-humans. Futures, 169, Article 103584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2025.103584

[8] European Urban Initiative. “The Zoöp model: When nature gets a voice — it changes urban planning.” Project overview.

[9] CreaTures. “The Zoöp Project.” Case overview linking speculative origins to practical experimentation.

External Links

Official Websites and Institutional Resources

1. Zoönomic Institute (official website): https://zoop.earth
2. Zoönomic Foundation (Speaker for the Living information): https://zoop.earth
3. Het Nieuwe Instituut (Rotterdam): https://hetnieuweinstituut.nl
4. Bauhaus of the Seas Sails (EU Horizon project): https://bauhaus-seas.eu

Notes

This entry draws on primary interview material with Klaas Kuitenbrouwer (2025), official Zoönomic Institute publications, the Bauhaus of the Seas Sails pilot report, and recent academic analysis of Zoöp as a more-than-human governance innovation.

† As of publication, no comprehensive cross-case evaluation study of all Zoöps has been publicly released. Reported outcomes are based on case documentation, interviews, and project reports.

‡ Terminology such as “more-than-human,” “zoönomic,” and “Speaker for the Living” follows the usage of the Zoönomic Institute.

§ The Zoöp model has evolved since its early iterations (e.g., Bauhaus of the Seas Sails pilots), and this entry reflects the most recent publicly available version of the method.

Contributor Positionality Statement

This case entry was prepared by Claudia Fernandez de Cordoba (2026), founder of Living Imaginaries. Living Imaginaries is a social enterprise focused on reimagining how societies govern, relate, and live with more-than-humans. Working at the intersection of climate, biodiversity, food, health, and justice, it combines creative re-imagination with practical pathways for structural change. She is also a doctoral researcher at University College London, where her research examines more-than-human democratic innovation and biodiversity governance.

The contributor was not involved in designing the Zoöp method or governing the Zoönomic Institute. However, she conducted an in-depth interview with Klaas Kuitenbrouwer, founder of Zoöp, and participated in the two-day Zoönomic Baseline Assessment for Three Rivers, the first Zoöp in the United Kingdom, hosted at Tump 39 in Thamesmead. Her participation took place as an observer-participant within the baseline workshop process and did not involve facilitation or decision-making authority.

The case draws on primary interview material, direct workshop observation, publicly available institutional documentation, pilot reports, and academic publications. Interview material is treated as primary source evidence reflecting the founder’s account of Zoöp’s development and implementation. Observations from the baseline assessment inform contextual understanding but are not used as evaluative claims.

Interpretive analysis is confined to the Analysis section and informed by the contributor’s broader research on emerging practices of nonhuman representation and participation.

This entry was developed as part of the project Developing a typology of emerging practices of nonhuman representation and participation, laying the groundwork for more-than-human democratic innovations, conducted in collaboration with the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, the Knowledge Network on Climate Assemblies (KNOCA), the Centre for Animals and Social Justice, Participedia, and the University of Westminster.