Meghan Buurmans

Debating the ‘wild’

What the Oostvaardersplassen can tell us about Dutch constructions of

nature

Master’s thesis in Global Environmental History

2

Abstract

Buurmans M. 2021. Debating the ‘wild’: What the Oostvaardersplassen can tell us about

Dutch constructions of nature. Uppsala, Dept of Archaeology and Ancient History.

This thesis discusses key conflicts in the Oostvaardersplassen. These conflicts include the

contestation of the Oostvaardersplassen as wilderness, the debate on grazer mortality, and

the debate on culling. Through Actor Network Theory, the actors involved in the

Oostvaardersplassen are discussed. A number of documents are selected for the different

actors to do a qualitative analysis of communication on the Oostvaardersplassen. The

Oostvaardersplassen is a unique area, claimed from the sea and fully manmade, with a

management philosophy with aspects from rewilding theories. Recurring themes in the actor

documents are studied, such as the definitions of the terms ‘nature’ ‘wilderness’ and the use

of interventions. In addition, the documents are analysed on their use of rhetoric tools and

the way they discuss the general public in the Oostvaardersplassen debates. The nature of the

Oostvaardersplassen as an experiment, the strong presence of emotions in the debates and

the unclear definition of goals and purposes lead to a more fractured stage for the actors and

the debate. While the Oostvaardersplassen is successful as an area for experimentation,

learning, and as a nature reserve in the midst of the Netherlands, these concluding issues are

an important consideration in making the Oostvaardersplassen’s debate less volatile.

Keywords: The Oostvaardersplassen, Construction of nature, Nature management,

Intervention, Culling, Grazers, Wilderness, Bird reserve.

Master’s thesis in Global Environmental History (45 credits), supervisor: Anneli Ekblom, Fall term

2021

© Meghan Buurmans

Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Box 626, 75126 Uppsala,

Sweden

3

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................5 1.1. Protection of Environment in Dutch Policy................................................................................6 1.2. Previous studies on the Oostvaardersplassen .............................................................................8 1.3. A note on translations .................................................................................................................9 1.4 Presentation of the outline of the thesis .....................................................................................10

2. Method and Theory ..........................................................................................................................11 2.1. Actor Network theory ...............................................................................................................11

2.1.1. The actors ..........................................................................................................................12 2.1.2. The network ......................................................................................................................15

2.2. Analysing Topics/events and related debates. ..........................................................................15 2.3. Discourse Analysis ...................................................................................................................16

3. Oostvaardersplassen and the idea of Rewilding ...............................................................................19 3.1. A natural experiment: The start of the Oostvaardersplassen ....................................................19 3.2. Creating a reserve .....................................................................................................................21 3.3. The Changing Ecology of the Oostvaardersplassen .................................................................23 3.4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................25

4. The harsh winters of 2005 and 2010 ................................................................................................27 4.1 The debate ..................................................................................................................................28 4.2. The winter of 2005....................................................................................................................28

4.2.1 The ICMO report - 2005 ....................................................................................................29 4.2.2. The RDA report - 2005 .....................................................................................................31

4.3 The 2010 winter .........................................................................................................................33 4.3.1 ICMO2 – 2010 ...................................................................................................................35 4.3.2 The Tweede Kamer debate 2010 .......................................................................................37 4.3.3 The Minister (comments on the Tweede Kamer debate) ...................................................40

4.4 News Reporting .........................................................................................................................42 4.5. Discussion .................................................................................................................................45

5. The culling debate ............................................................................................................................46 5.1 The debate ..................................................................................................................................46 5.2 Formal actors .............................................................................................................................48

5.2.1 Commisie van Geel ............................................................................................................48 5.2.2 Provincial order ..................................................................................................................52 5.2.3 Magazine Staatsbosbeheer .................................................................................................53

5.3 News reporting and social media ...............................................................................................55 5.3.1 International news ..............................................................................................................55 5.3.3 Social media .......................................................................................................................57

5.3 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................60

6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................61 6.1. The changing character of Oostvaardersplassen? .....................................................................61 6.2. Positioning amongst Actors ......................................................................................................61 6.3 Key points of Contention ...........................................................................................................63

6.3.1 The Oostvaardersplassen as an experiment .......................................................................63 6.3.2 Emotionality vs rationality .................................................................................................63

4

6.3.3 Unclear definition of goals and purpose ............................................................................64 6.4. Oostvaardersplassen and the future ..........................................................................................65

Summary ..............................................................................................................................................66

References ............................................................................................................................................67

5

1. Introduction

Many books and papers have been written on the way we use language with regards to

nature. Are we a part of nature? Opposite to it? A blessing or a curse? Over time, views have

changed, and definitions have changed also. For the most part, we like to think of nature as a

‘good thing’. More nature is better, green is healthy and hip, a healthy environment is a goal

to strive for. As much as we have spent the past 150 years, or even much longer, trying to

distance ourselves from nature, with modernity and industrialism trying hard to regulate it,

we now see the importance of an unregulated and ‘wild’ nature. Globally our aim is now to

try to protect natural spaces, animals and plants. Target 11 of the Convention for Biological

Diversity, which was ratified by over 175 countries (Secretariat of the Convention of

Biological Diversity 2000: 8) for example states that 17% of the land in a country should be

conserved as important ecosystems (Convention of Biological Diversity n.d.). We are now

even claiming to give land ‘back to nature’, either by creating new natural spaces or by

‘rewilding’ formerly non-wild spaces. The problems of language that limit our

understanding of the world and the use of definitions that take on many different meanings

are inherent to this discussion and is something that I return to several times in this thesis.

More problems or rather contestations emerge if we want to look at the deeper meaning

‘nature’ plays for us, when debating what rewilding means, or our views of what is ‘natural’

or not. As follows, the reactions on the societal debates when confronted with the process of

natural/unnatural processes or degrees between them can be fierce (Tree 2018, Tsing 2019.)

My question here is what do these contestations say about us and our society and what can

we learn from these debates?

The Oostvaardersplassen is an interesting and unique example of the Dutch government’s

ambition to promote and protect nature and biodiversity; to use an area of nature to fulfil

both a social and cultural role; and to allow and facilitate access to nature by Dutch citizens.

Oostvaardersplassen is also well-known, well visited and frequently talked about in Dutch

society. Due to its surrounding controversies, the Oostvaardersplassen also gives an insight

into the difficulties in negotiating different opinions and attitudes towards human kept

natural areas, which can teach us something on how to approach those difficulties and

controversies in the future.

The Oostvaardersplassen is a manmade polder of 56 km2, that came into existence in 1968

when the polder it was on was claimed from the sea. The Oostvaardersplassen was in all

respects ‘new’ land and it became an experiment in creating nature from scratch.

Oostvaardersplassen thus is as close to an ecological (and social) laboratory study as can be

found in nature. While a natural area is always part of a whole and influenced extensively by

history and its surroundings, to researchers the area of the Oostvaardersplassen offered a

unique possibility of observing the natural process of rewilding at the same time, as the area

had a clear definition of beginning and boundaries. As already explained above, this area is

fully manmade, so it offers the unique opportunity to study an area of nature free from

definitional discussions regarding area boundaries and human vs. ‘untouched’ nature. Not

only this, there is a thorough documentation about this area from the very beginning of its

existence, through its management in the subsequent decades, up until today. It forms the

perfect case study of how nature and perceptions of nature are formed, challenged and

6

changed over time. In addition, this process has been tracked and debated in official papers

and media making it a rich case study.

By following the process of the making of Oostvaardersplassen into a nature reserve we can

understand how Dutch politicians, the Dutch public and involved academics negotiated the

definitions of ‘nature’ and its process. In this thesis, I will therefore discuss what

‘(re)wilding’ means in the context of the Oostvaardersplassen, how our emotions around

‘nature’ and ‘wilderness’ come into play and who actually had a say in this debate. Conflicts

and debates have arisen surrounding the Oostvaardersplassen on what nature is in this place,

who decides what happens and many questions surrounding management and wilderness are

asked among the public, in the parliament and in academia. This thesis therefore aims to

discuss:

How does the Oostvaarderplassen show us the conflicted understandings of nature as

wilderness?

In this thesis I will address this broad research aim by focusing on the following three

research questions:

- How is nature or wilderness portrayed in the debate surrounding the

Oostvaardersplassen?

- How are management and interventions discussed in the debate surrounding the

Oostvaardersplassen?

- How are the goals of the Oostvaardersplassen discussed?

I will do so by addressing specifically three contentious themes: the process of rewilding

itself, the large-scale deaths of animals in the park and the debate for or against culling

which all relate to wider debates around wilderness and definitions of nature.

1.1. Protection of Environment in Dutch Policy

When it comes to the Dutch and nature, most people think of water management. Huge

projects, such as the afsluitdijk, the protection of the two thirds of the country that is under

sea level and the drainage of the polders have cemented a strong relationship and respect for

the water. The country is densely populated. The distinction between nature and man-made

is incredibly blurred, as since the 1300s people have accidentally and purposefully

influenced the Dutch environment on a large scale. The government, and also the public in

the Netherlands, like in most western countries, considers nature preservation and

conservation important. The government, national and local, protects natural areas, promotes

methods to increase biodiversity and create new spaces for nature, such as ecoducts1 (see fig.

2), with great support from the public. As expressed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature

and Foodquality (2018: 7), the government has a ‘duty of care’ towards the environment and

strives to maintain or bring natural areas into a healthy state. The reasons for the value of

nature the government expresses are diverse, but include protection and promotion of

biodiversity, nature, the societal role of nature and the cultural historic values. (idem: 10).

1 An ecoduct is a passage for animals to safely cross highways or railways. It is an example of the measures taken to connect natural spaces. (MJOP 2017)

7

Figure 1. the Oostvaardersplassen in summer, walking path – own photo

Figure 2. Ecoduct under construction (Holland Luchtfoto via mjop 2017)

8

The Oostvaardersplassen therefore has strong and symbolic value in the Netherlands. The

ambition to create a wilderness space and gifting land back to nature may seem like a lofty

goal. The term wilderness may to some imply how we as humans step aside with our wishes,

wants and uses for nature, to let nature be ‘free’, to give animals space, and to recreate the

landscape as it once was. But this is not all. The actions of rewilding far from being selfless,

also imply (re-)creating nature (also) for ourselves. This duality of nature conservation in the

Netherlands is clear from the constitution article used in the 2018 government paper on

changes in nature laws where it is stated how a government provides for the living (quality)

of its citizens. Nature is not only important intrinsically but also for humans. The

relationship between humans and nature is essential according to the Dutch government

(The Netherlands, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Foodquality, 2018: 19–20). Thus

Oostvaardersplassen has never solely been about promoting nature but also linked with

recreation, an aspect which shapes debates and decisions about the area.

The Netherlands is a densely populated country without expansive natural areas. However,

there are many smaller protected areas, and the necessity of living close to natural areas

means that perceptions of nature and nature conservation in general are touched upon in

Dutch studies. Articles available seem to centre around ecological changes and what is

important to conserve. In addition, regarding management, studies often relate agricultural

concerns to nature conservation. Public perceptions are considered less important, especially

in agricultural issues. Buijs (2009) does so, but many articles on public perception and

nature conservation are not available. When the Oostvaardersplassen is added to searches on

nature management, policy, or conservation, public perceptions do often receive a mention.

1.2. Previous studies on the Oostvaardersplassen

Conservation history is an emerging field among environmental history and the protection of

natural areas. There is now an amassing body of literature comparing the history and debates

around conservation areas globally (see for instance the volume edited by Anderson and

Berglund 2004, Gissibl et al 2012, and Rachel Carson Centre volume The Edges of

Environmental History edited by Mauch and Robin 2014)

Oostvaardersplassen, through its unique character, is an often-mentioned case study in

academia. The focus of the questions differs, over time and with authors. One group of

studies on the Oostvaardersplassen has focused on the unique ecology. From the starting

point of the Oostvaardersplassen, through naming it a protected area and observing the

ecological changes in the landscape, its ecology has been well documented. The increase and

diversity of for example bird populations have caused many biologists and ecologists to

focus on what features make the Oostvaardersplassen so attractive ecologically. Many of

these ecological studies originate from the 1980s and 1990s. Huijser, Drost and Roling

(1995) for example write about the interaction between water management and the influence

on vegetation and birds. Voslamber (1992) analyses the number of Great White Egrets and

little Egrets in depth. With the developing landscape, interest also developed in other

species, for instance in the eagles which started appearing in 2004, leading to the study by de

Jonge (2005). Studies considering the vegetation and interaction with birds have also been

carried out, for example the study by Beemster, Troost and Platteeuw in 2010. Though there

has been considerable attention for the debate around Oostvaardersplassen, few studies have

discussed the overall management of the area. Most of the studies that do discuss

management strategies before 2000, do so with a main focus on ecology, examples are

Iedema & Kik (1986) who discuss landscape changes through intervention but in vague and

neutral terms. Vulink et al (2006), in their paper discuss management in their conclusion, but

link the success of management to an increase in animal populations that they can measure

9

in the landscape. Vera (1980), a main proponent of Oostvaardersplassen, very early noted

the increase in species and numbers of birds and the unique vegetation. Vera’s book aimed

to promote the Oostvaardersplassen as a conservation area but does not really discuss the

management (idem.).

A second group of studies on the Oostvaardersplassen centres around the debate surrounding

the park. These studies for example concern themselves in more detail with the rapid

increase of grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen and the ensuing debate on culling. This

debate also related more broadly to the wilderness debate, and the social consequences of the

Oostvaardersplassen. These studies appear later in the Oostvaardersplassen’s history and are

more often written in English instead of Dutch. While some of these studies are ‘neutral’ in

the sense that they don’t take a stand in the debate, there are a number of very critical studies

on the success or failure of the Oostvaardersplassen. Pruntel for example is very positive

about the creation of what he calls the ‘’bird paradise on earth’’ (2006: 1). With increasing

attention to its successes came also increasing analyses and critical scrutiny. Nijland (2008)

is highly critical of the Oostvaardersplassen and policy in terms of its management. Recent

works also question whether the Oostvaardersplassen will work. Theunissen (2019) for

example named his study with the provocative title ‘’The Oostvaardersplassen fiasco’’

indicating the tone of the text. Articles tend to become argumentative and strongly

positioned against the park over time. An example is Kopnina et al (2019), whose paper

explain that the Oostvaardersplassen is a failed wild experiment and argue that grazers

should be removed from the area. Verduijn (2012) argues that Vera and his colleagues

through the Oostvaardersplassen experience have radically altered the perception and

policies regarding Dutch nature conservation. While it can be debated whether this is a

positive or negative effect, Verduijn means that the perception of Dutch nature conservation

is changed negatively because of the Oostvaardersplassen. Meanwhile Mattijssen, Breman

and Stevens (2019) comment on the debates on social media around the Oostvaardersplassen

arguing that these debates are an important consideration for and can affect policy making

and public opinion significantly.

Lastly, there are mentions of the Oostvaardersplassen in many other studies, where the

Oostvaardersplassen is not the focal point, but used as an example or comparison. This

occurs in studies, but also in books or other wilderness projects. Tree (2018: 56–71) for

example dedicates an entire chapter to the Oostvaardersplassen in her discussion of Knepps

rewilding project. Marris (2011: 57–71) also uses the Oostvaardersplassen as an example

when speaking of rewilding, with a particular focus on the grazers. Tree (2018) uses the

example of Oostvaardersplassen as a positive inspiration when turning her family’s farm

into a wilderness area. In addition, journal articles such as Lorimer & Driessen (2014) use

the Oostvaardersplassen as an ecological case study to illustrate their larger topic of

changing environmentalism and the increasing interest for rewilding.

1.3. A note on translations

Translations do not always carry an exact similar meaning or feeling to the original word.

Using a Dutch case study and studying Dutch sources therefore requires interpretation

constantly and also an explanation of translation and definitions. The Dutch word natuur

may be translated easily to nature. Similarly, the accepted translation for milieu is

environment. However, the Dutch use milieu as a more overarching concept than the English

word environment and almost never to indicate or describe a physical space. Meanwhile in

English it is common to use the word environment to describe what a place looks like. In

Dutch, milieu carries a much stronger human aspect and activist feel than it does in English.

Whereas in English the sentence: ‘’The nature around the lake was beautiful’’ can be

10

changed to ‘’The environment around the lake was beautiful’’ and the sentence would still

be correct, although the two versions may convey a different feeling. In Dutch this sentence

would only make sense by translating both nature and environment with natuur. The

meaning of environment as determined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2019) is as

follows:

The area surrounding a place or thing; the environs,

surroundings, or physical context

This meaning is an example of how environment could not be translated into milieu in Dutch

and vice versa. Since meanings are always dependent on the context and shifting, I have had

to make choices when translating or paraphrasing to bring across the point in a similar way.

Through context and word choice, I have done this throughout the thesis carefully and with

consideration for the meaning and argument, more than directly translating a word as would

at first sight be obvious.

1.4 Presentation of the outline of the thesis

In this thesis I will attempt to study the Oostvaardersplassen as a case study in conservation

history. Its uniqueness offers, beyond earlier studies, many more aspects of study. By

looking at the discourse on the Oostvaardersplassen, I hope to study the involved actors and

find common issues in the surrounding debate.

Chapter 2 will discuss in more detail the actor network theory on which I base my selection

of documents. In addition, I will describe why I have chosen to do a qualitative discourse

analysis and how I have approached the analysis.

Chapter 3 will cover the background of the Oostvaardersplassen: the start of the (unplanned)

experimental area, the push towards the Oostvaardersplassen becoming a protected reserve,

and a more detailed look at the ecology of the area. In addition, I will discuss the concept of

rewilding, which is often used in the discussion on the Oostvaardersplassen. This chapter

gives me an opportunity to discuss the reactions to this concept and the actual ecological

process that was taking place in the Oostvaardersplassen.

Chapters 4 and 5 will form an in-depth qualitative analysis of a number of key documents

and lesser known discourse on the Oostvaardersplassen. Through a study of these

documents, chapters 4 and 5 will cover the different actors’ voices on a number of key

debates. In chapter 4, the grazer mortality in 2005 and 2010 will be discussed, which form

the basis of the current expansive and public debate. Chapter 5 will contain the debate on

culling as a commonly proposed intervention. The conclusion of identified issues through

the documents will be in chapter 6. These issues include the problem with definitions of

nature, the lack of identified goals and the importance of emotion in the debate. In addition,

the constantly changing actors and responsibilities and the difficulty of carrying out expert

advice is a problem.

11

2. Method and Theory

Wilderness and rewilding are key concepts in the discussion on the Oostvaardersplassen.

This thesis thus touches upon some fundamental questions such as what should nature look

like, and how do we decide what real nature or wilderness is? These fundamental questions

also pose questions around the goals of the Oostvaardersplassen, how did they change and

why? How can we measure its successes in relation to what goals? For whom and how has

the Oostvaardersplassen achieved the goals to create a natural or wild space but also a space

for recreation? The attention and opinions from social media and interest groups also allow

me to ask the question what role does public emotion play? All these questions will form the

basis of the discussion presented in this thesis. I will analyse certain aspects of the

controversies in depth in the following chapters but here I will first introduce the

methodology and selection of sources and controversies.

2.1. Actor Network theory

Actor Network theory (ANT) will be a background for a better understanding of the debate

on the Oostvaardersplassen and the involved parties. The theory will allow for a better

selection of documents in chapters 4 and 5. Though it is hard to define in a few sentences,

Actor Network Theory is a useful tool in studying the Oostvaardersplassen. Originally

coming from Science and Technology studies, the theory is now used in other fields as well

(Cressman 2009). The meaning, exact application and even the theory itself has changed

over time and in different research fields (Lezaun 2017; Muller 2015). Through Actor

Network theory, it is possible to study interaction between actors, whether they are human or

non-human. The method allows a researcher to take a step back from his or her assumptions,

and to first try to see who and what is involved in a network and in what ways they might

interact, expected or unexpected. This is useful because it takes away the assumptions of

which actor or interaction are most important and which are their connections. Through this

fresh look, it offers a great starting point to begin understanding the debate about the

Oostvaardersplassen – in terms of who is involved, how, and from what perspective. From

that understanding it is then possible to select documents for analysis with the different

actors and their interactions in mind. The approach allows, in the case of the

Oostvaardersplassen, the possibility to include the landscape itself as an actor, as well as

institutions and informal groups. In addition, Actor Network theory reaffirms an important

basis of this thesis and the main research questions. Namely that documents (in whatever

way or form of communication) matter in terms of both changing the network but also for

understanding its connections (Law 1992).

In Actor Network theory, it is assumed that actors influence each other. This goes for both

human and non-human actors. It means that the method is an ideal starting point for

environmental history studies. The Oostvaardersplassen itself as a geographical area with a

distinctive geography and climate or its different animals, birds or plants can all be actors in

the network alongside social institutions like the government, park managers or the media.

Allen (2011) argues that the landscape can also be the stage on which the actors and their

interactions take place. His understanding of a landscape, as neither wholly natural or wholly

human made, compliments my topic well as Oostvaardersplassen truly is a hybrid place (see

12

also Hinchliffe 2007). Through ANT it is possible to study the landscape focusing on the

connections between people and landscape, over time as well according to Allen. The actors

and the network are not stationary, but dynamic and changing (Lezaun 2017). In the case of

the Oostvaardersplassen these dynamics are very applicable. Actors and responsibilities

change and shifting perspectives are an important part of the debate.

2.1.1. The actors

The involvement of actors in the Oostvaardersplassen and the relationship between them has

changed over time. As a background to the reader and to explain my selection of documents

and debates I will describe the different actors that are relevant below. There is quite a

complex network of people and institutions involved. I will first introduce the actors, then I

will explain how they have been involved with the Oostvaardersplassen.

The Ministry: The current ministry in charge of the Oostvaardersplassen is the ministry of

Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality (LNV). Starting in 1905, this ministry has been

responsible for different issues. The ministry’s predecessors early on had agriculture and

fishery as most important components. In certain years, trade has fallen under this ministry

(currently under the ministry of Economic Affairs). In the years since the start of the

Oostvaardersplassen, the responsibly ministry was the Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery

from 1959–1989, although nature management was a large part of its responsibilities

already. Until 1982 nature management had officially been a part of the ministry of Culture,

Recreation and Social work. Between 1989 and 2003, the ministry was renamed, as the

ministry of Agriculture, Nature-management and Fishery. Between 2003 and 2010, the

ministry was named Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality as it is now. Between 2010 and

2012 however, the ministry fell under the ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and

Innovation, and between 2012 and 2017 it would just be called the ministry of Economic

Affairs. From 2017 onwards, the issues of Nature management, Food Quality and

Agriculture once again fell under its own separate ministry. It is now led by a minister in

charge, and occasionally an undersecretary who can take over part of the responsibilities.

(Parlement en politiek 2019).

Tweede Kamer and Eerste Kamer: The Tweede Kamer, which literally translates to

‘second chamber’, is the lower house of the parliament in the Netherlands. It can be

compared to the British house of commons or the United States house of representatives.

150 seats are available for elected politicians from a multi-party system. Parties then try to

form a coalition with other parties and thereby obtain a majority of 76 seats in order to

govern. It is common for other parties to work together with some or all of the coalition

parties, particularly on certain topics in order to reach a majority on something that is not in

the coalition agreements. Politicians in the Netherlands get elected for four years, unless the

government falls. There is also an Eerste Kamer (first chamber), for which politicians get

appointed by members of the provincial councils. This Eerste Kamer cannot propose or

change laws, only accept or reject them. The Tweede Kamer can propose new laws and also

change existing or proposed laws. Their role is also very much to hold the government

accountable and to discuss and debate ongoing social matters. Small parties can therefore

have a large role in putting issues on the public stage, while larger parties or coalitions can

create or amend laws to deal with these issues. (Tweede Kamer 2019)

The province Flevoland: The Netherlands is divided into twelve provinces of which

Flevoland is one. These provinces have little legislative power, but manage a number of

issues on a more local scale. Often their responsibilities include supervision of

municipalities and water authorities. Responsibilities also include improving regional

economy and culture, the planning of new roads and management and care of natural spaces.

13

The province of Flevoland in which the Oostvaardersplassen is situated, was created in

1986. (Parlement en politiek 2019)

Staatsbosbeheer: Staatsbosbeheer (SBB) is the organization in charge of the 273 000

hectares of Dutch natural/green areas. It translates to State Forestry Management. SBB falls

under the ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food quality as an independent institution. It

was founded in 1899, when issues such as the deforestation and the negative effects of

deforestation such as sand drift were causing great problems. Preservation of natural areas is

important to Staatsbosbeheer and they work with the ministry to propose protected areas

under the European Union Natura 2000 plan and to realise international and European goals

and agreements. In addition to preservation, as a public organization they are also in charge

of providing access, walking routes, and bike paths to natural areas, and provide education to

fulfil the social purposes of natural areas as well. Staatsbosbeheer is split up in three

different divisions of which the Management & Development division takes care of the

natural areas in each province. The other divisions, Land & Buildings and Experience &

Utilize are split in subdivisions relevant for separate provinces. Staatsbosbeheer receive

money through the province, the national government and they have their own income

through for example recreation, wood cutting, and additional projects. They also employ

volunteers, local enforcement and managers such as foresters (boswachters), who are the on-

the-ground employees. (Staatsbosbeheer 2019)

EU/Natura 2000: The Oostvaardersplassen is a protected area under the Natura 2000

network since 1989 (Natura 2000 2020). Through the organization of Natura 2000, the

European Union aims to protect natural areas and hopes to connect them with each other. In

1979, the Natura 2000 programme started with a decision to protect (rare) species of birds.

In addition, from 1992 onwards, the EU created legislation to protect other animal and plant

species and specific habitats. The institution monitors progress towards the goals and

agreements in an area (Natura 2000 2015) and the Oostvaardersplassen is a protected area

under EU legislation.

Official research/expert groups: Several times in the history of the Oostvaardersplassen an

official expert group has been instated. Some of these expert groups include the Raad voor

het Landelijk Gebied (council of rural land) and Raad voor Dieraangelegenheden (council

for animal affairs), who advised the ministry in the early 2000s on mortality rates among the

grazers (Raad voor Dierenaangelegenheden 2005). Because of their conflicting advice, these

councils advised the ministry to set up a special committee to do more extensive research on

the grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen. This committee was named the International

Committee on the Management of large herbivores in the Oostvaardersplassen (ICMO).

After their report in 2006 and the subsequent discussion, a committee with the same name

was set up again in 2010. Expert groups have advised the ministry during the start of the

polder of Flevoland, before the Oostvaardersplassen existed as well and advise

Staatsbosbeheer when requested. Expert groups are either national or made up of

international experts.

Researchers/Experts: From the start of the Oostvaardersplassen, ecologists and other

researchers have seen the importance of the site (Vera 2008; Drost 1989; Kooijman &

Vulink 2005). Bird enthusiasts and ecologists alike realized how many rare species of birds

settled or passed through the Oostvaardersplassen. Research in the Oostvaardersplassen is

continuously ongoing and new bird species continue to settle there. In addition, the

Oostvaardersplassen is used in many articles and books as one of the first wilderness

experiments and is referred to often (See 1.2 for example). The area is often used as an

example and inspiration for new rewilding projects, and the initial experiments of

14

Oostvaardersplassen have also inspired new organisations, such as Rewilding Europe2. In

addition, with increasing controversy, there has been a strong involvement from academia

through consultation of expert advice from different sides. One the best-known researchers

who has been an advocate of Oostvaardersplassen is Frans Vera. Vera is an ecologist who is

strongly connected to the creation of Oostvaardersplassen as a protected area and its

management. He is considered an expert and is also responsible for the introduction of

grazers is the Oostvaardersplassen. While his opinions are (becoming) controversial to some,

he has written many research articles on European landscape history advocating for an open

heavily grazed European landscape after the retreat of the last ice sheet (Vera 2000; but see

also Mitchell 2005). This hypothesis, sometimes called the ‘Vera hypothesis’ was an

inspiration for the introduction of grazers to the Oostvaardersplassen and an important

motivation for Vera himself in his involvement in Oostvaardersplassen (Vera 2014). In the

earlier years Vera mostly focused on species of birds and the ecology, in later years much

more on the management of the area. He has later worked for and together with

Staatsbosbeheer in several of their (research) publications.

News media: Since the start of major debates on the Oostvaardersplassen and on the grazers

in the Oostvaardersplassen in 2005, the Oostvaardersplassen has been a major source of

interest for the media. Nationally, debates are discussed often on the news and reports on the

discussion among politicians are extensive. Because of the large social media outrage and

protestors often intervening in the area, this gets reported too. Foreign media are interested

in the topic as well; they seem too give priority to the emotions and critique that have come

with the Oostvaardersplassen. Starvation of the animals in winter often gets discussed and

the international media tends to describe the Oostvaardersplassen as a failed experiment (see

for example 4.4 and 5.3).

The public: Although the Oostvaardersplassen is a protected area, parts of it are open to

visitors. Through walking paths and bike routes, most of the borders are accessible. Cars

cannot drive through the park. The train line between Almere and Lelystad borders the

Oostvaardersplassen on the east side. People taking this train can view the

Oostvaardersplassen and will often see birds and grazers, including cadavers or sickly

animals in winter.

Social media groups/protestors: Outrage about the Oostvaardersplassen tends to be

focused in groups on social media. While many people, because of media attention, have an

opinion and knowledge about the Oostvaardersplassen, social media has seemed to really

bond a group of outraged citizens together. Groups of people already interested in horses or

animals, but also other diverse groups have connected through Facebook. Through these

groups, protests are organized. Many people come together to feed the grazers in the

Oostvaardersplassen without permission and organize this through closed Facebook groups.

There is no official, overarching group of protestors yet, but there are several foundations.

Non-human actors: The centre of the network is the Oostvaardersplassen itself. Other

influencing non-human actors include the birds, grazers/herbivores, other animals and

insects and the landscape/flora. These non-human actors are supposed to form a system in

which they interact to create a wilderness landscape that is natural and stable. The extent to

which they can do this without human actors is debated. However, since human actors do

interfere with these actors and the natural system, they are fully intertwined. This is perhaps

best shown when natural factors and animal behaviours and human sentiment intertwine

with other factors to change population numbers, either in animals becoming too many or in

2 See https//rewildingeurope.com

15

deaths of animals due to starvation and the heated responses to these changes from the

public as I will discuss in the coming chapters.

2.1.2. The network

As shown above, there are many official institutions and actors involved in the

Oostvaardersplassen. However, individual researchers, media both national and international

and people and protest groups are ‘dependent’ in the sense that they do not belong to formal

institutions or organizations. In Table 1 I have grouped the various actors based on roles.

The actors can be divided as follows and may be included in more than one category:

Legislative actors are the ones that can make laws concerning the Oostvaardersplassen, but

also actors that can actually influence the way the management is done on a larger scale. I

have separated advice groups here. Those who manage the Oostvaardersplassen will also

advice the legislative actors on the basis of their experiences. They can also, through

lobbying or simply explaining, put pressure on the legislative power. I have separated the

category here into the pressure that comes from people who are not officially involved in the

management of the Oostvaardersplassen, but through their arguments want to offer advice or

explicit pressure on the way the Oostvaardersplassen is managed (Table 1).

Interesting here is especially the role of the Tweede Kamer (see 2.1.1). As the lower

chamber of the parliament, they are the ones who can actually propose laws to change the

management of the Oostvaardersplassen. However, because of the conflicting opinions from

the different parties in the Tweede Kamer, their role seems to be confined to pressuring

actors to respond to queries. Very little has been done to change the basic laws, such as

removing animal cadavers (or not), but the Tweede Kamer has kept up an intense rate of

debate and discussion. This political discussion then gets presented in the media, so the

arguments used in the debate influence public opinion on the issues. Political parties are

aware of this and use the debates to appeal to the broader public. In that way, voters

remember what the politicians said and which arguments they agree or identify with.

Table 1. Groupings of actors and their role

Legislative

(create policy and

management styles)

Management

(in charge of

executing

management)

Advice

(Offering formal

advice to the

legislative groups)

Pressure

(unofficial/informal

but often strong

pressure)

EU Staatsbosbeheer Expert groups Individual researchers

Province Province Individual researchers Media

Tweede Kamer Ministry Public

Ministry/parliament Tweede Kamer

2.2. Analysing Topics/events and related debates.

The mapping of actors and the network has allowed me to select documents for further

analyses and also particular debates. I will be analysing a number of documents on two key

conflicts related to the Oostvaardersplassen. My aim is to understand the debate – what

motivations, definitions of wilderness or wildlife management lie behind it, what definitions

of nature and wilderness are invoked in the debate, what different viewpoints are portrayed –

and how we can understand the core conflicts in these discussions. Many times, the different

opinions have led to a situation that may seem unresolvable. When conversing, the different

16

sides seem unable to communicate clearly and without being transparent on the goals of the

nature conservation area. What I am trying to do here is a first step, namely to understand

and analyse the essence of the conflict. As will be shown in this thesis, some of the debates

actually centre around different definitions of what a ‘wild’ landscape should look like and

how it should be managed. In some sense, debates are also centring around the very

definition of wilderness. I am expecting to find that what seems like a similar debate or

argument, might perhaps have a very different background while debates and contestations

that at first hand may seem to be quite far from each other maybe closer to agreement than

what might first seem.

To limit the study, I have had to select certain core debates. This is by no means an analysis

of everything that is out there about the Oostvaardersplassen. My goal here is rather to show

the variety of ways the Oostvaardersplassen is being debated, the nature and intervention

there, and its purposes and public reactions. For the sake of access and clarity, it is not

possible to find documents from each actor on each topic. If a document is unlikely to

address some or most of the questions, I will leave it out. I will however mention the

availability of documents in the discussion. Quotes will be used for clarification where

possible, but as many of the documents are in Dutch, the quotes will be a direct translation in

which case quotation marks will be used or I will paraphrase the meaning.

The different topics/events and related debates I will analyse here will be:

• The motivation of the Oostvaardersplassen as ‘wilderness’ (chapter 3)

• The harsh winters of 2005 and 2010 and the seemingly large number of starving

animals (chapter 4)

• The discussion on animal culling as an intervention (chapter 5)

These topics have received a lot of media attention, public interest and outrage and have

required expert advice and parliamentary debates – in turn attracting additional responses

and debates. These topics/events will allow me to compare very different actors and their

positioning and definitions of rewilding and nature in relation to the debates.

2.3. Discourse Analysis

The method I will be using to analyse the documents I need to answer my research question,

is based on Qualitative Discourse Analysis. Foucault’s theory of discourse is at the basis of

discourse analysis. Since many writers have tackled Foucault in depth (see review in Hook

2001), I will not do so here. I have chosen a qualitative analysis, because I believe that

analysing the concepts in the comments on the Oostvaardersplassen requires understanding

and analysis of the terms and paragraphs. A quantitative method in this instant is not

sufficient. Translation inhibits a good comparison between English and Dutch documents. In

addition, there are many words that are used synonymously to indicate concepts such as

wilderness. Using a qualitative style requires a better reflection of my methods as a

researcher. While the results may first appear vague, in order to understand different

conceptualization of the Oostvaardersplassen specifically and Dutch nature in general,

qualitative analysis works best. Coding with a focus on specific words or concepts is not

sufficient, more understanding is required. Many qualitative methods of analysis require

stringent decisions and do not allow for interpretation very well (See for example Bernard

2006: 463–548). I have been inspired by different approaches, but I am essentially using

‘’qualitative analysis of qualitative data’’ (Bernard 2006: 451). This means I am not

quantifying concepts or rhetorical devices numerically, but rather am interpreting the texts

17

and documents. I am asking which themes can be identified (or are missing) and how are

they defined by whom?

I do want to touch upon one particular aspect in Foucault’s theories, namely that of truth.

Hook (2001, 6) explains that truth ‘’is a product of discourse and power’’. That means there

is no truth, or at least not one truth that we can see in a discourse or topic (Jørgensen and

Phillips 2002: 13–15). The matter of the debate which through discourse reaches people,

creates a transient ‘truth’ (Hook 2001). I consider this is exactly what is happening in the

case of the Oostvaardersplassen, the debate keeps changing around a shifting truth that

appears through the communication of the actors. The truth is different for the different

actors, and the discourse is a way of tracing that redefinition of the established meaning and

truths in the context of Oostvaardersplassen. This is not to say there are actors intentionally

dismissing truth, simply that what is at the forefront, believed and assumed emerges and

changes continuously throughout this discourse. Finding that truth is not the purpose of

analysing a discourse, but figuring out differences in the very definitions of established

truths (in this case related to the goals and aims of Oostvaardersplassen) can help reshape

new responses to a debate that might otherwise be stuck. Parker (1992) explains how

institutions are shaped by the discourse as well, which in the case of the Oostvaardersplassen

is important.

For the formal actors or institution, I have selected policy papers, studies and reports that are

considered integral or reflective of a particular group, for example because they have been

used and referred to in further studies. With the selection of other documents or articles I

have chosen articles that I find reflect more commonly dispersed opinions. Wherever

different voices emerge in one actor, I have chosen a number of documents for analysis.

Within the analysis is space for reflection as well. I have chosen not to do any interviews for

several reasons. Firstly, I am primarily interested in how information is given in policy

papers or debates, and how they are mediated and responded to by the public and how

information is framed through media. In addition, interviews have already been carried out

by other researchers and journalists, especially recently. I make use of these and the

excellent conclusions from the many other academic papers and news media, with a

reflection on possible biases.

The translation of quotes may occasionally seem a bit stunted or different in tone or different

in formality than might be expected from a certain document. Since the essence of analysis

in this thesis centres on words and meanings, I have chosen to translate as literally as

possible where necessary, even at the cost of fluidity or sentence structure. While I have

tried to keep the translations grammatically and structurally correct (thereby sometimes

adapting the original sentence slightly), my focus is on the actual literal translation with

regards for the point the author is making. Where this leads to a different tone or formality, I

have included extra information on the original style of the document.

To structure the analyses of the text I have formulated a number of questions. Not all of the

questions will be applicable for all of the actors and documents in the same extent, but

together they will paint a good picture.

• How does the actor define wilderness/nature how do they motivate it?

(Positive/negative/compatible with management or not). How (if) are the terms

“wilderness”, “nature” or restoration used, how (if) is it defined and contextualised?

(1)

• How does the actor see management and degrees of intervention? (how is

intervention/management discussed; what degrees of intervention/management are

discussed/problematized/laid out)) (2)

18

• What kind of interventions do actors consider necessary to protect/sustain/improve

the Oostvaardersplassen? (3)

• Which aspects of nature does the actor focus on/name? In what context: focusing on

specific animals or landscape; or environmental objectives (e.g. IUCN red list); or a

restoration narrative (e.g. restoring to a past state of landscape) (4)

• How does the actor see the role of the public? How do they describe the concerns of

the public and protest groups? (5)

• What are the most important rhetoric tools for the actor to bring across their point?

Do they use emotions, statistics, images, references to experts? How is

wilderness/intervention/management contextualised with words (emotional or

factual, scientific or popular) (6)

• How do they describe the role of the Oostvaardersplassen as a whole for the

Netherlands? (as an important natural area, as an area for recreation, etc) (7)

Question six concerns the tools used by the actor in a document. By tools I mean the rhetoric

devices the authors use in the text to bring across the information. This can vary between

subtle things such as word choice or formality of language, but also the images added in the

document or words that convey strong emotion. As opposed to the other questions where I

analyse what is written on a concept, this question revolves around how a document is

written or structured and thus how it subtly influences the reader. This is not meant in either

positive nor negative terms, since every choice an author makes influences the reader in one

way or another. However, analysing how different documents and actors can influence their

readers in the debate in the Oostvaardersplassen, will shed light on some of the controversy.

Since the analysed documents will be different for each chapter, the methods for analysing

them will vary slightly. In general, I look at the words, phrases and contextualisation and the

additional tools the actors might use, the type of document and language, and the addressed

audience. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of what the key actors are

communicating, I will look at a number of topics. This way I will be able to track possible

changes over time. Moreover, it will allow me to look at the same actor multiple times,

allowing for an in-depth understanding.

The selection of documents has been made after an analysis of the different actors and their

network presented in subchapter 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. The documents together give an overview

of the different sides of the story, with representative documents for each actor. While the

influence of each document or actor is not always comparable in weight in the

Oostvaardersplassen debate, they form a collective story of the debate. I believe that through

my selection of sources I have found a balance between readability, scope and detailed

analysis. While certainly missing some subtleties and avenues not explored here the

complexity presented is more than enough to begin discussions.

Careful, multiple readings of each document are the basis of my analysis. In addition, a

constant reflection on my own assumptions and prejudices was paramount. Translation took

place immediately, in order to maintain the subtle feelings and concepts of the document. In

addition, everything that could not be placed in one of the categories of questions was

summarized as to objectively find out whether an important part of the story was missing in

the analysis. With the quotes and paraphrases, I then analysed each document separately.

Comparison with other documents came later. From this initial analysis, I then wrote a

careful analysis, including all parts of the story and selecting only the quotes relevant and

representative.

19

3. Oostvaardersplassen and the idea of Rewilding

Before there was the Oostvaardersplassen, there was sea. Then came a polder on which the

Oostvaardersplassen would later develop. The idea of the polder was never to create a

natural space yet part of it became a natural experiment. In the following chapter I will

describe the process whereby the Oostvaardersplassen changed from abandoned land

waiting to be developed to a haven for birds to eventually an experiment of rewilding. I will

also go into what arose from this initial experiment, reviewing the emerging field of

rewilding in conservation and the initial debates it stirred in the context of

Oostvaardersplassen.

3.1. A natural experiment: The start of the Oostvaardersplassen

In 1968, a large stretch of the Zuiderzee became the province of Flevoland after the sea was

made into a polder. The goal of the polder was simple. It would create a new province,

called Flevoland, which would create new space for people to live. The metropolitan area of

the Randstad3, and Amsterdam in particular was becoming crowded and new land was

needed since much of the economic activity of the country takes place in this region. The

area that is now the Oostvaardersplassen was destined to become an industrial site

(Nationaalparknieuwland 2020).

Originally, after major floods in 1916, a part of the Zuiderzee was dried out with dikes

already being present. It was considered safer to have a large lake than to have a part of the

sea in the centre of the country (Pruntel 2007). The creation of additional agricultural land,

especially after the world wars in Europe, became another goal in itself. The creation of the

Noordoostpolder was finished in 1942. However, it was not until there was a bigger push for

land for agriculture and residences that Eastern Flevoland (1957) and Southern Flevoland

were created, finishing the polder in 1968. Flevoland officially became a province in 1986,

By then, a large plot of land was gained from of the sea in less than half a century.

Immediately after creating the polder, there was no longer an acute need for an industrial

area so the plans for the area that is now Oostvaardersplassen were delayed and the land

remained undeveloped. In addition, the land itself remained covered in wet areas or ponds

(‘plassen’) and was difficult to develop (Verduijn 2012; Pruntel 2007). The area was left as

it was so that it could slowly dry out. While the wetland area remained undisturbed, in the

dry areas of the later Oostvaardersplassen a start was made with creating ditches for the

purpose of drying out the whole area. After a polder is created, a process called soil ripening

or soil maturation needs to occur, whereby the mud turns into ‘useful land’ through changes

in the chemical, physical and biological composition. One aspect of this process that is most

visible is the settling of the ground. To stabilise the polder, reeds were sown to increase the

soil maturation of the old clay seabed. (Kooiman 1996). This was the easiest and cheapest

3 A region of cities in the west of the Netherlands, containing cities such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht and Den Haag (Netherlands four biggest cities), in which a large part of Dutch people live and where much of the economy takes place. Depending on the exact geographic delineation, about half the Dutch population lives in this metropolitan area.

20

way to prepare the area so that it could be drained for future purposes, either as an industrial

or agricultural area (Verduijn 2012).

It all turned out different, the Oostvaardersplassen would not become agricultural or

industrial land as the very lack of care would eventually be the starting point for the

formation of a rich wetland area. While waiting for development, nature was slowly taking

over. (Pruntel 2007). Because the rest of the polder Flevoland was continuously being

adapted and built upon, the wetlands were drying out. Many different plants grew quickly

and different species of birds, who were increasingly being disfavoured by the high degree

of industrial farming in other areas of the Netherlands were attracted to the place (Iedema

and Kik 1986). To give an example, nearly all of the worldwide Greylag Geese population

stop in the Oostvaardersplassen, a third of the population of Spoonbills in the Netherlands

drops in at the Oostvaardersplassen to name just one of many examples (Van Eerden and

Zijlstra 1986). The numbers of birds in the Netherlands increased hugely thanks to this new

habitat, and in addition, birds that had left the Netherlands years before returned to breed in

the Oostvaardersplassen (Vera 2008). This phenomenon attracted the attention of bird

spotters who were enjoying the area. In addition, biologists recognized this significant

increase in bird numbers. While in most areas in Western Europe bird populations declined,

they were increasing in the Oostvaardersplassen.

A number of politicians and environmental managers recognised the importance of the area

for birds and other wildlife (Iedema and Kik 1986). The richness in bird and plant life

allowed enough attention to convince politicians to leave the borders of the area now known

as the Oostvaardersplassen undisturbed from 1973 onwards (Vera, 2008). To keep the

numbers of bird populations high and to attract even more species of bird, the next step was

to figure out ways to keep the area and landscape from being built on and maintain the

whole area as an attractive space for birds. An embankment was created around the wetland,

to separate the wet and dry lands. In 1974, the area received an official status as temporary

nature reserve and this was the onset of the area as a wilderness space. The embankment

became permanent rather than temporary and the Oostvaardersplassen as a wet and dry

natural reserve was born, albeit still as a temporary space (Vera 2008; Iedema and Kik 1986;

Kooijman and Vulink 2005 a).

21

Figure 3. The Oostvaardersplassen with the white line indicating the borders of the area and the red line the embankment (Vera, 2008).

3.2. Creating a reserve

The next several decades were marked by discussions between politicians, ecologists, locals

and the public on what the Oostvaardersplassen should look like, how it could best fulfil its

goals as a nature reserve and also what additional ecological goals could be achieved.

Ecologists, planners, politicians and local residents all had an opinion on the area that was

frequently voiced. What would the landscape need to look like in order to protect and attract

the rare birds? Should the qualities of the area be enhanced also to favour other species?

The researcher Vera was instrumental in pushing for the proclamation of the reserve

(Verduijn 2012) and he saw the Oostvaardersplassen as a key area to continue carrying out

the experiment of what he and other researchers with him called ‘rewilding’. The

Oostvaardersplassen was an experiment that had already started as a natural process – but

now ambitions were set higher – how could the area be promoted as a rewilding experiment

also for other species than birds and wetland plants?

In 1980 Taapken wrote a strong endorsement of Vera’s early pleas for the protection of the

Oostvaardersplassen. In Taapken’s opinion the area was of [translated] ‘’extraordinary

quality’’ but also ‘’severely threatened’’ (1980: 147). Taapken explains how he and other

researchers had managed to bring the message across to responsible politicians, who were

becoming more positive and understood the need for the area being protected. Vera himself

in 1980 wrote a study on birds titled [translated] ‘’Unique opportunity must be seized! The

Oostvaardersplassen: restauration of an original community of life’’. Critical voices in the

1980s did not challenge the designation of the Oostvaardersplassen as a bird reserve, but

rather focused on details in the organisation of the landscape. Drost (1989) touched upon

22

issues of specific vegetation and the plans for introduction of other animals. Not overly

critical, he nevertheless expressed his concerns about the vulnerability of the

Oostvaardersplassen. In 1982, the detour of the planned railway (see 3.3) meant that the

delineation of Oostvaardersplassen would become what it is now. As Vera explains, several

ecologists argued that the combination of wet and dry land would maintain a unique

ecosystem in a further built polder (2008: 16).

The multiple studies and high number of many and rare species of birds meant that in 1986

the Oostvaardersplassen become a national reserve. Additionally, in 1989 the

Oostvaardersplassen was designated as a special protection area at European level

(Kooijman and Vulink 2005 a). The proclamation of the Oostvaardersplassen as a protected

area also meant a shift in thinking about nature conservation in the Netherlands (Verduijn

2012; Lorimer and Driessen 2013) towards a more positive view on rewilding and a

changing perception of what nature should look like (see also 3.4). Vera especially was

instrumental here, inspired by his own research on the ancient European landscapes. Vera

advocated the hypothesis that the prehistoric European landscape had been open through

herds of grazers that maintained an open landscape – an idea that has been called the Vera

hypothesis and which remains controversial. Vera (2000) suggested that large wild

herbivores maintained a landscape mosaic of closed canopy and open parkland, thereby

challenging the idea of primeval forests. Vera´s hypothesis has later been challenged by for

instance Mitchell (2005). For Vera, the Oostvaardersplassen represented a live experiment

where he could test his hypothesis by restocking the area with grazers. Thus the

Oostvaardersplassen could potentially offer evidence for his theories (Lorimer and Driessen

2013).

While the acceptance of the Oostvaardersplassen as a protected area, especially for birds,

was widespread, debates arose on the details of the landscape management. Vera was

pushing for introduction of grazers that would be as close to primeval grazers as possible.

The introduction of grazers to naturally maintain the vegetation open in the

Oostvaardersplassen would be favourable to other species and birds. As Vera himself

explains “Years of struggle ensued, particularly with biologists and nature conservationists,

to realize the experiment with large ungulates living in the wild’’ (2000: xvi).

The decision to include other animals was not unproblematic. Bird protection agencies for

example were afraid that the introduction of grazers might lead to trampling and landscape

modifications which could risk diminishing wetlands and thereby threaten the bird

populations (Nijland 2008). In 1987 Polman and Smidtter Neuzen again advised the

introduction of grazers as part of the landscape management in the Oostvaardersplassen.

Drost (1989) argued that introduction of mammals in the area should be considered as a

secondary objective only after ensuring the habitats for birds. The focus on birds was

strengthened as the area became included in the Natura 2000 in 1989.

In 1996 the responsibility of the Oostvaardersplassen was transferred to Staatsbosbeheer4.

Their way of managing this area corresponds well to what we might now see as a

mainstream way of rewilding. The idea of rewilding can be described as ‘do nothing, except

when…’, the idea was to let nature take its course as much as possible. Staatsbosbeheer

maintained the landscape following earlier advices without large interventions in water

management or vegetation (Staatsbosbeheer 2020). Nature might have run its own course,

but in the area, it was difficult to combine with other goals of nature conservation and

protection of endangered birds. For example, many of the introduced grazers died in the

winter when there was little food. This was the start of a big discussion that has continued

4 The official organization in charge of managing nature areas in the Netherlands, see also paragraph 2.2.1

23

until now. The debate centred on the responsibility of humans regarding wild or semi-wild

animals, especially if they are (re-)introduced in manmade nature. These debates will be

discussed and analysed in detail in Chapter 4 and 5. But first I will briefly sketch the overall

ecological changes that have taken place in Oostvaardersplassen.

Figure 4. Picture of Flevoland and the location of the Oostvaardersplassen (via google earth)

3.3. The Changing Ecology of the Oostvaardersplassen

The Oostvaardersplassen developed both naturally and because of human action. The

continued draining and building of the rest of the polder affected the landscape of the future

Oostvaardersplassen. Below I will discuss some of these changes and how they came about.

After the building of the embankment in 1973 and the establishment of the official (albeit

temporary) nature reserve both humans, other animals and natural processes changed the

way the area looked like. The Greylag Geese (ruiende Grauwe ganzen) for example altered

the environment of the wetland filled with reeds to a much more open water area. Due to this

changing environment of wetlands, some intervention needed to be taken to preserve areas

of silt, shallow waters, which are important for other species of birds. No gradients or

transitions between wet and dry areas existed and certain wet areas were disappearing. The

mixture of dry and wetland and the border zones was internationally and nationally of

importance to different birds (Huijser et al 1995: 213; Kooijman and Vulink 2015). It was

considered to be an interesting area by researchers and politicians alike (Verduijn 2012:

106–108) and to keep these soggy meadows in place, a number of decisions were taken.

Firstly, the course of the planned railway line between Almere and Lelystad, the two biggest

cities in Flevoland, was changed. Instead of going straight through the area that is now the

Oostvaardersplassen, it was changed to curve around it, essentially now delineating its

borders.

24

Figure 5. The board informs about the construction of the railway. ‘’Construction Flevolijn, New track in new land)’’ Text has been painted on by people: ‘’Via new route! Save the Oostvaardersplassen.’’ (van Dijk 1981 via Nationaal Archief)

In 1982, when the train track was detoured, it was necessary to create a coherent area that

could be separated from the rest of the province. In addition, the borders would need to be

properly developed between different landscapes types and the rest of Flevoland that would

be used for agricultural and industrial purposes. Two important management interventions

would take care of this: the use of water pumps and other influences in the water

management, and the introduction of big grazers. Because the border change added 2000

hectares of land to the then defined area of the temporary nature reserve, other areas in the

polder were changed to have an agricultural purpose. However, trouble still existed in terms

of providing the optimal ecological environment. No one knew exactly how to create a

landscape that would be perfect, or what that landscape actually need to look like. (Kooiman

1996; Vulink 2009). One example is how the high numbers of geese altered the environment

much more than thought or planned, as they would graze much of the reeds (Vera 2008) and

it caused a necessary reflection on what the environment at Oostvaardersplassen should be

like and how controlled it needed to be.

The government-appointed management commission Beheercommissie the

Oostvaardersplassen decided in 1987 that the Oostvaardersplassen would contain eight

different landscapes, from wet to dry. These landscapes would coexist and the borders

between the areas would be gradual. In the wetlands, there would be management options

formulated for drier and wetter years, so as to create a natural landscape and have realistic

transition in the landscapes and over time. These conditions would create a healthy space for

the greylag geese and numerous other birds and the different types of vegetation (Huijser et

al, 1995). In the drier areas, the need for grazers was argued to be necessary in order to

naturally contain the vegetation. (Polman 1987). Eventually grazers were introduced

beginning with 20 Konik horses and 32 Heck cattle and the 44 Red Deer. These were picked

on the basis of characteristics that would be as close to the extinct wild fauna that once

25

roamed these landscapes as possible (Vera 2009; Tree 2018). After the transference of

control to Staatsbosbeheer in 1996, water management has been continued in order to keep

the landscape attractive for the rare birds. In 2006 the ICMO (see 4.2.1 and 4.3.1) advised

more shelter to the animals and cull those in bad conditions (Berendse 2011). This is an

important consideration in the public debate (see chapter 4 and 5)

Many rewilding projects consider the introduction of predators (Tree 2018) to fulfil a self-

sustaining system. While this often raises debates, especially with regards to visitors,

predators itself have never truly been considered as an essential part of the

Oostvaardersplassen. The debate comes up occasionally, but due to the small size of the

Oostvaardersplassen, very few consider predators a valid solution to the growing herds of

grazers or a viable addition to the ecosystem. While foxes have reached the area

independently, introduction of large predators independently seems unlikely. With the plans

to create a larger connected natural area of which the Oostvaardersplassen is a part, this may

become part of the future debate. Certain predators may migrate naturally when they will

have access in the future (Vera, 2008: 46–47). Currently the Oostvaardersplassen is part of a

new natural area. Since 2018 it is part of Nationaal Park Nieuw Land (national park new

land), a new initiative to create more connected protected areas. Together with the

Markermeer lake (west), the Lepelaarplassen and the Marker wadden, the

Oostvaardersplassen forms this new area. In the future, this will shape management in the

Oostvaardersplassen as well.

3.4. Discussion

Rewilding is an upcoming concept and perhaps even theory or approach to nature in the 21st

century. It is also a concept discussed with regards to the Oostvaardersplassen. Rewilding

relates closely to the concept of what nature is and what it means. The word itself should not

be too hard to define initially; Restoring or bring back again the wild. However, as

Jorgensen (2015) explains, this definition raises many other questions regarding the

definition of wild or natural (482). In his article, Jorgensen writes that scientists have

adopted the term, but use it in different ways, just like the term wilderness is used differently

(483–484). What is especially interesting however, and relevant to the topic of the

Oostvaardersplassen and the documents analysed, is the public interpretation of the concept

rewilding. Jorgensen writes that the introduction of the term rewilding in the popular sphere

means the definition of the concept has become more inclusive and vaguer. Depending on

the user, rewilding may include different factors of the academic concept, such as

(re)introduction of animal species, less building on land or returning to an earlier stage of

history. (485–486). Additionally, Jorgensen discussed the ‘’appeal’’ and ‘’imagination’’

(486) of the concept of rewilding to the public. This links closely to the attachment of

emotion and value to a concept as discussed above. As will become clear in chapters 4 and

5, this vague interpretation of a concept such as wild or nature leads to different

interpretations of what an area such as the Oostvaardersplassen should look like and what

interventions should follow.

Rewilding is perhaps not the best word to use in the context of the Oostvaardersplassen. The

Oostvaardersplassen was not ‘’given back to nature’’ after intensive human activity. It was

created by humans in the first place. I do however believe rewilding fits the overarching

concept of the Oostvaardersplassen since it is in essence a project of leaving nature alone as

“naturally” as possible, the discussion is largely about what defines “naturally”.

Additionally, the process of rewilding by which the landscape is being altered to form a

26

natural space mostly free from humans is applicable to the Oostvaardersplassen. The goal at

the start was definitely not wilding or rewilding, or otherwise put ‘’creating a natural

space’’. The area that is now the Oostvaardersplassen was destined to become land for

agriculture or industry. The process by which they started improving the land (sowing reeds

for example), was very natural in the sense that it was created by natural means, but human

in action. When the Oostvaardersplassen was named a temporary reserve, I do not believe

we can see that as rewilding yet, as the purpose and end goal there is a future where the land

will not be used for human means (most importantly). However, when classified as an

official natural reserve and when people started developing the land differently in order to

protect but also increase biodiversity, the goal became rewilding.

27

4. The harsh winters of 2005 and 2010

How does the Oostvaarderplassen show us the conflicted understandings of nature as wilderness?

The debate regarding the management of the Oostvaardersplassen was perhaps epitomised

by the winter of early 2005. The public, experts and politicians alike had opinions on what

the Oostvaardersplassen should look like before 2005, but not on a scale and level of

intensity as since 2005. In this chapter I aim to discuss first the winter of 2005 and then the

winter of 2010. Because the debate and arguments are very similar I have decided to discuss

the winters here by comparison. This will also allow for a chronological comparison for

sources on both winters.

By 2005, the Oostvaardersplassen was well established as a wilderness area, attracting many

endangered birds5. In addition, the area was fulfilling its experimental role by allowing

managers to study the different habitats, how the grazers affect the environment and

allowing for the study and enjoyment of a specific kind of nature area in the Netherlands

unlike any other. Grazers were introduced in the area in 1992 and the Oostvaardersplassen

was also a recreational area for locals and others visitors. As the herds of grazers in the area

kept growing, so did the Oostvaardersplassen’s popularity and its visitor numbers. This

meant that during the harsh winter of 2004/2005 and the winter of 2009/2010, the life and

death cycle of these grazers became visible to more people, including the media. As a result

of the winter conditions (see 4.2 and 4.3) the grazers would die of starvation, leading to a

public debate where questions were asked about the morality of having grazers in the

Oostvaardersplassen project, the number of animals the area could sustain, whether

managers were allowed to let animals die of starvation and whether the future requires a

change in the policy of non-intervention for another management. Such a management

change would however challenge the basic philosophy of Oostvaardersplassen – to keep

intervention at minimum. Pictures of starving animals were broadcasted in the media, the

public formed opinions voiced on social media, and the politicians needed to take a stand in

the debate. The government asked experts to research the issue and some researchers offered

their opinions individually as well. The debate centred around animal welfare, but also on

the role of the Oostvaardersplassen in general. In addition, the debate became a discussion

on what wilderness and management actually means and to what degree one should

intervene in nature and how to view animal suffering in a nature reserve. The grazers and the

concept of nature caused many emotions and a lot of engagement, many actors were to be

involved in the debate thus it became an issue not only for experts, but also for politicians,

the media and the public. In this chapter I will discuss these two winters, that were harsher

and colder than average and look at documents from the different actors. I will study what

nature and management means to these actors, what type of interventions they advise, what

they see the role of the Oostvaardersplassen as, and how they discuss the harsh winters. The

5 See for details on which birds for example section 3.2 or the Natura 2000 data form for the Oostvaardersplassen: https://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/Natura2000/SDF.aspx?site=NL9802054

28

results of this debate these winters remained in people’s minds and form the basis for the

further debate on culling and the future of the Oostvaardersplassen.

4.1 The debate

The transition of the Oostvaardersplassen to a protected area, the decisions on shaping the

land and the introduction of different species of animals have all been discussed in (social)

media and in the political field over time. Biologists and ecologists, but also the local

government have had their say in what happened to the Oostvaardersplassen. However, at

the start of the century, the debate surrounding the Oostvaardersplassen had moved to a

much bigger social and public scene. As an experiment and first of its kind area, this is

logical. Experts and politicians worked together (see chapter 3.2) to create a feasible

protected area, which would remain an important ecological site. Local residents and visitors

would in many cases have a say, which through the local government would reach the

discussion table. Dutch news websites talk about the Oostvaardersplassen often,

international news websites often use strong negative terms: NBC mentions the ‘’slaughter

of wild animals’’ (Givetash, 2018), while German newspaper Deutsche Welle mentions ‘’the

Dutch outrage’’ (Osterath, 2018) and the Guardian calls the Oostvaardersplassen ‘’a

controversial … park’’ (Henley, 2018). Reasons for the strong emotions of course include

the easy access to news and the growth of information through social media but beyond that,

we should pause and ask what changed in the Oostvaardersplassen to engage so many

people in a discussion that became so very emotional? The start seems to be around 2005

and debates centres, from the start of the 21st century, mostly on the large grazers in the area

and the mortality rates among them.

4.2. The winter of 2005

The winter of 2005 seems to be a tipping point where knowledge and outrage over the

Oostvaardersplassen became bigger. As visible in the table below, mortality rates in this year

increase significantly.

Table 2. Mortality numbers grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen. Council for animal affairs via Staatsbosbeheer (2005)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Red Deer 2 2 3 2 5 4 4 2 9 8 22

Konick Horse 1 6 4 4 5 5 6 8 10 14 14

Heck Cattle 4 7 6 9 20 7 20 13 26 7 34

This higher mortality rate in 2005 was due to an additional cold period in March of that year,

with a period of relatively extreme cold and snow (Raad voor Dierenaangelegenheden and

de Raad voor het Landelijk Gebied 2005: 2). A debate in the Tweede Kamer occurred in

response to the relatively high mortality of the grazers and the Oostvaardersplassen became

entrenched in the public debate. In actual fact, the mortality rate the 2005 winter was not

extremely high compared to previous years (ICMO 2006) but in 2005 the number of dead

animals did cause a stir. Because of this stir, advices were written and plans were made to

29

find an approach that would be acceptable to both the wilderness experiment and the social

view.

Sources from 2005 are not as readily available as expected. With this harsh winter being the

start of the public debate, it seems likely that news articles or public outrage sparked the

debate. However, it seems that the current debate on grazers and the Oostvaardersplassen in

general does not refer back to this first harsh winter in 2005 as much publically. The first

winter therefore seems to have remained mostly an expert and governmental issue, with

some emotional responses from animal welfare interest organisations that experts responded

to in the ICMO reports, in which the ICMO authors iterate the need for a larger focus on

animal welfare in order have the backing of the Dutch public (ICMO 2006: 7). Interest

groups are not yet formed and the media does not report on the Oostvaardersplassen as

extensively as in later debates. The fact that little is available except expert reports is an

indication that the debate was not yet as widespread and intense in 2005 as it become later.

Journal articles exist before 2005, but they mainly concern the ecology of the area or discuss

scientific birds or landscapes. From then on however, articles start including the political and

social side of the debate.

To analyse all actors more clearly, I will therefore compare the 2004–2005 winter with the winter of 2010. In 2020 we may see a resurgence of many of the issues of the winter of 2004/2005, but it is in 2010 that the issue becomes a much more publicized issue in the media and the social media. I will first compare two expert reports in 2005. One report is by the International Committee on the Management of large herbivores in the Oostvaardersplassen (ICMO) and the other by the Council for animal affairs (RDA). This will allow for the expert actor to be seen from two sides and also from a moment in time when the debate had not yet reached the publicity it would in later years. Both experts do refer to the public at certain points, which gives a quick overview of that side of the debate. Though the reports differ a bit when it comes to levels of intervention, they have many similarities as well. I will look and see if the expert reports differ with the issue being more publicized in 2010. I will then compare these reports to non-expert and other actors to analyse the different positions each of the actors take in the debate.

4.2.1 The ICMO report - 2005

The ICMO (International Committee on the Management of large herbivores in the

Oostvaardersplassen) was an organization set up expressly to evaluate the status of the

Oostvaardersplassen and especially the large grazers. It is an organization of experts who

advice the Dutch government. Overall their responsibility is to analyse the management of

the Oostvaardersplassen and answer three specific questions from the ministry.

The ICMO is set up by the ministry of Agriculture, Nature & Food Quality, after the

ministry had been given contrasting advice on the management of the grazes in the

Oostvaardersplassen from experts and committees6. The authors of the ICMO report are a

group of international experts7 in different fields and reported on the status of animal welfare

and starvation and in the report, these experts answer a number of questions posed by the

ministry. As requested by the ministry, the hope was that the ICMO experts would offer a

concluding advice that would help the government adapt a management policy for the

Oostvaardersplassen. The report is written in English.

6 The Raad voor Dieraangelegenheden [RDA Council for animal affairs] and the Raad voor het Landelijk gebied [RLG Council for rural affairs] could not agree on an advice, after which the ICMO was compiled. See also the analysis of the RDA report (4.2.2) 7 See ICMO 2006 p5 for a detailed list of the experts from the Netherlands (one) and abroad (seven) and the independent secretariat (two).

30

The ICMO states explicitly that it ‘’supports the principle that populations of herbivores in

the OVP should be treated as wild animals as far as is possible, and that human intervention

should be minimized’’(p. 7)8. The ICMO report also explain the non-intervention policies as

follows: ‘’ No intervention: a minimum management strategy where herbivore populations

are allowed to self-regulate and animals are neither killed nor removed whatever their body

condition’’(p. 8). While the authors of the report mention ‘wild animals’ multiple times and

advocate for little or mostly reactive interventions, the ICMO does not give a detailed

explanation of what is wild to them other than their explanation of no intervention which

translates to a minimum of management. In their conclusions, their advice to the ministry is

as follows: ‘’ICMO concludes that it is possible to maintain a resilient self-sustaining

ecosystem within the present boundaries of the Oostvaardersplassen. ‘’ (p. 15) Though the

emphasis here is on self-sustaining it seems clear from the formulation of their answer that

the authors of the report do assume that some intervention will be necessary. The ICMO do

not make a mention to acknowledge a nature or ’true wilderness’ of any kind in their report.

The authors are far more practical and consider people or managers of nature to always be

involved, thus the rationale or romantic idea of an untouched nature is not referred to at all.

The ICMO report does not explicitly state a difference between people-managed nature or

untouched wilderness, but the authors seem to almost presume a degree of management, as

if it is obvious that people are part of the story. When the ICMO authors mention the ‘’self-

sustaining ecosystem’’ (p. 16) they continue explaining the boundaries of the park and the

opportunities that should be there for shelter for grazers. These shelters should be natural

areas, for instance forested areas, but the experts stress that managers need to create

opportunity for the animals to go to these shelters or even create these areas themselves. It

seems therefore that even when the ICMO refers to a natural, less influenced ecosystem, the

authors still see managers as an integral part of that. An example of the lack of natural or

untouched wilderness is given in the report when the authors refer to predation. A proactive

policy would include culling animals as ‘’simulating the impact of natural predation’’ (p. 8),

however, the authors do not believe the current state to be a predator model (p. 7). With

increased scientific research, which the authors advice later in the document, simulating

predation can add ‘’missing ecological components’’ (p. 14).

The ICMO continues to write about intervention and stress that the authors see intervention

as important, particularly in respect of animal welfare. ICMO writes that animal welfare

must be considered also if that means intervening more than the authors would normally

approve of. The authors of the text especially refer to animal welfare in regards to the Dutch

public. In order to gain sympathy and support for the Oostvaardersplassen, the government

needs to pay attention to how people feel about it according to the ICMO and this is closely

related to the issue of animal welfare. The authors refer to the public only in relation to their

concerns over animal welfare: ’’ [the ICMO] accepts that the management of large

herbivores must meet animal welfare criteria acceptable to the Dutch people.’’ (p. 7). The

committee members themselves do not offer an opinion or analysis on this, but rather give

the general advice to keep animal welfare and the public concern in mind. The authors’

arguments for culling are based partly on the need for public support. Even though the

authors show that mortality rates in the Oostvaardersplassen are not out of the ordinary, in

the report the writers still refer to the concept of animal welfare when it comes to culling

unhealthy animals early. The ICMO ends up recommending culling of animals saying ‘’A

8 All quotes, unless otherwise specified come from the ICMO report: Reconciling nature and human interests. 2006, which can be downloaded via https://www.staatsbosbeheer.nl/over-staatsbosbeheer/dossiers/oostvaardersplassen-beheer/links-en-downloads under ‘’Beleid’’.

31

management policy that fulfils an acceptable standard of animal welfare would need to

include the culling or removal of animals while they are still standing’’ (p. 9)

Communication to the public is pinpointed as a key concern and the report concludes with

the statement: ‘’ICMO considers that improved communication is needed to inform the

public about the management strategy and the rationale underlying it. Large herbivore

management should be set in the context of current understanding of population dynamics in

other wild animals.’’ (p. 13) This quote indicates that the ICMO realizes the public does not

know much about the Oostvaardersplassen as a whole and the grazers in particular and needs

information more clearly, so that the people can accept the way wilderness is defined in the

Oostvaardersplassen. The ICMO concludes with a number of advices and interventions, in

which we can see their perspective on wilderness and intervention even more clearly. The

authors recommend reactive culling, increased opportunities for shelter, and more

communication, in addition to improving the management strategy with clearer defined

goals. The authors of the report see wilderness as something that can be managed and does

not exist on its own, but in the case of the Oostvaardersplassen light intervention is

preferred. For example, the often-mentioned idea of contraception is dismissed: ‘’Effective

prophylactic feeding would represent a significant intervention in the dynamics of the

system and would lead to continued growth in herbivore populations which would conflict

with nature conservation objectives for OVP.’’(p. 12). The ICMO ends their resulting

concluding advice as follows: ‘(ICMO) accepts that a reactivepolicy has some advantages

and believes that this strategy most closely accords with public opinion ‘’ (p. 10) once again

summarizing their preference for a policy which is low on intervention but high enough to

carry public opinion.

4.2.2. The RDA report - 2005

The Raad voor Dieraangelegenheden (RDA, Council for animal affairs) also produced a

report regarding the harsh winter in 2004/2005 but the report was only published in 2008. At

that time the ICMO report was already published and is therefore commented upon in the

RDA report. The RDA council is a council of Dutch experts9, such as professors, vets or

managers from animal centres, who since 1993 have advised the government on a wide

range of animal affairs, whether these animals are wild, kept, testing animals or pets. (RDA,

2020). In 2005, the government asked for advice regarding grazers in the

Oostvaardersplassen, where the RDA and another council, the council for rural affairs (Raad

voor het Landelijk Gebied) collaborated on. The draft version of the advice was discussed in

a meeting amongst the Council for Animal Affairs on June 28, 2005 and subsequently

rejected (p. 6)10. The members of the council disagreed with the resulting collaboration

report, as the welfare of the grazers was not discussed extensively enough. The RDA

members than created their own advice, which was published in August 2005.

The RDA experts agree with much of what is said in the ICMO report and agree with their

experts on many points. However, the RDA authors do differ in opinion in quite some ways

as shown below. This divergence is interesting since both councils report on grazers and

consist of experts. Similarly, to the ICMO, the RDA do not expand clearly on what nature is

to them and the authors take for granted that a form of management is always there. The

RDA experts make an interesting distinction and refer back to previous statements from the

9 See page 2 of Raad voor Dieraangelegenheden (2005) or https://www.rda.nl/over-ons/raadsleden for more details on the experts. 10 All quotes, unless otherwise specified, come from the Raad voor Dieraangelegenheden report (2005), which can be found via https://www.rda.nl/publicaties/zienswijzen/2005/09/06/wintersterfte-2004-2005-van-grote-grazers-in-de-oostvaardersplassen. As the original report is in Dutch, any direct quotes are translated by me.

32

government when the concept of ’’kept animals’’ (p. 6) is discussed The writers determine

the animals in the Oostvaardersplassen are to be considered as ’’kept animals’’ and thus

managed under the same rules and laws following the statement by the ministry in 1996 (p.

6–7). Importantly the RDA agrees with this definition of the animals as being kept.

However, this reflects a shift in definition as since 2000, the grazers were then seen by the

ministry as ‘non-kept animals’, literally translated from ’niet-gehouden dieren’ (p. 6–7). The

2000 definition does not necessarily mean that the animals are seen as ‘wild’ or ‘free’ as it

still directs that people have the responsibility to avoid unnecessary suffering for these

animals or harm their health, but it is now specified in the RDA 2008 report as a mostly

legal distinction. The RDA does not expand upon natural vs non-natural definitions but

rather explains that the new ‘kept animal’ definition means that several laws regarding

animal welfare come in to play. Regardless of whether animals are wild or non-kept we are

forbidden to without reasonable purpose harm animals as the report points out. However, if

animals are defined as “kept”, according to the Dutch legislation by law it is forbidden to

leave animals to their suffering and people are required to provide them with proper care (p.

6–7). This would also include culling animals that are dying, in order to keep them from

suffering.

The RDA also does not specify levels or degrees of intervention that the authors prefer to

see. The authors do not consider interventions in relation to the Oostvaardersplassen’s

purpose and the do not really discuss the overall aim of the area. The RDA however does

acknowledge the Oostvaardersplassen experimental status and refer to it. However the

authors of the report stress that they do not believe that that should offer the place more

freedom from the rules than other areas: ‘’this law [on kept animals] applies to the

Oostvaardersplassen as well’’(p. 7). Another protected natural region, the Veluwe11 is

referred to as a comparison, seemingly to prove that what happens there (preventative action

to prevent suffering), should apply in the Oostvaardersplassen as well. In this, the RDA

report differs in opinion from the ICMO report. In 2008, when the RDA writes the report,

the authors allow for the fact that Oostvaardersplassen was started as an experiment but

opinion that there is no clear end goal with Oostvaardersplassen and no acceptable testing

and evaluation results exist at the moment. Therefore, it is recommended that no new

projects resembling the Oostvaardersplassen or wilderness projects in general should be

started. From the RDA report, it seems the authors disagree with the Oostvaardersplassen

and its experimental philosophy. For example, they strongly advice against any new

experiments such as the Oostvaardersplassen: ‘’The council is of the opinion that no new

comparable experiments with grazers should be started’’ (p. 8). The Oostvaardersplassen

does not, according to the RDA, offer much information in terms of analysis regarding

ecological knowledge, especially when the suffering of animals is the result: ‘’the goals […]

have not been formulated and data […] has been collected in insufficient amount.’’ (p. 8)

The RDA focuses (naturally) on the grazers and their welfare. The authors do however,

acknowledge the birds in the Oostvaardersplassen and the function the grazers have to

maintain the areas in such a way that the birds can thrive twice. The most explicit one is as

follows: ‘’another option is to research whether the primary goal of the introduction of the

grazers, namely the maintenance of grassy areas for birds, could be reached with one species

of grazer’’ (p. 10). No mention is made of the Oostvaardersplassen being a protected area

for purpose of these birds and reading through the document makes it easy to overlook that

the function of the Oostvaardersplassen is not primarily or most of all for the grazers.

11 A large protected natural area in the Netherlands. Incorporating both natural spaces only, but also includes villages, roads and campsites. See also paragraph 5.1 for more details

33

The authors maintain that taking good care of the grazers will serve to maintain the area and

also best fulfil the objectives of the area. The RDA report offers a number of solutions, but

are positive of the predator model, which is an interesting model to look at in the perspective

of wilderness. The model would mean culling animals all year around in an imitation of

predators. The ICMO, as seen above, does not consider current culling practices to simulate

predation, but seem to be in favour of a better predator model as well.12 The RDA offers an

improved predator model, where healthy but also mostly unhealthy animals would be shot,

in a way that would not disturb relations between the animal groups and their social

hierarchies. The authors do not offer this model in the perspective of it resembling a wild or

natural way, but rather see this form of management as a good way to maintain population

control and to let the grazers “do their own thing” because that works best. In order to do so

however, the animals would need to be marked or chipped, which would mean a large

intervention, but the RDA authors do not expand upon this being fairly drastic in effects,

although it is unclear why. Alternatively, the RDA wants to investigate the matter of only

having one type of animal, especially the deer whose meat could be eaten, and could fulfil

the role of other grazers. In another intervention proposed the writers of the report also differ

clearly with the ICMO. The council sees contraceptive methods as something that could

work or at least needs more investigation, while the ICMO considers this far too invasive.

Similar methods to the ICMO the RDA discusses however are the introduction of extra areas

for the grazers. The writers propose extra feedings in emergency cases, even though it will

disturb relations between the animals. (p. 9–12)

The RDA report contains much less discussion than the ICMO report about the philosophy

of intervention and the role of intervention in a wilderness space. The report does not refer to

wilderness at all and when the council discusses management in a more overarching

concept, the authors only refer to this concept four times, using the word ‘beheer’

(management) in total 12 times. Meanwhile, the ICMO report uses the term management 45

times is as many pages as the RDA and at those times also dives into what that management

should mean. Their priority is on animal welfare and workable methods of maintaining

animal welfare, it is a different focus than the ICMO. In their final paragraph, the writers

refer to a natural management that has been chosen for the Oostvaardersplassen but also

explain that the RDA sees that the management has failed and the reaching power of the area

has become too small. All of the RDA paragraphs have the grazers as most important factor,

while the ICMO report, even though the ICMO authors consider the questions from the

ministry about grazers, have at least five sections in which the writers do not discuss grazers

at all or mention them only in passing.

4.3 The 2010 winter

Interestingly, and as discussed above, the winter of 2004/2005 did not cause as much of a

stir amongst the public and media. Through the short but extreme cold period and the

estimation that nearly 700 of the 3100 animals died these events did not result in much

attention from media and news websites have little articles before 2010. In 2010 however,

another cold winter appeared. Not extreme in temperature, but with much more snowfall

than the years before, the topic then gets extensively revisited (Hazeleger and Geurts 2019).

Most likely, the fact that the winter of 2010 sees a repeat incident of issues mentioned in

earlier studies, puts it in the spotlight and indicates that the first harsh winter in 2005 was not

an isolated incident, it could and did happen again.

12 No large predators live in the Oostvaardersplassen, see 3.4 for more discussion on this.

34

Once again, the topic of emaciated and starving grazers becomes part of the discussion in the

Tweede Kamer, with one politician claiming every freezing period meant a renewed start of

the same discussion (Tweede Kamer 2010: 4563). The debate on the questions of the size of

the herd of animals and the existence of the Oostvaardersplassen was indeed not new.

However, the debate was strengthened in 2010 by the media. In the news, videos and

pictures of dying and emaciated animals were used often to bring up the topic of the

Oostvaardersplassen. The mortality rates in 2010 were around 40%, as opposed to the

previous average of 30% (NOS 2010). Veen (2010), a correspondent for the Dutch public

news explains how media went to the Oostvaardersplassen, pictured many dying animals,

and even framed a deer dying on camera. Shots that were then used in De Wereld Draait

Door, a popular talk show, where the discussion was mentioned. Different opinions existed,

but she explains well how talk shows, news and radio shows and newspapers used these

often quite shocking images to use people’s emotional involvement.

Because of the attention for the starving animals, the parliament debated and the involved

institutions responded. This year is an example of the public opinion being strong enough to

force attention. The pictures could be shown in seconds, the discussion could be started in

minutes, and there was little time to discuss the facts rationally, fairly or extensively in any

place. Numbers were debated (Tweede Kamer 2010), since counting dying animals is hard

in an area that is supposed to be left alone as much as possible. The fuss and debates meant

the discussion about the Oostvaardersplassen could not became very rational or academic in

its discussion13. Breeveld (2011), an employee of Staatsbosbeheer who as a forester works in

the Oostvaardersplassen and speaks to the media, comments in his blog how misleading

articles but especially headlines can be. He explains that the title of a news article ‘’No

mercy, record culling in the Oostvaardersplassen’’ does not mean more animals in the

Oostvaardersplassen die, simply that the percentages of animals who die through culling

instead of starvation are higher. He states how hard it is to get details retracted or gain

attention for the more nuanced story.

Below I will analyse the new ICMO report written in 2010 for the expert actor. In addition,

the Tweede Kamer debate will be analysed for a representation of how the matter was

debated between the public and politicians. I will then analyse the minister’s comments to

the public debate in the Tweede Kamer on the grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen. In

addition, I will look at 2010 news articles. These news articles often use reports like the ones

from the ICMO to report on the happenings in the Oostvaardersplassen.

13 See for example the analysis of the 2010 political debate in chapter 5.1

35

Figure 6. An image of dead animals in the Oostvaardersplassen (n.d. oostvaardersplassen-sterfte, 2018). This image is taken from a website that collects photographs of dying animals in the Oostvaardersplassen, free to view and use.

4.3.1 ICMO2 – 2010

A new ICMO report is created by request of the minister and the Tweede Kamer in

November 2010, as a response to the harsh winter earlier that year. The ICMO begins by

analysing the previous 2005 report and describe what measures were taken in relation to the

recommendations of the previous report. ICMO experts again answer new questions posed

by the minister. In cases where similar ideas are expressed as in the 2005 report I will not

expand on them too much here, but especially focus on the ones where they differ or are

more explicit in answering the questions posed by the minister or research findings, I will

expand on.

In this report, the ICMO2, starts of immediately addressing the problem of whether we can

define the Oostvaardersplassen as a natural ecosystem or not. ICMO determine that while

the Oostvaardersplassen and the environment is created by people, the processes taking

place do outside the control of people and therefore it can be seen as natural. It is explain

that: ”while the initial stages and some of the current boundary conditions are man-made or

managed, most of the internal processes occur spontaneously, and are relatively complete,

and hence can be considered as naturally functioning.’’(p. 6)14. This naturally functioning

state does however mean there might be a moral problem arising between the naturally

functioning state and animal welfare, as the experts write on p. 7. The authors go on to

define the grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen to be neither wild nor domesticated, but in

between. It is explained that they are wild because they are able to display almost all natural

behaviours but at the same time they are comparable in health and welfare to other areas (p.

28). Because of the management of the Oostvaardersplassen however, there is a duty to

minimize unnecessary suffering, which seems formulated to respond to the RDA report’s

explanation of kept vs non-kept animals. Another interesting way they determine the role of

14 All quotes, unless otherwise specified come from the ICMO2 report: Natural processes, animal welfare, moral aspects and management of the Oostvaardersplassen. 2010, which can be downloaded via https://www.staatsbosbeheer.nl/over-staatsbosbeheer/dossiers/oostvaardersplassen-beheer/links-en-downloads under ‘’Beleid’’.

36

nature is ‘’the large herbivore species, albeit artificially introduced, over time were

increasingly considered a component of the ecosystem instead of being understood purely as

a nature management resource’’ (p. 11). The line between what is natural and what is

management is not decided, it can change over time too. When the authors compare the

grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen with other areas, the bracket the ‘naturally’ managed

between quote marks.

The grazers however are an important part of the Oostvaardersplassen now and are

considered mostly natural and offer a moral dilemma. The ICMO still believes in little

intervention: ‘’human intervention in the system should be minimal wherever possible’’ (p.

16), but because of the moral issues regarding for example animal welfare, intervention is

necessary to do so sometimes. Their advice for intervention in this report therefore also

extends to other factors, such as hydrological management in order to keep the environment

right for the birds that are dependent on the Oostvaardersplassen. Opposed to the previous

report, the first ICMO report, the authors change the most advisable intervention method not

to be reactive in aftermath, but to be early – reactive management. Much more than before,

they use words like moral and ethical to determine what the Oostvaardersplassen needs.

What the ICMO authors consider the Oostvaardersplassen to be is however not very

different from their previous report, just more expanded upon. The Oostvaardersplassen is

an experiment, but also very much a natural area protected under Natura 2000 legislation

and a place where an ecosystem for rare birds is created. The large grazers in the area were

an addition and now are part of it, but the authors are quite clear in that the original purpose

of the Oostvaardersplassen is not for the grazers. The authors explain a bit more about the

Oostvaardersplassen as experiment when they state ‘’ the emphasis is on the unexpected and

spontaneous developments and arrival of new species [of birds] without much interference…

non-intervention forms and important part of the underlying philosophy of the OVP are.’’ (p.

17). With the main purpose being the protected area for birds and a low intervention policy,

ICMO2 shifts over these different purposes throughout the report, but explains clearly the

role of the Oostvaardersplassen as sanctuary for birds. The interventions the committee

advises are still mostly linked to adapting the natural area and not intervening in the animals

directly, for example creating more natural shelter opportunities (woody vegetation or

shrubs), creating more areas where the animals can go to in winter15, and improve the water

management (p. 34–35). Additionally, the ICMO experts strongly advise more

communication and interaction with other stakeholders in order to create a better platform,

in addition to PR experts (p. 35). The authors do not explicitly state the predator model as

culling method in this report but they refer to which animals need to be culled as

representative of predators would pick. (p. 65) The experts also realize certain interventions

might be better but in order to gain support from the public, very expensive ones are not

considered a valid option. The moral issue the authors refer to, only refers to the grazers, not

the birds or the ecosystem or other smaller animals in the Oostvaardersplassen.

The role of the Oostvaardersplassen as a whole is considered in the 2010 report as follows:

‘’ ICMO2 considers the existence of an area as the Oostvaardersplassen in itself to be of

high value for society from an educational, recreational and as well nature conservational

point of view. ‘’ (p. 50). The authors hereby explicitly state the value of the

Oostvaardersplassen, most likely in preparation for the public debate regarding their report.

The reference to education and recreation comes forward in the 2006 report as well, but in

15 In 2010 and 2011 in planning and executive stages, but eventually held back due to costs and protests from the local population (source)

37

2010 it is more clearly and explicitly stated that the Oostvaardersplassen is, according to the

authors, of high value in general as an area as a whole.

The authors therefore do not differ much from their earlier opinion in 2006 but offer more

focus on the ethical considerations for large grazers, probably because their most important

recommendations had not been followed previously. The committee also seems to much

more clearly express issues such a natural, wild, intervention, role of experimentation, birds

etc. This seems logical since the public and politicians become far more interested in the

issue. While still very much as expert factual report, it has a lot more background and

explanation for interested (educated) people beyond the ministry alone. This is seen back in

the debate below, where it is clear that the politicians repeat a lot of the statements made in

this report (although sometimes twisted in their own words).

4.3.2 The Tweede Kamer debate 2010

The debate around the starving grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen was very visible in the

news in 2010 and caused many responses from the public. Because earlier reports and

debates (from 2005 and afterwards) had discussed the issue, the response from the public in

2010 was strong. Therefore, what in Netherlands is called an ‘emergency debate’ was called

for in the Tweede Kamer, where representatives of the parties took a political position in the

issue. Debates are visible to everyone and emergency debates often reach the news. For the

elected politicians, it is a good way to represent the thoughts of their supporters and a way to

portray themselves and their position in any issue. Emergency debates are different than the

regular scheduled debates. These debates often come about because of happenings: A

social/political event/crises or media and public attention to a problem or media attention to

an event, as opposed to being a planned topic by the politicians or a reflection on laws or

decisions.

Interestingly, the Oostvaardersplassen issue is not separated politically along the classical

lines of left vs right or progressive vs conservative. I will therefore not refer to parties as

such and will not expand too on who says what, but have coded the speakers16 for a more

objective analysis of the general voice of politicians. There are nine speakers in total in the

debate, all representing a different party. Overall, the majority seems positive to natural

areas in general, but as common in Dutch public debates, the negative sides of the

Oostvaardersplassen are discussed most of all. More interesting is to represent the multiple

opinions from the politicians and see how they overlap and differ. This debate seems in

many ways a reflection of the Dutch citizens, not very strange since the parties represent the

Dutch population and these debates and news about it comes back through news articles,

showing the political standpoints to the Dutch people. The politicians therefore have to be

able to defend themselves and their words to their supporters. Without asking the whole

Dutch population, we therefore have a fairly clear overview of public opinion. At the end of

the debate, the minister replies to the Kamer, which offers a political perspective from the

government cabinet itself on the same issues touched upon by the Tweede Kamer.

Beginning with the concept of wilderness or nature, there is a clear difference between the

debate and the expert reports. The politicians more inclined to start off from a classic

definition of nature or wilderness. As we shall see when we come to the topic of

intervention, the speakers are clearly understanding that wilderness is not a true and separate

topic, but the speakers still use a more flowery language that alludes to a high degree to the

16 Every speaker is coded with a letter in order of appearance in the debate. A = Ormel (CDA), b = Ouwehand (PvdD), c = Snijder-Hazelhoff (VVD), d = Cramer (ChristenUnie), e = Dibi (GroenLinks), f = Polderman (SP), g = Waalkens (PvdA), h = Grauss (PVV), i = Van der Vlies (SGP).

38

picture of a ‘wild’ and untouched nature. Of course, their purpose is more to influence and

provide voters with a perspective than it is to provide facts. In general, the politicians much

more that the experts, use terms such as ’’beautiful nature area’’ (5612 d)17. Quotes from the

politicians refer often to the ‘beauty’ of nature or the ‘cruelty’ of it, or as speaker c puts it

‘’nature is harsher than we as western human would wish’’ (5602). Other politicians are use

similar sentences to speak of nature as a separate entity, both beautiful and cruel, such as

‘’nature is cruelly beautiful and death is part of nature and life’’ (5603 f) or ‘’we know little

nature in the Netherlands and for many members [of politics] this new nature takes some

getting used to. Animals die and starve sometimes in a harsh winter…. We need to accept

that nature can be cruelly beautiful.’’ (5610 e). The main questions in the debate regarding

nature and what it means or should mean according to the politicians seems to be lean more

towards: should we accept death and how much of it for the cost of having a simulated

nature or natural area?

However, in other moments, the same speakers would say ‘’the animals living in the wild

should as much as possible be left alone, so that natural processes can happen’’ (5607 b) and

also ‘’[in] an overpopulated country, [the Oostvaardersplassen] is a beautiful nature area that

we need to manage’’ (5598 a), almost automatically including humans again. The

perspective that management is involved does not detract from the fact that the politicians do

see or visualize a beautiful (although cruel) nature. Of course, not everyone agrees with this

reading of nature or Oostvaardersplassen. The outlying perspective, represented in the public

as well, is that the Oostvaardersplassen is not nature at all. One speaker states ‘’it is not a

natural area … it is a Tupperware area … the animals should have never gone there’’ (5606

h) and another also mentions the unattractiveness of the Oostvaardersplassen ‘’from the area

[the Oostvaardersplassen] that was once a beautiful nature area … there is nothingness and it

is a sad mess’’ (5601 c). This last quote is interesting because it reflects a wish for nature

one to be completely natural and also to be pretty or pleasing.

Members who speak of nature being natural and left alone earlier in the debate do not define

the Oostvaardersplassen as nature in some other parts of the debate: ‘’of course nature is

always disputable … no of course this is not nature, but we have agreed that we would let

this area regulate itself’’ (5603 f). In the end, the majority of politicians believes in a concept

of nature, where processes are self-regulating and humans can experience both the beauty

and the cruelty. At the same time, while the members consider the Oostvaardersplassen to be

nature in many ways, they also realize very well that is managed and sometimes even

explicitly state that it is not nature. Speakers contradict themselves here, as seen in the

following quotes: ‘’animals who live in the wild [the Oostvaardersplassen]’’ (5604 f) or

‘’beautiful, natural, Netherlands which remains so beautiful because we manage

it…otherwise [the animals] become out of control’’ (5600a). The distinction of nature and

management is not so clear for the participants in the debate either: ‘’is it nature when we

speak of a limited area with dikes on one side and cars race on the other side’’ (5603 a).

When it comes to intervention, the politicians use very explicit examples to stress a point.

The interventions they mention are ones that we would easily recognise as intervening.

Among the political parties, the sort of interventions and the degree of interventions differ.

However, there are certain similarities among the examples used. Some politicians are

careful about intervention, in stressing that it is not really the role of the politicians to

determine how to intervene: ‘’ ‘there needs to be decent management in the

Oostvaardersplassen is something we need to demand as Kamer…. But in what it needs to

look like we should be a bit restrained.’’ (5603 f). In general, there is a consensus among the

17 All quotes come from the Tweede Kamer debate 2010 available via https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/plenaire_vergaderingen/details?date=17-03-2010

39

politicians that the Oostvaardersplassen is a mostly natural area and any form of intervention

should keep this is mind, with speakers saying ‘’responsibility you have when you instate a

self-regulating natural area in netherlands’’ (5605 g) or ‘’we aim to … create circumstances

as natural as possible’’ (5609 b) ‘’it is our moral duty to restore nature again … we only

have 15% of original biodiversity left’’(5609 b). There seems to be a wish to let natural

processes happen as much as possible without intervening in these words.

Regarding specific interventions, the politicians do debate more about active vs reactive

policies and they generally name more invasive interventions than those named by the

experts as possibilities, such as for example contraception. Regarding the animals, most

politicians are willing to accept that there might be more interference, although some argue

that we should also accept things as they are: ‘’in nature animals die, but it doesn’t need to

happen the way it happens now [in the Oostvaardersplassen]’’ (5602 c). Those who advocate

in favour of grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen prefer helping the animals with feeding,

animal number regulation and increasing shelter and land. However, these politicians also

realize that not all interventions that help now are long term and lasting. In addition, there

were other issues linked to these interventions. Clearly, seeing as it is a political debate,

money is the biggest issue, as well as using land for nature instead of other purposes.

Speaker a for example explains that there is a balance between biodiversity on the one hand

and money on the other: ‘’The biodiversity is luckily a lot better than a few years ago. We

however do need to realize that when we take land from other purposes and use if for nature,

that costs a lot of money’’ (5600).

These wide range of commentaries, sometimes oppositional even within the same speech,

leave us with a fairly contradictory image of the Oostvaardersplassen when it comes to the

role of the nature reserve. While in general most politicians consider the

Oostvaardersplassen an important natural area, the suffering of animals and the sometimes

harsh realities leads them to promote a more active intervention system. On the one side,

there is the poisition that Oostvaardersplassen as an experiment. In the debate, the term

’experiment’ which in the original set up of the Oostvaardersplassen was seen as a positive

outcome of the project is used in a mostly negative way. The term ‘’animal-experiment’’ is

for example followed with the negative connotations that are called up in using this term.

Examples of expressions used are ‘’nature experiment … for which the animals pay the

price’’ (5601 c), ‘’experiment … got out of hand’’ (5599 a). The connotation of experiment

here is not a scientific experiment in order to gain knowledge and information, but is rather

used as a negative term to indicate that it is unclear what needs to be done or what the results

will be, that it might have negative consequences. Of course, some politicians do see the

Oostvaardersplassen as an experiment in a positive sense but then point out that they do not

see the result that they would have wished commenting the goal of the project or, the:

‘’essence of the experiment, namely the creation of a natural environment. It turns out that

the natural environment is not yet stabilizing’’(5609 d). This speaker is clear on the

experiment not reaching its potential yet. Similarly, speaker f believes the goals are not

reachable: ‘’robust zones and the whole ecological structure, structure is actually not

reachable’’ (5600). A more scientific background or analysis of what the experiment is

trying to achieve and how long the results might take is missing from the debate, perhaps

because this is due to the background of the politicians, and the complexity of ecological

results that even experts disagree with. Or the lack of discussion of outcomes and goals may

be simply the time constraints of the debate, as speakers are often called out on their time

limit. Very few speakers refer to the actual defined purposes of the area or other purposes

such as recreation. The proponents of the Oostvaardersplassen conclude the argument with

saying ‘’nothing is happening that we haven’t foreseen. We need to accept that this is part of

what we discussed.’’ (5611 e).

40

The debate itself is an emergency debate, since the topic of the dying or to many grazers has

by then received attention through the media. The politicians acknowledge the public has a

large say in the discussion, since they refer to the public extensively. Especially the media is

discussed, with speaker f explaining that media images leas to public emotion: ‘’if you put a

camera on that [suffering] the whole of the Netherlands is upset’’ (5604) or ‘’because of

television documentaries we once again have commotion’’ (5604). Speaker g indicates that

only a small portion of suffering is through media exacerbated: ‘’cameras are pointed at the

10% [of suffering animals] that we do find’’ (5606). Speaker b simply summarizes this

exacerbation: ‘’it becomes magnified by the media and some politicians’’ (5607).

‘’EenVandaag [a tv show] can next year show heart breaking images’’ (5610 e) is an

example of what all politicians believe; all of the politicians’ citations indicate that the

media is, if not responsible for the commotion, at least they magnify the debate. The

speakers all seem negative towards the media in general, but do not discuss ways to improve

the relations between the Oostvaardersplassen and media, such as for example the

communication advices given by the ICMO.

Though the politicians express criticism against media manipulating emotions the politicians

themselves do not refrain more the same forms of rhetoric. Emotional words are used a lot,

in addition to painting a picture and relating to feelings. Speaker d reflects on the emotions

stirred in the debate: ‘’emotional … when we talk about counting ribs and eating the bark

from the tree’’ (5602), while speaker b uses words such as powerless and tragic to convey

emotion: ‘’this is not just a personal drama for the animals, but also for the people who

watch powerless from the side lines. That is the tragic side of this project, primal nature is

not easy to explain in a civilized country.’’ (5607). Another example of the emotional tool

is the use of the word culling, referred to as for example a ‘’mercy shot’’. Speaker c uses this

term for example while painting an image: ‘’All pictures I’ve seen show animals that die…

not with a mercy shot released from suffering … they suffer too long’’ (5603 c). The

politicians also use many references to experts, especially the ICMO, although the

references are fairly simplified summaries of what experts recommend: ‘’The ICMO

research committee ICMO advised to cull suffering animals quicker’’ (5598 a). It is clear

that most members have read the same ICMO report and use that as expert reference, and it

does seem like this is the major source of their background. Interventions like the ‘predator

model’ is the extent that they use to back their statements with expert backed science, in

addition to ecological ideologies. In addition, the speakers refer to numbers when it comes to

mortality agreements, how many dying animals can they agreed to is a normal number. The

politicians do often refer to the number of young animals dying, which indicates that they

are either purposefully or not, making the debate more emotional. However, only rarely

occasionally correspond the numbers with averages from other years or try to put it in

perspective.

As this is a debate on the status and treatment of the large grazers, the grazers are also what

the politicians mostly focus on. However, the politicians seem to see the

Oostvaardersplassen as an area existing mostly for the grazers. Very few speakers bring up

the protected birds and the flora. Not until the end of the debate do the speakers discuss birds

and flora. The exception is the white-tailed eagle, which is discussed in reference to its

preference for dead animals.

4.3.3 The Minister (comments on the Tweede Kamer debate)

The minister in 2010 was minister Verburg of the CDA (Christian democrats) in charge of

the ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. She gets the chance to reply in this

same debate. In her response, there is a clear difference in purpose in comparison to the

41

debate, but the position of the minister also differs in definition and objectives of the

Oostvaardersplassen.

When it comes to what nature is, the minister is less contradictory than the other members in

the debate. She of course participates only at the end of the debate and therefore is less

expansive, but as a representative of the cabinet, her responses are significant for the policy

regarding the Oostvaardersplassen. There is a strong focus on the Oostvaardersplassen as

being a natural area. And natural being defined as showing natural behaviours, regulating

itself, and not needing people. ’the animals in this area maintain themselves. There are no

people who have the actual power over the animals … they have no owner, no keeper.’’

(5616). The minister also refers to national and international agreements on definitions

when she speaks about the grazers. As opposed to many of the other speakers, she

distinguishes between the more natural Oostvaardersplassen and the other natural areas in

the country: ‘’the Oostvaardersplassen you can’t compare to other places in our country’’

(5617), indicating its uniqueness.

While the minister refers to the beauty and cruelty of nature as do the other politicians, she

does not evoke these words to play on the emotions surrounding the Oostvaardersplassen as

the other politicians do. She does acknowledge the large role emotion plays: ‘’it shows that

nature is also emotion’’ (5615) and ‘’especially in animals we feel related to, such as these

beautiful mammals’’ (5615). While the acknowledgement that emotions are important in the

Oostvaardersplassen debate, she remains more factual herself. The minister uses facts more

and refers to the experts of the ICMO. ‘’ the management of the Oostvaardersplassen is

based on the advice of the ICMO’’ (5615). The minister speaks very little on what

intervention is and what exactly is done in the Oostvaardersplassen, only that it follows the

procedure that has been agreed upon. The proposed interventions like extra feeding, the

minister disapproves of on the grounds that: ‘’[no extra feedings] because this disturbs the

natural dynamics …. Disturbs the natural defence system against the cold’’ (5615). In this

sense she refers back to the objective of the Oostvaardersplassen to allow natural process to

operate

As opposed to the other speakers, the minister is thus more clear about what the

Oostvaardersplassen is to her and the ministry: ‘’the Oostvaardersplassen are a unique and

internationally appealing nature area in the Netherlands. It is one of the biggest consecutive

nature areas in western Europe …. It is an Natura 2000 area and it meets al the standards for

the Bird directive. It is therefore important for the shelter and spread of European level rare

birds’’ (5615). The function of bird protection area especially under European Natura 2000

goals is important, with the Oostvaardersplassen being an internationally recognized natural

area. In addition to this, she is also much clearer on the function the area plays in terms of

recreation for citizens. Visitors are very important to and the minister believes the public can

and should enjoy the Oostvaardersplassen: ‘’In this beautiful nature area people want to go

ice skating’’ (5622) and that recreation and nature conservation can mix: ‘’Social activities

and nature can go hand in hand very well’’ (5622).

The minister, like the others, dislikes the stir of emotions as provoked by the media and

public debate. In her view the negative reactions to Oostvaardersplassen has been evoked by

media: ‘’ This has to do with the reporting and picturing .. which shows starving and dying

animals. These are images that touch us … the picture shown is one-sided, the large majority

of animals is in decent condition and will survive the winter months.’’ (5615). The minister

indicates also the issue with the exacerbates of the debate through media.

42

4.4 News Reporting

News articles on the harsh winter of 2010 are found in abundance. While searching during

the period before 2010, only one of the search results on Google’s first page is a news

article, while in the time period of 2010, this becomes over half of search results. Some

articles are mostly factual and try to discuss the problem from an objective standpoint

meaning that they do not take a position in the question but rather describes the different

standpoints, while other papers are more sensational and/or polemic. Generally, newspapers

in the Netherlands tend to try to be objective rather than polemic. I have analysed some

different articles here in order to show multiple writers and representations of the problem.

Since these articles are shorter than the reports above and written for a different audience,

the analysis is less in depth possible, but we can still use the same research questions to

indicate the stance of these actors.

NRC 2010 papers

The NRC is a quality newspaper in the Netherlands, fairly liberal and aimed towards an

educated public. The articles online are shorter and mostly give information on specific

events. The articles I will be analysing below were written directly after the Tweede Kamer

debate in 2010 (a) and an article written the summer of 2010 in the NRC newspaper (b).

a)‘’Minder afschot dieren in Flevoland’’ [less culling animals in Flevoland}– 17 march 2010

(analysis of the debate in tweede kamer) – author unknown18. NRC

b)‘’De hertjes dartelen weer lustig rond’’ [the deer are frolicking around again] – 29 june

2010 by Arjen Schreuder. NRC

Both articles are published online and in the printed newspaper. In both articles the authors

are not explicit about the definitions regarding wilderness and management. The authors

refer to the wilderness of the Oostvaardersplassen when they describe the ‘’wild animals’’

there or state clearly; ‘’for wild nature you have to see the Oostvaardersplassen’’. However,

article B quotes a Staatsbosbeheer employee saying19: ‘’the foresters leave the animals alone

to let them live and die as naturally as possible. That is the circle of life’’. Schreuder does

not attempt to explain what ‘as naturally as possible’ may infer. In article A describing the

debate in the Tweede Kamer, quotes from disapproving members of political parties are

used a lot, showing that a many people these party members represent do not see the

Oostvaardersplassen as nature or wilderness. The author of article A quotes for example the

‘’experiment with animals’’ or the ‘’tupperware nature’’ from the Tweede Kamer debate.

The specific interventions mentioned in article A are the ones that are in the public debate,

namely the culling of animals and the possibility of extra feedings. The focus in both articles

is very narrowly limited to the grazers, no background is given on the Oostvaardersplassen,

the birds or the protected status. The role of the public, on the other hand, does come out

strongly. The articles speak of the visitors’ experience and what the public sees, but mostly

the article B speaks on the public debate. Schreuder calls the Oostvaardersplassen the ‘’most

controversial nature area in the Netherlands’’, and mentions that since it is summer: ‘’the

yearly discussion on the winter mortality rates has stopped’’, explaining the widely-spread

debate. After the decisions on culling made in the winter, the cadavers in the

Oostvaardersplassen are moved as to ‘’not unnecessarily confront the public with dead

animals’’. It is very clear that both articles consider the public debate and outrage an

important factor in the Oostvaardersplassen’s story.

18 In the online article without a writer mentioned at all, and in the newspaper ‘’one of our journalists’’. Potentially not named (unlike all the other article writers) due to the public debate and controversy. 19 See also appendix 2 for more details on SBB employees

43

The rhetoric tools in a news article are important, since newspapers want as many views as

possible. In both articles, we see this through use words that convey more emotion. The term

‘’mercy shot’’ for example, used in the debates, is used here as well. The articles both refer

to television images and the emotions this causes in people. Lots of numbers and

percentages are used in the article, to explain the culling in a more factual sense or to

perhaps indicate that the authors have used the proper research. A comparison interestingly

is made with the Veluwe20 and what happens to the wild animals there. No pictures are used

in the article A, perhaps because the NRC hopes to have the articles considered more factual

than emotional. Article B uses a picture of a fox in lush green, rather than any of the

controversial pictures. Frans Vera is mentioned as expert in article B extensively. Article B

also twist the perspective to take a more positive stance: ‘’almost three-quarter of the

animals survived the harsh winter’’ – [as opposed to writing the percentage of animals that

die]. In addition to the picture of lush green, article B especially is also very descriptive,

almost poetic, an example is the sentence: ‘’on an empty grass plain close together are a

swans neck, a ripped piece of deer fur, the remains of a goose and a deer hoof. ’’On the

Oostvaardersplassen as a whole however nothing is mentioned. Both articles seem to focus

strongly on the state of the grazers, the influence of the public and the controversy. While

the NRC seems factual, relying on experts and statistics, both articles do report the news

with emotional terms and a focus that differs from the Oostvaardersplassen as a whole.

In 2010, on January 19 (before the extensive debate in the Tweede Kamer and the reports

from the ICMO and others), the NRC published an interview with Frans Vera. A way to

look into Vera’s own words more extensively than his response in most articles, in this

article he is given the chance to formulate his responses more extensively than the usual

quick quote Vera is allowed to give in other articles. In the article ‘‘Zielig? Zo ver staan we

dus van de natuur af’’, author Arjen Schreuder interviews Frans Vera published in the NRC

online and on paper. c) ‘Zielig? Zo ver staan we dus van de natuur af’ [pathetic? That is how far removed from

nature we are] 19 January 2010 by Arjen Schreuder, an interview with Frans Vera. NRC

Not a very long interview, it still touches upon the most important questions that come up

2010 and seems to be altered only lightly for publication by the author of the article, Arjen

Schreuder. Vera speaks about the difference between managed animals and animals in the

Oostvaardersplassen, and seems to see the animals in the Oostvaardersplassen as mostly

wild: ‘’[the commissions] have established that the animals, as opposed to agriculture, live

in full freedom’’ and ‘’all young are born in spring, that is how it works with wild

animals.’’. Vera does acknowledge however that the Oostvaardersplassen is managed saying

that it is: ‘surrounded by a fence does not make the management artificial…. In the

Oostvaardersplassen everything is far more natural than in any other place in the

Netherlands.’’ Vera continues to explain how compared to other areas, Oostvaardersplassen

is relatively natural. Vera does not speak about interventions or policies specifically, but

does mention that extra feedings are bad and unhelpful and states that ‘’large number of

animals are bad for the quality of the rest of the nature’’. He does not speak on culling

specifically, but leaving that out seems to say he is in favour of the animals dying naturally.

Because of the questions and the topic, Vera’s focus is on the grazers, but he does refer to

the rest of the nature in the Oostvaardersplassen, as opposed to many other news articles. In

addition, Vera mentions the emotions of the public: ’that feeling of pity for animals in winter

shows how far removed from nature we are.’, like other articles and reports, but seems to be

more negative about the way these emotions influence the debate regarding the

Oostvaardersplassen.

20 See 5.1 for more details about the Veluwe and how it compares to the Oostvaardersplassen

44

RTL 2010

In the article ‘’Grazers the Oostvaardersplassen afschieten’’ written by unknown and

published on the news website RTLnieuws.nl, the author(s) write about the ICMO2 report

and the most important interventions attached. This is an article from the more popular news

page RTL, also a channel on tv. Many people read these articles through an app, and they

also have a well viewed news every day. No authors are mentioned in the online article, but

unlike with the first NRC article, this is common for the news articles on the website.

In this article, there is an interesting mix of discussing wilderness versus management: ‘’But

the Heck cattle, Konick horses and Red deer live in an interposition, so that they need care

for maintaining the right habitat and to limit suffering for individual animals. ‘’The authors

indicate here that while the animals are more wild than most, intervention is required to keep

them wild and healthy. RTL asks the animal protection organization (Dierenbescherming)

for a response in the article. The Animal Protection seems to prefer to letting the animals do

their own thing, but are at the same time a proponent of management: Dierenbescherming:

‘’we have always said that you should let nature have its way’’ …. But also: ‘’if 40% of the

animals does not make it anymore, then Staatsbosbeheer needs to intervene.’’ The many

headings in the article, with titles that require attention such as ‘’Morally unavoidable

situations’’ and ‘’Duality in Chamber [Tweede Kamer]’’ is an example of the more popular

way of writing on RTLnieuws.nl. With regards to intervention, the author touches upon the

big ones, anticonceptions and extra feedings. In this article, RTL does not talk about the role

of the public, and they do so very little in other articles as well, perhaps because they don’t

want to anger either side of the story. The quote ‘’the discussion about the grazers keeps the

Tweede kamer busy for years’’ shows that the authors are very well aware that there is a

debate going on, although the article writes about the political debate more than the public

debate.

Other articles are shorter on RTL and contain no more information or other focus, although

occasionally other interventions discussed that are discussed in a similar way.

Omroep Flevoland 2010

News articles are generally shorter and have to be more approachable when they discuss the

Oostvaardersplassen. The article ‘’Dieren the Oostvaardersplassen bijgevoerd’’ by an

anuknowed author (published 23 march 2010) from the Omroep Flevoland21 is a good

example of such a short article. With only 8 sentences, this article writes about the

intervention about which the Tweede Kamer voted to feed the animals. When the authors

discuss wilderness, they therefore do not use the words to explain this extensively. The

omroep Flevoland describes ‘’The end of the experiment the Oostvaardersplassen in which

nature can take its course seems closed…. Animals are allowed to get extra food.’’ This

quote seems to indicate a clear distinction between ‘wild nature’ and intervention, more than

in other documents and reports. Because of the length of the article, it seems likely the

authors do not see the need for a nuanced analysis, also something which not every reader

might want. The authors do not discuss much besides the grazers or report on the public or

the role of the Oostvaardersplassen.

21 Omroep Flevoland is the official news outlet from the province Flevoland. Through tv, radio and

45

4.5. Discussion

The 2005 and 2010 winters and consequential debates turned the fairly neutral discussion on

the Oostvaardersplassen into a much more loaded and on the nose issue. No longer just an

expert issue, the politicians and the public eye is very much focused on Oostvaardersplassen

and its management. The issues from these first winters still form the basis of nearly every

winter’s debate on the Oostvaardersplassen. The emotions that come into play and the

inclusions of the public due to the Tweede Kamer debate, leads to a marked difference in the

debate between the facts presented by the experts, and the feelings of the public regarding

the Oostvaardersplassen. Whenever the Oostvaardersplassen is brought up after these

winters, the debate is firmly established as centring on animal welfare and in a highly

polemic debate.

Clear in the debate on the animal welfare is how much the different actors influence each

other in shaping positions and concepts, and how management and policy also s affected in

turn. Through experts reports, ordered by the government, information comes through the

media to the public, who shape parts of the story themselves on social media. This opinion

through social media then comes back again to experts and the government when making

policy, or the Tweede Kamer when debating management.

46

5. The culling debate

The grazers and their suffering is what started a lot of the debate in the Oostvaardersplassen

and attracted attention. Questions on how to deal with this became widespread as we have

seen in the last chapter. In later years, the issue has become even more clearly divided and

now it relates to the concept of culling. The option of culling debate may seem like a middle

ground in the debate. On the one hand, proponents of a low intervention policy can use

culling as a way to simulate natural predation without intervening in a more disturbing way.

People who prefer more action regarding the grazers and other animals or oppose the

principle of the Oostvaardersplassen as an experiment can support the culling because it

seems a relatively painless way to minimize suffering. However, in analysing the debate, it

becomes clear quite quickly that this middle ground solution does not stop the (public)

debate on the Oostvaardersplassen at all. Perhaps because other additional solutions are

ignored or do not come to fruition22, or because images of suffering or starving animals are

still being publicised, or because a long-term solution has not been found yet, the debate

continues and seems to increase in its intensity. The debate know is even more emotional,

public involve themselves through protests and social media, meanwhile conventional

media, and experts and politicians weighing in, not just in the Netherlands but also

internationally.

In this chapter, I will expand more upon the issue of the great grazers from 2013 onwards.

Because this issue stretches over time, I have, for the sake of clarity, divided the chapter in

firstly the formal actors and several of their documents, and then the news reporting and

social media. I have tried to compare documents created around the same time, in order to

compare more fairly.

5.1 The debate

In 2013, the movie ‘’de Nieuwe Wildernis’’ (the new wilderness) came out. The movie is a

documentary lasting over an hour and a half, following 43 species of animals over two years.

It is a classic nature documentary, following the stories of the animals and their struggles

through the seasons. The film was very popular in the Netherlands and abroad and winning

many prices, was also well received by critics (Coevert 2013). Many people in the

Netherlands, especially those not living near the Oostvaardersplassen, got to know the area

and through the movie came to care for it, perhaps even be proud of it as a Dutch example.

The movie spurred a follow up series by the same creators of other Dutch natural areas,

although less controversial ones. The film and the follow up series (created from the same

video material), received plenty of attention and led to Dutch people considering their own

nature as something to admire or concern themselves with more, in both positive and

negative ways. The movie itself is very much a documentary, with many moving shots and

few words. It follows the birds, but also grazers through the seasons, with beautiful shots,

but also the harsh realities of a natural space. With the increased attention came also critical

22 The extra area Hollandse Hout proposed to let the grazers find more shelter does not happen because of local opposition and a lack of money

47

responses. An example is the youtube film ‘’de Nieuwe Wildernix’’, a title which is a play

on words and comes down to the new ‘wild nothingness’. The uploader translates it as the

new Wildermess. In the documentary, it is explained how the original movie lacks people

and also lacks a deeper discussion of the management of the Oostvaardersplassen. (Schaper

2013)

When considering the social discussion about grazers, it is useful to know the baselines of

mortality numbers used in the Oostvaardersplassen and what is the basis of comparison.

Mortality numbers in Oostvaardersplassen is first compared to mortality rates in other

natural areas and secondly the natural mortality is calculated in relation to the number of

animals culled (see below). Initially, the experimental management of Oostvaardersplassen

considered death of animals a natural process, were death is part of nature. Animals who did

not have enough food or were too weak, would die naturally, from for example starvation.

Because of social pressure (ICMO2 2010) and from the debates analysed in previous chapter

the Staatsbosbeheer was considered to be responsible for making sure the animals do not

suffer too unnecessarily. As we have seen from previous chapter, there was a debate whether

the animals should be defined as wild or as ‘kept’ animals as this would imply different

regulations. The outcome of the debate was that Staatsbosbeheer had responsibility for the

wild animals and should mitigate unnecessary suffering. This meant animals who were weak

or sick, would be killed to avoid suffering, in what is called a reactive policy. Policy was

later changed, again because of public pressure, to an early-reactive policy.23 This means

more management and intervention was introduced in the Oostvaardersplassen: instead of

only responding to events, managers were now required to intervene quicker or even ahead

of (predicted) events such as cold periods or lack of food.

The Oostvaardersplassen is considered a unique natural area in the Netherlands, mostly

because of its experimental character of creating a wilderness place and its non-intervention

policy. By comparison, another important and large natural area in the Netherlands is the

Veluwe, an area almost 20 times as large as the Oostvaardersplassen. It has a different

landscape and contains towns and roads inside, but much of the space is protected. The

Veluwe is a good example of a natural area with strong intervention, where tourism is big

and nature is a pleasant protected space for humans and animals alike. The Veluwe, as any

natural area, has mortality rates that are much higher in the winter than Oostvaardersplassen.

However, the approach towards these animals is different from in the Oostvaardersplassen.

Whereas culling in the Oostvaardersplassen is still predominantly reactive and takes place

during and at the end of the winter, culling in the Veluwe is far more proactive. Animals get

shot when the numbers become too high, to prevent damages and roadkill – thus here there

is not really a discussion of animals suffering as much as management through intervention.

Mortality percentages through culling for deer can be as high as 60–70% and for the wild

boar up to 80–90%. The culling also prevents the remaining animals from suffering from a

lack of food. (Straver and Verlouw 2018). Keulartz (2018), a Dutch nature philosopher, has

argued that not only are these higher numbers cruel, but they lead to other issues such as a

destruction of social groups and the lack of the process where females who have gone

through a hard winter have less or no offspring. Interestingly, there is very little public

debate about the culling of animals in the Veluwe. Keulartz offers no explanation for the

lack of discussion on the culling in the Veluwe, but it is indeed not spoken about in the

media or politics at all. By contrast the small percentage of animals dying in the

Oostvaardersplassen which is considerably lower than in Veluwe, concerns many more

people and in very heated debates as we have seen.

23 See indepth analysis ICMO1 and ICMO2 in chapter 5.1

48

One of the problems in discussing culling is that it is difficult to estimate what would be a

‘natural’ mortality rate among the Konik horses, the Red deer and the Heck cattle. There are

very few places in the world these animals are truly in a situation comparable to what

hundreds of years ago might have been a wild (natural) ecology and where animals had

enough space to migrate when resources were scarce. Grazers in the Netherlands have

essentially no predators, weaker or sick animals are often treated by a vet and food

availability is different than it has ever been before extensive human settlement and control

(Vermeulen 2015)

5.2 Formal actors

5.2.1 Commisie van Geel

The Begeleidingscommissie (the guidance commission) was established in November 2017

by the province Flevoland, in order to advice on the future of the Oostvaardersplassen. In

February of the same year, the province commissioned a number of researchers to provide

guidelines for the Oostvaardersplassen for it to be an ecologically functioning area but still

with social appreciation. In addition, the grazers needed to be taken care of properly and be

in balance with the carrying capacity of the area. The commission assessed the large number

of reports and research articles in the matter and spoke to different people and institutions

from many fields such as economy, ecology and tourism. The committee is often referred to

as the ‘committee van Geel’, after the chair Pieter van Geel.

The committee’s report is an interesting document, while extensive and written in a

scientific language and tradition, the report seems still to be orientated to be readable to

anyone. There are summaries and overviews, and the style of writing is, while factual and

academic, relatively easy to understand. A lot of information is repeated and written in

different ways. I personally find it clearer than most other documents and more explicit in its

opinions than other commissions. The report explains for example clearly the main principle

of conservation: ‘’The starting point […] management should support as much as possible

natural processes, but because the Oostvaardersplassen’s natural system is incomplete, it

needs controlled management.’’ (p. 36) However, when it comes to specific intervention,

like many other documents, the explicitness and clarity is still there but much less

straightforward. The Begeleidingscommissie report is an interesting document since in its 86

pages (including foreword) gives a background information about many of the research

questions.

The document contains information and advice on multiple topics, also the future of the

Oostvaardersplassen. Much of the information mentions and is focused on the grazers. Two

entire chapters concern information, numbers and potential intervention regarding grazers

only. The welfare of grazers and their role is considered in-depth and important: ‘’Policy and

the Natura 2000 management plan for the Oostvaardersplassen in 2015 established that

grazers are an integral part of the ecosystem and have an independent value.’’ (p23).

However, the authors stress that while the grazers are a large part of the debate, they are not

the only part of the story: ‘’in this advice we create a perspective for a socially supported

management of the grazers. But the Oostvaardersplassen is much more than the area where

grazers live.’’

Regarding definitions of wilderness and nature and management, the document discusses

nature, its beauty and its processes in the area in several places and frequently. For example,

the committee explain how ‘’the Oostvaardersplassen is a relatively large and untouched

nature area’’ (p9) or how ‘’it is the only area in our country where originally domesticated

49

cattle and deer live in the wild’’(p22). An expression used frequently is the ‘’giving space’’

(‘ruimte geven’) to animals or nature, the expression is used several times and in different

context. The concept of an untouched nature or a relatively unmanaged nature exists for the

authors in the Oostvaardersplassen.

At the same time however, the writers are also explicit about the fact that the

Oostvaardersplassen is managed. On p26, the authors explain that the Oostvaardersplassen is

not separated from people: ‘’the Oostvaardersplassen is an incomplete natural system. … In

such an area, we can only have controlled management focused on animal welfare.’’ While

the authors are clear that the Oostvaardersplassen is not nature by itself, even though the

committee uses terms seemingly indicating ‘wild animals’ or ‘untouched nature’, the explicit

definition of what nature is then is missing. The authors seem to state that where people have

influence on nature (on a significant scale), this means the area is not natural. About the

Oostvaardersplassen the committee writes: ‘’[created nature] is actually a contradiction. …

But in the Netherlands, we speak about nature areas which are technically cultivated: made

by people.’’ (p. 14). Here, the authors indicate that in the Netherlands there really is no such

thing as true nature, that it will always be managed by people. While above the committee

writes that the Oostvaardersplassen is as untouched as possible in the Netherlands, on page

14, the authors contradict this statement saying: ‘’the area is characterized by human

intervention in abiotic conditions …. Also the introduction of the horses, cattle and deer is

an example of intervention.’’ However, with the following quote: ‘’Within those

interventions … a nature had developed that would further develop, organize and maintain

itself’’ (p. 15), it seems the authors believe that the intervention in the Oostvaardersplassen

leads to a nature that sustains itself. Summarized in the following quotes, the

Oostvaardersplassen is managed but sustains its own processes, and needs intervention to

continue those processes: ‘’at the same time [the area] requires intervention in conditions

that support natural processes.’’ ‘’The Oostvaardersplassen cannot stay without human

intervention.’’ (p. 22–23). Although this seems contradictory, and the authors write about

this in many sections, it is a good summary of what the Oostvaardersplassen is to many

experts: managed at first, then encourage to run its course through natural processes, but

with a constant need for intervention which the authors summarize as follows: ‘’where space

is given to development of nature values and where human intervention is supporting that

development.’’ (p. 1)

Interestingly, the writers at one point distinguish between policy and management, which

not a lot of other articles do, but unfortunately the committee does not continue defining this

distinction. On page 3 the authors write ‘’The commission advices to adapt the policy and

management of the grazers. The goal of the policies should be that there are viable

populations of grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen and that their welfare is guaranteed.’’ The

policies the committee discusses, then needs to be managed day to day to fulfil these goals.

Regarding intervention and types of intervention, the commission considers many

alternatives and mentions many proposed, tried and potential ones. Sometimes the authors

do this in detail, but often in a more general sense. Interventions such as contraception and

extra feedings are discussed by the authors as well as the overall disadvantages of those. The

writers also mention the possibility of introducing predators but point out that this is not a

viable solution: ‘’the limited number of predators that the area could contain, does not in as

much have an effect on the size of the prey but on the behaviour and spread in the area.’’ (p.

42). Since none of those mentioned interventions would be enough to regulate the numbers

of grazers, the report concludes that it is ‘’…necessary to change the management of

grazers.’’ The specific interventions the commission advise concerning the grazers are

similar to those mentioned in earlier reports: increased shelter opportunities, possibility to

migrate, lower number and pressure of grazers (p. 44–47). To quickly reduce the number of

50

animals, the authors of the report propose a reset back to the numbers in the 1990s, when the

commission considers the problems occurring now were not happening then. This reset will

allow more time in the future to keep adapting intervention based on the current state, as the

authors mention often. In addition, the committee agrees with the ICMO regarding the

necessity for more research and monitoring. The authors add that institutions should work

together better and also with other parties regarding the Oostvaardersplassen: ‘’authorities

should work together closely and with the manager and interest groups and institutions

should be associated. In addition, is should be organised so that scientific input should

substantiate management and policy’’(p.14) An additional intervention the authors of the

report consider important is more education on the landscape in the Oostvaardersplassen, but

also on nature and its functions in economy and tourism. This falls under a wider

communication intervention that the writers propose. Regarding the public the committee

also strongly advises an increase in (the quality of) recreation opportunities: ‘’the recreation

services in and around the Oostvaardersplassen are present in varying degrees and are of

varying quality. This can and has to be improved.’’ (p. 14) Lastly, while many documents

state the trouble of expenses and costs, the commission van Geel mentions more money

coming from different sides is necessary and an important factor for improving the

Oostvaardersplassen: ‘’[the Oostvaardersplassen] is of national and international importance

and has a large public and economic meaning for the region.’’ (p. 15) Lastly, on page 43 the

committee writes on the importance of the interventions not being too controversial. It seems

clear that to the authors less controversy regarding an intervention is actually one of the most

important factors in the preference for specific interventions.

When continuing the report, it becomes clear that while the authors focus on grazers and

their welfare a lot, since they are a large part of the debate, the grazers are to them for a large

part a part of the area and as a tool to keep the landscape open as desired. The natura-2000

goals are extensively referred to. While in other documents authors mention the birds as the

top goal, this document is vaguer about what the nature 2000 goals are exactly, and the

commission simply writes that sustaining the landscape as is, is a major goal. Regarding the

grazers this means they are not the top priority by the authors: ‘’putting the natura2000

conservation goals at the centre means that the grazers are potentially supportive and a the

number in the herd is not a goal in itself.’’ (p. 17) The animals are part of the management

plan but not protected under them as the authors stated (p. 36). The focus and mention of the

Nationaal Park nieuw land24 is interesting as well, as opposed to earlier documents, the

writers focus on the future more explicitly. In addition, the committee mentions the tourism

uses for the Oostvaardersplassen and beyond: ’the meaning of the Oostvaardersplassen is an

area that reaches further than this part of Flevoland. There is (inter)national relevance to the

area and its surroundings for nature development and because of touristic-recreational

meaning.’’ (p. 19). Not only the future is discussed, but like other reports, the committee van

Geel discusses past intervention. The authors are however, subtler on criticism. Advices that

are not implemented, slow progression and the not reaching of goals for example are

intervention the writes discuss, but do name explicitly as issues: ‘’Since then, the execution

of urgent necessary measures has happened slowly.’’ (p. 31)

Like the previous reports in 2005 and 2010, the committee van Geel discusses the role of the

public multifaceted. While not the primary focus, the public is mentioned in a number of

ways. Firstly, in the way people were included in the research for the document: ‘’all

partners were, in their own way, convinced of the unique character and the special meaning

of the area in this part of the Netherlands.’’ (p.5) In addition acknowledgement of the

protests is given multiple times. One example is the statement: ‘’when we created our

24 see chapter 3

51

advice, as known, there were intense protests from citizens against the management of the

grazers and the high mortality of animals this year’’ (p. 5). In a less direct way, the

controversy of the area (mostly due to media attention and citizen protests) is brought up in

connection with nearly every intervention and in nearly every chapter, and very explicitly so.

An example is the statements on page 9: ‘’it is at the same time a socially controversial

area’’ or page 11 ‘’[this starvation] has led to a lot of public commotion, citizen actions and

attention is the media.’’ Terms such as ‘’publicly controversial area’’ (p. 23) and ‘’severe

public and political unrest’’(p. 24) show that the authors are not shy about stating the

controversy among people in strong terms. The researchers also explain that experts are not

in agreement either, but explain why there is another reason for the concern regarding public

controversy when they write that resistance may spread across other areas as well: ‘’the

commission is concerned about the fact that growing public resistance against the

management in the Oostvaardersplassen can pass onto resistance against nature management

in the Netherlands in general.’’ (p. 24). Besides the extreme reactions of the public and the

committee’s concern about it, the experts name also the positive side of the public, namely

the importance of tourism and keeping the Oostvaardersplassen accessible. Lastly, the

authors shortly touch upon the issue of the Lelystad airport. While the writers do not have

specific advice regarding this, they are the only ones touching upon the issue and it is

therefore worth a notion.

As stated above, and perhaps in combination with their strong inclusion of the public, the

most important tool seems of the committee’s report to be the accessibility of reading the

report. Through repetition and clear explanations, the committee tries to achieve that anyone

can read the report. Few pictures are used and no explicit or controversial ones, just enough

to show the different animals and a picture of a bird only in the summary. The authors do

use a lot of maps, probably in the same strain of clarity as their word use. The commission

refers to experts in earlier documents and name the people and conversations used in their

research.

Throughout the whole document the authors refer back to the general function of the

Oostvaardersplassen as a whole and when discussing specific animals, plants or functions,

the commissions keeps reaffirming the area as a whole complete system, incorporating

nature and management, for example when they refer to the necessity of an: ‘’integral

approach of the area’’ (p. 25). ‘’Different issues need to be related to each other: nature

quality, landscape quality, animal welfare, effective and efficient management, touristic-

economic development, urban development, communication and education and the

governance for the area.’’ (p. 17) is a good summary of this combination of factors that the

authors consider important. The uniqueness of the Oostvaardersplassen and its natural

processes are praised by the commission, but often the authors write about especially the

social benefits of this: ‘’… an area where natural processes are dominant. This has a large

social and economic value.’’ (p. 50)

So, while the authors pay much attention to the Oostvaardersplassen as a whole and beyond

grazers, the committee does need to refer to culling and the controversy that is caused. The

writers point out that it is previous management that caused the current problems with

grazers (that there are too many): ‘’because of this way of management, after milder winters

the herds grew strongly.’’ (p. 3). On page 34 the authors state: ‘’Give top priority to

execution of the management measures from the Natura 2000 management plan.’’, instead

of the grazers. The committee continues with a discussion on grazer welfare after this

statement. The grazers specifically to the authors are the central point of public controversy:

‘’it is socially not supported that the animals visibly emaciate and that a large part of them

then die. … [this] has led to a lot of public commotion, citizen actions and attention is the

media.’’ (p. 11) or even clearer on page 37: ‘’… the presence of large numbers of [grazers]

52

has led the Oostvaardersplassen to become, besides an appreciated nature area, also a

socially controversial are.’’ When the writers continue on the grazers regarding their use and

place in the Oostvaardersplassen, the committee looks at how the grazers influence the

landscape, but this social point is most clear. While the authors write about culling as a

necessary intervention at the moment, they offer little detail as to how this should take place.

One of the essential and notable points in the committee Van Geel report, is the focus on the

Natura 2000 goals and the protection that offers the area. While the international reports

(ICMO1 and 2 for example) mention Natura 2000 and the bird protection, it is surprising

how explicit this is in the report Van Geel. It is likely that with the focus on making the

report accessible to the public, the authors also want to indicate the importance of the

Oostvaardersplassen. Through Natura 2000, the committee has a valid international

reference, while the authors at the same time keep redirecting the attention back to the

usefulness of the Oostvaardersplassen as a whole.

5.2.2 Provincial order

On September 19, 2018, the province of Flevoland gives the order for culling deer. The 15-

page document is a formal and legal document with the actual decision, background and

details of the culling order. It is an official and legal document meant to archive the decision

and allow the public to take information from it and allow them to offer objection. This

document is different from an advice document and from a document meant for the public. It

is simply a legal document informing and noting the order for culling deer. The language

used is also different therefore. The public is allowed to read it and whoever wants to is

allowed to object to the order. It is therefore necessary that the order explains what they are

going to do, how they are going to do it and why.

The division of the focus of the culling document is original and stands out in comparison to

many of the other documents discussed here. While it starts with a clear overview of the

culling order and the way in which it will happen, many pages are used to describe

information on the deer in general and why culling is the best option while other solution do

not work as well. After that, even more space is spent discussing the birds in the

Oostvaardersplassen and the effects the culling will have on them. Much of the focus is

given to the Oostvaardersplassen as a whole: ‘’in the interest of wild flora and fauna and of

the conservation of the natural habitat … and to prevent unnecessary suffering of sick

animals.’’ (p. 8), with specific attention to the birds who make the Oostvaardersplassen be a

Natura-2000 area. They are referred to much more extensively than the grazers. The Natura-

2000 protection is also mentioned extensively: ‘’top-priority realising Natura 2000

conservation goals’’ (p. 5), second – improving animal welfare. ‘’maintaining and reaching

the conservation goals of the Natura-2000 area the Oostvaardersplassen.’’

There are a number of references to the nature or rather natural aspects in the culling order.

Regarding the way the animals are culled it is stated: ‘’culling deer this way (disturbance

through shooting) would not lead to significant negative effects’’ (p. 2), this statement is

meant to prove the province will keep the natural behaviour of animals in mind. It is also

explained how: ‘’part of cadavers can be left in the area for scavengers’’. This comment

shows that Flevoland province try to mimic natural aspects of dead animals. Regarding

birds, Flevoland province try to cull the deer in such a way as to intervene as little as

possible with minimal disturbance to the birds: ‘’temporary and with silencers leads to least

disturbance bird …. no culling in rut’’ (p. 12). Interestingly, there is very little reference to

words such as ‘’natural’’, ‘’wild’’ or ‘’untouched’’. While Flevoland province imply in

many ways that they want to disturb as little as possible and that culling the deer will lead to

a more natural environment, these words are not used as such. Quotes remain simple such

53

as: ‘’reducing the number of deer…. would have predominantly positive effects’’ (p. 2). The

culling document is about a specific intervention, so authors focus on that mostly of course.

Regarding management, similarly as the wilderness topic, they do not use explicit words to

describe their management style. A good summary might be that they consider this form of

management and intervention to ‘’reset the grazers in the area’’ (p. 5), where ‘reset’ might

be considered a natural state, even though the herd of animals grew to this number naturally.

The majority of the text focusses on the intervention of culling and the specific details, much

more specific in the way they will do so than any other document and advice: ‘’order

(opdracht) to kill deer using a rifle, with a silencer and using night vision equipment.’’ (p.

12). The order refer to a number of other interventions to explain why they haven’t chosen

those, quite in detail as well: ‘’anticonception and replacing the animals are not satisfying

alternatives’’ (p. 2)

The role of the public is not addressed extensively in the culling document, but there are

clear distinct roles for the public in multiple ways. Firstly, the public’s reaction to the

grazers is referred to as ‘’public unrest’’ and it is explained that the public unrest ‘’changed

the thinking about managing grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen’’ (p. 8). Additionally, the

participation of the public is mentioned as consumers: ‘’the culled deer will, where possible,

be made available for human consumption.’’ (p. 13). Lastly, the public is discussed in terms

of users as visitors enjoying the area and it is recommended that the disturbance from culling

should be kept at minimum: ‘’for protection of the public around the area rifles with

silencers’’ (p. 12)

As a legal document, the tools are less obvious than in other documents. No pictures are

used, but a lot of factual information is given on deer and birds. Referencing to expert

committees and the Natura-2000 goals is used a lot in the culling document. This type of

referencing, in combination with all the information and details seem to be a tool to prevent

too much criticism. As a whole, it is quite interesting that this specific legal document takes

perhaps broadest view of the Oostvaardersplassen compared to the other documents

analysed so far. It seems to essentially be an important nature Natura-2000 area, with

important landscapes and birds. Whether it is important to conserve it because the birds are

rare or the people enjoy it, is less clear.

5.2.3 Magazine Staatsbosbeheer

In 2018, 50 years after the Oostvaardersplassen was created, Staatsbosbeheer, the actor

currently in charge of the Oostvaardersplassen, published a magazine dedicated to the

conservation area. The Magazine, named ‘’New land in movement – 50 years history in

birds eye view’’ (Nieuw land in beweging- 50 jaar historie in vogelvlucht) is a popular

magazine meant for visitors and the public and has many different articles25 on the history,

vegetation, birds and animals in the Oostvaardersplassen and activities that visitors can do.

The publication had both analytical articles and promotional pages, all meant to promote the

park in a positive way. The publication is interesting as it clearly has a wider audience in

mind and with a different audience and purpose, come new tools and a different way of

describing management, intervention and nature.

On culling specifically, the magazine is silent, most likely to avoid the more critical and

negative side, since the magazine is meant mostly as a promotion. The debate is implicitly

25 There are many people working on the magazine, see page 5 for names of the employees and photographers. Iddo Lammers, Daniel Mulder, Paul Bohre, Marcel van Ool, Marije Oudshoorn, Hein Walter, Diederik Plug, Gemma Venhuizen, Kim Veenman and Niels Kooyman are authors of one or more articles. The magazine can be viewed free via https://issuu.com/staatsbosbeheer-ovp/docs/50_jaar_ovp.

54

referred to implicitly in terms of an explanation is given: ‘’there is now attention for the

individual animal, that is new.’’ (p. 24). Clearly the publication is a response to the culling

debate. However, the publication redirects the focus on what is important in the

Oostvaardersplassen and its aims. This focus is interesting since it is quite different than the

formal documents and most media articles and it is in some sense an attempt to explain

Oostvaardersplassen to a broader audience. Much information is given on birds, much more

than the average publication on the Oostvaardersplassen. Also, on one of the first pages

highlights 13 hotspots in the Oostvaardersplassen. Ten of those mentions birds and

birdwatching, while six (also) include birds. Additionally, the landscape and specific

vegetation is mentioned. The mentions of official guidelines and protection such as Natura

2000 all focus on the Oostvaardersplassen as bird sanctuary, with the grazers being a side

mention.

With the purpose of promoting the Oostvaardersplassen as an experience, the concept of

nature is used liberally and more often than other publications. Nature is promoted in the

popular conception of a green area that is free of intervention, without people or built

environments and with animals in their natural behaviours. The authors of the different

pieces in the magazine write of ‘’experiencing nature’’. For instance there is a quote were a

visitor is saying ‘’nature gives me energy’’ (p. 17). O Hanlon, a writer and tv maker states:

‘’this is the most dynamic natural area of the Netherlands.’’ (p. 49). The

Oostvaardersplassen is described as ‘’unique ecosystem…. Natural processes are leading – a

revolutionary opinion and because of that a start for repeating discussions, especially on the

management of animals.’’ (p. 55). The duality of nature versus management is more clearly

mentioned and described than in other documents, for example the history of the park is

described as follows: ‘’the history of the Oostvaardersplassen is one of planners, visionaries,

executors and managers. It is also a story of nature; of plants, birds, fish and mammals who

found a home there thanks to a revolutionary way of nature management. But revolution

often leads to resistance, and that too has played a role in the story of a new Dutch nature

area.’’ (p. 37) or ‘’the ambiguity of the Oostvaardersplassen comes forward: the area is

nature and culture, wild and managed.’’ (p. 24). This ambiguity discussed above is

summarized well by another article: ’because this landscape is made by people – for this

nature, for this whole province, nothing is taken from someone, not from farmers, or

landowners, it is won from the sea. This is guilt-free nature, innocent nature in the literal

sense. … This [nature] admittedly needs to be managed, but that is what you Dutch people

are so good at.’’ (p. 47).

With regards to management, it does become clear from the publication that the

Oostvaardersplassen is not untouched nature but is managed and that it is a mix of things.

On the one hand there is the non-human side: page 13 for example: ‘’there is a chance the

animal moved to the Oostvaardersplassen itself, but it is also possible that because of ground

displacement eggs have entered Flevoland.’’, showing the effects of natural processes or

reactions. While on the other hand the position of people becomes very clear:

‘’Continuously people need to adjust [nature]. Simply because in our cultured country you

don’t have wilderness just like that again. But new wilderness is possible…. You just

shouldn’t call it primal or untouched… In the new wilderness people look for a new alliance

with nature.’’ (p. 25). The attitude towards management and types of intervention is positive

and optimistic and can be summarized by the following two quotes: ‘’because this landscape

is made by people – for this nature, for this whole province, nothing is taken from someone,

not from farmers, or landowners, it is won from the sea. This is guilt-free nature, innocent

nature in the literal sense. … This [nature] admittedly needs to be managed, but that is what

you Dutch people are so good at.’’ (p. 47) and ‘’ we look continuously to what happens in

the area and keep asking the question: are we doing the right thing? Because even though

55

there is a lot of opportunity for spontaneous natural processes, the influence of people is still

great.’’ (p. 55). On specific kind of interventions little is said as opposed to advice

documents. In the magazine, the word intervention is not used and discussed specifically

ones besides generally describing to adapt the landscape a bit, for example to make it more

attractive for birds as they do in the example on page 21.

The rhetorical tools used in this magazine are especially interesting, as the message is more

positive than analytical and while informing, the magazine is also clearly meant to give

people a good feel and to promote visiting the Oostvaardersplassen. Short and long articles

are included, mostly from the perspective of individual with a photo. Lots of pictures are

included More emotional words are used as well, such as: ‘’majestic birds’’ (p. 18). A poem

on page 33 is another example of the way they portray nature as beautiful and almost artistic,

something the visitors and public can enjoy. A quote from the poem for example states: ‘’ I

am the Oostvaardersplassen …. Growth and decay am I, rampant, hesitation and winding

riches, nature in full glory.’’

The role of the Oostvaardersplassen as a whole is interesting as the goal of the magazine is

to promote visitors. There is a lot on the uniqueness of the Oostvaardersplassen and its

importance as an area for the rest of the Netherlands and Europe. This focuses on birds most

of all, and the magazine reinforces the uniqueness and bird area for the whole of Europe

multiple times: ‘’Most of the birds spread in over the years across the country, the

Oostvaardersplassen acted as springboard.’’ (p. 6) or ‘’the Oostvaardersplassen forms the

biggest delivery room for marsh bird species in the Netherlands as stepping stone for

recolonization of other nature areas.’’ (p. 10), ‘’ the combination of food, rest and space

makes [the Oostvaardersplassen] a unique rest and gathering area.’’ (p. 35) ‘’if you compare

it to other European national parks, it is top class’’ and in many more of the articles. The

magazine clearly shows the importance of birds time and time again, in a national and

international sense. In addition, it is also very much as space for people to visit, an area of

recreation.

5.3 News reporting and social media

Just as shown in chapter 4, beyond the experts, the issue of the Oostvaardersplassen

becomes very much a public debate. In addition to the news articles discussed in chapter 4, I

will touch upon international news reporting first bringing up just one examples. In the next

section I will analyse social media which has played a big role in the debate, as many protest

actions were organized through for example Facebook.

5.3.1 International news

Patrick Barkham’s article “Dutch rewilding experiment sparks backlash as thousands of

animals starve” was published 27 april 2018 and is one of the first the Guardian published

on the Oostvaardersplassen. It is however an extensive piece. Before 2018, the

Oostvaardersplassen is mentioned as a comparison and even success story when the

Guardian discusses British nature, for example in an article from Barkham in 2017. The

2018 article is written directly after the report from the Commisie van Geel (5.2.1) was

published.

Interestingly, Barkham writes about rewilding a lot more than any other (Dutch) actor. When

Oostvaardersplassen is explained by Barkham, he defines it very much as an natural thing:

‘’restore natural ecological processes to large landscapes – allowing wild land and its

inhabitants to develop and change independently of human influence.’’ However, this is

56

only created because of people. Another quote in the same article states once again the

natural processes in an area: ‘’trusting natural processes, putting in large grazers, letting go

of the traditional management of cultural landscapes”. That the process of rewilding is

determined by people and how much of a role they play in shaping the landscape is not

mentioned. Another aspect is nature definition is where one of the interviewed experts

explains a natural process: ‘’The trees that have died are species that can’t adapt to grazing

but those that can, such as blackthorn, are very slowly replacing them.’’ Indicating that there

are natural processes at play without human intervention.

Barkham explains how much of an effect managers can have on nature, in a negative way: ‘’

the authorities for allowing populations of large herbivores to rise unchecked at

Oostvaardersplassen, causing trees to die and wild bird populations to decline.’’ However, in

a more neutral quote, managers are still seen as playing a role ‘’This dynamic way of

managing nature is new, it’s different but it’s not an experiment.” While the article does

seem to mention nature as a concept on its own, the mangers and people are included as

well.

Regarding specific interventions, the article names a few such as extra shelter and a number

cap on animals. The culling is explained in the context of the death of many grazers:

‘’Following a harsher winter, the population is now just 1,850. Around 90% of the dead

animals were shot’’. No further details are given on these interventions. In general, the

author paraphrases the Van Geel report with ‘’ a drastic “reset”’’ as the general new

intervention.

Much more is being said on the role of the public mainly about their role in the debate: ’’

growing anger in the Netherlands’’ petition to stop animal cruelty at Oostvaardersplassen

has been signed by 125,000 people’’. A more in-depth look into the protesters viewpoint is

given as well, while most of the reports speak about protesters as a general group but do not

go in-depth in their arguments. The author quotes a protester as follows: ‘’ If you put up a

fence, you have to take care of what’s behind the fence’’ and more generally explains that

the Oostvaardersplassen is not seen as a natural area by many of the protesters: ‘’ For

protesters, Oostvaardersplassen is a secretive experiment devised by distrusted elites –

public access is restricted to much of the reserve’’. In addition, the article explains the

emotions of the protesters and how they have influenced management explaining how

management is now thinking to: ‘’remove animal carcasses … because of public distress’’

and also how with the protests there has been a realisation that the park needs to better

explain its rationale and management strategies: ‘’Ecologists hope that if more of the reserve

is opened up to the public, visitors will better understand that the challenging sights [are part

of it]’’

The role of the Oostvaardersplassen as a whole is not discussed in depth, but is mentioned in

passing when Barkham mentions rare birds and other animals. A reason for this could be

that the Guardian writes an article with more background to update people on a situation. By

contrast many Dutch newspaper publish more shorter articles or expect people to have more

background. The article of the Guardian explains for example: ‘’Half the area is marshland

into which the grazing animals don’t go, creating a sanctuary for rare birds from bearded tits

to sea eagles.’’ and when they state: ‘’the biodiversity of Oostvaardersplassen is still

burgeoning.’’ the article is also speaking about the Oostvaardersplassen as a bird sanctuary

and a nature reserve for more than grazers.

The tools that the author uses are a bit stronger than might be expected for a neutral story.

There are pictures of a dead animal and an emaciated horse. Number and percentages are

used to show that the grazers dying are many. In addition, the language is at time quite

descriptive: ‘’ looks a bleak and denuded landscape: dead trees collapsed across tightly

57

grazed grass and visibly thin horses and deer.’’ And with strong emotional words: ‘’ has

been savaged by an official report and sparked public protest’’

5.3.3 Social media

As mentioned before, beyond the experts and official media, much of the public debate plays

up on social media. Due to social media engagement, protests are organized, which are

covered in the media and in the political sphere, creating a circle where social media

engagement only increases. Many of the experts documents above refer to ‘the public’.

Reactions by the public are hard to define. We tend to refer to ‘the public’ as if it was one

person, and so do many of the formal documents I have discussed here. However,

determining what exactly the public says and who says what and how, is hard. Do we know

anything about the people represented and underrepresented? Whose voices do we hear?

White (1985: 307) explains the problem with representation well and I will use his

explanation here. The people who are most able to explain their opinions or those who are

most closely connected to the common mind set are the ones we are most likely to hear. In

terms of the other actors discussed here, ‘the public’ is referred to almost in reverence of

fear. The opinion of the public is loud and means the official actors need to adapt and keep

that in mind (as we clearly have seen in Chapter 4). Of course, the public represent a lot of

different opinions, voices, and people. In this section I will try to summarize a number of

key viewpoints and see how they compare to the other actors. I have used opinions as

expressed on social media, blogs and in commentaries to articles. This selection means that

the voices represented here usually position themselves more strongly than in other

mediums. I have tried to, through means of personal communication, make some notes how

these strong voices compare to more general feelings amongst the public, albeit this is

difficult based on the fact that these examples are but a very small selection of what exist.

However, when experts, politicians, and institutions reflect on the public voice, when they

refer to considering communication, they speak of these strong voices since they have a lot

of influence in shaping the thoughts of the general public. I have, except for one source, not

included any other secondary sources. In order to protect people’s private life, I have

referred to the majority of sources anonymously. As these commentaries are very short they

are difficult to analyse in detail as to definitions and rhetoric used, but I will do so when

possible.

Certain members of the public have joined interest groups, either on Facebook or through

different websites, and comments on internet are major points of engagement. Of course,

there are many to pick from to analyse. I have chosen different formats and degrees of

engagement in order to show different forms. I will reference two Facebook groups, a

specific website and comments on a page from Staatsbosbeheer.

The Facebook page ‘’Hulp actie Dieren the Oostvaardersplassen’’ [Help action animals the

Oostvaardersplassen], which has existed since 2016 seems at first glance to be a fairly

neutral introduction for a social media activist page and postings are also moderate in

opinions. However, the information page pitches statements such as ‘’helpless animals’’ and

‘’cruelties that people have created’’. Certain other groups are even more extreme, such as

the one below.

58

Figure 7. Heading facebookpage hulp actie dieren oostvaardersplassen

A longer post is found facebookpage ‘’Oostvaardersplassen Crepeerplek vol Karkassen NU

ingrijpen [the Oostvaardersplassen death place full of carcasses NOW intervene]’’

Figure 8. Heading facebookpage Oostvaardersplassen Crepeerplek vol Karkassen NU

This Facebook page ‘is a more extreme page with people who post in a very agitated and

polemic tone. One of the posts (18 july, 2020) has a picture of a beautiful horse with a quote

about the horse being shot: ‘’pretty head shot to pieces. Murdered because he hid where the

little birds from Staatsbosbeheer land occasionally.’’ Here the poster pits the grazers against

the birds. Interestingly, this means that the post author is aware of the role of birds in the

Oostvaardersplassen, but chooses against that knowledge to comment solely on the shot

horse

On the page, a longer post by Metzemaekers (2020) dated 17 mei 2020 is called ‘’de wil om

daadwerkelijk in oplossingen te denk is er niet’’ [The will to actually think in solutions is

not present]. Metzemaekers posts that the animals in the Oostvaardersplassen are not wild:

‘’wild status judicial error…. agricultural pets ‘’. The author speaks about anticonception

and culling as an intervention, he is pro anticonception as a way to keep the population in

control in an animal friendly way. Culling is only mentioned as an option perhaps for the

deer. He does not speak on management specifically, but does indicate that lots of costs are

made to keep expert groups working and the Oostvaardersplassen going. The author uses

many rethoric tools to engage people begin with the use of “we”. Metzemaekers uses experts

to prove his point and tries to discredit the official expert reports. Forceful language is used:

‘’gutted withered area’’ and he tries to discredit the politicians: ‘parties manipulated

beforehand’’. In addition, the author uses a lot of exclamation marks and words in capital

letters, so that the message feels urgent. Another post reaffirms that the members of the

Facebook page do believe in real or true nature: ‘’the total balance from nature is gone’’ (28

July 2020). The tone of the two groups above and other Facebook groups is slightly

different, depending on the moderator, but many of the same people seem to be commenting

and posting in the same groups, reaffirming that the dominant voice is coming from a

smaller group of people with a loud voice. In for example another Facebook group: ‘’Stop

het leed dat Oostvaardersplassen heet’’ [Stop the suffering that is called the

Oostvaardersplassen] a picture of starving grazers is shown with the comment ’’if it is

necessary we will feed the animals extra’’ How bad does it need to be before they really start

feeding extra? The major intervention many of the groups focus on and rally for is as above,

the feeding of animals. There are no obvious counter groups on Facebook.

Comments on boswachterblog.nl

59

Boswachterblog.nl is a website where the foresters or ‘boswachters’, the people who work

for Staatsbosbeheer on the ground keep a blog and talk about their work and the happenings

in their area. Set up by Staatsbosbeheer, it is not explained why they have created these

blogs, but the stories tell a different side of the Oostvaardersplassen and show positive

happenings. This blog is one of the few positive counterpoints on the internet and social

media regarding the Oostvaardersplassen. There is a special blog for the

Oostvaardersplassen as well, and the comments on these posts are useful to look at. Since

this is a different medium, there are people who come to comment negatively, but also

people who truly want to know more. This leads to intense discussion, lots of emotions, but

also a more nuanced public.

‘’Een van de oude edelherten dood’’ [One of the old deer dead) is the title of one of the

blogposts on the website, providing information regarding the death of one of the oldest deer

of the Oostvaardersplassen. One person seems shocked about the culling and request details

in the comments and is similarly negative to the facebook posts. After an extensive answer

by the Boswachter, the commenter eventually responds positively: ‘’that’s why it is so

wonderful and educational that SBB [Staatsbosbeheer] in all kind of ways allows me as

outside through weblog/webcam be involved in the Oostvaardersplassen.’’ (Breeveld 2013:

comment Brouwer). Other people are also positive and dislike the public debate that exist on

the blogposts. They indicate for example that people should focus their comments towards

the institution and not to individual employees: ‘’When you have complaints about the

management … talk to SBB. And not to a forester...’’.

Figure 9. Translation: ‘’Staatsbosbeheer:’’if it is necessary we will feed the animals extra’’ How bad does it need to be before they really start feeding extra?’’

A more moderate example and also more formal on the internet is the foundation ‘’Stichting

Welzijn Grote Grazers’’ [foundation welfare big grazers], who have their own internet page

and are an official foundation since 2010 in order to ‘’stick up for big grazers in the

Netherlands.’’ While more neutral, the foundation still has a clear motive and side and even

a slight activist tone: The foundation sets its goals to show the poignant ‘realities’. In the

article “Rampzalige Situatie in de Oostvaardersplassen” [Disastrous situation in the

Oostvaardersplassen] from 14 march 2018 and on their website (n.d.), the foundation does

not consider the concepts of nature and wilderness, although they clearly believe the grazers

are mistreated in Oostvaardersplassen. Whether that means they are uncomfortable with the

harshness of nature or believe that the Oostvaardersplassen should not be regarded as nature

is not clear from the foundation’s website. Like the other members of the public, the

foundation considers the interventions of culling and extra feeding. The foundation

60

considers the extra feeding now given as insufficient and maintains that it does not reach the

animals. Regarding culling, the foundation believes that culling should happen earlier than

what is now the case stating that this is : ‘’a terrible, but unavoidable intervention. Why wait

until the animal reach body score level 2 or 1?’’. The foundation considers the role of the

public as much as any of the other actors. They do however, use a different tone and focus

than other social media to express this, saying: ‘’ 1000 animal lovers gathered at the

Oostvaardersplassen [to deliver extra food].’’ The foundation uses animal lovers again as a

word for the protesters: ‘’animal lovers could not watch the misery of the animals any

longer’’. Regarding a bigger public attention and media attention, they use a different tone:

‘’A few threats were made towards the managers and now suddenly there was attention from

the media for the issues at the Oostvaardersplassen.’’ Nothing is mentioned about the role of

Oostvaardersplassen as a whole, either positive or negative.

5.3 Discussion

The definitions used in the debate on the Oostvaardersplassen differ wildly as shown here,

between actors but also within the same publications from one and the same actor.

Therefore, words are associated with different attributes or are used inconsistently over time.

Even within an article or actor, there is almost never a clear definition on nature, wilderness,

experiment or animal welfare and the aims/goals of Oostvaardersplassen which confuses

conversations. When one actor would define the Oostvaardersplassen as a natural or

wilderness space, and advocate a particular solution based on this, another actor might say

the Oostvaardersplassen are not nature. Without taking the time to distinguish whether there

might be overlapping ideas in these concepts, the debate evolves to an extremely polemic

debate where the actors are really discussing completely different issues – such as animal

welfare contra wildlife management or ecological health. At the same time there seems to be

an assumption that concepts are clear without needing definition. It seems that the

assumptions in the discussions around Oostvaardersplassen and key controversies is that

people implicitly know the definitions and aims so they are not explained.

In addition, there is a major problem in defining natural versus intervention. There is no

clear definition of ‘natural’ on the one hand and ‘intervention’ on the other. Experts are

using terms as intervention and management but describe the behaviour and natural

processes as nature, managed by people. Many other actors see a dichotomy between nature

and management and describe it as such, however in the case of the Oostvaardersplassen, it

becomes impossible to distinguish between intervention and ‘natural processes’.

61

6. Conclusion

I began this thesis with the very broad question of: How does the Oostvaarderplassen show

us the conflicted understandings of nature as wilderness in the Netherlands? When trying to

answer this question while writing this thesis, it has become clear that wilderness itself is a

vague concept and conflicting understandings and definitions of ‘wilderness’ and what it

entails is a major source of contention. I will not here attempt to give extensive advice on

how to manage or present Oostvaarderplassen. For one, the contentions regarding the

Oostvaardersplassen are so multifaceted and numerous that advising a solution would

require even more extensive analysis and several chapters of different advice topics.

However, through the analysis of the documents in Chapter 4 and 5, I can identify a number

of commonalities in dissention among the actors that prohibit a good understanding of the

Oostvaardersplassen and a working relationship among the actors and with the area itself.

But first let me summarise the context and the changing character of the debate around

Oostvaardersplassen.

6.1. The changing character of Oostvaardersplassen?

The Oostvaardersplassen was created firstly by accident and continued on in many ways as

an experiment.

Understanding the initial goal of the Oostvaardersplassen takes us to 1968, when the

province of Flevoland was created as a polder. Goals for the area that is now the

Oostvaardersplassen included creating viable land on which to build an industrial area,

greenhouses or land that could be used for agriculture. The sowing of reeds worked well to

turn the clay of the polder into settled land. The goals of usable land for agriculture and

industry was fulfilled, except that the reality turned out differently. No goals for the

Oostvaardersplassen in its very early days were ever established, the specific area was

created out of coincidence more than planning. In the late 60s and early 70s, concerns were

raised over the usefulness of the area as a protected space for birds, both common and rare.

When the Oostvaardersplassen was created as a temporary natural space in 1974, the

protection and increase of birds was its most important goal. Looking at it currently, we can

conclude that this initial goal is fulfilled, although concerns are raised over dropping number

and species of birds (Natura2000 2020). The purpose of the Oostvaardersplassen as a bird

sanctuary is successful though. However, the Oostvaardersplassen is no longer an area that

exists as a bird sanctuary alone. Current goals intermingle, with the Oostvaardersplassen as

an experiment for rewilding, as an experiment for increasing biodiversity, as a protected

natural space, as a place of recreation among other things.

6.2. Positioning amongst Actors

In researching the Oostvaardersplassen and I encountered not just many different actors, but

also changes in actors over time and changing positions of these actors. It is sometimes

unclear who exactly is in charge of what. In addition, it makes it hard to build trustful

62

relationships when actors and responsibilities keep changing. This becomes an issue when

opponents of the management strategies in the Oostvaardersplassen start to distrust the

government in general and therefore all institutions and expert groups related to them. More

clarity could lead to more easily accessible information and better (longer-lasting) strategies

in education and communication.

Table 3. Involvement of different actors and their standpoints

Do nothing/keep

experimenting

Culling grazers Extra feeding

grazers

Switching

Experts √ √ √

Public (√) √

Tweede Kamer √ √ √

Staatsbosbeheer √ (√)

Ministry √ √

Province √ √

Media (√) √ √

The table above gives an overview of the intervention the different actors propose for the

management of the Oostvaardersplassen, mostly regarding grazers. Naturally, within groups

there are debates and exceptions, but in general these seem to be the general opinions. Some

actors switch in opinion or have diverging opinions. In the ‘do nothing or keep

experimenting’ category, all actors are official institutions or groups. None of the unofficial

actors express a clear opinion that is in favour of the wilderness/do nothing style of

management. The disparity between the official and unofficial actors may explain why the

discussion is so intense. Beyond a debate on whether to let the Oostvaardersplassen be

wilderness or to intervene, the discussion is divided between official versus unofficial

communications. The feeling of an anti-establishment group against an insensitive official

actor group seems to speak out in a lot of the comments on social media, but also in the

Tweede Kamer. The discussion becomes divided between a rational (insensitive) versus and

emotional (anti-establishment) problem, through which we can put this discussion in a much

broader perspective of what nature means to us and how conflicted the opinions, both

academic and public, are.

In the 15 years since major discussion have taken place, many people have researched and

contributed to the debate around the Oostvaardersplassen. I am not the first one to establish

issues as indicated above. Many good advices have come out of the research. Certain pieces

of advice have a lot in common, for example the request for more communication, more

monitoring and more shelter for the grazers. However, much of the advice is not carried out.

As the commission van Geel (Van Geel, Poelman, & Van der List 2018: 2) states, few of the

advices requested by the government from the ICMO are used or put into place. Reasons are

diverse, for example the response from locals in using other areas for shelter was not very

good. In addition, a lot of improvements require money. Perhaps the changing actors and

unclear responsibilities lead to not enough push and time. However, it remains odd that the

expert groups asked by the responsible institutions have formulated some clear

recommendations which are not used at all.

63

6.3 Key points of Contention

6.3.1 The Oostvaardersplassen as an experiment

The Oostvaardersplassen is an area of experimentation. When Oostvaardersplassen was set

up, there was never a final goal or specific environment either imagined or described. The

area was however very quickly framed as an experiment in terms of what restored or

manmade nature could look like. Rare birds visited the area, plants grew and people

managed the area so as to naturally create an environment. It is naturally hard to predict how

an area that is created or managed will develop in ‘real life’. With projections and plans

some things can be predicted, but nature is complex as are its many subsystems and might

do things differently than expected. For many people in the early days of the

Oostvaardersplassen, this ambiguity regarding the future seemed logical. As the

Oostvaardersplassen was envisioned as an ‘experimental’ area, a certain unpredictability was

to be expected and this unpredictability was seen as largely positive. Especially academics

and conservationists were expectant and saw with curiosity what the future could bring.

However, the connotation of the term ‘experiment’ seems to have shifted over time in the

Oostvaardersplassen to become a negative one. Both in reference to experimenting with

nature in general, and with animals, the grazers, in particular. There is an underlying belief

amongst critics that nature is not to be experimented with, full stop. In many news articles

and debates about the Oostvaardersplassen, the word ‘experiment’ is now used to portray the

use and policy in the Oostvaardersplassen in negative terms. This is perhaps the first point of

miscommunication. For conservationists and scientists nature itself is an inevitable and

ongoing experiment. The way the word was used initially was in reference to the ambition to

allow natural process to unfold or play out with as low a degree of interference as possible.

There was no definite aim or goal for what OVP should become in terms of its ecology.

Rather the aim was to study the outcome of the natural process in terms of landscape change.

Especially during the first years, management of the area for a large part had to be

experimental as this was a fresh piece of land. With very little specific comparative material,

no predefined outlined methods and management strategies in place, it was also hard to

predict how the landscape would develop, therefore research and monitoring of the

ecological processes were continuous and included as part of the goals of OVP.

6.3.2 Emotionality vs rationality

The issue of the Oostvaardersplassen in the public debate centres around the grazers and the

type of nature they live in. While this is understandable, the majority of (formal) actors agree

that the issues are exacerbated through the visualization in for example the media. Because

of media attention and the pictures and language used, people respond more emotional and

feel more attached to the issue. Pictures of starving emaciated horses are real; the question is

whether that one picture adequately explains the story when the other details are not

explained well or given.

Establishing commonality among actors is also hard since so much of the discussion is based

on rational versus emotional arguments. Clearly ‘wilderness’ or ‘nature’, or the negation of

it as some critics argue that Oostvaardersplassen is, stirs a lot of emotion. The framing of

Oostvaardersplassen as a wilderness area or as a natural experiment is also perhaps why it

receives so much more attention and criticism than other natural areas in Netherland

experiencing similar problems. Even in the most formal or the most scientific documents,

standpoints often come back to the suffering of animals, the cruelty of nature and what we as

humans allow nature to be. In many documents, but also in for example a Tweede Kamer

debate, facts about the numbers of animals dying and comparative facts in terms of “what is

64

natural” death rates are given. However, though the death of 30–40% grazers may compare

to what can be observed in nature or other areas, after seeing a provocative picture of

suffering or dying animals or zooming in on individual stories, it is hard for actors to

distance themselves from these images and stories. Within a discussion people also find it

hard to stay either only rational or stick to particular emotional arguments. A discussion

between those two sides therefore often leads to nothing but people feeling either their facts

are not taken seriously or their emotions ignored. Without acknowledging our own and our

interlocutor’s emotions and responses to rational facts, the conversation cannot easily be had

on the same level.

6.3.3 Unclear definition of goals and purpose

There are no clearly stated definitions of goals or purposes for the Oostvaardersplassen in

general and also among and between individual actors. As discussed above, the goal of

experimentation is not shared by everyone and its meaning and value is debated. However,

there are other more specifically stated goals that not all actors will agree with.

Staatbosbeheer wants to protect the area and let people enjoy the nature. Visitors might want

to experience a beautiful or interesting environment. The government wants to promote

having protected natural areas or have a Natura-2000 area in the Netherlands. Locals might

want a pleasant view when they travel through the area. With every natural area, there will

always be different purposes and expectations. To balance these expectations there needs

some common, defined goals. The Veluwe for example is a protected area and a place for

recreation (Hoge Veluwe, 2020). As Veluwe is an area with campsites, the public can

participate in the very goal of Veluwe, the recreation while still acknowledging its

importance for biodiversity protection. Clearly expressed goals can be used to justify

management and intervention and to keep actors discussing the goals rather than details of

interventions. In the Oostvaardersplassen case the goals are less clear than in Veluwe and

this is one of the major reasons why the debate around Oostvaardersplassen is so intense.

The core contention of many of the debates in the Oostvaardersplassen centres on the

animals, especially the grazers. At the moment, the grazers are a tool to keep nature in

check, but many critics (and also other actors) treat them as a goal in itself. As a result, the

actors debating management and interventions have entirely different outcomes in mind, and

as the outcomes are rarely articulated the debate misses its mark. Other actors, especially

those represented in the expert documents may still want to see the ecological process

unfolding and continue to regard the experimental character of the Oostvaardersplassen as

an outcome in itself – e.g. animals dying is part of that natural dynamic. Meanwhile, the

political focus on the Oostvaardersplassen is on the area being a Natura-2000 area with

special protection for (rare) birds – which may conflict with the overstocking of grazers. On

the other hand, political candidates may use the debate on the Oostvaardersplassen to

represent (a part of) the public. This leads to various actors framing issues differently – but

again with a lack of definitions. For instance, not every document explains that the Natura-

2000 protection focuses on birds explicitly. In addition, many documents do not mention the

presence of rare birds explicitly, or at all, especially the shorter documents. While many of

the (studied) documents focus on grazers, the goal of a bird sanctuary would put the

discussed topics in perspective. One important aspect here is landscape openness and

trampling. An open landscape is a condition for birdlife, which is achieved through grazing.

Trampling however is detrimental to birdlife. This may occur when there are too many

grazers or of the wrong type. Thus, the various actors need to include the other goals of the

Oostvaardersplassen in their arguments, such as bird sanctuary and recreation, regardless of

which intervention they discuss or are proponents of.

65

After having read a lot of comments about the Oostvaardersplassen, I myself struggle to

define its broad goals. One of the major sources of contention in my opinion is the lack of

description of clear purpose in many documents, especially among informal or media actors.

Media articles can for example make it seem like the purpose of the Oostvaardersplassen is

to provide space for grazers, instead of acknowledging that grazers were only ever meant as

a tool to keep vegetation open. Expert advice therefore increasingly focuses on

communication to the public as an important factor in advice. With the inclusion of the

Oostvaardersplassen in the new expanded area of Nationaal Park Nieuw Land (see Chapter

3) the goals of the Oostvaardersplassen are now also intermingling with other goals,

meaning it becomes even more important to define the general goals.

6.4. Oostvaardersplassen and the future

Looking at the Oostvaardersplassen today and consulting officials, experts and media leads

us to, in my opinion, its most important, unique, and most expressed goal. The

Oostvaardersplassen is like many other natural spaces, a protected area in order to protect

birds, increase biodiversity and offer a place for people to enjoy nature and to learn about it.

Its uniqueness however, comes from its role as an experimental area. Oostvaardersplassen is

rewilding with no baseline, an area that does not share its space with people, it becomes a

space that is set up for experimenting. Although often seen as letting nature do its own thing,

it is also an experiment in what humans interfere with and the effects of that. In addition, it

offers a unique insight in studying people’s responses to wilderness and human interference.

When established as a temporary reserve in 1974, the area was still very much in progress of

being delineated, landscapes were altered and it allowed the opportunity to observe what

happened. An experimental site created to observe intensively the effects of changing

landscape, interacting animals, introduction of grazers and seasonal change. While the

Oostvaardersplassen as a space now exists for the purpose of being a protected natural area,

meaning protecting animals, landscapes and plants, the function of experimenting is by

many experts and officials seen as an important goal. (Vera, 2008; ICMO 2006)

Staatsbosbeheer currently centres the policy for the Oostvaardersplassen around birds, a

multidimensional landscape, and an enjoyable area for visitors. (Staatsbosbeheer 2020).

Based on those goals, the Oostvaardersplassen seems to be going in the right direction. The

Oostvaardersplassen is often referred to as a rewilding experiment, or a wilding area by both

researchers and the media (Prior and Ward 2016; Lorimer and Driessen 2014; Henley 2018).

Is it successful? A ‘wild’ landscape or natural space is never fully done; the way it gets

managed in the future determines how successful it will remain. Important to acknowledge

here is that the idea of success has changed over the years and will keep changing. As a

natural space, the Oostvaardersplassen is strongly debated, but successful in protecting many

rare birds and offering a landscape as wild as can be in the midst of the most densely

populated region of the Netherlands. As an experiment, I think we can speak about success

as well. An experiment is not about doing as well as possible, but about learning, and that is

something the Oostvaardersplassen offers continuously.

66

Summary

This thesis has discussed Dutch perceptions of nature through the case study of the

Oostvaardersplassen. In the first chapter the thesis was outlined and previous research on the

Oostvaardersplassen has been discussed. The focus of many previous studies has remained

ecological or takes a stand on the success of the Oostvaardersplassen. The qualitative study of

documents and communication from the involved actors has not been attempted yet. The second

chapter discussed the theory and methodology used as a background for the analysis in the

further chapters. Actor Network Theory is discussed, in order to outline the actors involved. In

addition, the actors being dynamic and changing is an important factor. Lastly, ANT is used

since the focus on documents and communication and their effects on the actors and network is a

good basis for the research question. Chapter 2 also discusses the qualitative methodology used

and the selection criteria for the actors and documents.

Chapter 3 discusses both the background on the Oostvaardersplassen and an overview of its

history, but also the first debate on the ‘wilderness’ and rewilding of the Oostvaardersplassen.

Rewilding has been important in shaping the Oostvaardersplassen as the nature reserve it is

today, but historically and currently, opinions have been divided on what constitutes wilderness

and how to apply the concept to management styles in the Oostvaardersplassen.

The main conflicts were discussed in chapter 4 and 5. Through an extensive qualitative analysis,

a number of documents from different actors were analysed, to gain an overview of their

viewpoints in the debate and their way of communicating. The first chapter discussed grazer

mortality in two harsh winters and the second chapter covered the debate on culling. Formal and

informal actors were discussed and found to be inconsistent in their use of terms such as nature

and management. In addition, the focus of many of the documents was found to be either unclear

or ignoring original goals of the Oostvaardersplassen.

In the final chapter, the conclusions from the analysis in chapter 3, 4 and 5 were gathered.

Overarching themes include the constantly changing character of actors, the debates, and the

Oostvaardersplassen itself. This implies the debates lack clarity for all involved and makes it

hard to continue a certain strategy over time. Additionally, the positioning of the actors is often

unclear. The key conclusions from the analysis of the documents centre on three themes. Firstly,

the status of the Oostvaardersplassen as an experimental area is often not mentioned or actors

disagree with premise of experimentation in nature. Secondly, the debates involve strong

emotion, which clashes with more rational arguments. Especially the use of emotional and

rational arguments intertwining within documents, but also certain actors favouring one or the

other leads to impossible conversations. Lastly the lack of clarity in the current purpose of the

Oostvaardersplassen means confusion about the future of the Oostvaardersplassen and

interventions that need to be taken and a distortion in the actual (long term) goals of the different

actors.

67

References

Allen, C.D., 2011. On actor‐network theory and landscape. Area, 43(3), pp.274–280

Anderson, David G., and Eeva Berglund (eds). 2003. Ethnographies of conservation.

Environmentalism and the distribution of privilege. Oxford: Berghahn. xi + 226 pp

Barkham, P. 2018. Dutch rewilding experiment sparks backlash as thousands of animals starve.

The Guardian. Via https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/dutch-rewilding-

experiment-backfires-as-thousands-of-animals-starve

Beemster, N., Troost, E. and Platteeuw, M., 2010. Early successional stages of Reed Phragmites

australis vegetations and its importance for the Bearded Reedling Panurus biarmicus in

Oostvaardersplassen, The Netherlands. Ardea, 98(3), pp.339–354

Berendse, F 2011, Natuur in Nederland. KNNV, Zeist

Breeveld, H. 2011. Een misverstand. [Blog] Boswachtersblog. Avalaible at

https://www.boswachtersblog.nl/oostvaardersplassen/2011/03/15/een-misverstand/ [Accessed

28 july 2020]

Breeveld H. (2013) Een van de oude edelherten dood. [Blog] Boswachtersblog. Available at

https://www.boswachtersblog.nl/oostvaardersplassen/2013/02/26/een-van-de-oude-

edelherten-dood/ [Accessed 2 july 2020]

Buijs, A.E., 2009. Natuurbeelden. Publieke visies op natuur en de consequenties voor het

natuurbeheer; Samenvatting van het proefschrift" Public Natures. Social representations of

nature and local practices". Wageningen Universiteit

Convention of Biological Diversity. n.d. via https://www.cbd.int/aichi-targets/target/11

Coevert, A. (2013). Critici over De Nieuwe Wildernis: een on-Nederlands goede natuurfilm.

NRC Handelsblad. Available at: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/09/27/critici-over-de-

nieuwe-wildernis-een-on-nederlands-goede-natuurfilm-a1480316. [Accessed 6 February

2019]

Cressman, D., 2009. A brief overview of actor-network theory: Punctualization, heterogeneous

engineering & translation. Available via https://summit.sfu.ca/item/13593

Crutzen, P.J., 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415.

Dead animals the Oostvaardersplassen [digital photograph]. N.d. Free from copyright 2018.

Retrieved from: https://oostvaardersplassen-sterfte.nl august 1 2020.

de Jonge, M., 2005. Observaties van Zeearenden Haliaeetus albicilla in de Oostvaardersplassen

in 2004. De takkeling, 13(2), pp.107–111

Drost, H.J., 1989. De grenzen van de Oostvaardersplassen. Huid en haar, 8(2/3), pp.46–51

Eerden, M.R. van & M. Zijlstra (1986): De natuurwaarden van het IJsselmeergebied: prognose

van enige natuurwaarden bij aanleg van de Markerwaard. Flevobericht 273, Rijksdienst voor

de IJsselmeerpolders, Lelystad.

Environment. (2019). In: Oxford English Dictionary. [online] Available at: https://www.oed.com

[Accessed 17 Sep. 2019].

Givetash, L., 2018. Slaughter of starving wild horses divides the Netherlands. NBC News, 23

August. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/slaughter-starving-wild-horses-

divides-netherlands-n895156 [Accessed 6 February 2019]

68

Gissibl, B., Höhler, S. and Kupper, P. eds., 2012. Civilizing nature: national parks in global

historical perspective (Vol. 1). Berghahn Books

Henley, J., 2018. About 1,000 deer to be culled at controversial Dutch rewilding park. The

Guardian, 20 september. Available at:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/20/about-1000-deer-to-be-culled-at-

controversial-dutch-rewilding-park [Accessed 6 february 2020]

Hinchliffe, S. 2007. Geographies of Nature: Societies, Environments, Ecologies. Los Angeles:

Sage.

Hoge Veluwe. 2020. Parkstandpunten. Hogeveluwe.nl via https://www.hogeveluwe.nl/nl/over-

het-park/parkstandpunten. [accessed 7 july 2020]

Hook, Derek. (2001). Discourse, Knowledge, Materiality, History Foucault and Discourse

Analysis. [online]. London: LSE Research Online. Available at:

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/956

Huijser, M.P., Drost, H.J. and Roling, Y.J.B., 1995. Vegetatieontwikkeling en cyclisch

waterpeilbeheer in de Oostvaardersplassen. De Levende Natuur, 96(6), pp.213–222

ICMO, 2006. Reconciling nature and human interests. Report of the International Committee on

the Management of large herbivores in the Oostvaardersplassen (ICMO)

ICMO2, 2010. Natural processes, animal welfare, moral aspects and management of the

Oostvaardersplassen. Report of the second International Commission on Management of the

Oostvaardersplassen (ICMO2). The Hague/Wageningen, Netherlands. Wing rapport 039.

Iedema, C.W. and Kik, P., 1986. De Oostvaardersplassen: beheer van een jong successiestadium.

De Levende Natuur, 87(5), pp.177–182

Jørgensen, D., 2015. Rethinking rewilding. Geoforum, 65, pp.482–488

Hazeleger W., Geurts H., 2019. 2010 relatief koud in Nederland KNMI. Available at:

https://www.knmi.nl/kennis-en-datacentrum/achtergrond/2010-relatief-koud-in-nederland

Kooijman, G. and Vulink, T., 2005. De Oostvaardersplassen natuurlijk. Het ecosysteem en de

resultaten van tien jaar beheer. Deel A: Beheersevaluatie, 2005.

Kooijman, G. and Vulink, T., 2005. De Oostvaardersplassen natuurlijk. Het ecosysteem en de

resultaten van tien jaar beheer. Deel B: Beheersevaluatie, 2005.

Kopnina, H.N., Leadbeater, S.R. and Cryer, P. (2019), Learning to Rewild: Examining the Failed

Case of the Dutch “New Wilderness” Oostvaardersplassen

Keulartz, J., 2018. Wild op de Veluwe is slechter af dan in de Oostvaardersplassen. Trouw via

https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/wild-op-de-veluwe-is-slechter-af-dan-in-de-

oostvaardersplassen~b7087a8c/

Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social Oxford: Oxford University Press

Law, J. (1992). “Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and

Heterogeneity.” Systems Practice 5: 379-393

Lezaun, J., 2017. Actor-network theory. Available via:

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2b73676c-ef0f-4de7-a7fa-

131ac74e10e2/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=Lezaun%2B2017_%2BActor-

Network%2BTheory%2B_Social%2BTheory%2BNow.pdf&type_of_work=Book+section

Leach, M., Mearns, R. and Scoones, I., 1997. Environmental entitlements: a framework for

understanding the institutional dynamics of environmental change. Environment Group,

Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Lorimer, J. and Driessen, C., 2013. Bovine biopolitics and the promise of monsters in the

rewilding of Heck cattle. Geoforum, 48, pp.249–25

69

Lorimer, J. and Driessen, C., 2014. Wild experiments at the Oostvaardersplassen: Rethinking

environmentalism in the Anthropocene. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers, 39(2), pp.169–181

Lowenthal, D., 2000. Nature and morality from George Perkins Marsh to the

millennium. Journal of historical geography, 26(1), pp.3–23.

Mattijssen, T.J.M., Breman, B.C. and Stevens, T.M., 2019. Het Online debat over de

Oostvaardersplassen: De invloed van sociale media op natuurbeheer. Landschap: tijdschrift

voor landschapsecologie en milieukunde, 36(1), pp.4–13.

Mauch, Christof, and Libby Robin (eds.), 2014. “The Edges of Environmental History:

Honouring Jane Carruthers,” RCC Perspectives, no. 1. doi.org/10.5282/rcc/6255.

Mitchell, F.J.G. 2005. How open were European primeval forests? Hypothesis testing using

palaeoecological data. Journal of Ecology 2005 93, 168–177

MJOP. 2017. Jaarverslag 2017. meerjarenprogramma ontsnippering via mjop.nl

Müller, M. Assemblages and Actor-networks: Rethinking Socio-material Power, Politics and

Space: Geography Compass 9/1 (2015): 27–41, 10.1111/gec3.12192

Nationaal Park Nieuw Land. 2020. Bijzondere Oorsprong. Nationaalparknieuwland.nl via

https://www.nationaalparknieuwland.nl/nl/oostvaardersplassen

Natura 2000. (2015) The EU’s protected areas – Natura 2000. ec.europa.eu Via

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/basics/natural-capital./natura2000/index_en.htm

Natura 2000. (2020) Standard data form the Oostvaardersplassen. ec.europa.eu

https://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/Natura2000/SDF.aspx?site=NL9802054

Nijland, R., 2008. Nieuwe Ontwikkelingsvisie Oostvaardersplassen; fictie of feiten?. De Levende

Natuur, 109(4), pp.147–149.

NOS Nieuws. 2010. Vijf vragen over grazers Oostvaardersplassen. NOS. 22 november. Via

https://nos.nl/artikel/199746-vijf-vragen-over-grazers-oostvaardersplassen.html

NRC. 2010. Minder afschot dieren in Flevoland. NRC

Omroep Flevoland. 2010. ‘Dieren Oostvaardersplassen bijgevoerd’ Omroep Flevoland 23

March. Available at: https://www.omroepflevoland.nl/nieuws/69106/dieren-

oostvaardersplassen-bijgevoerd

Osterath, B., 2018. Dutch outrage as animals starve in fenced-in wilderness

Deutsche Welle, 7 May. Available at: https://www.dw.com/en/dutch-outrage-as-animals-starve-

in-fenced-in-wilderness/a-43658279 [Accessed 6 February 2019]

Parker, I. 1992. Discourse dynamics: critical analysis for social and individual psychology.

London: Routledge.

Parlement & Politiek. 2019. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (LNV)

Parlementair Documentatiecentrum Leiden. Via

https://www.parlement.com/id/vhnnmt7hvi7a/ministerie_van_landbouw_natuur_en

Petulla, J.M., 1980. American environmentalism: Values, tactics, priorities. College Station:

Texas A & M University Press.

Polman, G.K.R. and Schmidt-ter Neuzen, S., 1987. Ontwikkelingsvisie Oostvaardersplassen.

In Flevobericht (Vol. 282). Rijksdienst voor de IJsselmeerpolders Lelystad

Prior, J. and Ward, K.J., 2016. Rethinking rewilding: A response to Jørgensen. Geoforum, 69,

pp.132–135

Provincie Flevoland. 2018. Opdracht tot afschot edelherten Oostvaardersplassen

H. Pruntel. 2007. De totstandkoming van de Oostvaardersplassen. In R.C. van Diepen, W.H.J.

van der Most en H. Pruntel (red.), Natuurontwikkeling in en rond Flevoland; verleden, heden

en toekomst. Cultuur Historisch Jaarboek voor Flevoland (Lelystad 2007) 15–25.

70

Raad voor Dierenaangelegenheden. 2005. Advies over de wintersterfte 2004-2005 van grote

grazers in de Oostvaardersplassen. Raad van Dieraangelegenheden

Raad voor Dierenaangelegenheden en de Raad voor het Landelijk Gebied. 2005. De wintersterfte

2004-2005 van grote grazers in de Oostvaardersplassen. Briefadvies. 14 juni via

https://www.rli.nl/sites/default/files/wintersterfteoostvaardersplassen6-2005briefadvies.pdf

RTL (2010). ‘Grazers Oostvaardersplassen afschieten’. RTL Nieuws. 22 November. Available at

https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/artikel/3160506/grazers-oostvaardersplassen-afschieten

Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity. 2000. Sustianing Life on Earth. Via

https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-sustain-en.pdf

Schaper, S. (2013). De nieuwe Wildernix/ The new Wildermess. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWvFAGWwmeg

Schreuder, A. 2010. De hertjes dartelen weer lustig rond. NRC

Simmons, I.G., 2013. Interpreting nature: Cultural constructions of the environment. Routledge.

Staatsbosbeheer. 2018. 50 jaar historie in vogelvlucht via https://issuu.com/staatsbosbeheer-

ovp/docs/50_jaar_ovp.

Staatsbosbeheer. 2019. Jaarverslag 2018. Staatsbosbeheer. Via

https://www.staatsbosbeheer.nl/over-staatsbosbeheer/feiten-en-cijfers

Staatsbosbeheer, 2020. Beleid en beheer. Staatsbosbeheer. Available at:

https://www.staatsbosbeheer.nl/over-staatsbosbeheer/dossiers/oostvaardersplassen-

beheer/beleid-en-beheer. [Accessed 7th june 2020]

Stichting Welzijn Grote Grazers, n.d., Doelstelling. [online] Available at:

https://www.stichtingwelzijngrotegrazers.nl/doelstelling [Accessed 15 May 2020]

Stichting Welzijn Grote Grazers (2018), Rampzalige situatie in de Oostvaardersplassen.

[online] Available at: https://www.stichtingwelzijngrotegrazers.nl/pers-en-

mailberichten/nieuwsberichten/141-rampzalige-situatie-in-de-oostvaardersplassen [Accessed

15 May 2020]

Straver, F., Verlouw, C. 2018. En al die andere grote grazers in Nederland dan? Laten sterven of

bijvoeren?. Trouw. Via https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/en-al-die-andere-grote-grazers-in-

nederland-dan-laten-sterven-of-bijvoeren~b4ffc09f/

Taapken, J., 1980. Oostvaardersplassengebied, een moderne Ark van Noach. Het vogeljaar,

28(3), pp.147-149

The Netherlands, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Foodquality, 2018. Wijziging van de

Omgevingswet en enkele andere wetten in verband met de overgang van de Wet

natuurbescherming naar de Omgevingswet (Aanvullingswet natuur Omgevingswet): Memorie

van Toelichting.

Theunissen, B., 2019. The Oostvaardersplassen Fiasco. Isis, 110(2), pp.341–345

Tree, I. Wilding: The return of nature to a British farm

Trischler, H., 2016. The Anthropocene. NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften,

Technik und Medizin, 24(3), pp.309-335.

Tsing Lowenhaupt, A., Mathews, A.S., Bubandt, N. 2019. Patchy Anthropocene: Landscape

Structure, Multispecies History, and the Retooling of Anthropology. Current Anthropology

60, 186197.

Tweede Kamer, 2019, Zo werkt de Kamer, Tweedekamer.nl via https://www.tweedekamer.nl/zo-

werkt-de-kamer

Tweede Kamer debate. 2010. Spoeddebat over de situatie van paarden, herten en runderen in het

gebied Oostvaardersplassen en de Kennemerduinen. Parliamentary debate the Netherlands.

28 January TK 48 4560–4575.

71

Van der Toorn, J., Brandsma, M., Bates, W.B. and Penny, M.G., 1969. De vegetatie van

Zuidelijk Flevoland in 1968. De Levende Natuur, 72(3), pp.56–62

Van Dijk, Hans. Anefo. 1981. [photograph]. Protest met betrekking tot de bouw van de Flevolijn

door de Oostvaardersplassen. At: Nationaal Archief. Accessed via

https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/onderzoeken/fotocollectie/ad02d41e-d0b4-102d-bcf8-

003048976d84

Van Geel, P.L.B.A., Poelman, P.J.M. and Van der List, M.J., 2018. Externe

Begeleidingscommissie beheer Oostvaardersplassen. Advies Beheer Oostvaardersplassen.

Kaders voor provinciaal beleid Provincie Flevoland. Available at:

https://www.flevoland.nl/getmedia/a134c459-ad83-4cb4-a924-7fe65b03aaa4/Advies-beheer-

Oostvaardersplassen-dvo.pdf

Vera, F.W.M., 1980. Unieke kans moet aangegrepen worden! De Oostvaardersplassen: de

restauratie van een oorspronkelijke levensgemeenschap. Het vogeljaar, 28(3), pp.113–146.

Vera, F.W.M., 2000. Grazing ecology and forest history. CABI, Wallingfor

Vera, F.W.M., 2008. Ontwikkelingsvisie Oostvaardersplassen. Voorbij de horizon van het

vertrouwde, Staatsbosbeheer, Driebergen.

Vera, F.W.M. 2009. Large-scale Nature Development – The Oostvaardersplassen. British

Wildlife. 28–36

Vera, F.W.M. 2014. 30 years of rewilding in the Netherlands. At https://oxfordmegafauna.wee

bly.com/conference-blog/frans. Accessed 2020-12-04

Verduijn, S.H., 2012. 'Natuurontwikkeling': radicaal idee van radicale denkers. Radboud

University Nijmegen via

https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/112020/112020.pdf

Vermeulen, R. 2015. Natural Grazing Practices in the rewilding of cattle and horses. Rewilding

Europe. [Online] Available at: https://www.rewildingeurope.com/wp-

content/uploads/2015/07/Natural-grazing-–-Practices-in-the-rewilding-of-cattle-and-

horses.pdf

Voslamber, B., 1992. Zilverreigers Egretta sp. in de Oostvaardersplassen in 1991. Limosa, 65,

pp.89–92

Vulink, J.T., Van Eerden, M.R., Platteeuw, M. and De Roos, M., 2009. De Oostvaardersplassen,

deel 1. Waterpeil en begrazing sturen het systeem. Landschap, 26, pp.109–120

White, R., 1985. American environmental history: the development of a new historical field. The

Pacific Historical Review, pp.297–335.