A Legacy of Wilderness

researching the extent of rewilding and the shift in nature experience in the netherlands

Jacob Knegtel – 10878955 MA Thesis – Heritage and Memory Studies University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Humanities Dr. Hanneke Ronnes & Dr. J. Renes March 6th, 2016

researching the extent of rewilding and the shift in nature experience in the netherlands

Jacob Knegtel a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

Table of contents

Acknowledgements 7 1. Introduction 9 Relevance 10 2 Theory and methods 11 2.1 Theoretical framework 11 The wilderness concept 11 Evolution of wilderness 12 Wilderness as heritage 16 The Dutch view of nature 18 2.2 Methodology 20 Structure and methods 20 Operationalization 22 2.3 Conclusion 24 3. Historical framework 25 3.1 Rewilding in the United States 26 3.2 Rewilding in Europe 29 3.3 Conclusion 33 4. Groeve ‘t Rooth: the beginnings of Dutch wild nature? 34 4.1 Context 34 4.2 Key-informant analysis 38 4.3 National policy 41 4.4 Provincial policy 43 Profitability 44 Rewilding 44 4.5 Conclusion 46 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

5. Oostvaardersplassen: A habitat for the wild 48 5.1 Context 48 5.2 Key-informant analysis 50 5.3 Habitat 52 Grazing theoretics 55 ‘Wilderness’ 55 5.4 Enclosure 57 Borders and protection 57 Debate and critique 58 Rewilding 59 5.5 Conclusion 60 6. Tiengemeten: The wilderness experience 62 6.1 Context 63 6.2 Key-informant analysis 64 6.3 Views of nature 66 Conflicts 67 Perspective shift 68 6.4 View of wilderness 69 Experience 70 Rewilding 71 6.5 Conclusion 75 7 Conclusion 76

Bibliography 80 Images 89 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

Acknowledgements

Before reading this MA thesis, it is important to know that its conception was made possible because of a multitude of people who have contributed to this research. I would first like to thank three people in particular. My supervisor Hanneke Ronnes has aided me tremendously throughout this last year and a half. Within this last se- mester, her recommendations and critique have made it possible for me to carry my research skills to a higher level, especially within the field of heritage and memory studies. Her corrections and tips regarding my thesis I see as immensely valuable, and made it possible to strengthen my argumentation and conclusions. Secondly, I would like to thank Hans Renes for his lectures, that have further opened my eyes to this academic field, and of course for his contribution as a second reader. Thirdly, I would like to thank my mother for her dedication and devotion to my academic career, her immensely valuable criticism, and for making it possible to even go to university. Likewise, my brothers and sister have given me the same confidence to pursue this path within academia. Next, I would like to thank all the experts who have contributed to this research. Their valuable perspectives made it possible to attack this subject from many inter- esting sides. Also, I would like to thank all my teachers for their valuable insights and lectures this past year and a half, and in particular Ihab Saloul for his assistance during the writing process of this thesis. Lastly, my thanks go to Bert Creyghton for sharing his thoughts and giving me the idea of researching this subject, and my co-students for their immense enthusiasm and support throughout this masters programme. I hope you will enjoy reading this thesis.

7 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

1. Introduction

In 2015, Johan van de Gronden published a 198-paged bundle of essays, titled ‘Phili- sopher in the Wild’ (Dutch: ‘Wijsgeer in het Wild’). The Dutch philosopher and director of the Dutch World Wide Fund (WNF) wrote this book to summarize his views on the current state of affairs concerning nature management worldwide. He looks back at history and illustrates through personal experiences how past nature movements have shaped current management practices. He zooms in on the heritage of the American painter Thomas Cole and the writer Henry David Thoreau, the works of Charles Darwin, and the Chinese philosophy behind Taoism. Often he shifts his focus to the Netherlands. Compared to these foreign examples, Dutch nature always seems to belong in a category of its own; functional nature. Van de Gronden states that he has always been puzzled about the utilitarian character of Dutch nature, in which a distance between man and nature seems non-existent (Van de Gronden, 2015). Notwithstanding Van de Gronden’s words, the Dutch seem to have grown fond of a new movement these last few years that has gained popularity within the spheres of international nature management. ‘Rewilding’ entails the protection of virgin natural landscapes and the development toward a natural state of ‘wilderness’, with minimal humans interference. Growing more popular in the United States nowadays, the Dutch equivalent of this term (‘herwildering’) is nowhere to be found in the dictionaries, and seems utopian in practice within Dutch nature management. Nevertheless, more European countries seem to have embraced rewilding, especially in Eastern Europe. Rewilding here commits to the restoration of self-regulating ecosystems to their former glory (Bravo et al., 2016). In the Netherlands, an increasing number of natural heritage sites seem to be transformed to a more ‘wild’ equivalent of themselves. An increasing number of wolves, beavers and sea eagles seem to be visiting the country, to the excitement of the Dutch people. Organizations like Natuurmonumenten increasingly use the term ‘primeval nature’, similar to the increasing use of this term in Dutch nature documentaries. The Dutch seem to have grown a desire for ‘wild nature’, both in terms of nature experience and nature management. This seems to create ‘wild islands’

9 1 introduction jacob knegtel

within our planned Dutch landscape, as seen in the cover photo of this thesis. It suggests that the international phenomenon of rewilding has reached the Nether- lands, and has influenced the Dutch view of nature in all corners of society. In this research, the phenomenon of ‘rewilding’ will be researched from a heritage point of view. As rewilding seems to entail the restoration of lost history, the sustainable development and conservation of natural heritage and the renewed experience of wild nature, this study will look at this phenomenon from a cultural perspective. The main research question thus reads:

To what extent does the practice of rewilding take place in Dutch nature management, and how does this scenario compare to established rewilding movements abroad? relevance This study aims to fill in a specific academic hiatus within the field of heritage studies. Numerous studies on the phenomenon of rewilding in the United States and Europe have been done these last few years, which mainly focus on the mana- gerial and biological aspects of this practice. Few studies however adopt a cultural perspective, which involves the dimension of natural heritage management and the human side of rewilding. Moreover, there hasn’t been a large qualitative study done on the prevalence of rewilding in the Netherlands, let alone studies looking at the position of Dutch rewilding in an international context. Therefore, the academic relevance of this study is significant. Seeing how this research belongs within heritage studies, the societal relevance that it possesses is also substantial. This study will take into account all spheres of society in order to research the occurrence of rewilding, and aims to illustrate the current relationship the Dutch have with nature, along with the various dimensions it covers, such as ‘wilderness’. The title, ‘a legacy of wilderness’, implies the heritagization of this diverse concept, or the way the idea of wilderness has evolved through generations and has affected the management of nature.

10 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

2. Theory and methods

The following chapter will delve into the academic literature, and will form a literature basis for the research chapters that will follow. This chapter is divided into two parts; the theoretical framework and the methodology. The framework discusses the conceptual and theoretical fundament of this research, embedding it in both nature management and heritage theory. The methodology looks into the methods that will be used in this paper, along with an operationalization of the core concept used in this research.

2.1 Theoretical framework

At the centre of the rewilding movement within nature management lies the concept of ‘wilderness’. The term is used today in a wide manner of ways and is instrumental for a broad array of purposes. Historically however, the development of the concept is less branched out, and shows a clear set of sources and influences over the centuries. This general framework will summarize this development, and will position the concept of wilderness within academic theory. Subsequently, the notion and process of ‘rewilding’, which revolves around the subject of wilderness, will also be theorized as such.

the wilderness concept The current definition of the term ‘wilderness’ varies from source to source. Accord- ing to the Oxford Dictionaries, the word implies “an uncultivated, uninhabited, and inhospitable region” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015). As used in legal documents, such as the still used US Wilderness Act of 1964, a wilderness “is hereby recognized as

11 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (Rosenberg, 1994, p. 4), whereas the 2007 German National Strategy typifies wilderness as large natural areas that are strictly protected by but entirely absent of humans (BMU, 2007). Compared to these documents however, there exists no clear definition of wilderness in academia, as it is a heavily debated notion. To operationalize the term, most scholars merely refer to the definition of the ‘wilderness idea’, which boils down to the thought that wilderness is a natural area free of human presence and interaction (Oelschlaeger, 1991). As such, wilderness is defined as “pristine areas which are completely untouched by humans” (Van den Berg & Koole, 2006, p. 363), as natural areas devoid of people which are quintessentially nonhuman (Hintz, 2007), as “large and intact areas that have not been subject to broad-scale clearing and fragmentation” (Klein et al., 2009, p. 1289) and as a wild landscape that is free of the presence of human agency (Keeling, 2008). The reason that all these definitions are all slightly different, is because every country has its own tradition of and vision on nature management and nature philosophy. As posed by Roderick Nash, an American professor emeritus of history and environmental studies, the term ‘wilderness’ is too heavily freighted with meaning of a personal, symbolic, and changing kind for it be easily defined (Nash, 2014). What all these definitions and conceptualizations have in common is that a perceived wilderness is a natural area where humans do not belong. The idea of wilderness explores the interrelations between mankind and the natural world. It covers man’s place in nature, its relation to nature, and the origin of this relation. To grasp the essence of this thought, a large step back in time needs to be made. evolution of wilderness Through historiography, we can read about the time when ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ started to separate from each other. At the end of the Ice Age, the warming of our climate heralded the dawn of agriculture. Moreover, working the soil was equally made possible because of another development: the evolution of human nature (Oelschlaeger, 1991). The Mesolithic arrival of the Homo Sapiens not only kick-started the agricultural revolution, but also the dawn of cultured nature. This idea of humanizing nature was later underlined by the Judeo-Christian interpretation of

12 2.1 theoretical framework jacob knegtel

the world, as religion enabled the first recorded use of the world ‘wilderness’. Used in the Bible as a synonym for the arid plains of the Near East, the word especially underlined the fact that this area was desolate and mostly uninhabited (Nash, 2014). It also possessed a connotation of evil, as a wilderness was often a setting where man should be punished and tested (Hendee et al., 1978). As such, it remained a connotation through the Middle Ages, as the word was then used by Christians to refer to heathen landscapes, as heath- and woodlands were seen as places where evil spirits dwell (Oelschlaeger, 1991). At the end of the Middle Ages, the wilderness concept lost some of its negative meaning through developments in physical and natural sciences (Stanbury, 2004). The Renaissance and Reformation periods laid the foundations of these scientific developments, but it was the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century that radically changed the meaning of the word ‘wilderness’. The discovery of new laws of physics led to a new appreciation of nature in most western countries (Dahnke, 2011). The early Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century added to this societal debate concerning man’s relationship to the environment, which became an essential precondition to the recognition of wilderness as a source of human values and to the eventual development of nature preservation (Harrison, 2013). As explained by Oelschlaeger, the notion of nature as a source of human existence, rather than being instrumental to economic growth, “is the outcome of the second scientific revolution, initiated in the nineteenth century by Charles Darwin and Rudolf Clau- sius” (Oelschlaeger, 1991, p. 1). With the Europeans now starting to remove themselves from the works and technologies of man, while discovering uncharted territory in the New World, Romantics started to prefer the wild (Nash, 2014). The solitude and liberty the wilderness offered, aside from its adventurous and exploratory challenges, became the perfect setting for melancholy or equally excitement. In the United States, the value of wild nature, a term not applying anymore to vast gardens and man-made parks, arose only from the possibility that it might be tamed by human hands; uncharted nature was seen as a frontier (Cronon, 1996). Although the starting point of this perspective differs from its European counterpart, the notion of exploration fuelled Romanticism movements in both continents. In the US, the ‘frontier’ movement at that time laid the foundation for the designation of the National Parks we know today, with Yosemite being one of the first ‘sanc-

13 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

tuaries of wilderness’ for humans to discover (Figure 2.1). Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862), widely recognized as the greatest nature writer of his country, helped shaping the American wilderness idea. According to Thoreau, in wilderness lies the preservation of the world. He asserts that true freedom lies not in culture but in nature, and the closer man lives to nature, the more likely they are to comprehend their freedom. Thoreau inspired other great wilderness philosophers, like John Muir and Aldo Leopold, who further shaped the American Renaissance of the nineteenth and twentieth century (Oelschlaeger, 1991). In England and France, the ‘sublime’ movement paved the way for poets like Wil- liam Wordsworth (1770-1850) to feel bewildered and almost terrified of their natural surroundings, in his case the Lake District National Park in Northern England. The wild gazed down upon man, as a supernatural entity in all its glory and untamable superiority (Cronon, 1996). Nature in that sense is imbedded with feeling, such as joy, grief and wonder, with spectacular order in all its complexity, and with mystery, experienced as a transcendental sensation (Crist, 2004). Apart from painters and poets, several essential European critics deepened this Romanticist movement. John Ruskin (1819-1900) criticized society’s relationship with nature, and the superiority man has over nature that is too often expressed through landscape painting, even by ‘wildercentrists’ (O’Brian & White, 2007)(Figure 2.1).

figure 2.1 Looking Down Yosemite Valley by A. Bierstadt (1865), Birmingham Museum of Art (left); Buttermere Lake, with Part of Cromackwater, Cumberland, a Shower by Joseph Turner (1798), Tate Britain (right)

14 2.1 theoretical framework jacob knegtel

At the same time, different counter-movements popped up, such as ‘preservationism’ and ‘ecocentrism’. Preservationism sees nature as a living and evolving whole, and underlines the importance of aesthetic and scientific values as part of its protection-driven idea of nature management. Ecocentrists further emphasized this holistic perspective, inverting the relation between man and nature (Oelschlaeger, 1991). Aldo Leopold (1887-1948) first used the term ‘ecocentrism’ after WOII, which, in contrast to an anthropocentric point of view, revolves around the idea that all separate species on earth are part of an all encompassing system of natural evolution. Leopold was the first to use the term ‘wilderness’ in the context of nature preservation, as he believed that the National Parks in the US should be dismantled from traces of man’s structures and presence and should see a reintroduction of species like bear and wolf (Meine, 1988). As such, Leopold laid one of the cornerstones for contemporary wilderness preservation. The specific value of wilderness within this perspective inspired the further development of contemporary nature philosophy. Based on these ecocentrist tenets, a postmodern movement deepened the man versus nature debate in the 1970s. Deep Ecology valued the idea of wilderness as a dependent for human survival on earth, and underlined the process of experiencing this wildness (Devall & Sessions, 1985, p. 110):

“Experiencing the wilderness or the wildness of a place . . . is a process of 1) developing a sense of place, 2) redefining the heroic person from conqueror of the land to the person fully experiencing the natural place, 3) cultivating the virtues of modesty and humility and 4) realizing how the mountains and rivers, fish and bears are continuing their own actualizing processes.”

As one of the last regions in Europe where old-growth forests can still be experienced these days, Scandinavia set the stage for Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss to kick- start the Deep Ecology movement in the early 70s. Wilderness became a philosophy in itself, and symbolizing the culmination of contrast between the “civilized” and the “wild”, building on the virtues of wilderness experience as coined by people like Thoreau, Muir and Leopold (Booth, 2008). The next paragraph will elaborate on these people, and the way wilderness is experienced and management.

15 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

wilderness as heritage The term wilderness has thus been used for many centuries to describe natural landscapes where humans haven’t left traces of presence or where man doesn’t belong. However, as more and more people attached value to the idea of wilderness, natural areas were increasingly seen as places of meaning which should be protected and kept intact for future generations to come. As the Industrial Revolution brought with urban growth and the impending loss of natural and cultural history, this idea of protecting landscapes of value set the stage for the first heritage conservation movements (Harrison, 2013). The Scottish-American writer and naturalist John Muir (1838-1914), as mentioned before, can be seen as one of the fathers of the wilderness idea. His writings, along with the establishment of the Sierra Club – an environmental organization set up for the protection of wild places – became the breeding ground for the US National Parks concept. Yellowstone National Park became the first ‘wild’ region reserved for recreational purposes under the management of the United States Federal Government in 1872, which set the example for further heritage and wilderness management countrywide and influenced conservationists as Aldo Leopold. The movement also became influential to the establishment of the British National Trust for the Preservation of Historic Buildings and Natural Beauty, founded in 1896. Octavia Hill, one of the founders, also embraced the idea of wilderness as beneficial for the human constitution, though fragile and in need of protection. Similar to the US National Park movement, this idea became the corner stone of British National Park management (Harrison, 2013). This movement of wilderness conservation, which began in the 19th century and developed into our contemporary conservation of natural heritage, has blurred the lines between nature and culture ever since. The management of nature as heritage has led to a branching of the wilderness concept during this past century. As stated by nature planner Thymio Papayannis and conservation ecologist Peter Howard, viewing nature as heritage associates nature with human beings, and their processes of inheriting. It implies a human responsibility of the natural wealth inherited from our ancestors, and of the natural capital we leave to our offspring. As such, nature is cultural, as culture is natural (Papayannis & Howard, 2007). On the other hand, we see the development of the wilderness concept as separate from natural heritage conservation. As mentioned earlier, the Deep Ecology

16 2.1 theoretical framework jacob knegtel

movement advocates for the conservation of wilderness in a non-anthropocentric manner. Quoting Aldo Leopold, the Foundation for Deep Ecology (FDE) stated the following in their latest publication concerning land ethics: “Conservation is a state of health in the land-organism. (...) Culture is a state of awareness of the land’s collective functioning. A culture premised on the destructive dominance of a single species can have but short duration” (Tompkins & Tompkins, 2015, p. 3). In this way, the FDE follows Leopold’s ecocentric belief that wilderness areas and wildlife have intrinsic value. Although humans have a responsibility to be aware of the health of wild areas, they should not manage wilderness but rather focus on the wild’s self-renewal and self-maintenance (Tompkins & Tompkins, 2015). This dualistic perspective on the concept of wilderness and its conservation has to do with the fact that the term wilderness is inherently paradoxical. As of today, the term itself still invokes a notion of purity and originality in nature, without any sign of human footprints. Something that is “wild” is usually seen as separate from culture. However, the earlier mentioned shift in wilderness thinking shows us that nature and culture are essentially undistinguishable from each other (Kolen, 2015). As Cronon phrases it, wilderness “quietly expresses and reproduces the very values its devotees seek to reject”, namely civilization (Cronon, 1996, p. 17). The idea that there has been a shift from nature and society as separate realms to the idea that wilderness is entangled with humanity, is shared by Environmental Professor Eileen Crist, who refers to the two realms as ‘two sides of the same coin’. Environmentalist Bill McKibben adds that human-induced environmental degradation and climate change has effected even the most ‘pristine’ environments on earth, reducing the Western notion of untouched wilderness to a utopia (McKibben, 1990). This paradox of cultural wilderness, of a seemingly non-human concept being intrinsically cultural, does not deny the fact that one can still experience wilderness. Seeking wilderness in nature doesn’t entail the quest for an absence of humans. Rather, it entails the experience of the presence of nature at large, the authentic ‘wilderness experience’ (Plumwood, 1998). Nowadays, authenticity is rapidly becoming the new consumer sensibility, as people want to discover real and genuine history (Pine II & Gilmore, 2007). The same holds true for natural heritage. In his book The Tourist Gaze sociologist John Urry talks about this experience of apparent authenticity, or as he calls it the ‘romantic gaze’ within the context of nature. Tourists experience the romantic gaze when they visit a historical place which seemingly is

17 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

authentic. Urry uses the example of the Lake District National Park in north-west England, as a site which is managed according to this tourist gaze (Urry, 1990). As tourists have certain expectations when they see a National Park marketed as a ‘wilderness’, the park managers will make sure these expectations will be met. Some scholars refer to this trend as a new Romanticism, proffered and consumed via media. Here, expectation and engagement are equally important when it comes to heritage consumption (Prentice, 2001). This commodification of nature areas as tourist experiences, by overemphasizing and staging the past, causes landscapes to become decontextualized (Van der Laarse, 2010). To understand nature as heritage, and accordingly the management of nature, one has to thus have an idea how people view and experience this nature. Before researching the extent of rewilding in the Netherlands, it is needed to get an understanding of the way people in the Netherlands view nature. the dutch view of nature As the term ‘nature’ covers a broad array of meanings, people have different views on what nature is or should be. Not only are these differences visible across generations, but also across age groups and occupations (Turnhout et al., 2004). Hence, a decision by an organization fifty years ago to cut down a forest can be looked back on with regret by that same organization today. However, just like heritage conservation, nature conservation always mirrors societal changes and preferences. Looking at man’s view of nature, there seem to be traditions and patterns visible that can help understand how the Dutch society has changed overtime (Turnhout et al., 2004). When looking at the Dutch perspective towards nature this past century, two major traditions within the spheres of international nature management have been dominant: the imperialistic tradition and the arcadian tradition. The imperialistic perspective covers man’s view of nature as a resource, as it is knowable by science and controllable by humans. The arcadian tradition on the other hand embodies the romantic counter-movements, as described earlier in this chapter. This perspective can be characterized by the admiration for nature, through sympathy for species, the appreciation of natural splendour and the study of natural history. According to the arcadian tradition, there is a certain distance between man and nature, which

18 2.1 theoretical framework jacob knegtel

strengthens the admiration humans have for these landscapes and the intrinsic value they possess (Turnhout et al., 2004). The ideal images of nature here are ‘wilderness’ and the ‘pastoral idyll’, representing primitive panic and bucolic leisure respectively (Schama, 1995). Today, these two traditions are still visible within nature management and conservation worldwide. Jozef Keulartz et al. confirm that both traditions have also once been adopted within the context of Dutch nature policy. The authors use the term ‘anthropocentric’ instead of ‘imperialistic’, but refer to the same type of vision. Ke- ulartz et al. state that the arcadian perspective is situated within a gradient between the anthropocentric approach on the one end and the ‘ecocentric’ approach on the other end. Ecocentric nature management actually strives towards supporting the development of wild nature, in contrast to the arcadian perspective where wild nature is merely a utopia (Keulartz et al., 2004). Both in policy and practice, the arcadian tradition has been dominant within Dutch nature management before the 1970s. However, the ecocentric perspective seems to slowly become a more preferable way to view and manage nature, as the phenomenon of ‘new nature’ creation is becoming more popular nationwide (Van der Heijden, 2005; Bulkens et al., 2015). Is there then also a predominant perspective among Dutch laymen? In a pluralist society like the Netherlands, each Dutchman has their own preference regarding the three concepts of nature – functional, arcadian and ecocentric – but that does not mean that there aren’t certain trends visible nationwide? Riyan van den Born has researched lay people’s views of nature in the Netherlands, and her conclusions mimic the Dutch shift from an arcadian to an ecocentric perspective. In general, the Dutch see nature that is more or less uncultivated as ‘real nature’. Although they are certain that humans are part of nature, a seemingly untouched forest or river landscape evokes a sense of wild nature in them. Moreover, the idea that nature possesses intrinsic value is broadly accepted. However, when asked then why nature is so valuable, the respondents found it difficult to describe this concept of intrinsic value. Most of the answers to this question revolved around the instrumental perspective, as ‘for oxygen’, ‘for tranquility’ and ‘for recreation’ were the most popular answers given (Van den Born, 2007). Van den Born’s research shows that the Dutch people view nature differently than they use it. Dutchmen are starting to become interested in the romantic aspect of wild nature, but tend to position this ecocentric view within an arcadian frame of

19 2.1 theoretical framework jacob knegtel

mind. In a recent article on rewilding, ecologists Nogués-Bravo et al. refer to this stance as a ‘false romance’, as both professional managers and lay-people have ideas of ‘wild nature’, ‘wilderness’ and ‘rewilding’ that don’t usually correspond with the practical reality of these concepts (Nogués-Bravo et al., 2016). In a more recent article about social representations of Dutch nature, Arjen Buijs et al. also found that only a small group of Dutch lay people actually fully subscribes to the ecocentric values on which we ground the concept of wilderness (Buijs et al., 2011).

2.2 Methodology

structure and methods The theoretic framework formed one of the research chapters in this thesis, as it contained a literature study on the concepts of ‘wilderness’ and ‘rewilding’, set within the context of heritage and the relationship between man and nature. This framework made it possible to venture out into the field and collect data for the main research chapters. These three chapters form the core elements of the research in this thesis, with each of the chapters containing a discussion on a certain subject. Together, these three subject form the elements that constitute the main question, which was posed in the introduction (see Chapter 1). Each of these three case studies also revolve around a specific nature reserve in the Netherlands (Figure 2.2). In Chapter 4, Groeve ‘t Rooth will be researched. Located in the southern part of the province of Limburg, this nature reserve was once a quarry. The objective of this chapter is to research why this area was transformed, and to find out if this area constitutes as a reserve where the first phase of rewilding is taking place. In Chapter 5, the Oostvaardersplassen will be researched. Located in the western part of the province of Flevoland, this nature reserve was created by reclaiming land from the sea. The objective of this chapter is to research the extent of wild nature in the area, by looking at the concept of habitats and enclosures. Also, is the hypothesis true that rewilding takes place here? And if so, to what extent does it take place?

20 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

In Chapter 6, Tiengemeten will be researched. Located in the southern part of the province of South-Holland, this nature reserve was once a mosaic of agricultural land. Within the context of Tiengemeten, the objective of this chapter is to research the way the Dutch view nature. Also, why does Natuurmonumenten use the term ‘wilderness’ here and to what extent does that relate to rewilding?

figure 2.2 The EHS (Nature Network Netherlands)(with the three case studies in red, and the Biesbosch (Chapter 7) in blue) and the Natura 2000 areas. Source: Ministerie van Economische zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

For each of the three core areas, a semi- structured interview will be held with a nature manager of the specific reserve, who put provincial and European nature policy into practice. These managers oversee the changes in the landscape, and are key individuals in the physical process of wild nature development, and the extent to which human intervene. The fact that these three experts are employed at the three organizations that manage most of the Dutch nature – which are a the provincial

21 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

nature conservation organizations (Dutch: ‘Landschap’), Natuurmonumenten and Staatsbosbeheer – gives the accumulated data set the needed relevance for forthcom- ing research purposes. Additionally, the areas will be visited in order to look at the result of these transformations, with the data of the interviews taken into account. Subsequently, the outcome of these interviews will be triangulated, which means that three additional data sets will be used to validate and verify the main findings. Each of the three interviews is triangulated by a semi-structured interview with an expert outside the field of nature management, a site analysis and literary research. In Chapter 4, this second interview will be with a policy worker that oversees provincial nature policy. In Chapter 5, an interview with the rewilding director of Rewilding Europe will be used. In Chapter 6, an additional interview with a documentary director, who oversaw the conception of the movies ‘The New Wilderness’ (Dutch: ‘De Nieuwe Wildernis’) and ‘Holland – Nature in the Delta’ (Dutch: ‘Holland – Natuur in de Delta’), will be drawn upon. These additional three data sets mirror the sub- jects of each research chapter, and are also used to discuss the Dutch concepts of ‘wilderness’ and ‘rewilding’ within an international context. operationalization Three terms play an vital role in this research, which are ‘wilderness’, ‘wild nature’ and ‘rewilding’. As can be read earlier, some definitions of these terms coincide more or less with an aforementioned legal perspective, as ‘wilderness’ for example can be strictly seen as nature being minimally interfered with by humans, both in history as in the present. However, ‘wilderness’ can also be defined from a more subjective, psychological perspective, as stated by Dutch nature psychologists Agnes van den Berg and Sander Koole: “On the basis of this psychological definition of wilderness it is possible to refer to humanly redeveloped landscapes as wilderness landscapes” (Van den Berg & Koole, 2006, p. 363). Here, a ‘wilderness’ is a social construct, as stated by Sandra Wall-Reinius, a researcher from the Mid Sweden University. By adopting a heritage perspective, she has done research on the natural experience of protected areas, and looked at ‘wilderness’ as a construct of desire. As her definition of ‘wilderness’ corresponds with the heritage perspective of this research, the following working definition shall be used in this thesis henceforth (Wall-Reinius, 2012, p. 628):

22 2.2 methodology jacob knegtel

A wilderness is a natural landscape where visitors imagine pristine nature, wild animals, and few or no human influences.

As put forward by the European Commission, the legal definitions of ‘wild area’ and ‘rewilding’ correspond with their predominant academic counterparts, which constitute as a popular American definition and a popular European definition. Conservation biologists Michael Soulé and Reed Noss defined ‘rewilding’ as the “scientific argument for restoring big wilderness based on the regulatory roles of large predators” (Soulé & Noss, 1998, p. 5). According to the popular European definition, formulated by biodiversity researchers Henrique Pereira and Laetitia Navarro, rewilding is the “passive management of ecological succession with the goal of restoring natural ecosystem processes and reducing human control of landscapes” (Pereira & Navarro, 2015, p. 10). The American definition emphasizes the rewilding potential of existing wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act and underlines human intervention and the value of predators, whereas the European definition emphasizes the passive role of managers, with a focus on ecosystem processes and reduced human interference. Both definitions however revolve around restoring nature to a former state, making it a process as described by the European Commission. Together they form the following working definition of ‘rewilding’ within this research:

Rewilding involves the process of restoring natural processes by bringing nature areas to a wilder state, while reducing human presence and interference to a minimum.

The more these natural processes are restored, the more ‘wild’ an area becomes, seeing how the higher degree of sustainability calls for fewer human interference. A ‘wild area’ shall henceforth be defined as follows:

A wild area is an area of nature that can be characterized by a high prevalence of natural processes and a low degree of human presence.

23 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

2.3 Conclusion

During the 19th century, the concepts of nature and culture separated within the spheres of nature management, during an era when both concepts were virtually interchangeable. Out of this shift of thinking the first nature conservationist and heritage conservationists movements arose in the United States and the United Kingdom, and soon thereafter, wilderness conservation. In the United States, this led to formal wilderness designations and the creation of National Parks, after which several European countries decided to follow in these footsteps. The management of nature as heritage has led to a branching of the wilderness concept during this past century. Out of this recent branching arose the idea of ‘rewilding’. In the Nether- lands, a recent shift toward an ecocentric approach to nature development seems to have affected the Dutch view of nature. To what extent rewilding is visible in Dutch nature, and in what way the concept of ‘wilderness’ is visible within the context of Dutch nature management, remains to be researched in the coming chapters.

24 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

3 Historical framework

Today, 21% if the old-growth forests once existing still remain worldwide (WRI, 2009)(Figure 3.1). Out of fear of losing these last stretches of wilderness, the rewilding movement became popular in the United States. In Europe, the popularization of rewilding took a different path. This chapter will focus on the growth and status quo regarding rewilding movements in both the United States and Europe.

figure 3.1 A recent overview of old-growth forests (yellow: intact, red: degradated) in the US and Europe (2013). Source: Greenpeace

25 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

3.1 Rewilding in the United States

The monumentalization of wild nature forever changed the way Americans looked at their natural surroundings. At the turn of the 20th century, the ignored and reclaimed wildness now became something to be protected for future generations; a heritage. By then, most of the virgin forests were cleared in both continents, save for some areas that became protected during the 19th century (Williams, 2000), such as the first National Parks. In turn, ‘monumentalism’ evolved into the ‘wilderness movement’, which has its roots in the founding of The Wilderness Society by Aldo Leopold and Olaus Murie in the 1930’s (Soulé & Noss, 1998). This movement laid the foundations for the official federal protection of wilderness, and made a strong case for the belief in the intrinsic value of self-willed nature (Nash, 1989). The Wilderness Act of 1964, written by Howards Zahniser (1906-1964) of the The Wilderness Society, made possible for the official American definition of the word ‘wilderness’ and the designation of wilderness areas to be protected by four federal institutions, which we now know as the National Wilderness Preservation System (Soulé & Noss, 1998). To quote Zahniser: “The wilderness that has come to us from the eternity of the past we have the boldness to project into the eternity of the future” (Zahniser, 1964). During the ‘70s and ‘80s, nature management in the United States slowly progressed from monumentalism to a focus on biological conservation. This development can be explained due to the fact that conservationists started to acknowledge that natural landscapes are dynamic, yet fragile and easily disturbed by fires, floods and other events. During that same period conservation biologists stumbled upon the loss of flora and fauna in most US National Parks. The realization that closed natural systems such as National Parks were adversely influencing natural species, led to the emergence of a third major movement in nature management, which is ‘island biogeography’. According to this movement, natural areas should be connected to each other to stimulate the migration and development of species, instead of remaining gated (Soulé & Noss, 1998). Out of these three movements, the fourth major chapter in modern nature conservation surfaced in the mid-80s. ‘Rewilding’, as it was called, was based on

26 3.1 rewilding the united states jacob knegtel

the ideas of island biogeography, and entailed the implementation of knowledge gathered from conservation biology. Rewilding is achieved when networks of “continental mega-linkages” are established, connecting wilderness areas by travel corridors and surrounding them by natural buffers (Foreman, 2004). This way, nature managers in the US can emulate the way natural areas were connected before the arrival of the European settlers. Soulé and Noss recognize three independent features when characterizing the current practice of rewilding, which are ‘large, strictly protected, core reserves (the wild)’, ‘connectivity’, and ‘keystone species (whose influence on ecosystem function and diversity are disproportionately large relative to their numerical abundance)’ (Soulé & Noss, 1998, p. 5). Also referred to as the three C’s philosophy – cores, corridors and carnivores – the rewilding movement in the US can be seen as an umbrella term for smaller objectives which were gaining popularity at the end of the 20th century and start of the 21st century. President Bill Clinton’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001 is one of those initiatives which helped connecting natural areas, thereby increasing the size of these reserves (Scott, 2001). Another key initiative was the Wildlands Project, formed in 1991 and now known as the Wildlands Network. Mainly focused on the western and north-eastern United States, the project’s goal is to maintain, buffer and connect existing wilderness areas. The term rewilding is relevant here, as habitats needed to be defragmented and certain historic species needed to be reintroduced, mainly carnivores. Today, the National Wilderness Preservation System oversees the federal protection of designated wilderness areas in the United States. Their work however only accounts for the preservation of wilderness, and not the reintroduction of wilderness. Currently there are several actual rewilding initiatives active in the United States. The aforementioned Wildlands Network is now focusing on the completion of their Continental Wildways, which are large protected landscapes destined for wildlife migration. Four of them are in the making, of which one is the Eastern Wild- way (Figure 3.2), extending northward from the Everglades along the Appalachians to the Arctic (Wildlands Network, 2015). A second major initiative is the Rewilding Institute, an American non-profit organization focused mainly on the reintroduction of carnivores in rewilded landscapes. Founded in 2003 by environmental activist David Foreman, the institute was introduced as a think-thank for the former Wild- lands Project, and now serves as an independent scientific organization (TRI, 2015).

27 3.1 rewilding the united states jacob knegtel

figure 3.2 A black bear in a nature reserve in North Carolina, part of the Eastern Wildway. Source: Wildlands Network

Aside from the bigger national projects, smaller state-focused and park-focused initiatives are currently abundant. The wolf reintroduction program of the Yellow- stone National Park is an example, similar to the reestablishment of mountain lions in Nebraska and both Dakotas, and the species project of the Ozark Plateau in United States’ Midwestern forest landscapes (Lewis, 2015). Another trend within the current development of the US rewilding movement is the idea of ‘Pleistocene rewilding’. Coined by multiple authors in a 2005 edition of Nature, the term entails the reintroduction of species like African lion and elephant to the wildlands of the United States (Donlan et al., 2005). Ecologist Josh Donlan and his co-authors thereby distanced themselves from the three C’s that defined contemporary rewilding ethics. The controversial article, in which the authors offer an alternative conservation strategy for the 21st century by presenting a plan to restore animals that disappeared 13,000 years ago from Pleistocene North America, sparked a grand debate in the country in the years that followed (Jørgensen, 2015).

28 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

3.2 Rewilding Europe

Although the current rewilding movement has its roots in the United States, its Eu- ropean counterpart has actually been conceived earlier. While the term ‘rewilding’ has been coined in the United States, the theoretic foundations of the movement are European (Helmer, 2016). Today, similar to what is happening across the At- lantic, initiatives are becoming more numerous across all levels of society in many European countries. Moreover, in both continents rewilding is ignoring borders, with American projects crossing the boundaries of Canada and Mexico, while in most cases European corridors span multiple countries as well. The major difference compared to the US however is the incentive for rewilding in many European countries, such as Croatia, Sweden and Slovenia. While American rewilding initiatives today are aimed to restore the wildness of the pre-settler era out of romantic nostalgia, projects in Europe generally have a different starting point. Although nostalgia in European nature can be seen as a flame that has been sup- pressed by centuries of land cultivation since the Romantic period, the fuel that has reignited this flame of the European wilderness movement is the abandonment of agricultural land. This increase in land abandonment is mainly caused by the decline in agricultural productivity and aging of the population in Europe, and has caused rewilding to become a visible movement within European nature management. Figure 3.3 shows a recent map illustrating these hotspots of agriculture negligence,

figure 3.3 Agricultural land abandonment in Europe and the position of rewilding within European nature management today. Source: Pereira, 2015 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

which are projected to become afforested or rewilded in the coming decades. On a continental scale, the post-industrial decline in deforestation aided this come- back of forests and scrublands as well (Pereira & Navarro, 2015). Today, as read in Chapter 2, European rewilding is all about passive management, in contrast to the more active American counterpart. Figure 3.3 illustrates this European narrative. Wouter Helmer and Sergey Zimov, respectively the director of the Rewilding Europe initiative and the director of the Northeast Science Station in Russia, further explain that the supposedly wild areas in Europe are a petty remnant of the abundance of wilderness that covered Europe 50.000 years ago. Secondly, they state that we cannot restore this destroyed nature without the restoration of the animals that helped shape these ecosystems (Reardon, 2014). Aside from the debate about the reintroduction of predators, strong empirical data for the ecological value of keystone species does exist. In conjunction to earlier studies – by Charles Darwin (1859), Joseph Grinnell (1917, 1924) and Georgy Gause (1934) – a 2010 study by Terborgh and Estes revealed that the removal of key species may result in a ‘trophic cascade’ of further species loss; a conclusion which in turn is backed up by multiple research papers today (Brown et al., 2011). Aside from forest regeneration and the reintroduction of certain species, rewilding in Europe also stresses the connectivity of natural areas (Brown et al., 2011). Keystone species will benefit immensely from both this connectivity and this revival of forests and scrublands (Pereira & Navarro, 2015). With the knowledge that the process of rewilding in Europe is currently occur- ring and gaining more popularity, which initiatives and examples do exist today?

figure 3.4 Rewilding Europe’s Velebit reserve in Croatia. Source: Rewilding Europe 3.2 rewilding europe jacob knegtel

Looking at initiatives, Rewilding Europe is currently the dominant conservation movement continent-wide. In 2010, various organizations met in Brussels to jump- start a rewilding initiative – which were WWF Netherlands, ARK Nature, Wild Wonders of Europe and Conservation Capital. and founded Rewilding Europe. Their mission is as follows: ”Rewilding Europe wants to make Europe a wilder place, with much more space for wildlife, wilderness and natural processes. Bring- ing back the variety of life for us all to enjoy and exploring new ways for people to earn a fair living from the wild”. They recognize wild nature as a fundamental asset of the natural and cultural heritage of Europe, underlining it as a prerequisite for a modern European society. ‘Wild nature’ and ‘wilderness’ in their vocabulary are synonyms, and defined as “large landscapes that are governed by essential natural processes, which create the necessary space for all of our original animals and plants, including man”. With that mission in mind – which distances itself from passive management and is more human-oriented – they focus on rewilding ten large areas in Europe – such as the Velebit mountain range in Crotia (Figure 3.4) – which are predominantly mountainous areas spanning about nine countries (Rewilding Europe, 2015). With these separate projects they hope to set up a wider European Rewilding Network, which is now in development. They also hope to inspire other rewilding initiatives currently popping up in Europe. Among the other smaller initiatives that have already been set up during the last few decades, there exist a few notable ones, where species are reintroduced to their ancestors’ historic habitats. One of these projects occurred in Scotland, which also had a focus on restoring 600m2 of ancient Caledonian forest. Apart from these initiatives, rewilding is also taking place naturally at the moment, with wolves crossing Poland into Germany, and the brown bear entering from Slovenia into Italy, Switzerland and Austria (Martin et al., 2008). Lastly, to what extent then is rewilding supported by the European Union? The European Parlement adopted a ‘wilderness-resolution’ in 2009, followed by the European Commission drafting guidelines in 2013 for wilderness management in Natura 2000 areas. Natura 2000 is a European network of protected areas designed by the EU to safeguard the long-term protection of habitats and species that represent European biodiversity. Under EU legislation, the Habitats Directive functions as a scientific platform in order to select and monitor specific areas and species for survival.

31 3.2 rewilding europe jacob knegtel

However, most Natura 2000 areas are semi-natural zones and the Directive does not exclude human activities and human-assisted nature management (Martin et al. 2008; European Parliament 2009; Ferranti et al., 2013). Under EU legislation, passive management is seen as too risky as it increases the risk of undesirable emergent properties, such as invasive species and diseases, and could negatively affect the compositional character of the Nature 2000 areas. This means that EU funding and large-scale support for rewilding in Europe remains limited (Jepson, 2015). Today, most of the European budget concerning nature management takes the form of income subsidies for farmers, in the hope to stimulate agricultural nature conservation (Van de Gronden, 2015). However, rewilding has officially been adopted as a strategy for the management of Natura 2000 sites, and is increasingly been recognized as a tool for the development of wild nature and the management of appointed wilderness areas (European Commission, 2013)(European Commis- sion, 2015). In 2013, the European Commission set up a working definition for the terms ‘wilderness’, ‘wild area’ and ‘rewilding’, as part of their Natura 2000 programme. According to European policy makers, a wilderness “is an area governed by natural processes. It is composed of native habitats and species, and large enough for the effective ecological functioning of natural processes. It is unmodified or only slightly modified and without intrusive or extractive human activity, settlements, infrastructure or visual disturbance” (European Commission, 2013, pp. 10-11). Next, they define ‘wild areas’ as follows: “Wild areas have a high level of predom- inance of natural processes and natural habitat. They tend to be more fragmented than wilderness areas, although they often cover extensive tracts. The condition of their natural habitat, processes and relevant species is however often partially or substantially modified by human activities such as livestock herding, fishing, forestry, sport activities or general imprint of human artefacts” (European Com- mission, 2013, p. 11). Finally, they state that ‘rewilding’ can be seen as a process: “(...) wilderness is a relative concept which can be measured along a ‘continuum’, with wilderness at one end and marginal used land at the other. Rewilding is a process to move areas up towards a wilder state, where the final stage is wilderness”. All of the three case study areas in this research are officially appointed as Natura 2000 areas, within the legislation of the European Commission. Although these

32 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

above working definitions apply to the vision of the European Commission and the guiding principles of managing these areas, the working definitions as formulated in the operationalization paragraph will be used within this research.

3.3 Conclusion

After the 1980s, rewilding became a notable strategy of nature conservation in both the United States and Europe. Whereas the rewilding philosophy has gained a large foothold in the United States, its European counterpart is currently in its infancy. However, these last few years rewilding practices have been moving up in scale and policy recognition, as the abandonment of (agri)cultural land has kickstarted the rewilding movement throughout the European continent. Be it formally designated or artificial wilderness, from a heritage point a view the notions of the romantic gaze and the experience of authenticity apply to almost all aspects of rewilding.

33 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

4 Groeve ‘t Rooth: the beginnings of Dutch wild nature?

This research looks at the possible prevalence of the process of rewilding in Dutch nature management. As there are no old-growth forests or similar virgin natural areas left in the Netherlands, restoring existing wilderness areas is not an option here. The process of rewilding however doesn’t require existing wilderness (according to international standards), as every nature area in theory can be left alone and handed over to nature. Rewilding however seems to be more complex than that. In order to study this phenomenon within a Dutch context, a first step towards finding out to what extent rewilding takes place in the Netherlands is to look at the beginnings of wild nature. What are the reasons to transform a cultured area into a zone where natural processes dominate the region’s activity? In order to answer this question, this chapter’s case study will be Groeve ‘t Rooth in the southern part of the province of Limburg. What functioned as a quarry for the last few decades, is now a protected area in the hands of The Limburgs Landschap, one of the twelve provincial nature management foundations in the Netherlands.

4.1 Context

Groeve ‘t Rooth (English: ‘t Rooth Quarry) is a marl pit situated on the Margraten plateau in Southern Limburg, north of the village of Cadier en Keer and 10 km east of the city centre of Maastricht. What looks like a semi-natural valley is actually the result of 75 years of mining activity in the area. This means that during the start of the 20th century this quarry was non-existent. Today, however, the quarry has been developed into a nature area with high biodiversity characteristics (Limburgs Landschap, 2015)(Figure 4.1).

34 4.1 context jacob knegtel

figure 4.1 Marl deposit in Groeve ‘t Rooth. Source: Margot Overvoorde

This natural quality can be attributed to the presence of marl, a type of chalk that is extremely rare to the Netherlands. The landscape of Groeve ‘t Rooth was formed 150 million years ago during the Cretaceous Period, in a time when the presence of a small mountain range dominated this area. During the first million years of this period, this plateau became flooded by sea water. This created the circumstances needed to form marl, as calcareous skeletons and organic remnants were pressed together by geological activity. On top of this rock, sand was deposited during the Tertiary Period, and a layer of gravel during the early Quaternary period. Finally, a fine layer of loess soil topped of the landscape during the last Ice Age, which today covers most of the soil in the southern part of Limburg. In Groeve ‘t Rooth, this layered history of the area can be read from the landscape, as the mining activity in the quarry revealed the thick layers of marl this regional plateau is well-known for (Lucassen, 2012). Today, such a presence of marl and calcareous grassland has attracted a rich abundance of flora and fauna. The valley houses different species of dragonflies and

35 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

amphibians in its waters, such as the rare ‘yellow-bellied toad’, and many grass- hoppers and butterflies on its grasslands. A thick stretch of hillside forests covers the upper valley, alongside steep cliffs of marl and flint. Unique plants can also be found in this area, such as the ‘saxifrage sail’ (Limburgs Landschap, 2015). The hilly circumstances created by man have attracted these unique species, which would have never settled in this part of the Netherlands without these conditions. This transformation started when the mining company Sibelco began with phasing out its digging activity during these last few decennia. Up until the seventies, the redevelopment of the quarry was to be focused on reintroducing agriculture in the valley. However, this transformation was soon discovered to be too impractical and expensive (Lucassen, 2012). This realization ran parallel with a shift in nature management in the seventies, as the focus shifted towards creating new nature in the Netherlands instead of solely conserving existing nature areas. It was called the ‘Nature Development Vision’ (Dutch: ‘Natuurontwikkelingsvisie’) or ‘Wilderness Vision’, and is one of the three main trends of Dutch nature management in the 20th century – apart from the ‘Clas- sic Nature Protection Vision’ (Dutch: Klassieke Natuurbeschermingsvisie) and the ‘Functional Nature Vision’ (Dutch: ‘Functionele Natuurvisie’). This outlook gained support after 1975, and centered the idea of nature without human influences, cut- ting back on industrial and agricultural development. Ideally, nature should be like it was before the appearance of humans, or ‘primordial’ (Dutch: ‘oernatuur’) in other words. It explains why, as discussed in Chapter 2, the ecocentric approach became more popular in the 1970s. Keulartz et al. , the authors also mentioned in Chapter 2, discussed the ‘Nature Development Vision’ as well: “In the nature development vision the new ‘wild’ natural landscape is central. This vision relates to ‘primeval nature’, and people set themselves the goal of disturbing natural processes as little as possible. To attain this, human intervention must be kept to a minimum: hands off is the motto” (Keulartz et al., 2004, p. 90). Thus, because such a specific type of nature has disappeared in the Netherlands, these primordial nature areas should be redeveloped on the basis of our contemporary understanding of ecological history, according to this ‘70s vision (Karel, 2015). Focusing again on the quarry’s redevelopment, drafted in the ‘70s, the idea at that time to create new rugged nature in the Netherlands is reflected in this final design. This blueprint, which can be seen as a mixture of ideas by different land-

36 4.1 context jacob knegtel

scape artists employed by the province, shows the creation of height differentials, pools, forests and meadowlands. Most of the marl cliffs were covered by a layer of loess and gravel (Lucassen, 2012). During the ‘90s however, it became clear that the few places where marl was still present, biodiversity levels were much higher. Certain alien species started to settle amongst the sheer cliff sides, such as the foreign yellow-bellied toad. Limburgs Landschap, protecting the area since 1987, realized then that the level of assisted management needed to be lowered and that the area’s nature should be allowed to take over more. This brings us to the present-day situation, in which Sibelco is even limited in its activity that remains to be permitted. According to Limburgs Landschap, this opens up new opportunities for the area’s flora and fauna to develop and take over (Figure 4.2)(Limburgs Landschap, 2015).

figure 4.2 Groeve ‘t Rooth within the enclosure. Source: Margot Overvoorde

37 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

4.2 Key-informant analysis

An interview with Arjan Ovaa was held in order to discuss the present-day situation in the quarry, to analyze the management on the ground level and to scope the perspective on rewilding of a nature manager in charge. He is an executive on ecology and policy support for Limburgs Landschap, with twenty years of working experience within this foundation. The organization makes its own management plans, but is obligated to connect this vision with the objectives of the Province and Natura 2000, according to Ovaa. The developmental targets Europe envisions are mainly centered on the protection and development of natural species. He mentions the following about the unique flora and fauna species the quarry possesses: “The yellow-bellied toad in particular has to be protected for generations to come. In the Netherlands it is under serious threat, as it thrives in calcareous grasslands, a unique and fragile type of habitat that requires attention as well, also according to Europe.” To achieve this development, he explains, the many provincial “islands” of biodiversity the foundation manages, need to further be developed and connected. Only then, a robust nature network can be established that is in accordance to Limburgs Landschap’s vision of species development and to a European vision of connected nature (Ovaa, 2015). This development of the quarry’s nature can be characterized as ‘abiotic’, or by external non-natural forces. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Ovaa says that the original plans of transforming the industrial area to agriculture was not in line with the then predominant philosophy in nature management. The already present population of goats were then accompanied by Konik horses, a wild or semi-wild breed of horses, to stimulate grazing in the area and the development of new nature. Habitat-wise, the goats fit this type of rugged nature as they are able to graze difficult terrain, such as the quarry’s steep hills and cliffs. However, we are talking about castrated goats that have been introduced in a stretch of nature that is artificially created (Ovaa, 2015). It seems that Groeve ‘t Rooth is a nature area where rewilding takes place, although we are looking at the beginnings of it; the first phase which ironically is dominated by human influences. The final set of questions for Ovaa are instrumental

38 4.2 key-informant analysis jacob knegtel

in confirming or rejecting this hypothesis. When asked what he thinks of the term ‘wilderness’ in his profession, he answers: “In the Netherlands we all have different ideas about the terms nature and wilderness. But overall the word wilderness is used as pr-term, like in Tiengemeten. However, Tiengemeten is an island where rewilding is in a further stage compared with Groeve ‘t Rooth, because of its isolated location. In Groeve ‘t Rooth we are trying to improve the area’s isolation by installing fences, but we are still in the first phase of rewilding”. Thus, he confirms the hypothesis that the quarry is being rewilded, and that isolation contributes to the improvement of the area’s development (Figure 4.3). In the language of Natura 2000, he refers to this first phase as “developing the area towards a wilder state”, despite the fact that the development of the area’s nature is still dependent on human interventions. He acknowledges that a state of wilderness will never be reached, while he refers to ARK and Rewilding Europe has organizations that in fact can reach that state in their working areas (Ovaa, 2015).

figure 4.3 The enclosure of Groeve ‘t Rooth. Source: Jacob Knegtel

39 4.2 key-informant analysis jacob knegtel

According to Ovaa, the term ‘wilderness’ is quickly used in the Netherlands, by both managers and lay people. When a stretch of nature can accommodate semi- wild Konik horses, people often assume that the area itself can be referred to as such. However, officially there is no wilderness to be found in the Netherlands. He says that a rewilded in the Netherlands at most would translate to a delicate and sustainable balance between flora and fauna species. The godwit (Dutch: ‘grutto’) does not benefit from a reforested country, but will be helped with a rewilded habitat that the island of Tiengemeten is currently creating. The cows and horses currently grazing the Dutch landscape don’t fit the recipe for a rewilded country either, but wolves, lynxes and other predators do fit. In rewilded nature zones where humans will not intervene, these predators are needed to bring balance to the ecoysystem. Wild cats can already be spotted in these parts of southern Limburg, but people who live here usually refer to them as stray house cats. These people however find it difficult to grasp the essence of rewilding. They will protest when wolves would be introduced in the Oostvaardersplassen for example, although in terms of rewilding that is a perfectly normal act of work (Ovaa, 2015). He states that rewilding in the Netherlands is difficult due to a lack of ‘wilderness promotion’ and a lack of a solid revenue model. The ordinary Dutchman sees nature as a refuge for picnics and long walks. For these activities there currently do exist revenue models, Ovaa states as he refers to the National Parks. He has his doubts if the majority of the Dutch people could get used to wilderness here. With gates, he says, we can close off these areas so that the Dutch won’t be affected by a wilder state of nature, but even then rewilding will be a hard pill to swallow for most of them, as these fences will need to disappear after a while. Wilderness needs a specific vision of nature management, deployed in most Scandinavian and East-European countries, which is grafted on true wilderness (Ovaa, 2015). In the Netherlands rewilding does seem to take place, with more and more nature areas moving their nature up towards a wilder state, and species like red deer and wild boar becoming the Dutch symbols of ‘new wilderness’. And although rewilding is possible in the Netherlands as a cheap form of passive management, Ovaa doesn’t think the Netherlands as a fully rewilded country will be possible. This is due to the fact that current nature policy in the Netherlands remains to be very protective in practice. Also, while rewilding is good for the development of Dutch flora and fauna, conflicts will happen as people will be confronted with a wilder nature, and thus with wolves and lynxes. This requires a constant form of protec-

40 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

tion and control. He concludes by saying that in places like Groeve ‘t Rooth, where new nature is created and developed, rewilding will be most effective (Ovaa, 2015).

4.3 National policy

According to Ovaa, rewilding takes place in Groeve ‘t Rooth and in other Dutch nature areas, although there currently exist many barriers to its realization. De- spite the fact that Limburgs Landschap manages this area, the foundation’s activity is bound to the policy of the province since 2014. Although the foundation does draft its own management plan of the terrain, they make sure this plan conforms to the requirements concerning nature management at the provincial level. As the government decentralized its nature policy last year, national policy documents like the ‘The Natural Way Forward: Government Vision 2014’ (Dutch: ‘Natuurlijk Verder: De Rijksnatuurvisie 2014’) are only drafted to guide provinces in their pol- icymaking task. However, this document is in fact important, as it illustrates how the Netherlands as a country evaluates its current nature management practices from a governmental point of view, and in what direction the government hopes this management will develop. In short, the document states that the Dutch people are beginning to reappraise Dutch nature, after a decline in appreciation during the last decennia. This decline was one of the main reasons for the government to decen- tralize its responsibilities concerning nature policy. According to the government’s vision, nature should be brought back to the heart of the society, by stimulating the involvement of individuals, local authorities, companies and civil society in nature conservation. This vision reflects the fact that the Ministry of Economic Affairs is currently in charge of drafting these plans, and leans towards the idea of nature as an economic asset (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2014). This people-oriented nature vision contradicts the idea of rewilding or creating either wild areas or wilderness. Hence, the word ‘wilderness’ is nowhere to be found in the document. However, this vision does mentions some of the discussion points regarding wilderness and rewilding, which are mentioned earlier in

41 4.3 national policy jacob knegtel

the introduction (see Chapter 1) and correspond with the earlier mentioned Dutch ‘Nature Development Vision’. First off, the authors state that nowadays many people in the Netherlands not only visit nature areas for relaxation and recognition, but also for the experience of thrill and wonder. These last two words mimic the ideas of the Romantic movements of the Frontier and Sublime, mentioned earlier in the theoretical framework (see Chapter 2). Secondly, several driving forces are mentioned that have fueled the aforementioned re-appreciation of Dutch nature these past few years. One of these forces is the increase in knowledge about nature in the Netherlands, especially the river deltas. They refer to ‘natural wilding’ (Dutch: ‘natuurlijke verwildering’) of nature in these areas, and say that there is a substantial interest in this phenomenon in other countries. However, the authors don’t go in depth with this description, and don’t mention the term in other sections of the text. Lastly, the document states that people who visit Dutch nature areas or watch footage of Dutch nature on the TV or Internet, understand that good quality nature in the Netherlands is needed for the development of nature outside our borders, and vice versa. Here, the authors refer to the Wadden Sea and De Biesbosch, which they refer to as ‘wild’ nature. Further on they say that in some discussions in The Netherlands a distinction is made between ‘real nature’ and other nature appears to be less ‘real’. They then refer to this distinction as outdated, and state that every Dutchman defines the word ‘nature’ differently (Ministerie van Economische Zak- en, 2014). Although the words ‘rewilding’ and ‘wilderness’ are nowhere to be found in the document, the above featured sections show that on a national level the government is well-aware of the shift in nature management abroad towards the reintroduction of wilderness. Also, the authors refer to specific Dutch nature areas as ‘wild’ and seem to welcome the idea of rewilding in other natural monuments. At the same time, the Dutch government acknowledges the fact that the Netherlands doesn’t contain ‘real nature’ and that Dutch nature needs to be more connected with the people; an apparent step away from the creation of wild nature without humans. As the province now directs nature policy in the country, a closer look should be taken at the provincial nature policy documents, in order to compare it with the government’s current vision and to scope why rewilding seems to become more popular nowadays.

42 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

4.4 Provincial policy

In the ‘Provincial Nature Management Plan Limburg 2016’ (Dutch: ‘Provinciaal Natuurbeheerplan Limburg 2016’) the province has written up its nature management policy, which they will execute in 2016. The plan mentions several key objectives that need to be tackled that year. First, the province will strengthen and expand the natural landscape values of Limburg. Secondly, they will take on the protection of important species via a ‘habitat approach’, i.e. focusing on a specific subdivision of important habitat types found in the province. Thirdly, agriculture in the province should be structurally strengthened with a focus on sustainability. Looking at the first two objectives, it seems clear that the province will focus on making its nature more robust, while also creating new nature where preferred and possible. However, most of this new nature will be people-oriented, in addition to the realization of more recreation facilities in and around these areas. Also, a significant portion of the document is in fact focused on agricultural nature management, which isn’t focused on the creation of wild nature, let alone wilderness (Provincie Limburg, 20151). According to Han Clement, a provincial policy worker specialized on nature policy for the Province of North-Brabant and intermediary for the Biesbosch Nation- al Park regional network, rewilding is not a main theme within current provincial nature policy, but it was the core principle behind the Nature Network Netherlands (Dutch: ‘Natuurnetwerk Nederland’) to encourage connectivity and the development of robust nature in the Netherlands. Previously known as the ‘Ecologische Hoofd- structuur’ (EHS), a main national policy objective since 1990, this idea represents a network of nature connectivity in the Netherlands. By creating links between different nature areas the connectivity of Dutch nature can develop, and thus the migration of flora and fauna within the country and between the Netherlands and its neighbours (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Voedselkwaliteit, 1990). Each Dutch nature area within the EHS contributes to this network in its own way. Clement confirms that the conception of this network fits within the transformation of the Dutch nature policy from a very intensive to a more ‘laissez-faire’ mentality. The reason behind this shift to an ecocentric approach is primarily due

43 4.4 provincial policy jacob knegtel

to the increasing pressure from Staatsbosbeheer, Natuurmonumenten and other notable organizations in the last few decades (Clement, 2016). profitability The just mentioned people-oriented focus adopted by provinces has a lot to do with the profitability of nature, says Clement. The development of nature in the Biesbosch for example is now practically finished, which has shifted the focus towards a solid revenue model for this National Park (Clement, 2016). As mentioned earlier in this thesis, many Dutch nature reserves are now looking for a way to make wild nature profitable and more accessible. Clement refers to the United States, where the combination of efficient nature management and a such a revenue model has proved to be successful in many National Parks. He then compares these parks with their Dutch equivalents, and asks aloud how to combine accessibility and the absence of human presence in the Biesbosch, which is too large to be enclosed by a fence. These kind of questions can be heard in most of the National Parks and rewilded areas in the Netherlands at the moment, and will be addressed in the National Parks ‘new style’ policy (Clement, 2016). Patrick Martens, policy worker Nature & Landscape for the province of Brabant, assisted Clement with the interview and elaborated on the aforementioned National Parks ‘new style’ policy, which is currently being addressed. This initiative seeks to reduce the amount of National Parks in the Netherlands, while upscaling the existing parks. For the Biesbosch, linking the park up with the Hollandsdiep and Haringvliet (Tiengemeten) serves as an example of this policy. As Martens justly states, these developments can be positioned within the broader rewilding philosophy, and will possibly be realized considering the increase in rewilding tendencies in the country (Martens, 2016).

rewilding Despite this human-oriented focus, as seen in the government’s vision as well, some aspects of the objectives as formulated by the Province of Limburg do in fact show us the beginnings of rewilding. In Chapter 2 it became clear that ‘connectivity’ and the ‘reintroduction of keystone species’ are among the key objectives of

44 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

both the American and European rewilding philosophies. In the provincial plan it clearly states that a main focus point regarding nature management in Limburg is the development of a robust Dutch Nature Network’. In the provincial plan, the policy executors state that their vision will enlarge and improve this network, by creating natural connections between nature areas and between nature zones and their environments (Provincie Limburg, 20151). Also, the plan emphasizes the protection of priority species. By not only protecting the existing flora and fauna, but also by reintroducing certain species, such as red deer and wild boar, the province hopes to invest in the sustainability of their natural habitats (Provincie Limburg, 20151). The provincial Agricultural and Horti- cultural Union (LLTB) however strongly disapproved this reintroduction, which has now already limited the habitable zone of these species (Provincie Limburg, 20152). Considering this resistance to the reintroduction of keystone species and the fact that nature connectivity in Limburg seems like a daunting task to achieve, let alone in the whole of the Netherlands, why are these two large-scale policy targets prioritized by the province? The short answer is: Europe. With the Natura 2000 network now developing steadily throughout the continent, its regulations remain as strict for the Netherlands compared to any other participating European country. With Groeve ‘t Rooth being one the Natura 2000 zones, the province of Limburg has to follow up on the European Commission’s wishes for an internally connected European nature network and the development of regionally important species within the zones. Therefore, a Natura 2000 management plan for the area is currently in the making, which will replace the existing provincial management plan. This current plan already contains the prevailing Natura 2000 objectives (Provincie Limburg, 20152). It is no coincidence that these European objectives are in line with the tenets of multiple rewilding philosophies. A recent scientific study by the European Commis- sion has shown a potential for the ‘rewilding’ of abandoned European farmland. It highlights in particular the potential of Natura 2000 sites and suggests specific aspects of wilderness that future policies could address (European Commission, 2015). At the same time, the Natura 2000 model incorporates a set of guidelines for wilderness development and management, and today several rewilding organizations are working together with the European Commission (European Commission, 2013). In short, on a European level the knowledge on and demand for rewilding

45 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

has entered the arena of policy, which has influenced the guidelines of Natura 2000 and thus the regional objectives for nature management in the Netherlands. In retrospect, it seems that Ovaa’s vision on rewilding in Groeve ‘t Rooth is only partially mirrored by today’s provincial policy documents on nature management. According to Clement, the terms ‘rewilding’ and ‘wilderness’ are indeed nowhere to be heard within provincial policy, but the ingredients of these concepts are every- where to be found. For example, the discussion of the Dutch ‘Big Five’ – a term coined by Staatsbosbeheer, referring to five Dutch keystone species: doe, boar, beaver, red deer and seal – versus provincial agriculture policy has been going on for years now. Clement emphasizes here the duality of ‘wilderness’ in the Netherlands: “Wilderness has something romantic, but there is also another side to it. To this concept also cling aspects like ‘human safety’, ‘diseases’ and ‘enclosures’ which could influence people’s lives and work tremendously” (Clement, 2016).

4.5 Conclusion

Based on the findings in this chapter, rewilding seems to be underway in Dutch nature, like in Groeve ‘t Rooth for example. Here, new types of nature can be created which can accommodate species that aren’t known yet to this country. The quarry is currently setting this example, as a desolate place of culture which can now be protected and developed as an area of nature. Both in provincial and national nature policy documents, this creation of new nature is given more attention, as illustrated earlier in this chapter. It exemplifies the first phase of the process towards ‘wilderness’ as heritage, as discussed in the theoretical framework (see Chapter 2). However, the term rewilding is nowhere to be used, despite the fact that its ingredients are visible in the development of areas such as Groeve ‘t Rooth. This case illustrates this abandonment of industrial culture and the route towards wild nature, thereby mimicking the first steps of the first rewilding movements in the United States and Europe.

46 4.5 conclusion jacob knegtel

The transformation of quarry to nature was set in motion because of the natural value it could create. By giving the area to nature, the already dominant species could develop and new species could be attracted. This way Groeve ‘t Rooth is instrumental in connecting the natural areas of Limburg, thereby intensifying the rewilding of the province, and contributing to a robust national and European nature network. However, the area still invokes a presence of culture, as it exemplifies nature that is mostly made by humans. The notion of ‘cultural wilderness’, as discussed in the theoretical framework, applies then very much to this site. Although people in the Netherlands like this ‘idea of wilderness’ in the comfort of watching TV, the Dutch will need to accept the harsh reality of a wilder nature without the presence of man if they want to fully accept rewilding in the Netherlands.

47 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

5 Oostvaardersplassen: A habitat for the wild

In the previous chapter, the first case study opened up the in-depth research on the possible prevalence of the rewilding process in Dutch nature management. The chapter scoped what the reasons are to transform an area of culture into new nature. These reasons were very much grafted on the development of regional biodiversity and ecosystems, as it turned out. A form of small-scale rewilding was taking place in the quarry, although this process was steering towards a more ‘cultured wilderness’ than what Natura 2000 calls ‘true wilderness’. Having looked at the establishment of rewilding beginnings in the Netherlands, the next step within this research is to look at places where this process of rewilding seems to have been underway for much longer. The Oostvaardersplassen, located in the southern part of provincial Flevoland, is often cited as the showpiece of wild nature in the Netherlands (Van den Gronden, 2015). In this chapter, this site will be analyzed as a complete habitat; an ecosystem where species come across borders, transformations, opportunities and limitations. The question asked is as follows: To what extent can the Oost- vaardersplassen be characterized as wild nature, and in what ways does it function as a habitat?

5.1 Context

In 1968, a 3600 acre stretch of land was reclaimed from the Ijsselmeer, which set in motion the largest nature development project in Europe: the Oostvaardersplassen. Originally destined to be planned and build on by engineers and urban planners, this specific part of the young Flevopolder would not dry out straight away. When the

48 5.1 context jacob knegtel

developers saw that nature slowly took over in this artificial wetland, construction project were stopped. In a few years, a rich marsh had grown in this area, which captured the attention of several ecologist and nature managers, Fred Baerselman, Frans Vera and Leen de Jong in particular. Thousands of wild geese started to inhabit the area, and transformed the reedbeds into a landscape of shallow water and marsh vegetation. This created a habitat for many kinds of birds, and thus the area developed itself worthy of a nature-area status in 1974. During these few years several adjustments were made by engineers, while the management of nature however was mainly guided by the species in the area. “In the beginning, a wilderness of reeds and shallow lakes developed, where nature regulated itself in such a way that classic nature management was not necessary” (Vera & Buissink, 2007, p. 140). Today, the area consists of two parts; a marsh-like section (Figure 5.1) and a dryer, grassy stretch (Figure 5.2). In the marshes, now totalling about 3600 acres, a few large, shallow bodies of water exist. These are surrounded by big sections of reed, which house willows and smaller willow bushes. A low embankment separates the marshes from the grassy area, which is about 1880 acres big, and contains a mosaic of grassland, shrubs and trees. Some of these tree species, such as white willow, have spontaneously established themselves in these parts. Other species, mainly fauna, have been introduced to these grasslands, such as Heck cattle in 1983 and Konik horses in 1984. These two species ‘went wild’ fairly quickly and have since grown accustomed to the area (Vera & Buissink, 2007). The purpose of their introduction was their ability to graze these lands efficiently, in order to further develop and conserve these grasslands. In 1992, red deer were brought in the reserve, and have also bred successfully. Together, the marsh-like part and the grassy part form an ecological and functional unity; a system that is being influenced and reshaped constantly by multiple processes that occur either continuous or periodically (Min- isterie van Economische Zaken, 2015).

49 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

5.2 Key-informant analysis

To begin scoping the hypothesis that wild nature has developed in the Oostvaard- ersplassen because of rewilding, an interview with Hans Breeveld was carried out, a biologist and park ranger in the Oostvaardersplassen. He has been working in the reserve for 36 years, and has seen the development of the area taking place. As a ranger, he is employed by Staatsbosbeheer (or the National Forestry Agency) and is currently one of the specialised team leaders that carry out the management plan, as written up by the province of Flevoland (Subsidiestelsel Natuur en Landschap) and the EU (Natura 2000)(Breeveld, 2015). Two important themes within the spheres of nature management in the Oost- vaardersplassen – and accordingly in this chapter – are ‘enclosures’ and ‘habitats’. His perspective on both these subject matters was scoped. First, when asked about the fences around the area, he said that the function of this form of enclosure is to protect the animals from traffic outside the reserve. This statement contradicts with the earlier assertion of Vera and Buissink that the fences are there to make sure humans do not disturb the nature in the Oostvaardersplassen. While both statements seem to be true, as fences keep humans out and keep the animals in, the matter of enclosure can apparently be approached in different ways. Moreover, according to Breeveld, many species in the Oostvaardersplassen are in fact able to traverse the enclosure. However, the reserve has been trying for years to fully connect the area with the Horsterwold, a nature area south of the Oostvaardersplassen. Regional politics has slowed down the creation of this natural corridor immensely, and farmer cooperatives also object these ideas. By connecting the Oostvaardersplassen with the Horsterwold, larger species could practically migrate to and from the Veluwe. This would help intensify the natural development of the Oostvaardersplassen and other Dutch reserves immensely (Breeveld, 2015). Thousands of years ago barriers also existed in nature, stopping species from migrating from one area to the next. However, people in the Netherlands today look at these artificial enclosures as cruel and harmful interventions. This current reasoning has a lot to do with our perspectives on the term ‘wilderness’. “To what extent do people in this country allow space for natural development?”, Breeveld

50 5.2 key-informant analysis jacob knegtel

asked aloud when talking about the difficult relationship the Dutch have with wilder nature. When aiming for wilderness, people have to accept change. Because when humans start intervening in this natural development, the natural way of development is lost. Strictly speaking, according to Breeveld, rewilding entails reaching the quality of wilderness of thousands of years ago. In the Oostvaardersplassen that is not possible, but we do however try to minimize human influences so that nature can develop naturally. A ‘new wilderness’ can then be reached, how artificial it may be (Breeveld, 2015). When bringing up the concept of rewilding, Hans Breeveld mentions the buf- falos that once roamed the American prairies in large numbers. Since the arrival of European, these populations have been hunted down to near extinction, as the wilderness of the soon to be United States was a frontier to be bridged. Today, programs exist to bring these large herbivores back, however with an equal amount of protest compared to support. In Europe, according to Breeveld, the same development is underway. Large herbivores that were removed 50.000 years ago, are now brought back to life through crossbreeding and reintroduced. Today, wild nature is more and more seen as a valuable asset of the European landscape, in contrast with the predominant negative perspective towards wilderness thousands of years ago. In Oostvaardersplassen, rewilding is underway but it has just begun. The last hundreds years we lost a large amount of natural knowledge because of industrialization and the destruction of nature. Our grasp and influence on nature has been too large for too long, which made us unsure about the characteristics of the pre-medieval European landscape. With the help of Frans Vera, the Oostvaarderplassen has seen the arrival of many wild species, but how they will eventually shape the landscape remains to be seen. If the reserve will see the development of a forest, is that desir- able, and to what extent can those forest types be traced back to the wilderness of thousands of years ago? These are the questions of rewilding here (Breeveld, 2015). According to Breeveld, what is currently visible in the Oostvaardersplassen is the successful development of wild nature. The goal is to get as close to the presence of the extinct wild horses and bovines of yore, so that the species that now roam the reserve will be able to maintain the natural balance of wild nature and the further development of it. “But strictly speaking, this wild nature also requires the reintroduction of red deer and wild boar, as these species are keystone species in this type of natural system”, Hans Breeveld says, as he underlines the value of

51 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

a balanced habitat for rewilding. Even the wolf is welcome in the area, as long as there is a natural corridor between the Oostvaardersplassen and other natural areas. Meanwhile, the Dutch people are divided in their stance towards the possible arrival of wolves within their borders. According to research commissioned by former state secretary Bleker, about half of the people in the Netherlands are content with the wolf settling in the country (VARA, 2012). “Ideally, the Oostvaardersplassen is fully connected with its natural environment”, according to Breeveld. Only then, the true potential of the Oostvaardersplassen as a ‘source area’ (Dutch: ‘brongebied’) can be made visible. Breeveld is already content with the extent the amount of wild nature in the area, which has attracted the ‘spoonbill’ (Dutch: lepelaar) and the ‘sea eagle’ (Dutch: zeearend) to the Netherlands. A core ‘source area’, which means that the area consists of a natural quality that attracts new species to it, will lead to a more robust nature network in the Netherlands and to the further development of wild nature in this country (Breeveld, 2015).

5.3 Habitat

A balanced habitat is a vital precondition for rewilding, according to Breeveld. Hence, the Oostvaardersplassen as a case can be used to study the value of habitats within the rewilding context. Breeveld states that this balance already has been achieved, as he sees the development as successful. In order to scope the validity of this statement, a closer look needs to taken at the development of the Oostvaardersplassen as a ‘habitat’, or ecosystem. As described earlier, during the young development of the Oostvaardersplassen people were constantly reshaping the landscape. After the reclamation a large area was used for seasonal agriculture, on some plots even lasted till 1992. Other parts of the polder were already laid fallow, in order to create large stretches of grassland (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2015). These lands were designed to attract

52 5.3 habitat jacob knegtel

the greylag geese, in the hope they would use this area for their moulting period. Ever since, the Oostvaardersplassen has become the most popular destination for moulting greylag geese, 25 years since after these lands were reclaimed from the sea and eighteen years after the reserve became a wetland of international standard. Similarly, the greater area of Tiengemeten has also attracted a great number of these geese to its lands after human interactions with the area created this incentive (Zijlstra et al., 1991). In the Oostvaardersplassen, this intervention became one of the many interactions between man and animal to happen in the area, and set the stage for the creation of multiple ‘habitats’ here.

figure 5.1 The reedbeds of the Oostvaardersplassen, home to the greylag goose. Source: Jacob Knegtel

For the geese, this newly created nature area became a habitat of ‘safety’, where they could be undisturbed while moulting and breeding. The vast number of reedbeds in the Oostvaardersplassen were key in offering them this safety, as natural

53 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

enemies were unable to attack geese without being discovered (Zijlstra et al., 1991). The greylag geese thus became one of the first of many species to return to the Netherlands, and the Oostvaardersplassen has played a large role in this returning of flora and fauna. Roe deer were the first to arrive in this area, however they came here spontaneously and already roamed the Dutch forests at that time. The first assisted reintroduction was the release of three large mammal species in the area, which have been absent from Dutch nature for hundreds of years. “The first large herbivores to be released into this wilderness were Heck cattle, followed by horses and red deer, and there is a chance that wisents and wild boar will join them soon” (Vera & Buissink, 2007, p. 192). Again, Frans Vera and Frans Buissink speak of ‘wilderness’ here. Looking at the case of the Oostvaardersplassen, the use of this word is actually key to put the revival of greylag geese and the reintroduction of the aforementioned herbivores into context. Biologist Frans Vera, mentioned before as one of the experts behind the creation of the Oostvaardersplassen, has always seen room for ‘wilderness’ in this area. His idea was to achieve a ‘paradise look’ in the area, but with his fellow biologists he was obstructed in doing so because of one important requirement: space. The Neth- erlands is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, in contrast with the United States for example. Still, Vera and his colleagues saw a lot of potential in this Flevoland polder. He saw the herbivore reintroduction as a development that is unique to Europe, but also necessary to the development of the Oostvaardersplassen (Vera & Buissink, 2007).

figure 5.2 The grassy stretch of the Oostvaardersplassen, home to Heck cattle, red deer and various bird species as pictured. Source: Jacob54 Knegtel 5.3 habitat jacob knegtel

grazing theoretics To research the development potential of the grasslands, various grazing experiments were set in motion during the start of the 1980s (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2015). These experiments touched upon the core aspect of wilderness. Dur- ing the experiments, which occurred after the fertilization and seeding of the soon to be grasslands, two scientific theories were used as starting points. The first theory states that grasslands do not naturally occur in Europe, as they were created by farmers (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2015). On the basis of this line of reasoning, only agricultural interventions and the use of many domesticated bovines and horses can maintain these grasslands. The primeval oxen and tarpan (the wild ancestors of modern day cows and horses respectively) naturally graze in low density populations, which explains the hypothesis that Europe was once covered with forests (Van Eerden et al., 1997; Vera, 2000; Vulink, 2001). This means that the grazing of the Oostvaardersplassen with wild herbivores like heck cattle, konik horses and red deer will result in the polder being transformed into a large forest (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2015). The second theory has all to do with the role of the grazing, non-breeding greylag geese in the marshes of the reserve. These species, in contrast with the previous theory, are apparently able to steer the overgrowth in another direction, by limiting natural forestation (Vera, 1988). The theory thus states that other herbivores, such as the primeval oxen and tarpan, are in fact able to maintain the existence of grasslands. Eventually, both theories were deemed equally convincing, which resulted in the introduction of heck cattle in 1983, konik horses in 1984, and red deer in 1992 in the western part of the Oostvaardersplassen, to serve as functional equivalents of the extinct primeval oxen and tarpan that once roamed Europe for thousands of years. To adhere to the first theory, domesticated horses and cattle were used for the grazing of the eastern part of the reserve, but were replaced in 1995 with the just mentioned “wilder” herbivores due to the success of their grazing behaviour (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2015).

‘wilderness’ Thus, from an expert and policy point of view the roots of both the design and development plan of the Oostvaardersplassen are in primitive history, as they draw upon

55 5.3 habitat jacob knegtel

a time when wild animals could freely roam the wild landscape of Europe. Here, ‘wilderness’ is used as a historic benchmark, which is used to create a landscape which should redevelop into ‘new wilderness’. Today, the nature reserve comes across as an ‘island’ of seemingly wild nature amidst a planned landscape of wind- mills and agriculture. Frans Vera calls the Oostvaardersplassen project a success, as he sees the area as “one of the places where the western European wilderness has become a reality” (Vera & Buissink, 2007, p. 192). The validity of this statement is questionable, as one group of people looks different at the term ‘wilderness’ than another group, as said earlier by Arjan Ovaa (see Chapter 4). Vera’s enthusiasm about “his” Oostvaardersplassen also evokes a certain ‘creator’s bias’, as a creator tends to place the results of his or her labour in a good light. From a heritage point of view however, wilderness doesn’t seem to be an oddly used term here. As Van den Berg and Koole state in their 2006 paper on ‘new wilderness in the Netherlands’, “the appearance of an environment, rather than the actual amount of human interference, determines whether an individual perceives it as wilderness or not. On the basis of this psychological definition of wilderness it is possible to refer to humanly redeveloped landscapes as wilderness landscapes” (Van der Berg & Koole, 2006, p. 363). The effect the 1964 Wilderness Act had in the United States, which was the realisation of a conception of wilderness as opposed to the interference or presence of humans (Harrison, 2013), seems to be equivalent to the effect the development of the Oostvaardersplassen has on the experience of Dutch nature. Within professional nature management however, ‘wilderness’ is a term that should best be avoided, says Wouter Helmer. He is currently a ‘Rewilding Direc- tor’ for Rewilding Europe, the organization he once founded in 2011. Before, he stood at the head of ARK Nature, an organization also mentioned a few times in this research. He is one of the few people that kick-started the European rewilding movement, and has gathered extensive experience in the field of nature development in the Netherlands. According to him, Dutch rewilded areas are simply new cultural landscapes, and not examples of ‘wilderness’ (Helmer, 2016). “The Dutch relationship between man and nature has changed, just like Dutch nature management”, he says. Helmer repeats the earlier findings of this research by stating that the protective form of management a few decennia ago underwent a transformation during the 1980s, when the idea behind the Dutch ‘Room for the

56 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

River’ programme was first put into practice. According to him, the rewilding movement tries to harmonize nature and culture: “The Netherlands has been a testing ground for grazing experiments, water dynamics and the connection of nature and economy”. The Oostvaardersplassen, Groeve ‘t Rooth and Tiengemeten fall into this younger category of rewilding experiments. “These experiments have inspired us to apply the same principles in Eastern Europe” (Helmer, 2016).

5.4 Enclosure

In Chapter 2, the major prerequisites for rewilding were summed up and described. One of these requirements was the absence of human presence or direct influence, save for the first phase of rewilding. To research the extent of rewilding and the presence of wild nature in the Oostvaardersplassen, the matter of ‘enclosure’ needs to be discussed. In the nature reserve in question this matter is deemed as a major requirement for the development of the area and its inhabitants. The recent public debate in the Netherlands that arose out of the use of fences around the area contains all the elements needed to research this subject. borders and protection As Vera and Buissink explain, the non-accessibility of visitors allows the natural development of the Oostvaardersplassen to continue as undisturbed as possible. Hikers are only allowed to walk along the fringes of the reserve, and can only enter it in the presence of a nature manager. Both authors view this nature reserve as a ‘wilderness’ and see this enclosure as the border between wild nature and cultured polder (Vera & Buissink, 2007). Looking then at the official appointed wilderness areas outside of the Netherlands, this idea of fencing an area is not universal. Ac- cording to 2013 wilderness register, a wilderness area is generally composed of three zones: a core zone, a buffer zone and a transition zone.

57 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

The core zone is dominated by core natural processes and minimal human interference and is surrounded by a buffer zone, which acts as an area that separates the non-human region with the transition zone. This zone does permit human activity, but only under certain restrictions. Here, the buffer zone acts as a fence between the wild and the “civilised” (Kuiters et al, 2013). We arrive here at the striking differences between European and American nature management (Sutherland, 2002). In the United States, where extremely large wilderness areas are abundant, this use of separate protective zones is a common sight. In Europe however, wilderness areas as large as their American counterparts are more scarce. Here, the emphasis is on intensive reserve management, applied in relatively smaller reserves which often require fenced enclosures (Sutherland, 2002). debate and critique Compared to these foreign reserves, the Oostvaardersplassen is a relatively small nature area with a lifetime that pales in significance when matched up to the accepted wilderness areas abroad. The fenced up “experiment”, as the area is described by some critics, led to a grand public debate a few years ago about the abandonment of introduced species to the elements of nature within a fenced reserve. Most of the critique came from the Dutch public and revolved around the assumption that the de-domesticated animal population is impaired in its mobility because of this enclosure, and is rendered incestuous by the lack of newer bovine introduction. For the sake of rewilding, an ideal future scenario would see the increase of territory and the introduction of new stock (Hart & Locke, 2007). Looking at foreign rewilding philosophies, this scenario seems to adhere to the requirements of the popular tenets. The critique was answered by the Natura 2000 network, as the EU started shifting more attention to the value of ‘keystone species’ in the Oostvaardersplassen (Lorimer & Driessen, 2013) – a major requirement in most mainstream rewilding philisophies (see Chapter 2). The fierce public debate confronted the nature managers of the Oostvaarder- splassen with the reality of their “experiment”. Whilst being a nature reserve that has made possible a unique development of population species with minimal human influence, the matter of enclosing these ‘rewilded’ animals hits hard within Dutch society. In a country that has little space and many inhabitants, the creation of a

58 5.4 enclosure jacob knegtel

wilderness comes with a price. However, this enclosure is not a long-term strategy, according to the managers. In the future, the reserve will be part of a natural area of almost 14,000 acres, connected to foreign nature reserves and with new inhabitants such as European bison and wild boar. The ideal scenario as posed earlier by Hart and Locke is actually pursued by all actors involved in the area’s development. An Oostvaardersplassen without fencing though requires the area to be fully connected with the rest of Europe, while natural processes are allowed to fully take over. Not the amount of food available, but the presence of exotic carnivores will then regulate the number of large ungulates in the Netherlands (Vera & Buissink, 2007). Just as in the United States and other parts of Europe, buffer zones will need to be introduced to give nature the unaffected space it needs. This new baseline, as Vera states, requires the Dutch people to learn to co-exist with animals living in a true wilderness. Without adhering to these conditions, unfettered Dutch nature remains a utopia (Vera, 2009). rewilding According to Wouter Helmer, ‘unfettered’ Dutch nature as a ‘true wilderness’ will always be a utopia, as his vision of rewilding is all about reinforcing the relationship between nature and culture, instead of separating these two. “Dutch nature managers can learn a lot about the Eastern European projects of Rewilding Europe”, says Helmer, especially when putting people and business into the equation. Helmer thinks that the Dutch natural landscapes is too fragmented, with too many actors in the process of managing these areas. Rewilding in the Netherlands should connect these areas, while harmonizing the relationship between man and nature. What Helmer means is that, instead of ‘reverting’ (Dutch: ‘verwilderen’) nature, rewilding hopes to harmonize man’s relationship with nature. According to Helmer, most people think that culture dominates nature in Europe, whereas there are more wolves and bears here than there are in the United States. “The 1964 Wilderness Act seems to be a breakthrough within the American wilderness movement, whereas this Act has displaced many indigenous Americans, who have balanced nature and culture for centuries here. For us Europeans, the Sami people of northern Scan- dinavia seem to be inhabitants of ‘wilderness’, whereas they themselves see their surroundings as their cultural landscape”. Helmer uses these examples to question

59 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

the European relationship between nature and culture. He says that rewilding in the Netherlands should be about harmonizing nature and culture, as he refers to the objective of Rewilding Europe (Helmer, 2016). The fact that multiple experts and laymen have different ideas about rewilding in the Oostvaardersplassen and the direction it needs to go in, reaffirms the assumption that the area’s development can be seen as experimental. Vera and Breeveld are positive about current rewilding results, while the findings of this chapter paint a different picture. Rewilding may be visible here, yet one cannot speak of a balanced habitat that is connected to other nature areas.

5.5 Conclusion

This chapter’s objective was to focus on the development of nature in the Oostvaard- ersplassen, by scoping the extent of rewilding and the presence of wild nature in the area. By studying literature and policy documents, and by talking with several key-in- formants, a conclusion can be made that one does in fact can speak of wild nature in the reserve. Similar to the current developments in Groeve ‘t Rooth, the area’s development required the assistance of biologists, managers and politicians to set this development into motion. This corresponds with the aforementioned characteristics of the first rewilding stage, in which human interventions are a crucial requirement for the creation of wild nature. Although the process of rewilding has just begun, a stage of phased out human interventions has been reached here, as the species found in the reserve currently show a self-sufficient and autonomous behaviour in relation to humans. However, whilst future changes in landscape are in the hands of nature itself, managers will remain present on the background and will intervene when necessary. At the same time, the area’s enclosure further limits the true potential of nature development and species migration. Without connecting the Oostvaardersplassen with other reserves, the extent of wild nature will remain to be static and limited, thus creating a potential

60 5.5 conclusion jacob knegtel

barrier to rewilding and endangering the sustainability of wild nature. At the same time, only focusing on nature and not on the human dimension and the value of culture within nature management will limit the potential of rewilding to become a viable and sustainable version of today’s nature-centred equivalent in the Oostvaardersplassen.

61 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

6 Tiengemeten: The wilderness experience

We have established that wild nature is to be found in the Netherlands, to certain degrees of ‘wildness’ to be exact. Transformed by the process of rewilding, the development of nature in Groeve ‘t Rooth is in its infancy (see Chapter 4), while the Oostvaardersplassen is one step further with its habitats of autonomous flora and fauna development (see Chapter 5). In both areas however, humans are still a necessary prerequisite for further rewilding progress, as the managers of these reserves stated that multiple interventions will be necessary in the future. Currently, rewilding in the Netherlands seems to be a process where humans remain on the forefront of future directions, however firm the grip of nature is on these areas. Compared to the vast and almost virgin stretches of primordial forest in the United States and Eastern Europe, this assumption sounds logical in a country where more than 500 people live within one square kilometre (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2015). The island of Tiengemeten, located amidst the waters of the Haringvliet in the south-western province of Zuid-Holland, once consisted entirely of farmlands. Today, most parts of this 1000 acres large Natura 2000 area has been slowly transformed to nature, with one of the parts now called ‘Wildernis’. The clear use of the term ‘wilderness’ raises the question how the perspective of seemingly wild nature fits into the cultural landscape of the Netherlands. Hence. this chapter’s question is as follows: How does the notion of ‘wilderness’ in Tiengemeten fit in to Dutch nature management and policy, and how does this notion relate to rewilding?

62 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

6.1 Context

In the Netherlands, and other parts of western Europe, not only the cultural landscapes have been shaped by man. The Dutch rangelands (Dutch: ‘woeste gronden’) and forests are also a product of previous generations of humans. Despite this fact, there remains to be a distinction between the term ‘nature’ and the term ‘culture’ in Dutch literature and media. Here, culture is defined as the artificial, and con- trasts with ‘nature’, which encompasses environments and events that occur and develop in a spontaneous and natural manner – and is sometimes even synonym to ‘good’, instead of culture that is ‘bad’. Today, the forests in the Netherlands are often still seen as pristine stretches of such nature. This perception of or longing for untouched nature in the Netherlands has gained more attention since the second half of the 19th century, when Thoreau’s book ‘Walden’ was sold in the country (Dettingmeijer, 2011)(see Chapter 2). A century later, around the 1980s, the wilderness philosophy had already grown a foothold in the country, and now started to influence nature conservation (Van der Heijden, 2005)(see Chapter 4). Organisations such like the Dutch World Wide Fund (WNF) and Natuurmonumenten started using images and slogans that revolved around endangered wild species. The concepts of new nature and new wilderness arose out of this new era of nature management, and influence current projects and visions nationwide. The transformation of the island of Tiengemeten is one of those large-scale projects (Dettingmeijer, 2011). How pristine or untouched some people hope the Dutch nature to be, its man-made character and its long cultural and agricultural history is always visible (Haartsen, 1995). Similar to Groeve ‘t Rooth and the Oostvaardersplassen, Tiengemeten once was a stretch of land dominated by man. A handful of 19th century farmsteads still dot the landscape, and were once accompanied by a mosaic of fields for agriculture. After 1800, the 1000 acres large island could be divided into three areas: the farmlands, the build environment and the marshes on the edge of the island. Together these three areas catered a small island community harmoniously for more than a century. During the second half of the 20th century the agricultural production and turnover started to decline, and a decision was made to redevelop the entire island. At the same time. the closing of the Haringvliet in 1970 occured.

63 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

The Haringvlietdam was part of the Dutch Delta Works and was installed to protect the inland estuary from high water. Its conception would have a big effect on the future development of the island’s flora and fauna. Natuurmonumenten, one of the biggest nature preservation organisations in the Netherlands, adopted the lands in 1994 and started the biggest nature development project in the Netherlands (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2000). Today, Tiengemeten is considered a ‘nature island’ and consists of three sub-regions (Figure 6.1). ‘Weemoed’ (English: ‘Nostalgia’), the smallest of the three areas, celebrates the island’s cultural heritage. Remnant cultural-historic structures and farmlands are located here. ‘Weelde’ (English: ‘Wealth’) is a semi-natural landscape with grasslands, marshlands and sections with scrubland and shallow water; an area that is important for migratory birds, amphibians and fish. The third section is ‘Wildernis’ (English: ‘Wilderness’), the largest area of the three, where nature is left alone as much as possible. Natural processes have a significant impact on this stretch of nature, which is not accessible for humans (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2000).

6.2 Key-informant analysis

An interview was held with Astrid Withagen, a management coordinator at Natuur- monumenten, in order to look at today’s situation and current strategy regarding the island’s development. Specifically, the extent of rewilding will be scoped, and to what extent this possible occurrence relates to Natuurmonumenten’s use of the term ‘wilderness’. Withagen was accompanied by Mark Mandemakers, a project leader at the same organisation. As a manager of more than 100.000 acres of nature as of now, Natuurmonu- menten has had a long history. Withagen starts off by saying that the organizations was much more strict and protective in its management policy a few decennia ago than it is today. Mandemakers adds: “Then we were reluctant to even allow people in

64 6.2 key-informant analysis jacob knegtel

the developing nature”. Today, Natuurmonumenten focuses on both recreants and experienced naturalists. The emergence of new and wild nature in Tiengemeten can however only be seen from a distance, although the organization does stimulate its visitors to walk in the ‘Weemoed’ area. ”People need to be present in Dutch nature areas, except for the reserves where nature needs to develop without human presence”, according to Mandemakers. On the island of Tiengemeten, ‘Wildernis’ is one of those areas (Mandemakers & Withagen, 2015). Despite the fact that Natuurmonumenten hopes to attract a yearly number of 80.000 people to the island, Withagen sees a steady development of the area’s wildlife: “Today, the number of bird species that live and breed here is still rising, as is the number of visitors to the island. However, the vulnerable stretch of wild nature that is ‘Wildernis’ needs to remain undisturbed”. Especially now the island is connected to the Nature Network Netherlands (EHS) as part of the Haringvliet, a richer ecosystem can develop on the island. Withagen adds that the development of nature in ‘Wildernis’ is currently reaching its maximum. Despite the fact that the natural quality here is artificial, she says that Natuurmonumenten still aims to minimize the interventions by humans as much as possible (Mandemakers & Withagen, 2015). However, what is good for the development of nature is not necessarily good for profitability, Mande- makers adds. He and his colleagues are currently trying to connect the island’s wild nature with its visitors, without causing disturbance. One of the requirements for that, according to Mandemakers, is the recovery of more land for nature development (Mandemakers & Withagen, 2015). Again, the duality between passive management and profitability is visible within a researched nature area. Despite the aim for more visitors, rewilding is still a dominant strategy on the island, according to Withagen. “Portioning off wild nature remains an important focus for now and for the future”. Both respondents thus confirm that rewilding does take place in Tiengemeten, and that the creation of wild nature is currently realized. When asked about the use of the term ‘wilderness’, Mandemakers says that its use is visitor-oriented: “For us, the term ‘wilderness’ is functional in painting a picture for our visitors”. He adds that his fellow ecologists always tell him that the creation of ‘wilderness’ is very exact, referring to the case of the Oostvaardersplassen. Here, ‘wilderness’ is a relative term, as it entails the contrast the wild nature in the area creates with the surrounding cultural landscape(Mandemakers & Withagen, 2015). Rewilding is a serious cause in Tiengemeten, says Withagen. With the strict re-

65 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

quirements Natura 2000 asks for, while the pressure whether or not to intervene remains constant, it is a process that requires dedication and patience. When asked which type of rewilding stategy is best for Tiengemeten – varying between adding nature and letting the nature develop itself – different answers arose for Withagen and Mandemakers. This difference in perspective implied that even with the task of letting nature develop itself, varying approaches can exist within a team of managers. Withagen then compared the rewilding process of Tiengemeten with similar examples abroad and concluded that connectivity is one of the strongest aspects of this process today, while the limited extent of space for wild nature and the absence of predators are among the weaker aspects (Mandemakers & Withagen, 2015). Focusing on top predators and keystone species within a natural dynamic landscape is one of the key objectives for Natuurmonumenten today, also on islands like Tiengemeten (Natuurmonumenten, 2012)(European Union, 2013). A shift towards these objectives will be visible in Tiengemeten these coming years (Mandemakers & Withagen, 2015).

6.3 Views of nature

It seems that the case of Tiengemeten exemplifies the marketing of rewilding; com- bining passive management with the experience of apparent ‘wilderness’. In Chapter 2, literary research was done to scope trends and changes in perspectives towards nature within the Dutch context. It was found that the ideas of ‘wild nature’, ‘wilderness’ and ‘rewilding’ are usually surrounded by a degree of false romance. Within the Dutch context, a similar existence of false romance was discovered. These three concepts are starting to attract positive attention in the Netherlands, while this appeal only applies to the idea and not the real experience. In Chapters 4 and 5, similar conclusions were made. Arjan Ovaa stated that the Dutch like the ‘idea of wilderness’ in the comfort of watching TV, but they would find it hard to accept a fully rewilded natural landscape in the Netherlands. Hans Breeveld also confirmed this love-hate connection the Dutch have with wild nature, which he

66 6.3 views of nature jacob knegtel

called a ‘difficult’ relationship. Accordingly, he questioned to what extent the Dutch actually allow space for natural development in this country. Both experts stated that a true ecocentric view of nature in the Netherlands is far from realized. conflicts Despite the fact that a trend exists within the Dutch view of nature, conflicts often occur over different perspectives towards nature in the country. The nature of Tiengemeten also arose out of such a conflict, but this disagreement was different than the usual Dutch ‘struggle for nature’, with advocates of different perspectives claiming their own view of nature as the right one (Keulartz et al., 2004). One of the most notable examples of such conflicts has been the clash between Staatsbos- beheer and the Woodland Giant Foundation (Dutch: ‘Stichting De Woudreus’) over the management of the Drents-Friese Wold National Park. This conflict took place between 2003 and 2007, and revolved around a joint management plan for the area. Drafted in 2003 by Staatsbosbeheer, the plan was aiming towards a wilderness approach in the area: “In this management plan, the main focus was on promoting biodiversity through the application of a ‘‘hands- off’’ strategy. After various nature restoration projects would have been carried out, the area would be allowed to develop according to natural processes” (Buijs et al., 2011, p. 333). The local community, vocal as a protest group through the Woodland Giant Foundation, preferred the arcadian approach – which in the article is called the ‘inclusive’ (or ‘biocentric’) approach. Compared to the wilderness perspective, this approach also sees nature as fragile, but allows limited management in natural areas and blurs the distinction between nature and culture more (Buijs et al., 2011). Both parties clash because of contrasting views regarding the development of large- scale nature. This conflict shows that nature management is highly socio-political in practice, and requires consensus on a single development vision among actors that have different views of nature. According to documentary maker Mark Verkerk, these conflicts exists because everyone has a unique perspective on ‘wilderness’. Verkerk oversaw the conception of the movies ‘The New Wilderness’ (Dutch: ‘De Nieuwe Wildernis’) and ‘Holland – Nature in the Delta’ (Dutch: ‘Holland – Natuur in de Delta’). The first of these two movies has been received overly positive by the Dutch movie critics, who com-

67 6.3 views of nature jacob knegtel

pared the quality of the movie with the nature documentaries of the BBC and called it the first Dutch ‘wilderness film’. However, ‘The New Wilderness’ also gave the Dutch audience a reality check, concerning the harsh reality of wild nature in the Oostvaardersplassen. As can be read in Chapter 5, a multitude of debates are still ongoing, and according to Verkerk, these debates are needed for Dutch rewilding movement to further develop (Verkerk, 2016). perspective shift The conflict in the Drents-Friese Wold National Park, along with the case of the Oostvaardersplassen, exemplifies again the Dutch shift in nature management towards the wilderness approach. While the Dutch government and Staatsbosbeheer are getting used to the idea that nature can develop with minimal human interference, we see that the protective attitude these two parties once had towards nature management is to a certain extent still present among community foundations, protest initiatives, interest groups and the wider public in the Netherlands. In Chapter 4, the provincial Agricultural and Horticultural Union serves as such an example, while the in Chapter 5 the Dutch public and regional political parties were the ones opposing rewilding. One can state that the public view of nature hasn’t “evolved” as far yet, or that the Dutch public finds it hard to accept changes in their cultural landscape. However, what has become clear from these three research chapters is that, although there is a clear shift happening within Dutch nature management from an arcadian approach to a wilderness approach, the idea of wild nature in the Netherlands remains a bigger pill to swallow for the wider public than for the nature managers. But what makes the ‘struggle for nature’ in Tiengemeten different, compared to the exemplary case of the Drents-Friese Wold National Park? The difference lies in the fact that the conflict in the Haringvliet had to do with a struggle concerning the decision to either develop or don’t develop new nature in the area, instead of a struggle for realizing a type of nature. The earlier mentioned redevelopment of Tiengemeten could have also entailed the arrival of a bungalowpark, a nuclear power plant, an airport or a dredging depot (Van Doorn, 2015). During the 1970s, all these were valid considerations for the future function of the agricultural island. With the emergence of the Nature Development Vision at that time, Natuurmon-

68 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

umenten saw this area as a potentially vital hub within the Dutch Nature Network (EHS) and bought it from a building contractor (Ministerie van Verkeer en Water- staat, 2000). A decade earlier, this purchase would have probably not happened and the harbour of Rotterdam could’ve had a welcome expansion in size. A change in perspective has made an immense difference in the end, and shows that societal trends and preferences towards nature are a crucial part of nature management. “Baselines always shift as time progresses” according to Mark Verkerk, as he refers to the academic work of Daniel Pauly, and agrees with the above assumption. Verkerk also refers to the shift in the Dutch view of nature from an arcadian approach to a more ecocentric approach, as discussed in earlier chapters. He says that in the Netherlands the 19th century perspective towards nature has been the dominant view for the past few decades. Only now we are slowly moving towards a new perspective towards nature. Verkerk adds that rewilding is also heavily influenced by shifting baselines: “Even in the United States, where people have grown accustomed to the ‘idea of wilderness’, scientists and managers are uncertain how far back in time they need to go in order to bring back ‘wilderness’” (Verkerk, 2016). The next part of this chapter will further investigate the Dutch view of nature, with a focus on how Tiengemeten is viewed as of today.

6.4 View of wilderness

In the previous paragraph it can be read that, although each individual looks differently at the term ‘wilderness’ or ‘rewilding’, the relationship the Dutch public has with both concepts is generally more complex and difficult than the relationship Dutch officials and managers within nature management have with these concept. Dutch lay-people seem to see wild nature as a ‘double-edged sword’, as it has benefits when viewed from a safe distance but appears to be a liability when its harsh reality comes to close for comfort. Over the past decennia, the island of Tiengemeten has emerged from the waters of the Haringvliet and has slowly transformed from a cultural landscape into a seemingly wild stretch of robust nature.

69 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

figure 6.1 The ‘Weelde’ (foreground) and ‘Wildernis’ (background) in Tiengemeten. Source: Jacob Knegtel experience Natuurmonumenten, the area’s current owner, came up with the aforementioned three ‘atmospheres’ (‘Weemoed’, ‘Weelde’ and ‘Wildernis’) in the hope of communicating the balance of cultural and natural values on the island. Despite the fact that they also refer to these areas as “the three natures”, the region of ‘Weemoed’ is preserved as a natural landscape of culture. In turn, the other two areas of ‘Weelde’ en ‘Wildernis’ posses cultural-historic elements such as ruins and reed hills within their natural landscape. Still, Natuurmonumenten makes a clear distinction between a ‘natural culture landscape’, a ‘semi-natural landscape’ and an ‘virtually natural landscape’. They do this to ensure separation in use and management of the three areas, and to communicate these different landscape values to the visitor (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2000). This paragraph will look at the use of the term ‘wilderness’ within the context of Tiengemeten, in order to research the meaning behind the term within the context of nature management and tourism.

70 6.4 views of wilderness jacob knegtel

As cited earlier in this chapter, the Dutch Ministry of Traffic and Water Management drafted the development vision of Tiengemeten in 2000. This document shows why and how the island would become a nature reserve. They labelled each of the three sub-regions with a set of keywords, in order to lend the development of these areas some support. For the area of ‘Wildernis’ the following nine labels were conceived to describe the nature and the landscape here: ‘tension’, ‘fear’, ‘authentic’, ‘wild’, ‘autonomous’, ‘unordered’, ‘dynamic’, ‘blurred boundaries’ and ‘inhospitable’ (Min- isterie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2000). Almost all of these words describe a natural landscape where man does not belong. Similar to the beliefs of the 18th century sublime movement in Europe (see Chapter 2), a sense of both bewilderment and terror is evoked here. However, the term ‘wilderness’ here does not apply to a specific quality of nature as defined by for example Natura 2000 and The US Wilderness Act. Strictly speaking, the Netherlands simply doesn’t possess that degree of natural quality. ‘Wilderness’ in Tiengemeten applies to how the natural quality of this area is marketed or commu- nicated to (potential) visitors. As discovered earlier, the word is used as a pr-term in Tiengemeten. By marketing nature as such, Tiengemeten makes use of and responds to the increase in popularity of wild nature in the Netherlands. Documentary maker Mark Verkerk used the term ‘wilderness’ in a similar way: “By using this term, we hoped to convince the Dutch that the Oostvaardersplassen shows that there is a new way to look at wilderness”, Verkerk says, referring to the conception of the movie title ‘The New Wilderness’. By using this term, he does not refer to a quality of virgin or old-growth nature, but to the evocation of wild nature he hoped the Dutch audience would experience (Verkerk, 2016). Here, ‘wilderness’ is defined as a social construct, as explained by the working definition in this thesis. rewilding Despite of this marketing language, the actual management plan of the ‘Wildernis’ area suggests a move towards rewilding. According to the development vision of Tiengemeten the management of the area’s flora and fauna is very limited, as an autonomous development of populations is prioritized. This mainly applies to the population of Highland cattle that have since been introduced on the island (Min- isterie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2000)(Natuurmonumenten, 2014). These species

71 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

were introduced because of their ancestry, as it is assumed that these type of large herbivores once roamed in the original natural landscape of these estuaries. The development vision states that a natural occurrence of oxen, red deer, doe, beaver and wild boar settled these historic precursors of islands like Tiengemeten. Today, human interventions in the area are on a minimal level, except for the management of recreational use. While the ‘Wildernis’ remains out of bounds for humans, visitors are encouraged by Natuurmonumenten to experience the closed reserve from a distance (Figure 6.2). The experience of ‘new wilderness’ is one of the key strategy points of the 2000 development vision of Tiengemeten (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2000). Since the development vision was drafted in 2000, the ‘Wildernis’ area has developed into a robust stretch of nature, and a lush habitat for many familiar and unfamiliar species. The development of the area has progressed according to these plans, as all of the aforementioned aspects of rewilding have seemingly been realized. This has been confirmed by this chapter’s key-informant analysis, as Withagen and Mandemakers acknowledged that rewilding defines the island’s management of nature. The 2014 brochure of Natuurmonumenten can shed a light on the way rewilding is marketed to the Dutch public. To start with, this document contains the following introduction (Natuurmonumenten, 2014, p. 1):

“Brushwood as high as a man, dissected by dozens of creeks. Highlanders with their legs in the water, and an opening in the dike. Thousands of birds in dozens of shapes and sizes. Chaos and silence; the wilderness that we have missed so much. This is Tiengemeten; the primeval delta of today!”

figure 6.2 The ‘Wildernis’ (left) with the feeding station for Heck cattle, and the Haringvliet (right) in Tiengemeten. Source: Jacob Knegtel 6.4 views of wilderness jacob knegtel

Further on, the brochure features a text that elaborates on the use of the term ‘primeval’. This section explains that the current dynamic relationship between water and land in Tiengemeten simulates the historic situation of deltas in primordial South-Hol- land. Natuurmonumten doesn’t refer to the amount of years ago they envision this primeval delta, but does mention that today the water still finds its own path and man follows. “This is what it is used to be like”, as stated in this section (Natuur- monumenten, 2014, p. 6). What is also noticeable is the repeated use of words like ‘chaos’, ‘wild’ and ‘autonomous’, which evokes the same sense of wilderness as was conveyed by the 2000 development vision. This means that Natuurmonumenten is still communicating the romantic idea of ‘new wilderness’ to its visitors as of today, while no historic research has been done on the genuine primeval state of nature in this area. One can think of Urry’s ‘romantic gaze’ or Prentice’s ‘new Romanticism’ when connecting this idea with literature (see Chapter 2). The brochure ends with the following words (Natuurmonumenten, 2014, p. 14):

“Tiengemeten; new nature, groundbreaking as the waters in the creeks. Symbol of a new way of thinking, of having trust in the shaping power of nature. Primeval nature, nature that seems to have existed forever.”

This piece of information relates back to the first part of this chapter, as the ‘new way of thinking’ here refers to the recent shift in nature management towards the creation of wild nature. The last sentence also confirms that Natuurmonumenten wants the visitors of Tiengemeten to experience a primordial stretch of nature, that evokes a sense of ‘wilderness’. Flip van Doorn, journalist at the Dutch newspaper Trouw, referred to Tiengemeten as “wilderness that remains neatly between the lines”. In his article about the reserve he remarks that even though the nature in Tiengemeten is conceived and between the lines, both animals and humans are pleased that it exists (Van Doorn, 2015, p. 26). This line of thought sums up what has been researched so far in this chapter. Tiengemeten has transformed culture into nature. This evokes the sense of a controlled ‘wilderness’, or as they call it: a ‘primeval delta’. Although the use of the word ‘primeval’ is not historically backed up, this is the narrative the island has embraced in order to connect Tiengemeten to its visitors. Mark Verkerk explained why organizations like Natuurmonumenten use such a marketing strategy to sell rewilding: “There seems to be a demand for the experience

73 6.4 views of wilderness jacob knegtel

of wilderness in the Netherlands”. This is partly due to the popularity of the BBC Earth documentaries in the Netherlands, according to Verkerk. “To bring the experience of seemingly exotic Dutch nature to the big screen, nobody expected that ‘The New Wilderness’ would convey this same BBC sentiment to the audience. Similarly, few people were certain what the idea of ‘new wilderness’ in the Netherlands was all about. This type of contrast really worked” (Verkerk, 2016). As mentioned earlier in this research, the romantic connotation of ‘wilderness’ has become more popular in the Netherlands over the past few years and has attributed to the recent shift in the Dutch view of nature. As such, each culture categorizes types of landscape differently and applies meaning to these (Furse-Roberts, 2012). Today, Dutch nature management is all about a natural balance between man and nature, instead of overly protecting nature, according to Verkerk. He adds that this form of management requires a coexistence of man and nature. “Don’t try to go back to the Middle Ages, but try to capture the perfect balance between the development of nature and the demand for people to experience nature”. Here, the earlier mentioned notion of natural heritage conservation arises. According to Verkerk, the evocation of authenticity limits the conservation of nature as heritage, which should reflect the contemporary way people view nature. This new perspective is all about rewilding. “These past few years, rewilding has changed Dutch nature management”, he says. “It has also transformed the way we look at the concept of ‘wilderness’. Rewilding replaces the romantic perception of wilderness with the reality and tangibility of wild nature”. However, as mentioned earlier in this research, an idealized depiction of rewilded areas does not guarantee the same romantic experience while actually visiting these areas. Also, a box-office hit of the ‘The New Wilderness’ does not guarantee profitability for nature managers from rewilded nature in the Netherlands. In order to transform Dutch rewilding from an experiment inducing a sense of false romance, into a sustainable and (publically) accepted form of nature management, more public and policy attention should be given to the movement’s potential for nature and society alike.

74 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

6.5 Conclusion

This last of the three core research chapters looked into the case of Tiengemeten, an island where nature has set aside culture and dominates the development of the landscape. This transformation was also visible in Groeve ‘t Rooth and the Oost- vaardersplassen, but just like these other two this case is unique. It touches upon the way the Dutch view nature, which has been discussed in the first part of this chapter. The shift from an arcadian perspective towards an ecocentric perspective is visible in Dutch nature management, and also in Tiengemeten. While Dutch nature managers are experimenting heavily with this approach, lay people in the Netherlands have yet to fully embrace this change. The romantic idea of wilderness has captured the Dutch as of today, but this doesn’t entail a comfortable relationship with current rewilding initiatives. On the contrary, seeing how much resistance Dutch citizens show towards the revival of wild nature, conflicts will remain visible between experienced nature managers and Dutch laymen. In Tiengemeten, the experiment of creating wild nature can be characterized as controlled and created, giving it the same connotation of ‘cultural wilderness’ as the other two research areas. This has paved the way for some rewilding success, seeing how both nature and society have embraced these developments. Tiengeme- ten is all about communicating the romance of ‘new wilderness’ to ordinary visitors and experienced naturalists. However, these labels are not grounded in historical research, and combined with their uncertainties regarding the economic viability of rewilding, raises the question to what extent rewilding here, and anywhere else in the Netherlands, can become a sustainable form of nature management.

75 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

7 Conclusion

In the three research chapters, the phenomenon of ‘rewilding’ has been researched within a Dutch context. Each of these core chapters contributed to both an understanding of the concept itself and the extent to which it occurs in the Dutch landscape, by doing site and literature research while analyzing and comparing a multitude of expert perspectives. Out of this data set arose three unique, yet similar narratives. In all areas the occurrence of rewilding has been confirmed, but manifests itself in a different way. These manifestations have as much to do with culture as it has with nature. In Groeve ‘t Rooth (Chapter 4) we see what is becoming a mainstream trend in Dutch nature management, with an abandoned cultural landscape serving as the scene of a transformation towards new nature. This case provided a glimpse of what rewilding in the Netherlands looks like in its earliest stage, with man and nature still very much interconnected in the quest towards developing wild nature; a controlled ‘laboratory’ where the plans for a robust and connected natural environment are on the drawing table. In the Oostvaardersplassen (Chapter 5), rewilding serves as the foundation of natural development, in contrast to the assisting role it has in Groeve ‘t Rooth and Tiengemeten. An approach of minimal human intervention and several studies on the primeval Dutch landscape was set in motion to create a wild habitat for flora and fauna. Although the area is now visibly functioning as Dutch ‘source area’, which is beneficial for migrating species, rewilding here has reached a level where Dutch laymen are starting to feel uncomfortable; wild nature becomes a harsh and unforgivable setting. Despite its romantic and untamed character, the reality shows us a gated and controlled environment with limited connectivity and no place for humans. Rewilding here is used as an instrument to recreate and reinvigorate the past, which renders this process static and unsustainable regarding the restoration and development of ecosystems. This tendency to stage the past, as mentioned earlier, decontextualizes this area in its broader geographic setting. In contrast to the other two cases, the island of Tiengemeten (Chapter 6) is not bordered by a fence. Here, the water of the Haringvliet is constantly reshaping the

76 7 conclusion jacob knegtel

area and permits species to migrate in and out, serving as a physical buffer between nature and society. The recent popularisation of the wilderness perspective among both Dutch nature managers and laypeople mimics the way Natuurmonumenten describes and ‘markets’ the island’s wild nature, which to a lesser extent happens in Oostvaardersplassen and which doesn’t happen at all in Groeve ‘t Rooth. Most policy workers and nature managers avoid the ‘wilderness’ label, but at the same time it summarizes how Dutch society perceives the rewilding of new nature, a phenomenon which has ironically blurred the distinction between nature and culture in the country. Wild nature is often referred to as a ‘wilderness’ because compared to our polders and heathlands, it looks relatively untamed and savage. What one thinks is virgin nature is actually a reflection of their hidden longings and desires; a ‘cultural wilderness’. When comparing the Dutch rewilding phenomenon to established rewilding movements abroad, the uniqueness of this phenomenon becomes more apparent. In the Netherlands, rewilding is manifesting itself as a combination of the American and European movement. Dutch rewilding is all about restoring ecosystems through passive management, and therefore fits in the European movement of rewilding. In all of these three research sites species were introduced or reintroduced in order to achieve ecosystem restoration, thereby hoping to bring back natural processes that existed before the alteration of the natural landscapes by humans. This philosophy defines European rewilding, and also resembles the way Rewilding Europe approaches rewilding in Central and Eastern Europe – in countries such as Croatia, Germany and Slovenia. Western European countries such as the United Kingdom, France and The Netherlands have been carefully adopting rewilding these last few years, but finding it hard to combine with established management practices that fit the arcadian movement. However, certain aspects of Dutch rewilding can be attributed to the American style of rewilding, which emphasizes the human dimension and profitability. We saw that the ‘National Parks new style’ plan is currently set in motion by all provinces and relevant actors in order to increase the brand awareness and economic profitability of these reserves, with the American National Park system as an exemplary model. Moreover, the state and provinces are hoping to bring nature back to the heart of society. This human dimension and the profitability of rewilding played a large role in the findings of this research.

77 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

Because of this combination of strategies, rewilding in the Netherlands is currently rendered unsustainable, due to the absence of a rewilding model which combines the passive management of nature (European rewilding) with a human-centred revenue model (American rewilding). While the American variant is favoured by top-down actors, the various Dutch nature management organizations tend to prefer the European equivalent, which underlines the conflicting relationship between man and nature in the Netherlands. In Dutch policy and practice, the passive rewilding of nature by managers conflicts with the government’s and provinces’ desire to bring nature back to the heart of the society. Within Dutch society, rewilding evokes the idea of ‘new wilderness’ in the Netherlands, which conflicts with the way the Dutch prefer to experience nature. It will take many years, perhaps decades, for this conflicted relationship between man and nature in the Netherlands to stabilize. While the shift from an arcadian towards an ecocentric nature vision remains progressing, it will be difficult for rewilding to become a sustainable form of nature management, and not a laboratory tool. Out of this conclusion follows the recommendation to do more research on the relationship between man and nature, set within the current context of a shift in perspective towards nature. Rewilding seems to hold great potential for the development of new nature, especially along the Dutch rivers, but without a broader societal acceptance of this phenomenon, progressive rather than purely history-focused rewilding practices, and the cooperation of relevant organizations and stakeholders, nature management within our current fragmented Dutch landscape will remain as divided as it is today. Furthermore, the psychological division between nature and culture in society needs to be studied more, as this research underlined that all Dutch nature areas to a certain extent are cultural landscapes.

78 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

Bibliography

Berg, A. E. van den, & Koole, S. L. (2006). New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 4, pp. 362–372;

BMU (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety)(2007). National Strategy on Biological Diversity. Berlin: BMU;

Booth, K. (2008). Holism with a Hole? Exploring Deep Ecology within the Built Environment, The Trumpeter, 24, 1, pp. 68-86;

Born, R. J. G. van den (2007). Thinking Nature. Everyday philosophy of nature in the Netherlands. Proefschrift, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen;

Breeveld, H. (2015). Personal communication, 22 December 2015;

Brown, C., [et al.](2011). Rewilding–a new paradigm for nature conservation in Scotland?, Scottish Geographical Journal, 127, 4, pp. 288-314;

Buijs, A. E. [et al.](2011). Beyond environmental frames: The social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland, Geoforum, 42, pp. 329-341;

Carver, S. (2013). (Re)creating wilderness: rewilding and habitat restoration. In: Howards, P. [et al.](eds.), The Routledge Companion to Landscape Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 383-394;

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS)(2015). Bevolking; kerncijfers. [online] Den Haag Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Available at: http:// statline. cbs.nl [Accessed 9 January 2016];

Clement, H. (2016). Personal communication, 7 January 2016;

80 bibliography jacob knegtel

Crist, E. (2004). Against the social construction of nature and wilderness, Environmental Ethics, 26, 1, pp. 5-24;

Cronon, W. (1995). Whose Nature? The Contested Moral Terrain of Ancient Forests. In: Cronon, W. (ed.), Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. New York: W. W. Norton;

Cronon, W. (1996). The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature, Environmental History, 1, 1, pp. 7-28;

Dahnke, M. D. (2011). The Scientific Revolution. In: Dahnke, M. D., Dreher, H. M. (eds.), Philisophy of Science for Nursing Practice: Concepts and Application. New York: Springer, pp. 87-94;

Dettingmeijer, R. (2011). Natuurmonumenten als cultuurmonumenten. De voortdurende verandering van het begrip natuur in onze cultuur, Bulletin KNOB, 110, 6, pp. 198-211;

Devall, B., & Sessions, G. (1985). Deep ecology - living as if nature mattered. Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, Publisher;

Donlan, J. [et al.](2005). Re-Wilding North America, Nature, 436, 7053, pp. 913-914;

Doorn, F. van (2015). Wildernis die netjes tussen de lijntjes blijft. Trouw, 13 juni, pp. 26-28;

Eerden, M. R. van (1997). Moulting Greylag Geese Anser anser defoliating a reed marsh Phragmites australis: seasonal constraints versus long-term commensalism between plants and herbivores. In: Van Eerden, M.R. Patchwork. Patch use, habitat exploitation and carrying capacity for water birds in Dutch freshwater wetlands. Van Zee tot Land 65, Lelystad. Dissertation, University of Groningen, pp. 239–264;

81 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

European Commission (2013). Guidelines on Wilderness in Natura 2000. Management of terrestrial wilderness and wild areas within the Natura 2000 Network. Brussels: European Union;

European Commission (2015). Framework shows potential for ‘rewilding’ abandoned European farmland, Science for Environment Policy, 427. Brussels: European Union;

European Parliament. (2009). Resolution on Wilderness in Europe. Brussels: European Union;

European Union (2013). The Economic benefits of the Natura 2000 Network. Synthesis Report, Natura 2000. Brussels: European Union;

Ferranti, F. [et al.](2013). Shifting nature conservation approaches in Natura 2000 and the implications for the roles of stakeholders, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57, 11, pp. 1642-1657;

Foreman, D. (2004). Rewilding north America: A vision for conservation in the 21st century. Washington DC: Island Press;

Furse-Roberts, J. (2012). Narrative Landscapes. In: Macleod, S. [et al.](eds.), Museum making: narratives, architectures, exhibitions. London: Routledge, pp. 179-191;

Gronden, J. van de (2015). Wijsgeer in het wild. Essays over mens en natuur. Amsterdam: Athenaeum-Polak & Van Gennep; Haartsen, A. (1995). Natuur versus Cultuur? Natuurontwikkeling, landschapsbehoud en de identiteit van het cultuurlandschap, Landschap, 12, pp. 31-34;

Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage: Critical approaches. London: Routledge;

82 bibliography jacob knegtel

Hart, L., Locke, P., 2007. Nepali and Indian Mahouts and their unique relationships with elephants. In: Bekoff, M. (Ed.),Encyclopedia of Human–Animal Relations. London: Greenwood Publishing, pp. 510–515;

Heijden, H. van der (2005). Ecological Restoration, Environmentalism and the Dutch Politics of ‘New Nature’, Environmental Values, 14, 4, pp. 427-446;

Helmer, W. (2016). Personal communication, 12 January 2016;

Hintz, J. (2007). Some political problems for rewilding nature, Ethics, Place & Environment, 10, 2, pp. 177–216;

Jørgensen, D. (2015). Rethinking rewilding, Geoforum, 65, pp. 482-488;

Jepson, P. (2015). A rewilding agenda for Europe: creating a network of experimental reserves. Ecography, 39, 2, pp. 99-252;

Karel, E. H. (2015). De maakbare natuur. Natuurontwikkeling en landschapsbouw in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw, Groniek, 196, pp. 275-288; Keeling, P. M. (2008). Does the idea of wilderness need a defence?, Environmental Values, 17, 4, pp. 505-519; Keulartz, J. [et al.](2004). Concepts of nature as communicative devices: the case of Dutch nature policy, Environmental Values, 13, 1, pp. 81-99;

Klein, C. J. [et al.](2009). Spatial conservation prioritization inclusive of wilderness quality: A case study of Australia’s biodiversity, Biological Conservation, 142, 7, pp. 1282-1290;

Kolen, J. (2015). Biographies of biotopes. In: Kolen, J., Renes, J., Hermans R., Landscape Biographies; geographical, historical and archeological perspectives on the production and transmission of landscapes. Amsterdam: AUP, pp. 71-98;

Kuiters, A. T. [et al.](2013). Wilderness register and indicator for Europe. Final report, October 2013. Wageningen: Wageningen UR; Leeds: Wildland Research Institute; Gyor: PAN Parks;

83 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

Laarse, R. van de, (2010). Gazing at places we have never been. Landscape, heritage and identity. In: Bloemers, J. H. F. [et al.](eds.), The cultural landscape & heritage paradox: protection and development of the Dutch archaeological-historical landscape and its European dimension (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press;

Lewis, M. (2015). Rewilding Pragmatism, Breakthrough, 5. [online] Oakland, CA: The Breakthrough Institute. Available at: http:// thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-5/rewilding- pragmatism. [Accessed 12 November 2015];

Limburgs Landschap (2015). Folder: Welkom in Groeve ‘t Rooth. Wandelen in een verborgen valley. Arcen: Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap; Lorimer, J. & Driessen, C. (2013). Bovine biopolitics and the promise of monsters in the rewilding of Heck cattle, Geoforum, 48, pp. 249-259;

Lucassen, P. (2012). Mergelpark ‘t Rooth. Thesis. Wageningen: Wageningen UR;

Mandemakers, M., Withagen, A. (2015). Personal communication, 1 December 2015;

Martens, P. (2016). Written communication, 7 January 2016;

Martin, V. G. [et al.] (2008). Wilderness momentum in Europe, International Journal of Wilderness, 14, 2, pp. 34-43;

McKibben, B. (1990). The End of Nature. New York: Anchor;

Meine, C. (1988). Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press;

Ministerie van Economische Zaken (2014). Natuurlijk verder. Rijksnatuurvisie 2014. Den Haag: Ministerie van Economische Zaken;

84 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

Ministerie van Economische Zaken (2015). Natura 2000-beheerplan Oostvaardersplassen (78). Den Haag: Ministerie van Economische Zaken; Utrecht: Dienst Landelijk Gebied;

Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Voedselkwaliteit (1990). Natuurbeleidsplan. Den Haag: Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Voedselkwaliteit; Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2000). Ontwikkelingsvisie Tiengemeten. Eiland van wildernis, weelde en weemoed. Den Haag: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat & Stuurgroep Natuurontwikkeling Tiengemeten;

Muir, J. (1901). Our National Parks. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company; Nash, R.F. (1989). The Rights of Nature. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press;

Nash, R. F. (2014). Wilderness and the American mind (5th ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press;

Natuurmonumenten (2014). Komt dat zien. Ontdek natuureiland Tiengemeten: Weelde, Wildernis en Weemoed. Folder, April 2014. ‘s-Graveland: Natuurmonumenten;

Nogués-Bravo, D. [et al.](2016). Rewilding is the new Pandora’s box in conservation, Current Biology, 26, 3, pp. 87-91;

O’Brian, J., White, P. (2007). Beyond wilderness: The group of Seven, Canadian identity, and contemporary art. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press;

Oelschlaeger, M. (1991). The idea of wilderness: From Prehistory to the age of ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press;

Ovaa, A. (2015). Personal communication, 2 December 2016;

85 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

Oxford Dictionaries (2015). Oxford Dictionaries Online. [online] Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com. [Accessed 14 October 2015];

Papayannis, T., & Howard, P. (2007). Editorial: Nature as heritage, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 13, 4-5, pp. 298–307;

Pereira, H. M. & Navarro, L. M. (2015). Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe. In: Pereira, H. M., Navarro, L. M. (Eds.), Rewilding European landscapes. London: Springer;

Pine II, J., Gilmore, J. (2007). Museums & Authenticity, Museum News, May/ June, pp. 76-93;

Plumwood, V. (1998). ‘‘Wilderness Skepticism and Wilderness Dualism.’’ In J. B. Callicott and M. P. Nelson (Eds.), The Great New Wilderness Debate (pp. 652–90). Athens: University of Georgia Press;

Prentice, R. (2001). Experiential Cultural Tourism. Museums & the Marketing of the Romanticism of Evoked Authenticity, Museum Management and Curatorship, 19, 1, pp. 5-26;

Provincie Limburg (20151). Provinciaal Natuurbeheerplan Limburg 2016. Maastricht: Provincie Limburg

Provincie Limburg (20152). Natuurbeleid: natuurlijk eenvoudig. Programma Natuur- en landschapsbeleid 2013-2020. Maastricht: Provincie Limburg;

Reardon, S. (2014). Rewilding: The next big thing?, New Scientist, 221, 2958, pp. 40-43;

Rewilding Europe (2015). Rewilding Europe. [online] Nijmegen: Rewilding Europe. Available at: http:// www.rewildingeurope.com. [Accessed 14 November 2015];

86 bibliography jacob knegtel

Rosenberg, K. A. (1994). Wilderness Preservation: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.;

Schama, S. (1995). Landscape and Memory. London: Fontana Press;

Scott, D. W. (2001). A wilderness-forever future. Seattle: Pew Wilderness Center; Soule, M., & Noss, R. (1998). Rewilding and biodiversity: complementary goals for continental conservation, Wild Earth, 8, pp. 18-28;

Stanbury, S. (2004). Ecochaucer: Green Ethics and Medieval Nature, The Chaucer Review, 39, 1, pp. 1-16;

Sutherland, W. J. (2002). Conservation biology: openness in management, Nature, 418, 6900, pp. 834-835;

The Rewilding Institute (TRI)(2015). The Rewilding Institute. [online] Albuquerque, NM: TRI. Available at: http://www. rewilding.org. [Accessed 11 November 2015];

Tompkins, K., Tompkins, D. (2015). Land Ethics; Biodiversity & Wheat. San Fransisco, CA: Foundation for Deep Ecology;

Turnhout, E. [et al.](2004). The Role of Views of Nature in Dutch Nature Conservation: The Case of the Creation of a Drift Sand Area in the Hoge Veluwe National Park, Environmental Values, 13, 2, pp. 427-446;

Urry, J. (1990). Gazing on History. In: The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 104-134;

Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L. (2006). New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 4, pp. 362-372;

87 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

VARA (2012). Meningen verdeeld over komst van de wolf. [radio] Vroege Vogels, 13 september 2012 [Accessed 28 december 2015];

Vera, F. W. M. (1988). De Oostvaardersplassen. Van spontane natuuruitbarsting tot gerichte natuurontwikkeling. Haarlem: IVN/Grasduinen-Oberon; Vera, F. W. M. (2000). Grazing ecology and forest history. Oxfordshare: CABI;

Vera. F. & Buissink, F. (2007). Wilderness in Europe. What really goes on between the trees and the beasts. Baarn: Tirion Natuur; Driebergen: Staatsbosbeheer;

Vera, F. W. M. (2009). Large-scale nature development: The Oostvaardersplassen, British Wildlife, 20, 5, pp. 28-36;

Verkerk, M. (2016). Personal communication, 5 January 2016;

Vulink, J. T. (2001). Hungry herds: Management of temperate lowland wetlands by grazing. Den Haag: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat;

Wall-Reinius, S. (2012). Wilderness and Culture: Tourist Views and Experiences in the Laponian World Heritage Area, Society & Natural Resources, 25, 7, pp. 621- 632;

Wildlands Network (2015). Wildlands Network. [online] Seattle, WA:Wildlands Network. Available at: http://www.wildlandsnetwork.org. [Accessed 11 November 2015];

Williams, M. (2000). Dark ages and dark areas: global deforestation in the deep past, Journal of historical geography, 26, 1, pp. 28-46;

World Resources Institute (WRI)(2009). State of the World’s Forests [online] Washington DC: WRI. Available at: http://www.wri.org/resource/state-worlds- forests. [Accessed 4 November 2015];

88 bibliography jacob knegtel

Zahniser, H. (1964). Wilderness Preservation System. Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Public Lands, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (88th Congress, 2d Session) on H.R. 9070, H.R. 9162, S. 4, and Related Bills, April 27–30, 1 May 1964: 1205;

Zijlstra, M. [et al.](1991). The Oostvaardersplassen as a key moulting site for Greylag Geese Anser anser in western Europe, Wildfowl, 42, 42, pp. 45-52;

Images

Figure 2.1: Birmingham Museum of Art (2016) Source: http://www.artsbma.org/january-2014-looking-down-yosemite-valley- california/;

Figure 2.2: Tate Britain (2016) Source: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/turner-buttermere-lake-with-part- of-cromackwater-cumberland-a-shower-n00460;

Figure 2.3: Ministerie van Economische zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie, 2011 Source: http://assets.kennislink.nl/system/files/000/158/461/large/ biodiversiteit15.jpg?1354635414;

Figure 3.1: Greenpeace (2013) Source: http://www.intactforests.org/pdf.publications/IFL2013_world_map. pdf;

Figure 3.2: Wildlands Network (2016) Source: http://www.wildlandsnetwork.org/node/728;

89 a legacy of wilderness jacob knegtel

Figure 3.3: Pereira, H. M. (2015). Rewilding European landscapes. L. M. Navarro (Ed.). London: Springer;

Figure 3.4: Rewilding Europe (2016) Source: https://www.rewildingeurope.com/blog/the-rewilding-seed-from- mountains/;

Figure 4.1: Margot Overvoorde, 2014. Image used with permission;

Figure 4.2: Margot Overvoorde, 2014. Image used with permission;

Figure 4.3: Jacob Knegtel, 2015;

Figure 5.1: Jacob Knegtel, 2015;

Figure 5.2: Jacob Knegtel, 2015;

Figure 6.1: Jacob Knegtel, 2015;

Figure 6.2: Jacob Knegtel, 2015;