Debating the ‘wild’ What the Oostvaardersplassen can tell us about Dutch constructions of nature

(1)

Meghan Buurmans

Debating the ‘wild’

What the Oostvaardersplassen can tell us about Dutch constructions of nature

Master’s thesis in Global Environmental History

(2)

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

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

(3)

3

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)

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)

7

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

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

(8)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Debating the ‘wild’ What the Oostvaardersplassen can tell us about Dutch constructions of nature

Meghan Buurmans