For centuries, Europe’s landscapes have been defined by human hands. Forests were cleared, fields tilled, and grazing animals were herded and confined. This human-driven mosaic created an ecosystem where open grasslands and light-demanding plant species thrived—but only under continual management. When land use ceases, nature begins to reclaim it. Shrubs and trees spread, open fields darken, and many specialized plants and insects disappear. Today, much of temperate Europe is on a slow march toward dense, shadowed woodlands—a process known as vegetation succession.

Rewilding aims to reverse this trend. By reintroducing large herbivores, conservationists hope to restore self-regulating ecosystems reminiscent of those that existed before widespread human alteration. In northern Europe, this often means substituting extinct wild species like aurochs (Bos primigenius) and wild horses (Equus ferus) with modern cattle (Bos taurus) and horses (Equus ferus caballus). The idea is simple: these animals graze, trampling and browsing vegetation, keeping the landscape open, and creating opportunities for light-demanding plants and insects to persist.

Yet, the success of this approach depends on understanding not just that these animals eat plants, but how they move across the landscape, where they choose to feed, and how their presence affects vegetation patterns over time. Until recently, these questions were difficult to answer. But a team of ecologists in Denmark has brought new clarity by tracking GPS-collared horses and cattle and combining their movement data with satellite observations of vegetation productivity. The results, published in a recent study, reveal both predictable patterns and surprising behaviors.

Grazers Follow the Green—but Not Always

One of the key findings is that both horses and cattle are drawn to open vegetation. This is not surprising: grasslands and short shrubs provide easy grazing and minimize the energy needed to move through dense brush or forest. The animals’ movement patterns, analyzed across seasons, confirmed that areas with lower vegetation density and higher connectivity were favored by both species. Horses, it turns out, tend to roam more widely than cattle, exploring forest edges and patches of shrubs that cattle generally avoid. But both species diverge in their choices when resources become scarce, particularly during winter. Horses maintain a more varied diet, supplementing grasses with leaves from deciduous trees, while cattle rely more heavily on shrubs, especially brambles like Rubus species.

The study also revealed a less expected behavior: both horses and cattle were strongly attracted to a single artificial shelter in the reserve. Despite abundant natural alternatives, the animals repeatedly returned to this human-made structure, highlighting the influence of infrastructure on space-use patterns. It’s a reminder that even in rewilded systems, subtle human interventions can steer animal behavior in ways that may not always align with ecological goals.

Grazing Shapes Vegetation—and Resilience

Beyond movement patterns, the researchers wanted to understand how grazing affects vegetation structure at the landscape scale. By overlaying animal GPS data with satellite-derived vegetation indices, they discovered a clear correlation: areas heavily used by herbivores remained more open, with lower vegetation density, while lightly used areas experienced denser growth. In other words, the presence of these grazers slows the natural progression toward shrub-dominated or forested landscapes.

Interestingly, these highly used areas were also more sensitive to environmental stress, particularly the pan-European drought of 2018. Vegetation in grazing hotspots experienced rapid declines in greenness during the drought but bounced back faster than less-frequented areas once rains returned. This resilience suggests that grazing not only shapes plant structure but may also enhance ecosystem recovery following extreme events—a crucial insight as climate change increases the frequency of droughts and heatwaves in temperate Europe.

When herbivore populations declined by roughly two-thirds after the drought, the landscape greened, but this recovery did not correspond neatly with the previous intensity of grazing. This highlights the nuanced interplay between herbivore activity, climate events, and vegetation dynamics, emphasizing that managing landscapes is rarely straightforward.

Diversity Matters

One interesting outcome of the study is how the combination of cattle and horses—two species often considered ecologically similar—creates more heterogeneity than either species alone. While both are large herbivores, their differences in diet, movement, and seasonal preferences mean that together they influence a wider range of vegetation types. In periods of resource scarcity, the divergence in space-use ensures that some areas receive more intensive grazing while others are left to regrow, promoting a patchwork of vegetation heights and densities. This patchiness is a key driver of biodiversity, providing niches for insects, birds, and smaller plants that thrive in varying light conditions.

Rewilding advocates often emphasize functional diversity—the idea that different species perform different ecological roles. The Danish study provides a clear illustration of this principle. Introducing multiple types of herbivores increases structural variation across the landscape, supporting a broader array of species and enhancing ecosystem stability.

Implications for European Rewilding

The Danish case study underscores the potential of trophic rewilding to maintain open landscapes without constant human intervention. By reintroducing year-round grazing, managers can curb vegetation densification, sustain light-demanding species, and foster heterogeneous habitats. This is particularly relevant in a European context where much of the natural landscape is no longer shaped by traditional land uses like rotational grazing or haymaking.

However, the research also points to challenges. The animals’ attraction to artificial infrastructure, such as shelters or water points, means that human placement of these structures can inadvertently concentrate grazing in specific areas. Thoughtful planning is required to balance animal welfare with ecological objectives. Similarly, understanding seasonal and species-specific behaviors is critical; a one-size-fits-all approach may not achieve the desired outcomes.

Perhaps most importantly, the study highlights how rewilding interacts with climate variability. Grazers not only shape vegetation structure but also modulate its response to extreme weather events. In a warming Europe, where droughts, heatwaves, and unusual precipitation patterns are becoming more common, large herbivores could play an increasingly important role in maintaining ecosystem function and biodiversity.

A Living Laboratory

Rewilding areas like the Danish reserve are more than just conservation projects—they are living laboratories, revealing how nature functions when allowed to self-regulate. Here, horses and cattle act as landscape engineers, creating open spaces and patchy vegetation that support a web of life far richer than any single species alone.

The study’s insights extend beyond Denmark. Across temperate Europe, many abandoned or minimally managed landscapes face rapid densification. Reintroducing large herbivores offers a tangible strategy to counteract this trend, preserving open habitats that have been vanishing since the end of traditional agricultural practices. Moreover, the nuanced understanding of space-use and vegetation dynamics gained from this research provides practical guidance for managers: which species to introduce, how to balance herd sizes, and how to integrate infrastructure without undermining ecological objectives.

Looking Forward

The Danish study also raises broader questions about the future of European ecosystems. As climate change accelerates and human influence continues to ebb and flow, managers will need to consider both ecological and behavioral factors in conservation planning. Grazers can be allies in maintaining landscape heterogeneity, but their impact depends on species composition, population dynamics, and the spatial configuration of resources.

Trophic rewilding is, in essence, an experiment in letting ecological processes govern themselves. By reintroducing species that were once lost, we can restore the interactions that shaped Europe’s landscapes for millennia. Horses and cattle may seem ordinary, even domesticated, but in the right context, they perform roles that no machinery or human management can fully replicate. They eat, they roam, they trample—and in doing so, they keep the land open, resilient, and alive with diversity.

As these herds wander the Danish reserve, they are writing a new chapter in Europe’s ecological story. One where wildness, in its broadest sense, is not just about animals running free—it’s about animals shaping the land itself, one patch of grass, shrub, or tree at a time. And for conservationists, scientists, and nature enthusiasts alike, watching this slow, subtle dance between grazers and vegetation offers both hope and a roadmap for rewilding a continent.

The post How Feral Horses and Cattle Are Shaping Europe’s Landscapes appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Frans Vera

Frans Vera, Dutch ecologist and rewilding pioneer, is renowned for his work at Oostvaardersplassen and his influential book Grazing Ecology and Forest History. He advanced the role of large herbivores in shaping landscapes, inspiring rewilding projects across Europe. His research has redefined conservation, emphasizing natural processes and ecological succession.

• English
• Nederlands

At the Rewilding Our World Conference 2025, leading voices in science, policy, and practice come together to explore how rewilding can restore ecosystems, strengthen resilience, and reshape our relationship with nature. We spoke with Frans Vera to hear his perspective.

What would you like to share at the Rewilding Our World conference?

I would like to explain how I developed my vision of rewilding – and particularly that, at its core, it is a systems-based approach. Rewilding is not about isolated interventions, but about understanding the interconnectedness between species and their environment. 

Experience has shown that in ecosystems, certain species or conditions are indispensable for the survival of others.

At such a conference, it is, of course, also important to highlight ongoing rewilding projects. But I think it is even more crucial to show the challenges encountered in practice. What should people be aware of? What are the pitfalls?

Can you give an example?

What strikes me most is the contrast between the “picture” and the “film” of nature. 

In the Oostvaardersplassen, this is very clear. People take a photo – a static snapshot from a dynamic film – and act as if that single image represents the entire moving picture. 

By isolating one image and using it to justify measures, they contradict the processes and traits of the species that drive the “film”. The species are effectively disabled by the picture.

Take, for example, my wood-pasture theory. In the Oostvaardersplassen today, people say, “ we will create a wood-pasture,” but instead of the dynamic mosaic of grasslands, shrubs, thickets, solitary trees, and small woods that spontaneously shifted locations over time under the influence of large grazers, they create a static landscape. They do this by erecting fences that exclude large grazers, planting trees and shrubs that cannot move, keeping grasslands fixed, and heavily culling grazers because, according to the traditional static image of nature, they are considered deadly for shrubs, trees, and thickets. This destroys the very dynamics and role of the large grazers, which are essential to the wood-pasture system.

The dynamic process works like this: large grazers maintain grasslands, where light-demanding thorny shrubs can establish because grazers avoid them. Within these shrubs, trees can grow, forming clusters into thickets as blackthorn spreads clonally in the grazed grassland. These thickets cannot regenerate under continuous grazing, so they eventually revert to grassland. Over time, vegetation shifts location repeatedly, driven by large grazers. The static picture directly opposes this natural dynamism.

So do you advocate for more focus on change?

Absolutely. A film implies change, and in traditional conservation, this is almost heretical. Change is quickly seen as loss. But within a system, changes follow repeating patterns. There are peaks and troughs, but the system remains intact because of these repeating patterns. That is where the strength lies.

Have there been discussions with other parties, for example regarding the future of the Oostvaardersplassen?

Yes, I had a particularly intense discussion with the ARK Foundation about the Oostvaardersplassen. They wanted to convert the entire area – 3,600 ha of marsh and 1,880 ha of dry grassland – into a single large marsh because the marsh and its birds were high on the agenda at that time.

I said, “And what about the tens of thousands of greylag geese that gather on the grasslands before moulting in the marsh? These geese play a key ecological role – they manage the marsh for the marsh-dwelling birds.” You cannot simply remove that grassland to create a marsh, because then the geese, as managers, would disappear. I asked if they should then be sent to farmers outside the nature reserve before and after moulting, to which they gave a negative response. 

Everything is interconnected in an ecosystem. 

Ignoring this means you do not understand the system – and this is reflected in discussions today at the Council of State, Provincial Executive, and Staatsbosbeheer regarding the role of large grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen ecosystem. They are treated as a tool to create a static picture rather than an integral part of a dynamic system.

You often stress the importance of systems thinking. What exactly do you mean by that?

It is about the complementarity of system components. You cannot isolate or remove one part without affecting the whole. Conversely, introducing or allowing a component to appear spontaneously can create entirely new ecosystem properties. A good example is the concept of emergent properties: the whole is more than the sum of its parts. I often use the analogy of a Boeing 747: its four jet engines together they can fly across the ocean, but one engine alone cannot. Within the aircraft system, the engines gain properties they do not possess individually. This also applies to nature reserves. In an ecosystem, one plus one may not equal two, but three or four. 

In the Oostvaardersplassen, the moulting greylag geese, the marsh, the grasslands, and large grazers together maintain the marsh. Without grasslands or grazers, the system collapses. The combination of elements generates properties that cannot be derived from the individual components. That is the surprise that rewilding offers.

And that can lead to unexpected outcomes?

Indeed. For instance, the marsh area with water-level dynamics and grazing geese – only 1.6 times larger than the static marsh – had ten times more breeding bearded tits, albeit in boom-and-bust cycles. Populations surged during marsh drawdown and declined during rising water, repeating over time. This cyclical pattern maintains the population at a level far higher than in a static marsh.

We are used to thinking in boxes: individual species, snapshots. That is how we are trained – think of the Verkade albums. Even cultural landscapes are seen as unchanging pictures. But these are only snapshots in an ever-changing process, like photos taken from a centuries-long film. I often say: looking at the current cultural landscape is like reading the last page of a book with all previous pages torn out. You miss most of the story and its information. Words remain mostly unchanged over centuries, but meanings shift, so by extrapolating modern meanings to the past, we create a completely false picture of history.

You are well known to many people for your work in the Oostvaardersplassen. Could you tell us how you became involved in that project and how your work has developed over the past decades?

I am, by background, a birdwatcher, and I wanted to work in nature conservation. That was also why I studied biology. My path towards nature management actually began at secondary school, where I spent more time looking outside than paying attention in class. One day, a PE teacher asked me what I wanted to be later. I said: a steward – spending all day driving around in a jeep seemed fantastic to me. That’s why I went to the Higher Forestry and Environmental Engineering School in Arnhem, but I didn’t find what I was looking for there. Things took a different turn, but my fascination with nature remained, so I eventually studied biology.

During my studies, I had very little money; I even cancelled my membership of the Dutch Bird Protection Society, only rejoining after graduating. 

The first issue of the magazine De Lepelaar that I received in December 1978 was the January 1979 edition. It contained an article by the biologist Ernst Poorter, who worked for the Rijksdienst voor de IJsselmeerpolders (RIJP). In it, he wrote about the Oostvaardersplassen and emphasised that we should not only mourn disappearing nature but also recognise that new natural areas could emerge – such as the Oostvaardersplassen in the newly reclaimed South Flevoland polder of 1968 – and be glad about that.

Ernst P. R. Poorter was a respected ethno-ecologist and conservationist. He became widely known for his work around the Oostvaardersplassen, where he conducted extensive research on the Eurasian spoonbill and advocated for the protection of the area. Poorter’s life’s work is the book Lepelaargewoonten, an impressive scientific account presenting over half a century of research on the behaviour and distribution of the spoonbill, covering sites in the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Africa. The book is richly illustrated and also includes personal anecdotes.

Two things in that article struck me. Firstly, the breeding of the great egret in the Netherlands. 

I had mostly known this species from Hungary, and suddenly it was here. Secondly, Poorter wrote that moulting greylag geese acted as natural managers of the area. 

They grazed down the reeds and prevented the marsh from quickly turning into a swamp forest – something that had always been thought inevitable. Traditionally, such marshes are managed by mowing and removing the reeds, but this is expensive and labour-intensive. In the fertile, calcareous clay polders, everything grows very fast and abundantly. Conservationists therefore often considered such areas “wasted habitats,” because they were difficult to manage and thus impossible to maintain.

And that gave you an idea?

Yes. Ernst Poorter wrote that a pair of great egrets had bred in the Oostvaardersplassen in 1978 – as far as was known, this had never happened before in the Netherlands. I had also read the Atlas of European Birds by Professor Karel Hendrik Voous, a leading Dutch ornithologist, which showed that the great egret bred in many areas where the spoonbill bred – except in the Netherlands. Both were white birds, not the typically “tropical” white marsh birds often claimed. Historical sources I consulted, such as descriptions of the Goudse Bos, showed that great egrets had indeed occurred and bred here until the 19th century. This led me to interpret the breeding record as a case of recolonisation: a lost species returning now that a large marsh area – the Oostvaardersplassen – existed again for the first time in decades.

I called Poorter and told him how much his article had affected me, particularly his observations of greylag geese as natural managers and the great egret breeding record. I asked why he hadn’t argued in the article for preserving the area as a nature reserve. He replied that his superiors at the RIJP would not allow it. They had even tried to prevent the publication of his article, as they did not want “pot-watchers” in the polder. I suggested he write an article about the Oostvaardersplassen for a magazine that policymakers also read. He agreed and provided me with the data, as I had never been to the area myself. The article appeared in March in the magazine Natuur en Milieu of the Stichting Natuur en Milieu, with a greylag goose on the cover. Its title was The Oostvaardersplassen: A Unique Ecological Experiment. I argued that the area offered a unique opportunity to redevelop an ecosystem that must once have existed widely across the Netherlands as a delta, and that, besides the great egret, both the white-tailed eagle and the osprey could return as breeding birds. The osprey built a nest in 2000 but did not persist. The white-tailed eagle, however, bred successfully in 2006 and is now a permanent breeding species in the Netherlands.

What happened next?

Letters arrived from Minister Dany Tuinman (Transport and Water Management) and Han Lammers, then the Landdrost of Flevoland, a kind of provincial commissioner. They were pleased that someone had written positively about the polders, which until then had mostly received complaints from conservationists because the polders had come at the expense of the IJsselmeer and its birds.

Meanwhile, I further studied the ecology of moulting greylag geese. These geese kept the marsh open and prevented the development of swamp forest. During May, June, and July, moulting geese arrive from across Europe to the Oostvaardersplassen to moult their primary feathers, during which they cannot fly for about 30 days. The marsh provides safety and food, but they also need adjacent grasslands to build up energy reserves in the form of body fat before moulting, as the reeds in the marsh are insufficiently nutritious. After moulting, they need these grasslands again to rebuild reserves. Then they depart, returning during autumn migration. This interplay – the complementary roles of marsh and grassland – is essential to sustaining the area and all its bird species.

Did you also get involved in discussions about the design of the area?

Well, discussion is perhaps too mild a word – it was more a mix of debate and activism. A railway line was planned from Amsterdam to Lelystad, cutting through the still-undeveloped area adjacent to the 3,600-hectare Oostvaardersplassen marsh. The RIJP had designated it as a temporary nature reserve. 

A permanent nature reserve was to be established in the yet-to-be-created Markerwaard polder. At that time, it had no official legal protection; in effect, it was one large, undeveloped part of the polder. Around the marsh, the RIJP had constructed a dike because the marsh risked drying out due to subsidence of the surrounding young clay soils, which were drained for temporary agriculture, causing the land level to drop.

In the adjacent undeveloped area, I argued that grassland was needed to sustain the marsh. Together with two friends, Fred Baerselman and Leen de Jong, we said: the planned railway runs straight through a nature reserve. 

The Rijksdienst said: no, it runs alongside it. In the end, we were proven right: the railway was rerouted, and the marsh and an adjacent dry area, totalling around 5,600 hectares, were designated as a nature reserve. This was partly thanks to a report I wrote for the Ministry of Culture, Recreation, and Social Work (CRM) – which at the time included nature conservation – while I had joined Staatsbosbeheer. My then-boss was not pleased, but it was necessary.

And then came the idea of introducing large grazers?

Exactly. The problem was: how do you create and maintain grassland for geese? The prevailing view among conservationists and managers at the time was that grassland did not naturally occur in the Netherlands. Everything in Europe, except for peatlands, was thought to have been covered by forest in a pristine state. So if you wanted grassland in the Oostvaardersplassen for geese, you would need domesticated cows. And if you needed cows, you would need the collaboration of farmers in the Oostvaardersplassen. 

But the farmers did not want tens of thousands of greylag geese on their land in May, June, and July, and then tens of thousands more passing through or overwintering in autumn and winter. That leads to conflicts, as we still see today between farmers and geese.

Then I got in touch with Harm van de Veen, who said: what you’re describing about the role of those geese in the marsh, I recognise from the large herbivores everywhere in the world, including the Serengeti in Africa. There, these large grazers play a key role in ecosystem functioning. My reasoning then was: if domestic cows can create grassland for farmers, surely the wild ancestors of those cows – aurochs – could do the same in the wild. But scientists immediately said in unison: that’s impossible, because if you have wild cattle, as we did with aurochs in the past, everything turns into forest. The prevailing idea in science was that Europe, with its large herbivores, was naturally covered by closed forest.

So you thought differently from many of your colleagues. Can you explain how you arrived at this alternative perspective?

Yes. In 1983, with Leen de Jong and Fred Baerselman, we said: let’s test this in practice. As a Staatsbosser – I had by then joined the organisation – I purchased Konik horses and Heck cattle abroad using Ministry funds, and wrote that red deer and wild boar should also be part of the ecosystem. Initially, we introduced 32 Heck cattle, 18 Konik horses, and 40 red deer. That marked the beginning of the large grazers story in the Oostvaardersplassen. This sparked fierce debates with paleoecologists about whether Europe had really been covered everywhere by closed forest where large grazers occurred.

My doctoral thesis addressed this issue. I argued that certain tree species, such as oaks, and almost all native shrubs require significant sunlight to reproduce successfully. In a closed forest, they cannot achieve this. Their seedlings and young trees are supplanted by shade-tolerant species like linden, beech, and hornbeam and are killed by shading. My conclusion was that there was never a continuous closed forest across Europe, but rather a constantly changing mosaic of forest, grassland, and scrub – driven by large grazers.

I developed this idea further in my book Grazing Ecology and Forest History (2000), which is still frequently cited. My iconic species has always been the greylag goose: a grazer that functions as a landscape architect in the marsh. Large herbivores such as cattle, horses, wisent, elk, red deer, and wild boar act as landscape architects on land, shaping vegetation development to create and sustain a dynamic, more open landscape – an ecosystem that naturally includes grasslands.

How did it affect you that so little financial support was given to the Oostvaardersplassen as an ecological corridor to the Veluwe?

I found that very frustrating, especially as so much money had already been invested. Of the 2,000 hectares, 1,200 had already been purchased. Only Henk Bleker, the then-State Secretary from 14 October 2010 to 5 November 2012 for Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation in the Rutte I Cabinet, who was responsible for nature, struck it through – thanks to the agricultural lobby – after which the land was sold back to the farmers for far less than its purchase price.

What upset me even more was that opponents of free-roaming large grazers, and of the idea that such fertile areas should include large open grasslands, argued that since the corridor would not be realised, animal numbers should therefore be permanently reduced. Otherwise, they claimed, the animals would starve en masse, because “everything would be left to fend for itself.” This was simply not true.

Two committees of international experts had confirmed that regulation of large grazers should primarily be determined by the available food supply. They recommended that, to prevent unnecessary suffering, grazers in such poor condition that they would not survive the coming spring should be culled. This animal welfare management was called “reactive management,” later refined to “early-reactive management.” They found the Oostvaardersplassen to be capable of sustaining populations of large grazers.

Mortality fluctuated naturally, but one year saw higher deaths than usual – nothing abnormal in nature. Opponents of this management framed it as “mass starvation,” which was not the case. In fact, 89% of deaths resulted from early-reactive management. Nevertheless, this misleading framing led to debates in the Dutch House of Representatives and even death threats directed at me and my family. It was an extremely intense period.

What do you think was the reason things unfolded this way?

Sharon Dijksma, the current Mayor of Utrecht, played a major role. Every time animal welfare came up in the Dutch House of Representatives, she eventually said in 2017 that she no longer wanted the Oostvaardersplassen issue to be discussed there. She effectively passed the entire policy – including the management of large grazers – over to the province, to the Provincial Executive of Flevoland, even though animal welfare remained the responsibility of the Ministry.

The Provincial Executive then set up a committee in 2018 because they wanted to change the management, even though a Natura 2000 management plan had already been adopted for the Oostvaardersplassen as a Natura 2000 site in 2015, with the approval of the Province of Flevoland, in accordance with the Habitats Directive. They wanted to adjust the management to align with the planned National Park Nieuwland, aiming to make it a tourist attraction for all of Europe. According to the Provincial Executive, management also had to take into account the expansion of Lelystad Airport, in order to move holiday flights from Schiphol there. For that purpose, the runway had already been extended to 1,500 metres, apparently without a nature permit. Naturally, they did not want flocks of geese near such an airport, so various measures were devised to reduce their numbers.

Can you explain those measures?

The plan was for the grassland to become overgrown and for the number of red deer, Konik horses, and Heck cattle to be permanently reduced from a fluctuating population of more than 3,000 animals to a stable population of 1,100 – either through mass culling or, in the case of the Koniks, potentially relocating them to other nature reserves, or otherwise sending them to the abattoir. Fewer grazers meant less suitable grassland for geese, which was considered better for the aircraft. The latest development is that very noisy new F-35 fighter jets are to be stationed at Lelystad Airport. The Provincial Executive of Flevoland supports this on the condition that the airport is also opened for holiday flights. That is now the agenda.

What happened legislatively?

We – that is, Stichting Dierbaar Flevoland and Fauna4Life, not Vogelbescherming – protested against these plans. In November 2019, I prepared a detailed report for the court describing the effects of culling red deer. Curiously, the Netherlands has two forms of permission for measures in a Natura 2000 site: an exemption and a permit, while the European directives only refer to “permission.” In my view, and also according to the European Court of Justice, culling is not allowed because it severely damages the habitat conditions of the designated bird species, but the Council of State disagrees. We won the case concerning the exemption, but the permit, which expired at the end of 2019, was not addressed.

We wanted that permit to be considered, but the court ruled that the province could no longer act based on it, because the exemption had been struck down. The court concluded that we therefore had no standing to have the permit reviewed, as culling was no longer allowed. Subsequently, the Provincial Executive issued a new permit based on the arguments from the expired, unreviewed 2019 permit.

Moreover, the Provincial Executive appealed the court’s decision striking down the exemption. In September 2020, the Council of State ruled that the 2019 permit remained “legally valid,” so the arguments supporting it could also justify the new permit. Everything we had presented was simply dismissed; we were not taken seriously.

How long did all this take, and what is your vision for the future?

More than five and a half years. Only on 28 April 2025 did the Council of State review the 2019 permit, once again siding with the government without addressing any of our arguments. The Council applied an interpretation of the conservation objectives for a Natura 2000 site that, in our opinion, is completely at odds with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. We had asked the Council to refer the case to the European Court of Justice, but the Council dismissed this without considering our arguments or providing its own reasoning. They saw no reason to do so – and that is what we were obliged 

to accept. We will now have to take the case to the European Court of Justice, because that is the only authority the Council of State listens to.

What exactly is the conflict?

The conservation objectives that the Council of State uses for assessment are outdated. For example, for the 2018 permit, they based their assessment on data from the Oostvaardersplassen from 1991 and 1993, and further from 2000–2004 – up to 27 years old! This is the data included in the 2009 designation decision for the site as a Natura 2000 area. For instance, the objective for the grey heron as a breeding bird was set at a minimum of 40 breeding pairs, even though the population had already grown to 97 pairs by 2005, long before the designation. The Council therefore considers that, even prior to designation – when, according to the European Court, a deterioration ban applies to conditions created by conservation measures – the population may fall to 40, more than halving it! The Council of State thus rules out any improvement in a Natura 2000 site achieved through conservation measures.

When the culling began, we argued that it disturbed the breeding of white-tailed eagles. The Provincial Executive said they did not have to take this into account because the species was not listed as a breeding bird in the designation decision, but they did so anyway, because of public attachment to the species.

How do you view the role of the Council of State in this process?

I don’t see the Council of State as a judicial body. They do not administer justice; they are not impartial. It is not truly an independent court where citizens can seek redress. They are constantly looking for excuses and loopholes to side with the government. Until the European Court decides otherwise, they interpret the Birds and Habitats Directives in their own way – an interpretation that conflicts with the directives themselves and with European Court jurisprudence.

The Council’s partiality stems from their belief that the government acts lawfully and implements the law. This means that as a citizen, if you challenge the government, you are at a disadvantage from the outset – even though it has repeatedly been shown that the government circumvents environmental law and violates European law.

What do you think of media coverage on this issue?

I find it frustrating, for example, to constantly read that the Council of State “rejected” the PAS nitrogen policy. In reality, the European Court of Justice had done this a year earlier, and the Council had no choice but to follow suit, since European law overrides national law. The media themselves do no fact-finding in this area.

Are there other examples?

Yes – for instance, the well-known childcare benefits scandal, where thousands of parents were wrongly accused of fraud, with huge financial and personal consequences. Another example is the wind turbines in Oldambt. In my view, both cases demonstrate that the Council of State does not correctly apply European law.

What does this mean for the protection of the Oostvaardersplassen?

The European Court states that one must assess the consequences for the environmental conditions present at the time of evaluation – the conditions that sustain the habitats of the designated bird species. These conditions must be maintained. The Council of State, however, often bases its assessments on outdated data, from before conservation measures were established and implemented – even measures intended to improve the situation. 

For the Oostvaardersplassen, for example, they look at bird numbers from over 25 years ago.

As the European Court ruled regarding cockle fishing in the Wadden Sea, fishing may not disturb the seabed, because this would impair food conditions for designated bird species. The assessment was based on the conditions at the time the permit was granted, not on outdated data.

Moreover, the European Court rejected arguments from member states claiming that, even after habitat disturbance, bird numbers had not declined or had even increased. The Court deemed this irrelevant, because it is the environmental conditions that matter. Protection must apply before any population decline, as that process can take time, and by the time numbers drop, it may already be too late.

The European Court of Justice clearly states that assessments cannot be based on outdated conditions. The Council of State ignores this and does apply such outdated assessments, thereby obstructing any improvement in a Natura 2000 site.

So the Council believes that any improvement can be used to offset damage to a natural environment?

Exactly – that is their position. In other words, you manage a site to improve its conservation status, and the Council says, “Thank you for that improvement; now I can offset the damage caused by a project against it.”

Are you personally involved in legal proceedings?

I don’t litigate myself; I assist the foundations Fauna4Life and Dierbaar Flevoland. I provide mainly technical support, since I have extensive knowledge of the Oostvaardersplassen. Without my involvement, it would be difficult for my colleagues to defend their position. I have also studied European Court rulings relating to the Birds and Habitats Directives.

Suppose predators such as wolves arrive in the Oostvaardersplassen – what would that mean for the area?

If I understand the wolf correctly, it will quickly ascertain that there is a fence around the Oostvaardersplassen and drive red deer into it. 

Wolves are known to herd their prey toward areas where escape is difficult, such as open water. They will use the marsh to channel prey. Wolves are intelligent hunters and will exploit their environment effectively.

It is uncertain whether wolves will reduce the populations of large grazers or just affect the amount of available food. In fact, the Oostvaardersplassen already had a balance between animal numbers and the carrying capacity of the area. Populations fluctuated within a certain range – a so-called dynamic equilibrium. In my view, population regulation is mainly determined by food availability rather than the presence of predators such as wolves. This is also supported by research in the Serengeti, where large predators add pressure, but food is the main determinant of population size for species like wildebeest (comparable to red deer), zebra (comparable to Konik horses), and Cape buffalo (comparable to Heck cattle). Regulation occurs because animals die from insufficient food and fat reserves, and females may skip reproduction if too thin. Ovulation can be delayed for a year if a female is underweight. This naturally slows population growth, keeping numbers within a dynamic balance.

So wolves do not directly regulate herbivore populations?

Some see wolves as population regulators of large grazers, but I doubt that. Even in Yellowstone National Park, where wolf reintroduction is often cited as causing a 60% decline in elk numbers, the reality was more nuanced. Research showed that population changes were mainly influenced by other factors, such as hunting outside the park and harsh winter mortality. Wolves were only a supplementary factor.

This does not negate that wolves influence prey populations – in terms of health and movement, for example. I do not claim to have all the answers and will be the first to change my view based on what actually happens when wolves are present in the Oostvaardersplassen, the Veluwe, or other areas. 

We should observe wolf populations in nature – that is the ultimate test.

To avoid conflicts with livestock, hunting of their prey must cease. Hunting removes food from strictly protected wolves. Prey species must be reintroduced where they were displaced and allowed to reach natural densities, rather than being reduced to minimal levels. Death is a natural reality, not only in the wild but also in abattoirs.

Interestingly, wild red deer, horses, and likely cattle enter a kind of hibernation in winter if not supplemented. Metabolism slows, organs shrink, and they forage less. Subcutaneous body temperature may drop to 16°C. They live off fat reserves, and if depleted, they die, often in their sleep. This is natural, though difficult for people to accept.

Mortality primarily affects young and old animals – the young invest in growth and are lower in the social hierarchy, and the old are similarly disadvantaged. These individuals often become prey for wolves.

You said predation has a facilitating role in ecosystems – can you explain?

Yes – predation mainly influences traits within populations rather than numbers. Wolves typically target weak, sick, old, and young animals. They can also affect the genetic composition of a population. For example, in red deer, one dominant stag may mate with multiple hinds during the rut. After the rut, stags are exhausted and vulnerable, making them easy prey for wolves. This ensures no single stag monopolises reproduction over multiple years, increasing genetic diversity.

The main advantage of predation is that it maintains a healthy population structure, limiting reproduction among weak animals and keeping the population overall healthy.

How do you view the return of large predators to the Netherlands? Do you see it positively, or do you expect little change?

We should let ourselves be surprised. No one can predict with certainty what the situation will be in ten years. We know a lot, but also very little, and it is dangerous to assume that past patterns always hold. 

Nature may evolve differently than expected, particularly through rewilding.

I always argued that white-tailed eagles could breed in the Oostvaardersplassen. I was laughed at. When I saw the first eagle carrying branches in 2005, there was still doubt about breeding. Experts said it might only occur at Lauwersmeer. Yet in the Oostvaardersplassen, I found the first nest and first successful breeding. By 2024, there were 40 breeding pairs. Juveniles from the Oostvaardersplassen also contributed to the species’ broader establishment in the Netherlands.

This demonstrates that nature sometimes follows its own course, regardless of human expectations.

Do you have examples of unexpected developments in nature that stuck with you?

The expansion of brown bears in Europe is another example. In Slovenia, the population grew, and bears spread to Austria, where people said they could not survive due to lack of wilderness. Yet brown bears thrived. Now there are dozens of bears in Austria. Wolves in Europe are another example; people claim there is no space for them in the Netherlands, yet the wolves clearly think otherwise.

If you could choose one wild animal to complete a Dutch natural habit, which would it be?

For me, the moose. People often think moose belong only in wetlands, but they can also live in coniferous forests, as I have seen near Moscow. 

They shape forest succession by feeding on pine trees. In the Netherlands, with our Scots pine forests, the reintroduction of the moose would fill an ecological role that is currently missing.

20-21 September 2025

Be part of the dialogue with Frans Vera and others shaping the future of rewilding at the Rewilding Our World Conference 2025.

Oostvaardersplassen in de knel: Nederlandse rewilding-pionier Frans Vera over wetgeving en natuurherstel

Op de Rewilding Our World Conferentie 2025 komen toonaangevende stemmen uit wetenschap, beleid en praktijk samen om te verkennen hoe rewilding ecosystemen kan herstellen, veerkracht kan versterken en onze relatie met de natuur kan vernieuwen. We spraken met Frans Vera om zijn visie te horen.

Wat zou u willen vertellen op het Rewilding Our World-congres?
Ik zou graag uitleggen hoe ik tot mijn visie op rewilding ben gekomen – en vooral dat het in essentie een systeembenadering is. Rewilding gaat niet over losse ingrepen, maar over het begrijpen van samenhang tussen soorten onderling en hun omgeving. Gebleken is dat in ecosystemen bepaalde soorten/omstandigheden daarin onmisbaar zijn om andere soorten te kunnen laten voortbestaan.

Bij zo’n congres is het natuurlijk ook goed om stil te staan bij lopende projecten op het gebied van rewilding. Maar ik denk dat het nog belangrijker is om te laten zien, waar je bij het realiseren tegenaan loopt? Waar moet je aan denken, wat zijn de valkuilen?

Kunt u daar een voorbeeld van geven?
Wat mij daarbij vooral opvalt, is de tegenstelling tussen het “plaatje” en de “film” van de natuur. In de Oostvaardersplassen zie je dat bijvoorbeeld goed. Men neemt daar een foto, een stilstaand beeld uit een film die een voortschrijdend dynamisch proces is en doet alsof met dat ene stilstaande beeld de hele film van bewegende beelden is te vangen. Het geheel wordt statisch door maar één beeld uit de film te lichten en dat te maken met allerlei maatregelen die dwars ingaan tegen de processen en de eigenschappen van de soorten die voor de film verantwoordelijk zijn. Zij worden door het plaatje uitgeschakeld.

Neem bijvoorbeeld mijn bosweidetheorie. In de Oostvaardersplassen zeggen ze nu: “we gaan een bosweide maken,” maar van het dynamische bosweidelandschap van in de tijd door grote grazers spontaan van plek graslanden, struiken, struwelen, solitaire bomen en bosschages, maken ze een statisch landschap door hekken te plaatsen waarmee grote grazers worden buiten gesloten en waarbinnen bomen en struiken worden aangeplant die niet van plek mogen veranderen, Graslanden moeten graslanden blijven en struiken en bomen moeten blijven staan waar ze zijn aangeplant en moeten beschermd tegen de grote grazers door ze uit te sluiten en hun aantallen door afschot sterk terug te brengen, omdat ze als gevolg van de traditionele statische plaatje van natuur, juist als dodelijk worden beschouwd voor struiken , bomen en bosschages. Daarmee dood je precies de dynamiek en de rol van de grote grazers die essentieel is voor het bosweidesysteem. Die dynamiek is dat de grote grazers zorgen voor grasland, waarin dan vervolgens de lichtbehoeftige doornige struiken opkomen die worden gemeden door de grote grazers en waarin onder de bescherming van die struiken de bomen opkomen, die kunnen worden geclusterd tot bosschages doordat de sleedoorn zich klonaal in het begraasde grasland uitbreiden. Vervolgens kunnen die bosschages zich niet verjongen doordat de grazers daarbinnen de zaailingen vernietigen, waardoor de bosschages weer in grasland veranderen. Kortom, de begroeiingen wisselen in de loop der tijd steeds van plek, gestuurd door de grote grazers. Het statische plaatje strijdt juist tegen die dynamiek en tegen de grote grazers. 

U pleit dus voor meer aandacht voor verandering?
Absoluut. Een film betekent verandering, en dat is in de traditionele natuurbescherming bijna vloeken in de kerk. Verandering wordt al snel gezien als verlies. Maar binnen een systeem voltrekken de veranderingen zich juist in patronen die zich steeds herhalen. Er zijn pieken en dalen, maar het systeem blijft door de zich herhalende patronen intact. Dáár zit de kracht.

Zijn er discussies geweest met andere partijen, bijvoorbeeld over de Oostvaardersplassen?
Jazeker, zo had ik echt een stevige discussie met de Stichting ARK over de Oostvaardersplassen. Ze wilden het hele gebied, dat wil zeggen het moeras van 3.600 ha en het droge grazige deel van 1.880 ha als één geheel omvormen tot één groot moeras, omdat het moeras met als zijn vogels op dat moment hoog op de agenda stond.

Maar ik zei: “En wat doe je dan met de 10.000den grauwe ganzen die zich voor de vleugelrui die ze in het moeras doormaken, zich eerst op het grasland verzamelen voordat ze het moeras ingaan om te ruien? Die ganzen spelen een sleutelrol in het ecologisch functioneren van het moeras – ze beheren het in feite voor de moeras bewonende soorten vogels.”

Je kunt dat grasland dus niet zomaar weghalen door er moeras van te maken, want dan verdwijnen de grauwe ganzen als de beheerder van het moeras. Moeten ze dan maaqr voor en na de rui naar de boeren toe, buiten het natuurgebied, vroeg ik toen? Daar kwam geen antwoord op. Alles hangt immers in een ecosysteem met alles samen. Als je dat negeert, begrijp je het systeem niet. En dat zie je ook terug in discussies bij de Raad van State, Gedeputeerde Staten en Staatsbosbeheer nu over de rol van de grote grazers in het ecosysteem van de Oostvaardersplassen. Ze worden als een middel gezien omdat statische plaatje te maken en niet als een integraal onderdeel van een dynamisch systeem. 

U noemt vaak het belang van systeemdenken. Wat bedoelt u daar precies mee?
Het gaat om complementariteit van onderdelen van een systeem. Je kunt er niet zomaar één onderdeel isoleren en eruit halen zonder het geheel te schaden. Omgekeerd ke de introductie of het spontaan verschijnen van één onderdeel zorgen voor heel andere eigenschappen van een ecosysteem. Een mooi voorbeeld daarvan is het concept van emergente eigenschappen van ecosystemen. De emergente eigenschappen van een systeem houden in dat de som van de onderdelen in het ecosysteem meer is dan een simpele optelsom van de afzonderlijke eigenschappen van de afzonderlijke onderdelen van het systeem. Het systeem krijgt nieuwe eigenaschappen die niet uit die afzonderlijke onderdelen zijn af te leiden. Ik noem daarbij als voorbeeld een Boeing 747, die vier straalmotoren heeft. Die vier straalmotoren kunnen als vliegtuigsysteem de oceaan oversteken, maar één motor kan dat op zichzelf niet. Die motor krijgt eigenschappen binnen het systeem van het vliegtuig die het op zichzelf niet heeft.

Dat geldt ook voor natuurgebieden. In een ecosysteem kan zo’n systeem één plus één niet twee, maar drie – of vier zijn. Zo kunnen de Oostvaardersplassen en de ruiende grauwe ganzen in het moeras in combinatie met graslanden en grote grazers het moeras in standhouden, maar zonder die graslanden en grote grazers niet. Dan klapt het hele systeem in elkaar. De combinatie van elementen creëert eigenschappen die je niet kunt afleiden uit de losse onderdelen. Dat is de verrassing die rewilding in petto heeft.

En dat levert soms verrassingen op?
Zeker. Zo blijkt het deel van het moeras dat dynamiek van het waterpeil met grazende grauwe ganzen kende en dat maar 1,6 keer groter was dan het deel waar die die dynamiek achterwege bleef, wel 10 keer zoveel broedende baardmannetjes, zij het in de vorm van boom and bust, d.w.z. dat in het geval van dynamiek van de waterstand een sterke toename optreedt bij droogval van het moeras en een sterke afname bij stijgende waterstanden, waarna weer een toename optreedt bij droogval. Dat is het repeterende patroon bij dynamiek en zo blijft de populatie in stand op een niveau die vele male hoger is dat bij een statische waterstand.  

We zijn gewend te denken in hokjes, in afzonderlijke soorten, in plaatjes. Zo zijn we opgevoed en ook wel opgeleid – denk maar aan de Verkade-albums. Ook cultuurlandschappen worden gezien als onveranderlijke plaatjes. Maar dat zijn momentopnames in en proces van een veranderende tijd, foto’s uit een film die vele eeuwen duurde.

Ik zeg vaak: als je naar het huidige cultuurlandschap kijkt, zie je de laatste bladzijde van een boek, waaruit de voorafgaande bladzijden zijn uitgescheurd. Je mist een groot deel van het verhaal, en van de informatie daarin, waarbij ook de woorden in het verhaal een belangrijke rol spelen. Woorden blijven door de eeuwen heen min of meer hetzelfde, terwijl de betekenis verandert, waardoor we ook informatie kwijtraken en door een moderne betekenis klakkeloos naar het verleden te extrapoleren we een totaal vals beeld van dat verleden scheppen. 

Je bent voor veel mensen bekend van de Oostvaardersplassen. Kun je vertellen hoe je destijds bij dat project betrokken bent geraakt, en hoe je werk zich in de afgelopen decennia heeft ontwikkeld?

Ik ben van huis uit een vogelaar, en ik wilde in de natuurbescherming werken. Dat was ook de reden dat ik biologie ben gaan studeren. Eigenlijk begon mijn pad richting natuurbeheer al op de middelbare school, waar ik vaker naar buiten keek dan op te letten in de les. Op de middelbare school vroeg een gymleraar mij eens wat ik later wilde worden. Ik zei: rentmeester – de hele dag in een jeep rondrijden leek me fantastisch. Daarom ging ik naar de Hogere Bosbouw- en Cultuurtechnische School in Arnhem, maar vond daar niet wat ik zocht. Het liep anders, maar mijn fascinatie voor natuur bleef. Daarom ging ik uiteindelijk biologie studeren.

Tijdens mijn studie had ik weinig geld; ik had zelfs mijn lidmaatschap van Vogelbescherming opgezegd. Pas na mijn afstuderen werd ik weer lid. Het eerste nummer van het tijdschrift De Lepelaar dat ik in december 1978 ontving, was het van januari 1979. Daarin stond een artikel van de bioloog Ernst Poorter, werkzaam bij de Rijksdienst voor de IJsselmeerpolders (RIJP). Hij schreef daarin over de Oostvaardersplassen en benadrukte dat we niet alleen moesten rouwen om natuur die verdwijnt, maar dat er ook nieuwe natuurgebieden konden ontstaan, zoals de Oostvaardersplassen in de nieuwe in 1968 drooggelegde polder Zuid-Flevoland en daar ook blij om mochten zijn.

Ernst P. R. Poorter was een gerespecteerde etho-oecoloog en natuurbeschermer. Hij heeft grote bekendheid verworven met zijn werk rondom de Oostvaardersplassen, waar hij uitgebreid onderzoek deed naar de Lepelaar en zich inzette voor bescherming van dat gebied. Poorter’s levenswerk is het boek Lepelaargewoonten, een indrukwekkend, wetenschappelijk verslag waarin hij meer dan een halve eeuw onderzoek naar het gedrag en voorkomen van de lepelaar presenteert. Dit onderzoek strekt zich uit over gebieden in Nederland, Frankrijk, Spanje én Afrika. Het boek is rijk geïllustreerd en bevat ook persoonlijke anekdotes.

Twee dingen in dat artikel troffen mij. Ten eerste: het broedgeval van de grote zilverreiger in Nederland. Ik kende die soort vooral uit Hongarije, en ineens zat hij hier. Ten tweede: Poorter schreef dat ruiende grauwe ganzen in het gebied fungeerden als natuurlijke beheerders. Ze vraten het riet weg en voorkwamen dat het moeras zich snel tot moerasbos ontwikkelde, iets waarvan altijd werd gedacht dat het onvermijdelijk was. Om dat te voorkomen is het klassieke beheer van zulke moerasgebieden het maaien en afvoeren van het riet. Riet maaien is echter duur en arbeidsintensief, en in de vruchtbare polders met kalkrijke klei groeit alles enorm snel en met heel veel. Natuurbeschermers zagen dat soort gebieden daarom vaak als ‘weggegooide biotopen’, omdat ze niet te beheren en dus niet te behouden zouden zijn.

En dat bracht je op een idee?

Ja. Over de Oostvaardersplassen schreef de bioloog Ernst Poorter dat daar in 1978 een paartje grote zilverreigers had gebroed. Dat was, voor zover men toen wist, nog nooit eerder in Nederland gebeurd. Ik had ook de Atlas van de Europese Vogels van professor Karel Hendrik Voous (nestor van de Nederlandse ornithology) gelezen, waarin ik zag dat de grote zilverreiger in veel gebieden broedde waar ook de lepelaar broedde – behalve in Nederland. Allebei witte vogels, dus niet typisch tropisch wat vaak werd gezegd van witte moerasvogels. Historische bronnen die ik raadpleegde, zoals beschrijvingen van het Goudse Bos, maakten duidelijk dat grote zilverreigers hier vroeger wel voorkwamen en broedden, namelijk. tot in de 19^de eeuw. Dat betekende dat ik het broedgeval uitlegde als dat er sprake was van herkolonisatie: een verdwenen soort keerde terug, nu er weer voor het eerst in decennia een groot moerasgebied in Nederland aanwezig was in de vorm van de Oostvaardersplassen..

Ik belde Poorter op en vertelde hem hoe zijn artikel mij had geraakt, vooral ook zijn observatie over de grauwe ganzen als natuurlijke beheerders en het broedgeval van de grote zilverreiger. Ik vroeg hem waarom hij in het artikel niet bepleitte het gebeid als natuurgebied te behouden? Hij antwoordde dat dit van zijn bazen bij de RIJP niet mocht. Ze hadden zelfs geprobeerd de publicatie van zijn artikel tegen te houden, want ze wilden geen pottekijkers in de polder. Ik stelde hem voor om zelf een artikel over de Oostvaardersplassen te schrijven, maar dan in een blad dat ook bestuurders lazen. Dat vond hij prima en hij leverde mij daarvoor de gegevens, want ik was nog nooit in of bij het gebied geweest. Dat werd het blad Natuur en Milieu van de Stichting Natuur en Milieu. Het artikel verscheen in maart, met een grauwe gans op de cover. Het had als titel: De Oostvaardersplassen, uniek oecologisch experiment. Ik stelde daarin dat het gebied de unieke kans bood een ecosysteem dat vroeger overal in Nederland als delta aanwezig moet zijn geweest, opnieuw tot ontwikkeling te laten komen en dat behalve de grote zilverreiger ook de zeearend en de visarend als broedvogels in Nederland zouden kunnen terugkeren. De visarend bouwde in 2000 er een nets, maar zette niet door. De zeearend daarentegen kwam in 2006 tot broeden en is nu een in Nederland definitief teruggekeerde broedvogel.  

Wat gebeurde er daarna?

Er kwamen brieven van minister Dany Tuinman (Verkeer en Waterstaat) en van Han Lammers, destijds de landdrost van Flevoland, een soort Commissaris van de Koningin. Eindelijk, vonden zij, schreef iemand eens iets positief over de polders, waarover tot dan toe vanuit de natuurbescherming alleen maar werd gemopperd, want die polders gingen ten koste van het IJsselmeer met zijn vogels.

Intussen verdiepte ik me verder in de ecologie van de ruiende grauwe ganzen. Het waren namelijk ruiende grauwe ganzen die het moeras openhielden, en voorkwamen dat het moerasbos werd. De ruiers kwamen in de maanden mei, juni en juli uit heel Europe naar de Oostvaardersplassen toe, om in het moeras hun handpennen te ruien; ze kunnen dan ongeveer 30 dagen niet vliegen. Het moeras biedt ze dan veiligheid en voedsel, maar ze hebben voor die rui ook graslanden nodig, buiten en grenzend aan het moeras, om grazend energie in de vorm van lichaamsvet op te bouwen vóór de rui, omdat riet in het moeras zelf te weinig voedingswaarde heeft om die rui door te maken. Ook na de rui hebben ze die graslanden nodig om weer vet te vormen, omdat ze in het moeras bij de rui hebben ingeteerd op hun reserves. Daarna trekken ze weer weg om weer terug te keren op de doortrek in de herfst. Die wisselwerking, die aanvullende werking van graslanden op het moeras, de complementariteit van die twee typen gebieden, was en is nodig om het gebied met al zijn vogelsoorten ook in het moeras te kunnen laten voortbestaan.

Je ging toen ook het gesprek aan over de inrichting van het gebied?

Nou gesprek, het was meer een discussie en actievoeren. Er was een spoorlijn gepland van Amsterdam naar Lelystad, dwars door het nog onontgonnen gebied, grenzend aan het moeras Oostvaardersplassen van 3.600 ha groot. De RIJP had het tot tijdelijk natuurgebied benoemd. Een permanent natuurgebied moest dan in de nog aan te leggen Markerwaard komen. Het had toen geen officiële, wettelijke bescherming. In feite was er sprake van één groot onontgonnen deel van de polder. Om dat moeras heen was door de RIJP een kade gelegd, omdat het moeras dreigde uit te drogen door inklinking van de omliggende jonge kleigronden die werden ontwaterd ten behoeve van tijdelijke landbouw, waardoor hun ligging daalde door klink. 

In het aangrenzende onontgonnen deel moest volgens mij grasland komen, om het moeras te kunnen behouden. Samen met twee vrienden, Fred Baerselman en Leen de Jong, zeiden wij: die geplande spoorlijn loopt dwars door een natuurgebied. De Rijksdienst zei: nee, hij loopt erlangs. Uiteindelijk kregen wij gelijk en is de spoorlijn verschoven en werd moeras en een aangrenzend droog deel van in totaal zo’n 5.600 ha tot natuurgebied bestemd, mede dankzij een rapport dat ik, in dienst getreden bij het Staatsbosbeheer schreef, in opdracht van het Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk werk (CRM), waar toen natuurbescherming onder viel – tot ongenoegen van mijn toenmalige baas bij het Staatsbosbeheer – maar het was nodig.

En toen kwam het idee van de grote grazers?

Precies. Het probleem was: hoe krijg je grasland voor ganzen en hoe houdt je dat in stand? De algemene opvatting bij natuurbeschermers – en beheerders was toen: grasland komt van nature in Nederland niet voor. Alles in Europa, op venen na, zou in de ongerepte toestand van de natuur, bedekt zijn met bos. Als je grasland in de Oostvaardersplassen wilt voor ganzen, dan heb je huiskoeien nodig en als je huiskoeien nodig hebt, dan heb je boeren in de Oostvaardersplassen nodig. Maar als je boeren hebt; die willen geen 10-duizenden grauwe ganzen in mei, juni en juli op hun land en dan ook nog eens in het najaar en in de winter 10-duizenden doortrekkende en overwinterende ganzen. Dat geeft conflicten, zoals we die nu ook kennen tussen boeren en ganzen.

Toen kwam ik in contact met Harm van de Veen, die zei: wat jij beschrijft over de rol van die ganzen in het moeras, dat ken ik van de grote planteneters overal in de wereld, waaronder in de Serengeti in Afrika. Daar spelen die grote grazers een sleutelrol in het functioneren van het ecosysteem. Daarop was vervolgens mijn redenering: als huiskoeien van boeren grasland kunnen maken, dan moeten de wilde voorouders van die huiskoeien, de oerrunderen dat zonder boeren ook in het wild hebben gekund. Maar toen riepen wetenschappers in koor: dat kan niet, want als je wilde runderen hebt, zoals we die vroeger hadden met de oerrunderen, dan wordt alles bos, weten we uit het verleden. Want het heersende idee in de wetenschap was, dat Europa met als zijn grote grazers van nature bedekt was met gesloten bos.

Je dacht daar dus anders over dan veel van je collega-wetenschappers. Kun je uitleggen hoe je tot die andere visie kwam?

Ja, met Leen de Jong en Fred Baerselman zeiden we in 1983, laten we dat dan maar eens toetsen in de praktijk. Als Staatsbosser, ik was intussen daar intussen bij in dient gekomen, kocht ik met geld van het ministerie in het buitenland konikpaarden en Heckrunderen, en schreef dat er ook edelherten en wilde zwijnen in het gebied zouden moeten komen als onderdeel van het ecosysteem. We brachten aanvankelijk 32 heckrunderen, achttien konikpaarden en veertig edelherten en dat werd het begin van het grote-grazersverhaal in de Oostvaardersplassen. Dit leidde tot felle discussies met paleo-ecologen over de vraag of er in Europa werkelijk overal een gesloten bos was geweest waar grote grazers voorkwamen.

Mijn proefschrift ging over die kwestie. Ik stelde daarin dat bepaalde boomsoorten, zoals eiken, en vrijwel alle soorten inheemse struiken, veel daglicht nodig hebben, om zich succesvol te kunnen voortplanten. In een gesloten bos kunnen ze dat niet. Hun zaailingen en jonge boompjes raken overgroeid door schaduw verdragende soorten bomen als linde, beuk en haagbeuk en worden door hun schaduw gedood. Mijn stelling was dat er nooit overal gesloten bos is geweest, maar een zich voortdurende wijzigend mozaïeklandschap van bos, grasland en struweel – aangestuurd door grote grazers.

Dat idee werkte ik verder uit in mijn boek Grazing Ecology and Forest History (2000), dat nog steeds vaak wordt aangehaald. Eigenlijk is mijn icoonsoort altijd de grauwe gans geweest: een grazer die in het moeras fungeert als landschapsarchitect. Grote grazers als rund, paard, wisent, eland, edelhert en wild zwijn zijn de landschapsarchitecten op het land en sturen daar de ontwikkeling van de begroeiing, waardoor een dynamisch, meer open landschap ontstaat en kan voortbestaan, een ecosysteem met van nature ook graslanden.

Hoe raakte het je dat er zo weinig financiële steun was voor het gedachtegoed van de Oostvaardersplassen als verbinding naar de Veluwe?

Ja, dat vond ik erg, vooral omdat er al veel geld in was gestoken. Van de 2000 ha was al 1200 ha aangekocht. Alleen Henk Bleker, de toenmalige staatssecretaris van 14 oktober 2010 tot 5 november 2012 van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie in het kabinet-Rutte I, die over natuur ging, haalde er dankzij de landbouwlobby een streep door, waarna de grond weer werd terug verkocht aan de boeren voor veel minder dan de aankoopprijs.

Veel erger vond ik dat tegenstanders van de wild levende grote grazers en de idee dat in zo’n vruchtbaar gebied daar grote open vlaktes grasland bij hoorden, zeiden dat, nu die verbinding er toch niet kwam, de aantallen dieren dus permanent sterk naar beneden moesten worden gebracht, omdat ze anders massaal in het gebied zouden verhongeren, want, zeiden ze, men liet daar maar de boel de boel. Daar was niets van waar. 

Twee commissies van internationale deskundigen hadden onderschreven dat deregulatie van de aantallen grote grazers vooral gebeurde door de beschikbare hoeveelheid voedsel. Zij stelden dat, om onnodig lijden te voorkomen, grazers die door gebrek aan voedsel in een zodanig slechte conditie waren gekomen dat ze het aankomende voorjaar niet zouden halen, moesten worden doodgeschoten. Dat beheer t.b.v. dierenwelzijn heette reactief beheer, dat later werd aangescherpt tot vroeg-reactief beheer. Zij vonden dat de Oostvaardersplassen draagkrachtig genoeg waren voor zichzelf instandhouden populaties grote grazers. 

Het aantal sterfgevallen fluctueerde op een natuurlijke manier, maar er kwam toen ook een jaar dat de sterfte groter was dan anders, overigens niets abnormaals in de natuur. Maar dat werd door tegenstanders van dit beheer geframed als massale verhongering, wat het dus niet was. Immers 89% van de dieren die stierven, waren gestorven door dat vroeg reactieve beheer. Niettemin leidde die onjuiste framing tot discussies tot in de Tweede Kamer en tot doodsbedreiging en aan mij en mijn gezin. Het was een ontzettend heftige tijd. 

Wat was volgens jou de reden dat dit zo is gelopen?

Sharon Dijksma, de huidige burgemeester van Utrecht, speelde daarin een grote rol. Elke keer kwam het dierenwelzijn in de Tweede Kamer aan de orde, en toen zei zij in 2017 op een gegeven moment dat ze niet meer wilde dat het in de Tweede Kamer nog over de Oostvaardersplassen zou gaan. Ze gooide het hele beleid, dus ook over de grote grazers, over de heg naar de provincie, naar Gedeputeerde Staten van Flevoland toe, terwijl het dierenwelzijn gewoon een verantwoordelijkheid was en bleef van het ministerie.

Gedeputeerde Staten stelden toen in 2018 een commissie in, omdat ze vonden dat het beheer moest veranderen, hoewel er voor dat beheer in 2015, nota bene met instemming van de Provincie Flevoland, een Natura 2000-beheersplan was vastgesteld voor de Oostvaardersplassen als Natura 2000-gebied, op basis van de habitatrichtlijn. Ze wilden het beheer veranderen om het af te stemmen op het op te richten Nationaal Park Nieuwland om er een toeristische trekpleister te maken voor heel Europa, en het beheer moest volgens GS ook rekening gaan houden met de uitbreiding van vliegveld Lelystad, om de vakantievluchten van Schiphol daarnaar te verplaatsen. Daarvoor was de start- en landingsbaan, volgens mij zonder natuurvergunning, al verlengd tot 1.500 meter. Je wilt daarbij natuurlijk geen wolken ganzen rond zo’n vliegveld, dus bedacht men allerlei maatregelen om die aantallen ganzen te verminderen.

Kun je iets vertellen over die maatregelen?

Het grasland moet verruigen en het aantal edelherten, koniks en Heckrunderen moet permanent omlaag van een fluctuerende populatie tot aan meer dan 3000 dieren naar een permanent stabiele populatie van 1100 dieren, door ze massaal af te schieten of – in het geval van de koniks – ze mogelijk te verplaatsen naar andere natuurgebieden en anders naar het abattoir. Minder grazers, betekent minder voor ganzen geschikt grasland, dus goed voor de vliegtuigen. De nieuwste ontwikkeling is nu dat ze op vliegveld Lelystad de zeer lawaaierige, nieuwe F35-straaljagers willen stationeren. Gedeputeerde Staten in Flevoland willen dat wel op voorwaarde dat het vliegveld ook voor vakantievluchten wordt geopend. Dat is nu de agenda.

Wat gebeurde er juridisch?

Wij, dat wil zeggen, de Stichting Dierbaar Flevoland en Fauna4Life, en dus niet Vogelbescherming, protesteerden tegen die plannen. Daarvoor heb ik had in november 2019 een uitgebreid verhaal geschreven voor de rechtbank, waarin ik de effecten van het afschot van edelherten beschreef. Merkwaardigerwijze hebben wij in Nederland twee vormen van toestemming voor maatregelen in een Natura 2000-gebied: een ontheffing en een vergunning, terwijl de Europese richtlijnen alleen over toestemming spreken. Mijns inziens en ook van het Europese Hof van Justitie mag dat afschot niet, omdat het de conditie voor de habitats van de aangewezen vogelsoorten ernstig schaadt, maar de Raad van State meent van wel. We wonnen de zaak over de ontheffing, maar de vergunning als toestemming, die eind 2019 afliep, werd niet behandeld.

Wij wilden dat die vergunning ook werd behandeld, maar de rechtbank zei dat de provincie toch niets meer kon doen op basis van die vergunning, omdat de rechtbank een streep had gehaald door de ontheffing. De rechtbank vond dat we daarom geen belang meer hadden bij het behandelen van de vergunning, want er mocht immers toch niet worden geschoten, want de ontheffing was van tafel. Vervolgens stelden Gedeputeerde Staten na afloop van die vergunning op grond van de argumenten van die afgelopen, door de rechtbank niet behandelde vergunning een nieuwe vergunning vast. 

Gedeputeerde staten gingen bovendien in beroep bij de Raad van State tegen de streep door de ontheffing. Vervolgens stelde de Raad van State in haar uitspraak over dat hoger beroep daarover in september 2020 dat de vergunning die eind 2019 afliep “in rechte” in stand was gebleven en daarom de argumenten daarvoor ook prima waren als onderbouwing, nu dus ook weer voor de nieuwe vergunning. Wat wij hadden ingebracht werd de Raad van Staten gewoon van tafel geveegd, we werden gewoon niet serieus genomen. 

Hoe lang heeft dat allemaal geduurd en hoe zie je de toekomst?

Meer dan vijf en een half jaar. Pas op 28 april 2025 behandelde de Raad van Staten de vergunning uit 2019 en heeft de Raad gewoon weer de overheid gelijk te geven, zonder ook maar op onze argumenten in te gaan. Daarbij hanteert de Raad van State een uitleg van de instandhoudingsdoelstellingen voor een Natura 2000-gebied geld, die volgens ons volkomen in strijd is met de jurisprudentie van het Europese Hof van Justitie. We hadden de Raad gevraagd de zaak daarom bij het Europese Hof van justitie voor te leggen, maar de Raad veegde dat zonder op onze argumenten in te gaan en zonder eigen argumentatie gewoon van tafel. Ze zagen er geen aanleiding toe, was het waar we het maar mee moeten doen. 

We zullen nu bij het Europese Hof moeten zien te komen, want daar moet de Raad van State naar luisteren en daar luister ze ook alleen maar naar. 

Wat houdt die strijdigheid precies in?

De instandhoudingsdoelstellingen waar de Raad van State aan toetst, zijn bijvoorbeeld sterk verouderd. Ze vonden dat voor de vergunning uit 2018 werd getoetst in aan data van de Oostvaardersplassen uit de jaren 1991 en 1993 en verder aan de jaren 2000-2004, dus die tot 27 oud, dus zwaar verouderd waren! Het zijn deze data die in het aanwijzingsbesluit uit 2009 voor het gebied als Natura 2000-gebied uit 2009 staan. Daarin staat bijvoorbeeld dat als doelstelling voor de grote zilverreiger als broedvogel is dat er tenminste 40 broedparen in het gebied moeten zijn, terwijl het aantal in 2005, dus ver voor de aanwijzing, al was gegroeid tot 97 broedparen. De Raad vindt dus dat al voor de aanwijzing, waarin nota bene volgens het Europese Hof een verslechteringverbod geldt van de situatie die is ontstaan door het toepassen van instandhoudingsmaatregelen, het aantal mag afnemen tot 40, een meer dan een halvering dus!!! De Raad van State sluit dus elke verbetering in een Natura 2000-gebied na de aanwijzing en door het toepassen van instandhoudingsmaatregelen van Natura 2000-gebieden voor verbetering van de staat van instandhouding uit. 

Toen het afschot begon, zeiden wij dat dat het broeden van zeearenden verstoorde. Gedeputeerde Staten zei dat ze daar geen rekening mee hoefden te worden gehouden omdat ze niet in het aanwijzingsbesluit als broedvogel stonden, maar ze deden het wel omdat iedereen zo aan die soort hecht.

Hoe kijk je aan tegen de rol van de Raad van State in dit proces?

Ik vind dat de Raad van State geen rechtsinstantie is. Ze spreken geen recht, maar zijn partijdig. Het is geen echt onafhankelijke rechtsinstantie waar je als burger je recht kunt halen. Ze zoeken voortdurend smoezen en geitenpaadjes om de overheid gelijk te geven. Tot aan het moment dat het Europese Hof anders beslist, geven ze hun eigen uitleg aan de vogel- en habitatrichtlijn, een uitleg die strijdig is met die richtlijnen en de jurisprudentie van het Europese Hof.

De partijdigheid van de Raad van State komt voort uit dat zij vindt dat de overheid rechtmatig werk gaat en de wet uitvoert. Dat betekent dus dat je als burger, wanneer je tegen de overheid in het geweer komt, je van het begin af aan in het nadeel bent, nota bene terwijl al keer op keer is gebleken dat de overheid inzake natuur en milieu de wet omzeilt en tegen Europees recht ingaat.

Wat vind je van de berichtgeving hierover in de media?

Ik vind het frustrerend als ik bijvoorbeeld voortdurend lees dat de Raad van State het stikstofbeleid van de PAS heeft afgewezen. Dat heeft het Europese Hof van Justitie een jaar eerder gedaan, waarna de Raad van State niet anders kon dat dit ook te doen, want Europees recht gaat boven nationaal recht. De media doen zelf niet aan waarheidsvinding op dit gebied.

Zijn er nog andere voorbeelden?

Ja, bijvoorbeeld de bekende toeslagenaffaire, waarbij duizenden ouders onterecht werden beschuldigd van fraude met kinderopvangtoeslag, met enorme financiële en persoonlijke gevolgen. Daarnaast de windmolens bij Oldambt; beide gevallen zijn volgens mij voorbeelden waarbij de Raad van State het Europese recht niet goed toepast.

Wat betekent dit voor de bescherming van de Oostvaardersplassen?

Het Europese Hof stelt dat je moet beoordelen wat de gevolgen zijn voor de milieuomstandigheden die ten tijde van de beoordeling aanwezig zijn; dus de condities die zorgen voor de habitats van de aangewezen vogelsoorten op dat moment. Die condities moeten instand worden gehouden. De Raad van State vindt dat anders en beoordeelt vaak aan de hand van sterk verouderde gegevens, van vóór het vaststellen en uitvoeren van instandhoudingsmaatregelen — ook maatregelen die juist tot verbetering zouden moeten leiden. Zo wordt er bij de Oostvaardersplassen bijvoorbeeld gekeken naar aantallen vogels van meer dan 25 jaar geleden.

Zoals het Europese Hof bepaalde bij de kokkelvisserij in de Waddenzee, mocht door die visserij de bodem als milieuomstandigheid niet meer worden omgewoeld, omdat dit de voedselomstandigheden voor aangewezen vogelsoorten aantastte. Dit werd getoetst aan de situatie ten tijde van het verlenen van de vergunning, niet aan sterk verouderde gegevens.

Sterker nog, het Europese Hof heeft argumenten van lidstaten afgewezen die stelden dat, zelfs na aantasting van habitats van aangewezen soorten, de aantallen van de vogels niet waren gedaald of zelfs waren toegenomen. Dat is volgens het hof irrelevant, omdat het gaat om de milieuomstandigheden. De bescherming daarvan geldt al voordat eventueel de aantallen afnemen, omdat dat proces enige tijd kan duren en je dan te laat bent.

Het Europese Hof van Justitie stelt duidelijk dat je niet mag toetsen aan verouderde omstandigheden. De Raad van State negeert dit echter en past deze toetsing wél toe, waardoor elke verbetering in een Natura 2000-gebied wordt belemmerd.

De Raad van State vindt dus dat elke verbetering gebruikt mag worden om schade aan een natuurgebied te compenseren?

Precies, dat is hun standpunt. Met andere woorden: je beheert om de staat van instandhouding van een gebied te verbeteren en dan zegt de Raad, dank u wel voor die verbetering, dan kan ik de schade die een plan of een project toebrengt aan een gebied daartegen wegstrepen.

Jij bent betrokken bij procedures hierover? 

Ik procedeer zelf niet, ik assisteer de stichtingen Fauna4Life en Dierbaar Flevoland. Ik ondersteun hen vooral inhoudelijk, omdat ik veel kennis heb van de Oostvaardersplassen. Als ik er niet bij betrokken was, zou het voor die collega’s lastig zijn om zich staande te houden. Daarbij komt dat ik mij ook verdiept heb in de arresten van het Europese Hof mb.t. de vogel- en habitatrichtlijn.

Stel, er komen straks predatoren zoals wolven in de Oostvaardersplassen, wat zou dat betekenen voor het gebied?

Als ik de wolf goed inschat, zal hij heel snel ontdekken dat er een raster rondom de Oostvaardersplassen staat en dat hij de edelherten daarheen kan drijven. Het is bekend dat wolven hun prooi in de richting drijven, waar ze minder of niet meer uit de voeten kunnen, zoals open water. Hij zal dus gebruik maken van het moeras om de prooidieren daarheen te jagen. Wolven zijn slimme jagers en zullen die omgeving heel goed benutten.

Daarbij is het wel de vraag of wolven de aantallen grote grazers omlaag zullen brengen en niet alleen de hoeveelheid beschikbaar voedsel voor de grazers. In feite was er in de Oostvaardersplassen sprake van een evenwicht van de aantallen met de draagkracht van het gebied. Dat betekent dat de populaties in hun aantal niet een rechte lijn vormden, maar dat er fluctuaties waren binnen een bepaalde bandbreedte, een zgn. dynamisch evenwicht. Mijns inziens wordt de regulatie van populaties vooral bepaald door de hoeveelheid voedsel die in het gebied beschikbaar is en niet zozeer door de aanwezigheid van predatoren als de wolf. Dit blijkt ook uit onderzoek in de Serengeti, waar grote predatoren vooral een rol spelen als extra druk, maar de belangrijkste factor voor populatiegrootte voedsel is voor soorten als gnoe (qua grootte vergelijkbaar met ons edelhert), zebra (vergelijkbaar met de konik) en de Kaapse buffel (vergelijkbaar met het Heckrund).

De regulatie is dat dieren sterven doordat ze te weinig voedsel en vet hebben, maar ook dat vrouwelijke dieren door vermagering niet elk jaar een jong krijgen. De eisprong blijft een jaar uit als ze te mager zijn. Hierdoor neemt de groei van de populatie af. Dat zijn natuurlijke regulatiemechanismen die de populatie op een bepaald dynamisch niveau houden.

Dus de wolf reguleert niet de populatie van herbivoren in directe zin?

Sommige mensen zien de wolf als een aantalsregulator van grote grazers, maar ik vraag mij dat af. Ook in het Yellowstone Nationaal Park, waar de herintroductie van de wolf vaak wordt aangehaald als de oorzaak van een afname van het aantal wapiti’s (het Amerikaanse edelhert) met 60% afnam, bleek het verhaal genuanceerder. Onderzoek toonde aan dat de populatie van dat aantal herten vooral werd bepaald door andere factoren, zoals de jacht buiten het park, waar de wapiti’s in de winter het park uit, naar toe trekken. Ook sterfte in strenge winters was bepalend. Op de sterfte door die factoren waren de wolven volgens dit onderzoek alleen maar aanvullend.

Dat doet natuurlijk niets af aan het feit dat wolven wel een rol spelen in populaties prooidieren, zoals op het gebied van gezondheid en dat ze de dieren in beweging brengen en houden.

Nu heb ik de wijsheid niet in pacht, en zal daarom de eerste zijn om van mening te veranderen op basis van wat er in de Oostvaardersplassen zal gebeuren als daar wolven zijn, of op de Veluwe en op andere plekken waar wolven zijn teruggekeerd. Laten we dus vooral kijken naar wat er nu gebeurt met wolven in natuurgebieden. Dat is uiteindelijk de lakmoesproef. 

Om dan geen problemen te hebben met vee, moeten we dan wel de jacht op hun prooidieren staken. Door jacht stoten we de streng beschermde wolf het brood, het vlees uit de mond, uit de bek. Ook moeten we hun prooidieren herintroduceren in gebieden waar we ze verdreven en moeten de prooidieren tot natuurlijke dichtheden kunnen groeien en niet door jacht tot homeopathische dichtheden worden teruggebracht en in stand worden gehouden. Dat dieren sterven is natuurlijk geen leuk verhaal om te vertellen, maar het is wel de harde realiteit, niet alleen in de natuur, maar ook in het abattoir. 

Interessant is dat wildlevende edelherten, paarden en waarschijnlijk ook runderen in de winter in het geval ze niet worden bijgevoerd, in een soort winterslaap komen. Hun stofwisseling daalt aanzienlijk, hun organen slinken en ze gaan ook minder vaak voedsel zoeken. Onderhuids kan de lichaamstemperatuur tot wel 16⁰C zakken. Ze teren in de winter dan voornamelijk op hun vetreserves. Als die reserves op zijn, sterven ze, vaak in hun slaap. Dat is een natuurlijk proces, maar voor veel mensen moeilijk te begrijpen en te accepteren. 

Daarbij zie je dat die sterfte dan voornamelijk bij jonge en oude dieren optreedt; bij de jonge, omdat ze niet in vet, maar in groei investeren en dat ze moeilijker bij het laatste voedsel kunnen, omdat ze lager in de rangorde zijn en door in rang hogere, volwassen dieren worden weggedreven. Datzelfde leidt tot grotere sterfte bij hele oude dieren, omdat die ook lager in de rangorde terecht komen. Die worden dan de prooi voor de wolven.

Je zei zojuist dat predatie vooral een faciliterende rol heeft binnen een ecosysteem. Kun je dat uitleggen?

Ja, de invloed van predatie zie je vooral in het beïnvloeden van bepaalde eigenschappen van de dieren en niet zozeer in het verkleinen van hun populaties. Zoals hiervoor gezegd, pakken wolven vooral de zwakke, zieke en oude en jonge dieren. Wolven kunnen ook van invloed zijn op de genetische samenstelling van een populatie, bijvoorbeeld bij edelherten. In de bronst dekt één dominant hert meerdere hinden. Tijdens de brons eten die herten niet en daardoor kunnen ze na de bronst letterlijk voor apegapen op de grond liggen. Ze zijn dan een makkelijke prooi voor wolven. Op die manier kan een hert nooit meerdere jaren de bron van genen zijn voor meerdere hinden en zorgen wolven voor een meer diverse genetische samenstelling van een populatie. Nog zo’n onvoorziene eigenschap van de natuur.  

Het grote voordeel is dat predatie zorgt voor een gezonde populatiestructuur, waarbij zwakke dieren minder kans krijgen om zich voort te planten, waardoor de algehele populatie gezond blijft.

Hoe zie je de komst van grote roofdieren in Nederland? Zie je dat als een positieve ontwikkeling of verwacht je dat het weinig verandert?

Je moet je daar echt door laten verrassen. Niemand kan met zekerheid zeggen wat de situatie over tien jaar hier precies zal zijn. We weten veel, maar ook heel veel niet en we hebben de valkuil dat we op grond van onze huidige kennis denken dat het zo altijd is gegaan. Misschien verloopt het toch weer net even anders dan we altijd gedacht hebben in een natuur die we niet meer hebben gekend, zoals die door rewilding kan ontstaan.

Zelf heb ik altijd gesteld dat de zeearend in de Oostvaardersplassen zich in Nederland als broedvogel kon vestigen. Daarom werd ik uitgelachen. Toen ik in 2005 de eerste zeearend met takken zag slepen, was er nog steeds veel twijfel over of ze hier konden broeden. Er waren deskundigen die zeiden dat dit wellicht alleen in de Lauwersmeer zou kunnen gebeuren. De Oostvaardersplassen werden nota bene niet genoemd, terwijl ik daar in 2005 zeearenden met takken zag slepen, er het eerste nest in Nederland vond en daar ook het eerst succesvolle broedgeval plaatsvond. Inmiddels waren er zelfs 40 broedparen in 2024. Aan die verdere vestiging van de zeearend in Nederland hebben in de Oostvaardersplassen uitgevlogen jongen ook nog eens een belangrijke bijdrage geleverd. 

Dit laat zien dat de natuur soms haar eigen koers vaart, ondanks menselijke verwachtingen. Wij denken dat iets niet kan, maar de natuur doet het dan toch, omdat zij er haar “eigen opvattingen” op na houdt.

Heb je voorbeelden van onverwachte ontwikkelingen in de natuur die je zijn bijgebleven?

De uitbreiding van de bruine beer in Europa is een ander voorbeeld van dat het anders kan gaan dan wij mensen dachten. In Slovenië begon de populatie te groeien, waarna beren zich ook naar Oostenrijk verspreidden. Daar zeiden de mensen dat de bruine beren daar niet zouden kunnen leven, want bruine beren hebben wildernis nodig en die was er niet in Oostenrijk. De bruine beren zelf hielden er echter een andere opvatting op na. Nu leven er in Oostenrijk tientallen bruine beren. Het laat zien dat wij van veel dieren niet weten wat zij in hun mars hebben, waardoor zij onze verwachtingen overtreffen. De wolf in Europa is daar ook een voorbeeld van. Nogal eens zeggen mensen dat er geen plaats is voor wolven in Nederland, terwijl de wolven daar zelf klaarblijkelijk een andere opvatting over hebben.

Als je één wild dier zou mogen kiezen om de Nederlandse natuur compleet te maken, welk dier zou dat dan zijn?

Dat is voor mij de eland. We denken vaak dat elanden alleen in moerassen horen, maar ze kunnen ook in naaldbossen leven, zoals ik heb gezien in de omgeving van Moskou. Daar leven elanden in gebieden met grove dennen, in gebieden die eruitzien als de Veluwe. Elanden eten daar die naaldbomen en beïnvloeden zo de successie in naaldbos. Dat zou in Nederland met als zijn grove dennenbossen een mooie aanvulling zijn, omdat ze daarin een ecologische functie vervullen die nu ontbreekt.

20-21 September 2025

Be part of the dialogue with Frans Vera and others shaping the future of rewilding at the Rewilding Our World Conference 2025.

The post Oostvaardersplassen at Risk: Frans Vera on Nature and Policy appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

The return of the wolf to the Netherlands evokes powerful reactions—ranging from fear and awe to public debate and protest. This iconic species divides opinion. But what if we shift our perspective? What if we stop seeing the wolf merely as a predator or symbol, and begin to view it as a member of a broader community of which we are also a part? In her fascinating Master’s thesis, environmental scientist Sterre Broens explores how the African philosophy of Ubuntu can open new ways of thinking about nature, coexistence, and the narratives we use to understand them.

Ubuntu: I Am Because We Are

Ubuntu is a philosophy of interconnectedness, rooted in Southern African traditions. It holds that a person becomes a person through their relationships with others—not only fellow humans, but also animals, ancestors, and future generations. It emphasizes ethical responsibility, mutual care, and the pursuit of harmony within a shared community. In contrast to dominant Western frameworks that often separate or oppose humans and nature, Ubuntu views all living beings as morally significant members of a common world.

In the context of the wolf debate, Ubuntu offers a refreshing lens. Instead of asking, “Should the wolf be here?” Ubuntu prompts the question, “How can we share this space justly?” Not as competitors in a struggle for control, but as members of an ethical-ecological community where mutual interests, relationships, and interdependence matter.

The Wolf as a Mirror of Society

In this debate, the wolf is more than an animal—it becomes a mirror reflecting deeper questions about our relationship with nature. Through Broens’ analysis of policy documents, interviews with shepherds, conservationists, experts, and engaged citizens, a rich variety of narratives emerges. Some focus on coexistence and balance, others on boundaries, livestock protection, or the preservation of vulnerable species.

What makes Ubuntu unique is that it does not take sides. Rather, it invites dialogue, empathy, and participation. Not to force consensus, but to foster understanding and co-created solutions—ones in which the voices of both humans and wolves, directly or indirectly, are heard.

From Polarisation to Connection

In today’s culture of polarisation—where opinions harden and nuance gets lost—Ubuntu offers an alternative. Not by avoiding conflict, but by rising above it. By treating disagreements as opportunities for shared learning and growth. This comes through clearly in the stories shared in the study: of shepherds deeply connected to the landscape, of people who continue to show compassion despite losing livestock, and of the importance of listening, even in disagreement.

Broens suggests that Ubuntu can help shape a new narrative: one that sees diversity not as a threat, but as a strength. One in which humans and nature are not opposing forces, but partners in the search for equilibrium.

An Ethics for the Future

Ubuntu is not a quick fix, but an invitation. A moral compass urging us to take our relationships—with each other, with animals, with the landscape—seriously. In a time of biodiversity loss and social division, this philosophy can help us cultivate a more caring, inclusive, and sustainable way of relating to the world around us.

The return of the wolf challenges us. But as Broens shows, Ubuntu offers not just answers—but directions. Directions that move us beyond coexistence, toward a renewed way of living with the natural world.

Ubuntu and the return of the wolves: diversifying human-nature narratives in the Netherlands
Thesis author: Sterre Broens
Supervisor: Dr.ir. Kris van Koppen
Examiner: Dr. Hilde Toonen
MSc Thesis Environmental Policy Group
Program: Governance of Sustainability Transformations
Wageningen University
Thesis code: ENP80436

The post Wolves, Us, and the Wisdom of Belonging: Ubuntu in the Dutch Wilderness appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Rewilding Meets Reality

As wolves return to landscapes long emptied of large predators, tension often follows. Farmers worry about their herds. Conservationists worry about coexistence. And both sides search for facts amid fear and folklore.

Now, a groundbreaking study in Poland’s Warta River Mouth National Park sheds new light on what wolves really eat—and the results may surprise you.

Despite free-ranging livestock grazing unprotected across the wetlands, wolves in this region overwhelmingly preferred wild prey. In fact, over 80% of their diet consisted of wild ungulates like roe deer and wild boar. Livestock, including cattle and dogs, made up only 3.4% of the biomass consumed.

This new evidence challenges the assumption that wolves inevitably turn to easy livestock targets when available—and could shape how Europe manages wolf-livestock conflict in a rewilding era.

The Setting: A Mosaic of Wetlands and Wildlife

Stretching across 500 square kilometers of western Poland, the Warta River Mouth (WRM) is a tapestry of humid grasslands, farm fields, floodplains, and patches of pine forest. The heart of this landscape—the Warta Mouth National Park—is a haven for waterfowl and part of the Natura 2000 network and the Ramsar Convention.

But the park is also home to something larger, wilder, and far more controversial: the grey wolf (Canis lupus).

In summer months, some 4,000 cattle and 700 horses roam freely here with no fencing, herding, or protection measures. It’s the kind of scene that would seem tailor-made for conflict—except the data tell a different story.

Tracking the Top Predator

From 2020 to 2022, a team of Polish researchers led by Dr. Robert Mysłajek of the University of Warsaw deployed a mix of genetic fingerprinting, camera trapping, and field tracking to monitor the region’s wolves.

They identified two distinct wolf family groups living within the WRM. Over two years, they collected and analyzed 109 scats (droppings) to determine the wolves’ diet, comparing their findings with seven other regions in Central Europe.

Their results were clear: even in a landscape filled with livestock, wolves mostly ignored domestic animals, focusing instead on natural prey.

What’s on the Menu?

The roe deer led the list, making up nearly 60% of the food biomass. Wild boar followed at 20.5%, despite recent culls due to African Swine Fever. Wolves also consumed medium-sized mammals like European beavers and hares, which accounted for 14.5% of the diet.

Cattle made up just 3%, and dogs only 0.4%—figures so low they raise an important question: Why aren’t wolves eating livestock when it seems so easy?

Nature’s Nuance: More Than Availability

The study’s authors suggest several reasons why wolves may avoid livestock, even when it’s abundant and unprotected:

1. Behavioral Traits of Livestock:

Breeds such as Limousin, Hereford, and Red Angus—common in WRM—are muscular and often horned. These traits may deter wolves, especially compared to smaller, dehorned dairy breeds more common elsewhere.

2. Natural Herding Instincts:

Cattle and horses in WRM graze semi-wild and form defensive herds, mimicking behavior of wild ungulates. This natural grouping may confuse or challenge predators.

3. Dead Calves Left in the Field:

With limited human supervision, stillbirths and early calf deaths (up to 2.3% in some breeds) may result in carrion left unattended. Wolves may scavenge rather than hunt.

4. High Wild Prey Abundance:

The WRM region has dense populations of roe deer and wild boar, meaning wolves don’t need to risk attacking livestock.

Conflict—Or Coexistence?

Only three cattle calves were confirmed as wolf food during the two-year study, and even those cases may involve scavenging. No predation on horses was recorded. Despite the presence of domestic dogs in wolf scat, no formal complaints were filed, suggesting the dogs were strays or free-ranging.

These findings suggest that the wolf-livestock conflict in WRM is more perception than reality. In fact, wolves may be delivering unrecognized ecosystem services, such as reducing populations of free-ranging dogs that harm wildlife, or scavenging disease-carrying carcasses that would otherwise linger in the landscape.

Rewilding Implications: A Case for Caution and Context

As wolves recolonize parts of Europe—from the Netherlands to Denmark to Belgium—the WRM study provides a valuable case study. It shows that:

• Wolves do not automatically target livestock, even when it’s abundant and unprotected
• Ecological context matters—from prey availability to livestock breed and behavior
• Management decisions must be based on local data, not assumptions or general fears

This doesn’t mean wolves never attack livestock. But it does mean lethal control or fear-driven policies may be unjustified—and potentially harmful to long-term conservation goals.

A Model for Future Coexistence?

The WRM wolves may be doing more than surviving—they may be showing us how rewilding and agriculture can coexist, even in crowded European landscapes.

Their diet is diverse, their presence stable, and their conflicts minimal. If supported with adaptive management, continued research, and public education, this model could help rebuild trust between people and predators.

In an age when ecological recovery is as much about social acceptance as biological success, the WRM wolves remind us that nature can adapt—if we let it.

The post Wolves return—without attacking livestock appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

🔗 Full report: Turning Over a New Leaf – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

The Challenge: Knowing What to Do, But Failing to Act

Climate change is accelerating. Species extinction and ecosystem degradation are occurring at unprecedented rates. The world produces over two billion tonnes of waste annually, a figure expected to double by 2050. Scientists have repeatedly sounded the alarm: phase out fossil fuels, restore ecosystems, and shift to sustainable living. Yet, progress remains sluggish. The question is no longer what to do—but why aren’t we doing it?

Introducing the Theory of Deep Change

This year’s report responds to that question by introducing the Theory of Deep Change (ToDC). This new framework helps us understand why surface-level responses often fall short. It explains that real change requires addressing the root causes of global crises—our beliefs, values, and social systems.

The theory involves four core stages:

1. Observe current outcomes.
2. Identify root causes.
3. Envision a desirable future.
4. Explore transformations to achieve it.

Rather than simply preventing catastrophe, ToDC helps reimagine how we might live in a future that is abundant, resilient, and just.

Five Transformational Shifts

The report outlines five key transformations needed for deep systemic change:

1. Rethink waste – From trash to treasure
2. Realign with nature – From separation to harmony
3. Reconsider responsibility – From me to we
4. Reimagine the future – From seconds to centuries
5. Redefine value – From economic wealth to planetary health

These changes require moving away from reactive, short-term thinking to proactive, long-term systems redesign.

From Plastic Waste to Planetary Health

One practical example explored is our relationship with waste. Current systems are based on linear consumption: extract, use, discard. Even well-intended efforts like recycling struggle because they operate within a system that rewards overproduction and disposability.

To fix this, ToDC suggests changing our underlying assumption that material consumption equals happiness. Only by shifting our values to recognize resource finiteness and the value of durability can we build effective circular systems—supported by policies such as right-to-repair laws or design standards that promote reuse and longevity.

🔗 Technical report: Rethinking Waste – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

Inner and Outer Levers of Change

The report distinguishes between inner levers—changes in personal or collective values—and outer levers—changes in societal structures like laws and institutions. While inner levers deal with the “soil” (beliefs and assumptions), outer levers affect the “trunk and branches” (structures and systems).

When used together, these levers can reinforce one another. For instance, the global shift in attitudes toward smoking resulted from both public health campaigns (inner levers) and regulatory action (outer levers). This same interplay is needed to address climate and ecological breakdown.

A Global Responsibility: Moving Beyond Unilateralism

UNU-EHS also warns of the dangers of individualistic or unilateral climate actions, such as solar geoengineering. Though marketed as quick fixes, such technologies can have unintended global consequences—worsening inequalities and climate injustices. Instead, we must embrace global cooperation, based on shared responsibility and mutual care.

🔗 Technical report: Reconsidering Responsibility – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

Learning from the Past: The Montreal Protocol

The report highlights the 1987 Montreal Protocol as a rare but powerful example of successful global coordination. Through binding agreements, financial support, and shared goals, the Protocol reversed ozone depletion—a feat now guiding us toward full ozone recovery by 2066. It proves that unified global action is possible—and effective.

Hope Through Radical Imagination

While today’s risks are daunting, UNU-EHS emphasizes that human-made systems can be unmade—and remade. With bold imagination and deliberate action, we can cultivate systems rooted in planetary health and collective wellbeing. The report urges us not just to limit harm but to actively build the future we want.

🔗 Technical report: Redefining Value – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

🔗 Technical report: Reimagining the Future – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

🔗 Technical report: Realigning with Nature – Interconnected Disaster Risks 2023

Rewilding is deep change

In the technical report “Realign with Nature” (2025), rewilding is presented as a vital approach to restore ecological integrity and reconnect humans with natural processes. The report highlights rewilding as a means to support ecosystems in regaining their functionality by reintroducing keystone species, allowing natural succession, and reducing human control over landscapes.

Rather than managing nature for useful outcomes, rewilding embraces uncertainty and complexity, fostering self-sustaining systems that can adapt to change. This approach aligns with the broader transformation advocated by the UNU-EHS—to shift from dominating and exploiting nature to collaborating with it. Rewilding, in this context, is not just an ecological intervention but a cultural shift toward humility, participation, and coexistence with the living world.

Turning Over a New Leaf: A Call to Action

“Turning Over a New Leaf” doesn’t just diagnose the crisis—it offers a roadmap to deep, meaningful transformation. By rethinking what we value, reimagining our relationship with nature, and committing to both personal and collective change, we can move from crisis to opportunity.

This is not about returning to an idealized past—it’s about courageously creating a future where both people and planet can thrive. The time to act is now—and it starts with shifting our beliefs, our systems, and ultimately, our direction.

The post Turning Over a New Leaf: How Deep Change Can Tackle Our Interconnected Crises appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Proponents of the rewilding effort argue that historical evidence, including ancient cave paintings from Spain’s Altamira and El Castillo caves, suggests that bison once inhabited the region. They view the bison as a potential keystone species capable of restoring ecological balance to degraded landscapes, particularly in rural areas where human presence has diminished. Advocates believe that reintroducing this species could help revitalize ecosystems that have suffered from overgrazing and land abandonment.

But a recent peer-reviewed article published in Conservation Science and Practice raises serious doubts about the ecological, legal, and historical basis of these efforts. The authors argue that introducing European bison into Spain may be not only scientifically unjustified, but also ecologically risky and potentially illegal under current conservation laws.

At the heart of the debate lies a deceptively simple question: Are European bison native to Spain?

Echoes from the Pleistocene

At first glance, the case seems compelling. Ancient bison-like figures dominate Spain’s prehistoric art — some drawn with such detail and motion they rival the expressive power of modern sketches. To many, this is compelling visual evidence that bison once thundered across Iberian valleys.

But scientific scrutiny paints a more complicated picture. The authors of the article highlight a key point often overlooked in popular narratives: The bison species represented in those cave paintings is almost certainly Bison priscus, the extinct steppe bison, not the modern Bison bonasus — the European bison.

The steppe bison was part of a now-vanished ecosystem known as the “mammoth steppe” — a vast, treeless, cold-adapted grassland that once stretched from Western Europe to North America. When this ecosystem disappeared at the end of the last Ice Age, so too did the steppe bison. The European bison evolved later and adapted to a more forested, temperate environment — and crucially, there is no strong paleontological evidence that it ever lived in Spain.

In other words, even if bison-like creatures once walked Iberian soil, they were not the same species that conservationists seek to introduce today.

Steppe bison in mountain areas

While the term “steppe” typically refers to vast, treeless grasslands, scientific research indicates that steppe bison inhabited a range of environments, including mountainous regions like those in northern Spain.

Fossil evidence supports that steppe bison thrived in these regions. For instance, the Kiputz IX site in the Basque Country has yielded well-preserved remains of steppe bison, including a nearly complete skull, indicating their presence in the southern Pyrenees. The skull from Kiputz IX aligns with the characteristics of the extinct subspecies Bison priscus mediator.

The cave paintings in Altamira and El Castillo, located in the mountainous terrains of northern Spain, prominently feature bison imagery. These artistic representations align with the fossil record, suggesting that steppe bison were indeed part of the local fauna during the periods these caves were inhabited. The presence of steppe bison in these areas indicates their adaptability to different environments within the broader “Mammoth Steppe” biome.

Bison priscus mediator was a later subspecies of steppe bison that emerged towards the end of the Pleistocene, exhibiting adaptations to changing environmental conditions. As the Ice Age drew to a close and the climate began to warm, the ecosystems of the northern hemisphere started shifting from cold, open steppe landscapes to more varied and forested environments. Bison priscus mediator likely adapted to these new conditions by modifying its diet and habitat preferences, making it more suited to a broader range of environments, including areas with more woodland cover. This subspecies represents a transitional phase in the evolutionary history of the steppe bison, bridging the gap between the cold-adapted forms of the earlier Pleistocene and the more temperate conditions that followed, which may have contributed to its eventual survival and spread across a wider area of Europe.

Rewilding or Reinventing?

The term “rewilding” evokes powerful imagery — untamed landscapes, ecological restoration, and charismatic megafauna reclaiming lost territory. But when does rewilding cross the line into ecological invention?

The article warns that introducing European bison to Spain would be a “non-native species introduction” — something that contradicts core principles of conservation biology. Without clear historical evidence of the species’ presence, such an action risks disturbing delicate ecosystems rather than restoring them.

Spain’s landscapes, particularly in regions like Andalucia and Extremadura where bison have already been introduced in private initiatives for ecotourism purposes, are significantly different from the mixed forests and meadows of Eastern Europe. The climate is drier, summers are hotter, and the vegetation is not the same. These differences raise questions about whether the bison could thrive — or whether they would overgraze sensitive habitats, compete with native herbivores, or suffer from poor health and condition.

Moreover, the authors point out a critical oversight in many of the pilot projects: There is often little or no scientific monitoring, no published environmental impact assessments, and no adaptive management frameworks in place. In essence, the releases are happening in a data vacuum.

Substitute species

Bison bonasus, or the European bison, could serve as a potential substitute species for the extinct Bison priscus in certain ecosystems. As a close relative, the European bison shares many ecological characteristics with Bison priscus, particularly its role as a large herbivore that shapes landscapes through grazing. Reintroducing Bison bonasus into areas where Bison priscus once roamed could help restore key ecological functions that have been lost with the extinction of the latter. The European bison is known for its ability to graze on a wide variety of vegetation, which could contribute to the control of overgrown or invasive plant species, promote biodiversity, and create open habitats that benefit other wildlife species.

Although not a direct replacement for Bison priscus, Bison bonasus can still fulfill many of the same ecological niches in modern European ecosystems. Bison bonasus’s grazing behavior influences the structure and composition of plant communities, promoting habitat diversity in woodlands, grasslands, and wetlands. Its presence can encourage the growth of specific plant species while suppressing others, which in turn supports the regeneration of certain ecosystems.

Ecological boundaries

In areas like the southern parts of Europe or even parts of Spain, where Bison priscus once roamed, the European bison could help in the restoration of a more natural balance by reintroducing this large herbivore to forested and grassland areas, even though it is not native to the Iberian Peninsula.

The concept of Bison bonasus as a substitute species is part of a broader ecological restoration strategy aimed at compensating for species extinctions, helping to restore lost ecological functions and balance. By focusing on the ecological roles that Bison priscus played, Bison bonasus could effectively take on these responsibilities.

This approach is seen in various rewilding projects across Europe, where, for example, semi-wild cattle take on the role of the extinct aurochs. While Bison bonasus may not be a perfect match in terms of genetic lineage, its similar ecological impact and ability to thrive in temperate habitats make it a viable candidate for fulfilling the lost ecological roles of the extinct steppe bison.

However, the hotter and drier climate in the southernmost parts of the Iberian Peninsula, particularly in the southeast, presents significant challenges for the European bison, a species more suited to the milder temperatures and higher rainfall typical of northern and central Europe.

Reintroducing European bison in southern Spain is unlikely to be viable from both a species and ecological perspective, as the region’s arid conditions, limited vegetation, and lack of suitable habitats would not support the species’ survival or its role in maintaining ecological balance, which depend on cooler, more temperate environments.

Conservation Priorities: The Bigger Picture

At its core, the debate over European bison in Spain is about more than just one species. It’s about how we define conservation success and the kinds of stories we tell about nature.

The authors of the study urge caution and reflection. Conservation resources are finite. Rather than investing in questionable introductions, they suggest focusing on the protection and recovery of native Spanish species and habitats — from the Iberian lynx and Spanish imperial eagle to the fragile cork oak forests and high mountain meadows.

They also emphasize that rewilding should not become a license to “import” charismatic animals without clear ecological fit. If poorly planned, such efforts risk discrediting the broader rewilding movement, which has the potential to play a meaningful role in restoring degraded ecosystems — when done right.

The European bison’s journey from near-extinction to cautious recovery is a powerful conservation story. But the desire to expand its range must be balanced with ecological realism and respect for historical evidence. The authors of this recent study offer an important reminder: Not every attractive idea is a good one — especially when nature’s balance hangs in the hands of human ambition.

More information:
Rewilding through inappropriate species introduction: The case of European bison in Spain

The post Rewilding European Bison in Spain: Native Species vs. Ecological Substitutes appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

The presence of red deer is often seen as a sign of ecological balance, as their grazing keeps forest undergrowth in check and creates habitats for smaller plant and animal species. Historically, red deer have been hunted for their size and strength, but conservation efforts in recent decades have helped maintain their numbers, especially in protected areas like national parks.

The Smaller, Shyer Roe Deer

Another native species, though less conspicuous, is the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). This small and shy herbivore is found in forests and woodland edges across Europe. Unlike the red deer, which is more likely to graze on open grasslands, roe deer are browsers, feeding on leaves, twigs, and shrubs. Their smaller size allows them to thrive in environments where larger deer species might struggle, and they are known to be solitary and cautious, making them more elusive than their larger relatives.

Roe deer are extremely adaptable and can live in a wide range of habitats, including urban areas and agricultural landscapes. They are most active during the dawn and dusk, and their ability to thrive in fragmented landscapes makes them one of the most widespread deer species in Europe.

The Invaders

While the red and roe deer are native to Europe, other species have been introduced by humans, often with unforeseen consequences for the local ecosystem. Among the most prominent of these are the fallow deer (Dama dama) and the sika deer (Cervus nippon).

Fallow Deer

Native to the Mediterranean region, fallow deer were introduced to much of Europe in the medieval period, primarily for hunting purposes. They are medium-sized deer, larger than roe deer but smaller than red deer. Fallow deer are generalists, meaning they are equally at home in both woodlands and open grasslands. Their ability to adapt to a wide range of environments, from parklands to forests, has allowed them to thrive across much of Europe.

Fallow deer are also grazers but will consume a wide variety of plant material, including shrubs and tree leaves. As a result, they can outcompete native species like roe deer in certain areas, particularly where food is limited.

Sika Deer

Sika deer are invasive, alien species in Europe. Originally native to East Asia, sika deer were introduced to Europe in the 19th century, primarily for ornamental purposes in parks and estates. These medium-sized deer are similar to red deer but are generally smaller and more agile. Sika deer are primarily grazers but also feed on shrubs and tree bark.

Sika deer have been particularly successful in establishing themselves in European woodlands, where they often coexist with red deer. However, their introduction has raised concerns due to their potential to hybridise with red deer, resulting in changes to the genetic makeup of native populations. Sika deer are also more aggressive than roe and fallow deer, and their competition with native species for food and habitat has become a growing concern.

Muntjac Deer: The Smallest and Most Secretive

The muntjac deer, often considered the smallest deer species in Europe, is another introduced species. Native to Southeast Asia, the muntjac was introduced to Britain in the 19th century and has since spread to parts of Europe. These tiny, secretive deer are often found in dense woodlands, where they browse on a variety of plant material, including tree shoots and shrubs.

Muntjac are highly adaptable and have a much smaller impact on larger native species, largely due to their size and preference for dense undergrowth, which smaller deer species like roe deer also favor. However, their ability to thrive in fragmented habitats and their aggressive nature when defending territory could potentially make them a competitor to native species, especially where resources are scarce.

The Dynamics of Deer Interaction

The coexistence of multiple deer species in Europe creates a complex web of interactions. In some cases, these species can facilitate one another’s presence by utilizing different ecological niches, while in other instances, competition for food and space can lead to conflict.

Facilitation

In certain environments, species can benefit from one another’s presence. For example, the large red deer might help maintain open landscapes by grazing on grasses, which could provide more favorable conditions for smaller species like roe deer. Similarly, muntjac and roe deer, both small and solitary, might share habitat without significant overlap in their feeding patterns. Muntjac’s preference for dense undergrowth and roe’s habit of browsing shrubs allows them to coexist in woodland edges, where larger deer species like red or sika might avoid.

Competition 

However, competition for resources remains a significant concern, particularly between introduced species and native species. Fallow deer, for example, compete directly with roe deer for access to food, while sika deer’s ability to hybridize with red deer raises genetic concerns. Furthermore, the presence of larger species, such as fallow and sika deer, can outcompete smaller species like roe and muntjac, particularly in habitats where food resources are scarce. This competition can have a detrimental impact on native species, potentially leading to population declines or shifts in habitat use.

Niche Segregation 

The concept of niche segregation is central to understanding how species coexist. Each deer species has evolved to occupy a specific ecological niche—whether it’s the red deer’s preference for open grasslands or the muntjac’s affinity for dense woodlands. As a result, these species are able to reduce direct competition and minimize overlap in their diets and habitats. For instance, sika and red deer can coexist in mixed woodlands, but sika often prefer denser underbrush where red deer cannot access as easily. This segregation is influenced by factors like size, feeding behavior, habitat preferences, and reproductive strategies. Here’s how they typically segregate their niches:

1. Sika Deer (Cervus nippon)

• Size: Medium-sized deer (larger than roe deer but smaller than red deer).
• Habitat: Prefers woodlands, grasslands, and heathlands, often found in mixed forests with dense undergrowth.
• Feeding: Primarily grazers, but will also browse. They feed on grasses, herbs, shrubs, and young trees.
• Behavior: Sika deer are more active at dawn and dusk (crepuscular), and they tend to be more aggressive in defense of territory.
• Niche: They tend to coexist with red deer in woodland areas but prefer more dense vegetation for cover.

2. Fallow Deer (Dama dama)

• Size: Smaller than red and sika deer but larger than roe deer.
• Habitat: Can thrive in both woodlands and open fields. They are commonly found in parklands and areas with a mix of woodland and grassland.
• Feeding: Fallow deer are generalists, grazing on grasses, herbs, and shrubs but can also browse tree foliage.
• Behavior: They are also crepuscular, and during the rut, males are particularly vocal.
• Niche: Fallow deer often overlap with sika and roe deer in woodland areas but have adapted to a wide range of environments.

3. Red Deer (Cervus elaphus)

• Size: The largest deer species in Europe.
• Habitat: Prefers woodlands, moorlands, and open grasslands. They often occupy upland areas and forests with a mix of grassy glades.
• Feeding: Grazers that feed on grasses, shrubs, and woody plants. Red deer prefer open grasslands for feeding, especially during the spring and summer.
• Behavior: Mostly diurnal (active during the day), with males becoming highly vocal during the rut.
• Niche: Red deer tend to avoid dense forest areas occupied by smaller deer like roe and sika. They are often found in more open, expansive areas or larger woodlands.

4. Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus)

• Size: Smallest of the European deer species.
• Habitat: Prefers deciduous and mixed woodlands, often found in the edges of forests and farmland.
• Feeding: Primarily browsers, feeding on leaves, twigs, herbs, and berries. They can also graze on grass, especially in winter.
• Behavior: Very solitary and shy, roe deer are mainly active at dawn and dusk.
• Niche: Roe deer tend to avoid larger, more aggressive species like red deer and sika, and they thrive in forest edges and more fragmented habitats, often where competition is lower.

5. Muntjac Deer (Muntiacus spp.)

• Size: Very small, one of the smallest deer species in Europe.
• Habitat: Prefers dense woodlands, often with thick underbrush, and is commonly found in more enclosed, fragmented habitats like parks and gardens.
• Feeding: Primarily a browser, munching on a wide variety of vegetation, including leaves, shoots, and shrubs.
• Behavior: Muntjac are mostly solitary, though they can form small groups. They are also crepuscular and are known for their loud barking calls.
• Niche: Muntjac prefer dense, understory-rich habitats and are more likely to overlap with roe deer, though they can live in more human-modified areas. They tend to avoid the open grasslands occupied by red and fallow deer.

Overview of Niche Segregation

• Sika Deer tend to overlap with red deer in forested areas but prefer areas with dense cover and tend to be more aggressive.
• Fallow Deer are generalists and adapt well to both woodland and open habitats, coexisting with both sika and roe deerin mixed landscapes.
• Red Deer, being the largest, are dominant in open grasslands and upland areas, often avoiding smaller species like roe and muntjac.
• Roe Deer prefer forest edges, avoiding larger species like red and sika deer but can overlap with muntjac.
• Muntjac are highly adapted to dense woodland habitats and thrive in smaller, more fragmented environments.

Each species has adapted to a particular ecological niche based on size, feeding habits, behavior, and habitat preferences. This reduces direct competition, especially where different species specialize in different types of food or shelter.

Potential Negative Impacts

Hybridization and Displacement

While the introduction of deer species like fallow and sika can provide prey opportunities and enrich biodiversity in some areas, especially where native deer are missing, their presence can also have detrimental impacts on native ecosystems. For example, sika deer, which have been shown to hybridise with red deer, could lead to a loss of genetic integrity in native red deer populations, disrupting the balance of ecosystems that depend on these species. The competition for food and habitat, especially in areas where resources are limited, can lead to declines in native populations.

Scientific studies have documented the aggressive behaviour of sika deer towards red deer, particularly during the rutting season. Sika stags exhibit high levels of aggression, often disrupting red deer mating behaviours by attacking young red stags and mating with red hinds, even in the presence of dominant red stags. This aggressive behavior contributes to hybridisation between the species, leading to ecological and genetic consequences for native red deer populations

Alteration of plant communities and ecosystems

Additionally, the species-specific grazing pressure from deer species can have a lasting impact on plant communities, particularly in sensitive habitats like woodlands and heathlands. Overgrazing can lead to a reduction in plant diversity, which in turn affects other wildlife that depend on those plants for food and shelter. Species-specific fouraging preferences for certain plant species can reshape entire plant communities, triggering cascading effects on other herbivores, including rodents and insects—and the species that rely on them.

Impact on Smaller herbivores

invasive muntjac (Muntiacus spp.) and sika deer (Cervus nippon) could compete with smaller herbivores and rodents for resources, particularly in ecosystems where food availability is limited.

Diet Overlap and Competition

Both muntjac and sika deer are generalist herbivores with diets that include:

• Muntjac: Leaves, shoots, fruits, and low-growing vegetation, including brambles and seedlings.
• Sika deer: Grasses, heather, shrubs, and tree bark, with a preference for young tree shoots and ferns.

While they primarily feed on vegetation suited to their size and behavior, muntjac in particular may compete with smaller herbivores like hares, rabbits, and rodents by consuming similar low-lying plants, fruits, and seedlings. In areas where muntjac are overabundant, their foraging pressure can reduce the availability of young plants and understory vegetation, potentially displacing small herbivores that rely on the same food sources.

Sika deer, which consume a broader range of grasses and tree bark, are less likely to directly compete with rodents but may alter plant community structure, making habitats less favorable for small mammals.

Cascading Ecological Effects

• Reduced understory vegetation: Overgrazing by muntjac can lead to habitat loss for small mammals, insects, and ground-nesting birds.
• Disrupting food chains: Competition for fruits and seedlings may impact rodent populations, which in turn affects predators like owls and foxes.
• Forest regeneration issues: Heavy browsing of young trees by both species can slow woodland regeneration, impacting the broader ecosystem.

While competition between deer and smaller herbivores depends on population densities and habitat conditions, invasive species like muntjac and sika deer have the potential to disrupt native ecosystems through resource competition and habitat degradation.

What about Moose?

When comparing red deer, roe deer, fallow deer, sika deer, and muntjac with moose (Alces alces) in Europe, their interactions can also be shaped by competition, facilitation and niche segregation, depending on habitat, resource availability, and population densities.

Potential Competition with Moose

Moose are large, selective browsers, primarily feeding on woody vegetation, including willows, birches, and aquatic plants. While their diet overlaps with some of these smaller deer species, competition is likely limited under normal conditions due to dietary niche differences. However, under high densities or in degraded habitats, competition may become more pronounced:

• Red deer & sika deer: These species can compete directly with moose for woody browse, especially in winter when herbaceous plants are scarce. Sika deer, in particular, have been known to outcompete native deer in some areas due to their adaptability.
• Fallow deer: Being more of a mixed feeder (grazing and browsing), fallow deer may have some dietary overlap with moose, but competition is likely lower than with red or sika deer.
• Roe deer & muntjac: These species are smaller browsers with a preference for low shrubs, herbs, and young tree shoots. While they share food sources with moose, their smaller size and different browsing strategies likely reduce direct competition.

Facilitation Effects

Some interactions may be mutually beneficial rather than competitive:

• Habitat modification: Moose browsing can open up dense forests, allowing more light to reach the understory, potentially benefiting smaller browsing species like roe deer and muntjac.
• Trophic interactions: By feeding on different plant parts, these species may reduce competition and even enhance food availability for one another. For instance, red deer and moose targeting taller shrubs could stimulate regrowth of lower vegetation, benefiting roe deer and muntjac.

Niche segregation

• Aquatic Adaptations vs. Terrestrial Grazing: Moose are the only cervid in Europe specialized in foraging on aquatic vegetation. They can submerge completely, feeding on plants like water lilies, pondweed, and horsetail, which are rich in sodium and minerals.
• Seasonal shifts: Moose dominate in winter, when woody browse is the primary food source, while red deer thrive in summer, when grasses and forbs are available.

Impact of Introduced & Invasive Species

Among the introduced species:

• Sika deer pose the greatest concern for moose due to interactions with red deer, which could alter ecosystem dynamics.
• Muntjac and fallow deer are less likely to affect moose populations directly, but overgrazing by high muntjac densities could degrade forest understories, indirectly impacting moose by reducing food availability.

Sika deer, as an introduced species in Europe, can influence red deer through hybridisation, competition, and habitat alteration. This, in turn, can have cascading effects on moose:

1. Hybridisation with Red Deer

• Sika and red deer can interbreed, producing hybrid offspring. Over time, this genetic mixing can alter red deer populations, potentially changing their behavior, morphology, and ecological role. If red deer become less competitive due to hybridization, their population dynamics may shift, indirectly affecting species that interact with them—including moose.

2. Increased Competition for Resources

• Where sika deer and red deer coexist, sika deer often outcompete red deer by being more aggressive and better adapted to human-altered landscapes. Sika deer are highly adaptable browsers and grazers, consuming many of the same plant species as red deer. In areas where sika deer numbers increase, red deer may be displaced from preferred feeding areas, forcing them into habitats where they overlap more with moose. This could heighten competition for browse species like young trees, shrubs, and aquatic vegetation, particularly in winter when food is scarce.

3. Impact on Vegetation and Ecosystem Structure

• If sika deer alter the vegetation structure through overgrazing or selective feeding, this can influence habitat quality for both red deer and moose. For example, if red deer are pushed into areas with lower-quality forage, they may overbrowse young trees, reducing the availability of food and shelter for moose, which rely on regenerating forests.

How This Affects Moose

While moose and red deer generally reduce direct competition through niche partitioning—moose favor aquatic plants and higher browse, while red deer are more mixed feeders—changes in red deer behavior or abundance can disrupt this balance. If red deer populations shift due to sika deer pressure, moose may encounter increased competition for browse species, or even habitat encroachment as red deer are forced into less favorable areas.

This interaction highlights the unpredictable ecosystem effects of introduced species, where sika deer, despite their smaller size, can create indirect but significant ecological consequences that ripple through the larger herbivore community.

A Delicate Balance

The presence of multiple deer species in Europe, both native and introduced, has led to a complex and dynamic ecological landscape. While niche segregation and facilitation allow for some degree of coexistence, competition for resources and the potential for hybridisation pose significant challenges. As these deer species continue to interact, the balance of ecosystems may shift, with some native species potentially suffering as a result of competition and genetic dilution.

Understanding these interactions is crucial for managing deer populations and maintaining the health of Europe’s ecosystems. Through careful monitoring and conservation efforts, including reintroduction or recolonisation by carnivores, it may be possible to restore and maintain a balance between protecting native species and preventing irreparable damage to European ecosystems in a rapidly changing world.

The post Deer Dynamics in Europe: Native and Invasive Species appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

A Legacy in Meteorology and Environmental Advocacy

Reinier’s fascination with weather began at a young age, leading him to pursue studies in environmental sciences at Wageningen University. In 1989, he became a familiar face on Dutch television as a weather presenter for RTL4, a role he fulfilled for over three decades. Beyond forecasting, Reinier has been a vocal advocate for climate awareness and sustainable practices. He has participated in tornado research in the United States, organised expeditions to climate change hotspots like Greenland, and explored deforestation issues in the Amazon. Reinier is also managing SpeakOut, a speaker bureau specializing in inspiring talks on climate, sustainability, and innovation. His dedication extends to personal initiatives, such as constructing a climate-neutral, biobased home in 2020, exemplifying his commitment to sustainable living.  

Passion for Nature and Rewilding

Reinier van den Berg’s deep-seated love for nature is evident in his endeavors. He has authored “Bladgoud,” a book highlighting the invaluable role of trees in combating climate change and promoting biodiversity. In his view, rewilding transcends ecosystem restoration; it serves as a potent, nature-based solution to climate challenges. By allowing nature to recover, we bolster resilience against climate impacts, paving the way for a sustainable future for both people and the planet. 

A Shared Vision for a Sustainable Future

Reinier’s alignment with Rewilding Academy stems from a shared vision of harmonizing human existence with the natural world. He emphasizes the urgency of addressing climate change and sees rewilding as a pathway to restoring ecological balance. His advocacy for positive environmental action resonates with our goals of fostering awareness, understanding, and coexistence.  

Looking Ahead: Collaborative Initiatives

As our ambassador, Reinier will collaborate with Rewilding Academy on various initiatives aimed at raising awareness and inspiring action. His extensive experience in communication and education will be instrumental in developing programs that engage communities, policymakers, and businesses in rewilding efforts. Together, we aim to showcase rewilding as a viable strategy for climate mitigation and biodiversity enhancement, ultimately contributing to a healthier planet.

We are honoured to welcome Reinier van den Berg to the Rewilding Academy family and look forward to the impactful work we will accomplish together.

The post Rewilding Academy Welcomes Reinier van den Berg as Ambassador appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

The Historical Context: Wolves and the Scottish Ecosystem

Wolves once roamed freely across Scotland, playing a pivotal role in maintaining ecological balance. As apex predators, they regulated the populations of large herbivores, particularly red deer (Cervus elaphus). However, extensive hunting and habitat loss led to the extinction of wolves in Scotland by the late 17th century, with the last recorded wolf killed in 1680. Their absence has had cascading effects on the ecosystem, most notably on deer populations.

The Deer Dilemma: Overgrazing and Woodland Decline

In the absence of natural predators, red deer populations have flourished, reaching numbers as high as 400,000. This overabundance has led to significant overgrazing, impeding the regeneration of native woodlands. Young saplings are often consumed before they can mature, and existing trees suffer from bark stripping. Consequently, Scotland’s native woodland coverage has dwindled to a mere 4% of the land area, one of the lowest in Europe. This degradation not only affects biodiversity but also reduces the landscape’s capacity to sequester carbon, a critical function in the fight against climate change.

The Proposed Solution: Reintroducing the Grey Wolf

The study by Dominick Spracklen et al. employs ecological modeling to assess the potential impacts of reintroducing grey wolves to the Scottish Highlands. The models suggest that a population of approximately 170 wolves could effectively reduce red deer densities to levels that allow for natural woodland regeneration. This predator-prey dynamic would mirror the ecological processes that occurred before wolves were extirpated.

Carbon Sequestration Potential: A Natural Climate Solution

One of the most compelling findings of the study is the projected increase in carbon sequestration resulting from woodland expansion facilitated by wolf predation on deer. The researchers estimate that the regenerated forests could sequester about 1 million tonnes of CO₂ annually over a century. This figure represents approximately 5% of the UK’s carbon removal target for woodlands to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Financially, this translates to an annual benefit of £154,000 per wolf, based on current carbon market values.  

Broader Ecological and Societal Benefits

Beyond carbon sequestration, reintroducing wolves could yield a plethora of ecological and societal benefits:

• Biodiversity Enhancement: The resurgence of native woodlands would provide habitats for a multitude of species, fostering greater biodiversity.
• Natural Flood Management: Healthy forests play a crucial role in water regulation, potentially mitigating flood risks.
• Public Health Improvements: A controlled deer population could lead to a decrease in deer-related road accidents and a reduction in the prevalence of Lyme disease, which is associated with deer ticks.
• Economic Opportunities: The presence of wolves could boost ecotourism, attracting wildlife enthusiasts and contributing to the local economy.

Challenges and Considerations: Navigating Human-Wolf Coexistence

While the ecological arguments for wolf reintroduction are compelling, several challenges must be addressed:

• Livestock Predation: Farmers express concerns about potential wolf attacks on livestock, which could lead to economic losses. Implementing robust compensation schemes and preventive measures, such as secure fencing and livestock guardian animals, would be essential.
• Hunting Interests: Deer stalkers and hunting communities fear that reduced deer populations could impact recreational hunting opportunities. Engaging these stakeholders in dialogue and exploring adaptive management strategies would be crucial.
• Public Perception: Wolves have been historically vilified, and lingering fears persist. Comprehensive public education campaigns are necessary to dispel myths and promote understanding of wolves’ ecological roles.
• Legislative and Policy Frameworks: Reintroduction efforts would require alignment with national and international wildlife regulations, necessitating thorough legal considerations.

The Path Forward: A Collaborative Approach

The study emphasizes that any wolf reintroduction initiative must be underpinned by extensive stakeholder engagement and public consultation. Building consensus among conservationists, landowners, farmers, hunters, and the general public is vital for the project’s success. Adaptive management strategies, informed by continuous monitoring and research, would be essential to address emerging challenges and ensure positive outcomes.

Embracing a Holistic Vision for Scotland’s Future

Reintroducing grey wolves to the Scottish Highlands represents more than the return of a species; it symbolizes a commitment to ecological restoration and climate resilience. By reinstating a natural predator, Scotland has the opportunity to rejuvenate its native woodlands, enhance biodiversity, and contribute meaningfully to global carbon sequestration efforts. This holistic approach acknowledges the intricate interdependencies within ecosystems and the profound impact of keystone species. As Scotland stands on the cusp of this transformative journey, the howl of the wolf may once again echo through its glens, heralding a new era of harmony between nature and humanity.

The post Return of the Wolf: Restoring Scotland’s Wild Heart appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

For decades, Purnima has been at the forefront of conservation, leading the Hargila Army, an inspiring grassroots movement dedicated to protecting the endangered Greater Adjutant stork (Hargila) in Assam, India. Through her work, she has transformed local perceptions of the stork from a neglected, despised species to a cherished symbol of cultural pride. Her efforts have not only revived dwindling Hargila populations but also uplifted communities by integrating conservation with women’s empowerment, sustainable livelihoods, and traditional knowledge.

Honoring 12 Other Changemakers

Purnima joins an extraordinary group of 12 women recognized by TIME this year for their groundbreaking contributions across different fields. From environmental advocacy to social justice, science, and human rights, these leaders are paving the way for a more just and sustainable future.

This recognition is more than a personal achievement—it is a testament to the power of community-driven conservation and rewilding. As Purnima always emphasizes, conservation is strongest when it is rooted in local traditions, led by the community, and driven by shared responsibility.

We extend our heartfelt congratulations to Purnima Devi Barman and all the inspiring Women of the Year 2025. Their work serves as a beacon of hope for the planet and future generations.

Read TIME’s full feature here: https://time.com/7216405/purnima-devi-barman-hargila-storks/

The post Purnima Devi Barman Named One of TIME’s Women of the Year 2025 appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

The study challenges the traditional focus on ecological elements and introduces a broader perspective that encompasses social, political, and ecological dynamics. Researchers scrutinised the guiding principles set by IUCN’s Rewilding Thematic Group, success factors, and threats outlined in existing literature, creating a comprehensive framework for analysis.

Crucially, the models incorporated the ten guiding principles for rewilding formulated by IUCN’s Rewilding Thematic Group, as well as success factors and threats identified in existing literature. The goal was to create a nuanced understanding of the elements driving successful rewilding initiatives, encompassing ecological, social, and political considerations.

Proof of concept of rewilding

The assessment involved measuring the self-reported “level of success” from case studies against the guiding principles, success factors, and threats. The findings revealed that factors like local awareness of rewilding benefits and the demonstration of a proof of concept were strongly associated with higher success levels, as reported by case study authors. Notably, Guiding Principle 9, emphasising the intrinsic value of all species, emerged as a key determinant of rewilding success.

The research underscores the necessity of integrating both ecological and sociopolitical factors into the planning and execution of rewilding projects. By acknowledging the importance of factors beyond ecological considerations, the study paves the way for a more comprehensive and effective approach to rewilding.

Local engagement

In addition, the study emphasises the positive correlation between the success of rewilding projects and the engagement of local communities. The study encourages project planners to prioritise these sociopolitical elements to enhance the likelihood of successful rewilding outcomes.

Contrary to previous analyses that predominantly focused on European cases, this study incorporates a global lens, recognizing the diversity of rewilding projects across different regions and taxonomic groups. The inclusion of a broader spectrum of cases enhances the generalizability of the findings, providing a more robust foundation for future rewilding endeavors.

This research marks a significant step toward a more comprehensive understanding of rewilding success. By unraveling the intricate tapestry of ecological and sociopolitical factors, the study equips practitioners with valuable insights to guide the planning and execution of successful rewilding projects globally.

For a rewilding project to thrive, it is crucial to implement certain activities and consider rewilding itself as an endeavour that inherently bestows intrinsic value upon wildlife and nature. This perspective significantly enhances the likelihood of project success. Therefore, practitioners should incorporate these sociopolitical factors into their planning, particularly when rewilding through reintroduction is the chosen method.

Rewilding guidelines

While IUCN’s “Guiding Principles for Rewilding” (Carver et al., 2021) offer valuable insights into the foundational principles a rewilding project should embrace, there is a distinct need for more practical guidance on executing a rewilding initiative, encompassing both ecological and social perspectives. Although adhering to IUCN’s “Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Translocations” (IUCN SSC, 2013) and “Guidelines to Facilitate Human-Wildlife Interactions in Conservation Translocations” (Consorte-McCrea et al., 2022) is crucial for establishing the groundwork for conservation translocations and reintroductions, a gap exists in practical guidance specifically tailored for rewilding projects.

To address this gap, we propose the development of a comprehensive set of practical guidelines for rewilding that considers both ecological and sociopolitical factors for success. This proposed guidance aims to ensure the embodiment of the guiding principles for rewilding right from the project’s inception. By integrating such guidance into their planning, practitioners can significantly enhance the prospects of success for rewilding initiatives, contributing to the broader goals of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration.

Source: The role of social and political factors in the success of rewilding projects

The post Sociopolitical Factors Influencing Rewilding Success appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Rethinking Golf Courses

Golf courses, once flourishing, have seen a decline, with closures surpassing new openings. This has prompted a reconsideration of how these extensive areas can serve a greater environmental purpose. Abandoned golf courses are being rescued from disuse by conservation nonprofits and local authorities, reimagining these lands as havens for biodiversity and as natural defenses against climate change. Here are a few examples of rewilded golf courses from around the world.

Netherlands

Located in Amsterdam, golf course De Sloten underwent rewilding efforts to enhance its ecological value. Native plants and wetland areas were restored, attracting various bird species and improving water quality. The area now combines recreational use with biodiversity conservation.

United States

The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is one organization spearheading this initiative to rewild former golf courses in California. Guillermo Rodriguez, California state director of TPL, envisions a brighter, greener future for these spaces. His vision includes increasing public access, returning water to rivers and streams, and creating better habitats for California’s endangered species.

In California’s Marin County, the San Geronimo golf course, constructed in 1965, was diverting significant water from the San Geronimo and Larsen Creek to maintain the course, which negatively impacted fish populations. TPL took action in 2018, acquiring the 157-acre site and embarking on the process of restoring it to its natural state. They ceased irrigation, removed culverts and dams, and initiated habitat restoration by planting native species. Though the rewilding process could take up to a decade, signs of wildlife resurgence, such as bobcats returning to the area, have already become evident.

In the midwestern United States, in Ohio, Summit Metro Parks acquired the 195-acre Valley View Golf Course in 2016 and rejuvenated it into a thriving natural habitat. Mike Johnson, chief of conservation at the nonprofit, noted that golf courses are harsh environments, primarily using non-native vegetation. These modifications had little value for local fish and wildlife. Transforming the golf course involved removing levees, allowing rivers and streams to flow freely, and establishing native vegetation. This remarkable transformation witnessed the return of an impressive number of species, with over 900 species of fish and wildlife documented in the area.

United Kingdom

The UK has also embraced this green revolution. Frodsham golf course in Cheshire, UK, was purchased by the UK’s Woodland Trust, with plans to plant 40,000 native trees on the site. This transformation benefits local flora and fauna, and contributes to The Northern Forest scheme, an ambitious effort to plant 50 million trees across the UK. Meanwhile, local councils in various parts of the world are repurposing unprofitable municipal golf courses, returning them to nature and fostering biodiversity.

Across the United Kingdom, local governing bodies are embracing a trend of repurposing financially unsustainable municipal golf courses into ecologically enriched spaces. Erewash Borough Council, in collaboration with Derbyshire Wildlife Trust, is in the process of transforming the Pewit golf course into a dedicated nature reserve. Similarly, Brighton and Hove City Council is leading the charge in rewilding the expansive 220-acre Waterhall golf course, with a particular focus on revitalizing the area’s chalk grasslands.

Porthkerry Country Park, nestled in the stunning landscape of Vale of Glamorgan, underwent a transformation when a 12-hole golf course, closed in 2019 due to flooding and maintenance costs, made way for rewilding. The initial step allowed nature to reclaim the area, and thoughtful planning ensued. Flood alleviation measures, the creation of ponds, wildlife corridors, educational zones, and recycled plastic boardwalks were introduced, enhancing the site’s ecological resilience. This project serves as an educational platform and exemplifies the collaborative potential of the LNP Project, fostering biodiversity protection and environmental learning for future generations.

Rewilding a Golf Course: The Case of Allestree Park

The UK’s largest urban rewilding project is underway at Allestree Park, a former golf course on the outskirts of Derby. While above-ground transformations, such as allowing grass to grow wild and repurposing old bunkers for habitat, are visible, the rewilding team is now focusing on a hidden but critical factor: soil health.

Decades of intensive management, including the use of herbicides and pesticides, may have depleted soil life, slowing natural regeneration. Unlike other rewilding sites where trees quickly expand into open areas, Allestree’s tree line remains largely static. Researchers suspect chemical residues have suppressed soil organisms essential for nutrient cycling and plant growth.

To address this, the team plans soil health studies to assess recovery progress and identify interventions. Additionally, they aim to restore the site’s natural hydrology by removing old drainage systems, allowing seasonal wetlands to form. Small-scale species reintroductions, such as dung beetles and crickets, may further aid ecosystem recovery by enhancing soil quality and supporting food webs.

Allestree Park’s rewilding highlights the challenges of restoring landscapes altered by human activity, demonstrating that true ecological recovery starts beneath the surface.

Australia

In the Melbourne suburb of Elwood, Elsternwick Park golf course underwent a remarkable transformation, evolving into a serene natural haven that offers solace from the city’s hustle and bustle, benefiting both the local community and the area’s wildlife. Their innovative plan encompassed the creation of diverse habitats, ranging from open water and swamp scrub to wetlands and woodlands, fostering a rich array of species. Despite commencing in 2018 and projected to span at least a decade for completion, the council has already cataloged over 100 distinct indigenous plant species thriving within the site. In 2022, the site was officially renamed Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve, paying homage to the Yalukit Willam clan of the Boon Wurrung people, the traditional landowners.

In a world where the consequences of climate change loom large, these initiatives showcase how the transformation of golf courses into vibrant natural habitats benefits the environment, local communities, and the world at large. As former golf courses evolve into ecological havens, they stand as inspiring examples of what can be achieved when nature is allowed to take its course.

Photo by 不爱玩 先生/Unsplash

The post Rewilding Abandoned Golf Courses appeared first on Rewilding Academy.