Over the course of the event, participants engaged in rich discussions on landscape restoration, regenerative agriculture, community-led conservation, and innovative financing mechanisms for nature-based solutions. Speakers shared not only their successes, but also the complexities and setbacks that are inherent to working in dynamic ecological and social systems. This openness created a rare and valuable environment: one where knowledge was not simply presented, but genuinely exchanged.

We were particularly encouraged by the calibre and commitment of those involved. From field practitioners working in remote and often challenging conditions, to scientists advancing our understanding of ecosystems, to entrepreneurs exploring new models for sustainable livelihoods — the conference reflected a growing movement of people determined to move beyond theory and into implementation. Many of the connections made during those days have already led to follow-up conversations, collaborations, and new ideas that continue to evolve.

At the same time, it would be incomplete not to acknowledge that the organisation of the conference was affected by a serious incident in the run-up to the event. These issues related to commitments and representations made outside the direct control and oversight of the foundation, and did not align with our standards of transparency, accountability, and good governance. Once these discrepancies became clear, we took immediate steps to distance the organisation from those involved and to prevent further impact.

If anyone has concerns that funds intended for the Foundation may not have reached the Foundation, including in cases where individuals may have acted or presented themselves as representing the Foundation, we encourage them to contact us directly, and where appropriate, the relevant authorities.

Integrity is not negotiable

The values that underpin our work – integrity, openness, and responsible stewardship of resources – are not negotiable. As a foundation working with grants, partnerships, and donations, we have a duty not only to deliver meaningful impact, but also to ensure that all processes leading to that impact are conducted with the highest level of care, transparency and honesty. Where this standard is not met, we act.

Across the world, colleagues working in conservation are threatened, attacked, abducted, and in some cases even killed because of the work they do. In that context, it is difficult to justify silence in the face of fraud or misrepresentation out of concern for reputational damage.

Failing to name or address misconduct does not protect the sector. On the contrary, it creates space for those who seek to exploit it. Transparency and accountability are essential if trust is to be maintained – both with partners and with the wider public. Silence risks normalising behaviour that should never be considered acceptable.

Turning adversity into opportunity

At the same time, we believe it is equally important not to allow such setbacks to overshadow the genuine achievements and momentum that emerged from the conference. The energy, creativity, and commitment of participants demonstrated that there is both a need and a strong appetite for continued exchange in this space. Many attendees have expressed their willingness to remain involved and to contribute to future initiatives, which we deeply value.

Looking ahead, we are committed to building on what worked, while strengthening the structures and processes behind it. This includes more robust due diligence in all partnerships and financial arrangements. These are necessary steps in ensuring that future initiatives are even stronger, more resilient, and fully aligned with our mission.

In doing so, we hope to bring together again the “first movers” – those who showed both courage and dedication in engaging people in rewilding. Their willingness to step forward, to contribute, and to help shape a shared vision is something we do not take for granted.

In closing, we want to express our sincere appreciation to everyone who participated, contributed, and supported the Rewilding our World Conference. Challenges are part of any conservation effort, but they do not define it. What defines it is how we respond – with clarity, with integrity, and with a continued commitment to the work that matters.

We move forward with that commitment firmly in place.

The post Rewilding our World Conference: Reflecting on Impact, Integrity, and the Path Forward appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Across Ice Age Europe, herds of wild horses once thundered over windswept grasslands that stretched from the Atlantic coast to the Eurasian steppe. Their silhouettes – stocky bodies, thick necks, upright manes – are frozen in time on cave walls, from Lascaux to Chauvet. To modern eyes, they look unmistakably like the last surviving wild horse: the Przewalski’s horse.

For decades, that resemblance shaped a simple story: the horses of prehistoric Europe were essentially the same as Przewalski’s horse, just spread farther west. But science has a way of unsettling familiar narratives. Today, a combination of fossil analysis and ancient DNA is revealing a more complicated – and more intriguing—truth.

Reintroducing Przewalski horses?

The Przewalski’s horse is often described as Europe’s last truly wild horse – a species that never underwent full domestication and once roamed the vast Eurasian steppes. After disappearing from the wild in the mid-20th century, it survived only thanks to captive breeding programs, and has since become one of conservation’s most remarkable comeback stories. 

In recent decades, these hardy, stocky horses have been reintroduced into a growing number of European landscapes, where they play an important ecological role as natural grazers. By feeding on grasses, shrubs, and young trees, they help maintain open habitats, support biodiversity, and contribute to more dynamic, self-regulating ecosystems.

The illusion of similarity – Appearance ≠ ancestry

At first glance, identifying ancient horses seems straightforward. Paleontologists have long relied on bones: skulls, teeth, and limb proportions. Ice Age horses in Europe were typically robust, with strong jaws and relatively short legs – traits well suited to cold, open environments where grazing was constant and winters were harsh.

Those features match what we see in Przewalski’s horse today. It’s a tempting conclusion: same shape, same animal.

But evolution doesn’t always play fair with appearances.

Different populations can independently evolve similar traits when adapting to similar conditions, a phenomenon known as convergent evolution. In the steppe landscapes of the Pleistocene, survival favored a particular “horse design”: sturdy, efficient grazers built for endurance and cold.

The result? Horses that look alike—even when they are not closely related.

Bones can mislead

Fossils are abundant across Europe. Horse remains are among the most common finds at Paleolithic sites, often preserved alongside tools, hearths, and the remains of other Ice Age animals. Yet these bones rarely tell a complete story.

Subtle anatomical differences can hint at variation between populations, but they often fall short of distinguishing lineages. Two horses may share nearly identical skeletal features while belonging to entirely separate branches of the evolutionary tree.

For much of the 20th century, that limitation blurred distinctions. Many European fossils were broadly grouped under wild horse categories, sometimes assumed to be closely related to Przewalski’s horse—or even direct ancestors.

DNA rewrites the map

The real shift came with the rise of ancient DNA analysis. By extracting genetic material from fossilized bones, scientists gained a tool far more precise than morphology alone.

When researchers began sequencing the genomes of ancient European horses, the results were surprising.

Many of these animals did not belong to the Przewalski lineage at all. Instead, they represented a patchwork of now-extinct populations and lineages, some more closely related to the ancestors of modern domestic horses, others branching off in directions that left no living descendants.

In other words, Ice Age Europe was not home to a single, uniform kind of wild horse. It was a mosaic.

A lost diversity

This genetic evidence reveals a richer and more dynamic picture of the past. Rather than a continent populated by one familiar type, Europe hosted multiple horse populations, each adapted to local conditions and shaped by shifting climates (The genomic history of Iberian horses since the last Ice Age”, published in Nature Communications in 2025).

Some thrived during colder periods, expanding across the steppe-tundra. Others retreated or disappeared as forests spread and environments changed. Over thousands of years, migrations, isolations, and extinctions reshaped the genetic landscape again and again.

The Przewalski lineage, it seems, was only one branch among many—and not the dominant one in Europe.

The last wild horse

Today, Przewalski’s horse survives as a rare and remarkable remnant of deep evolutionary history. Once extinct in the wild, it has been reintroduced to parts of Central Asia, its dun coat and upright mane echoing the forms painted on ancient cave walls.

Yet its resemblance to Europe’s prehistoric horses is, in part, a coincidence of adaptation. Those Ice Age animals may have looked the same, moved the same, and lived in similar herds—but genetically, they often told a different story.

Rethinking the familiar

The idea that “Europe’s horses were Przewalski’s horses” is appealing in its simplicity. It links past and present in a single, continuous thread. But the reality is more complex—and more interesting.

What once seemed like a single lineage turns out to be a tapestry of many, most now lost to time. Fossils give us the shapes of these animals; DNA reveals their identities. Together, they show that resemblance is not the same as relationship.

And in the quiet galleries of Europe’s caves, where horses still gallop across stone walls, we are left with a subtle reminder:

Sometimes, the past looks familiar—until you look closer.

Key recent studies

1. Large-scale ancient DNA study (2025, Nature Communications)

• The genomic history of Iberian horses since the last Ice Age
• This is one of the most relevant new papers.

What it found:

• Sequenced 87 ancient horse genomes from Iberia and the Mediterranean
• Identified a distinct, now-extinct lineage (“IBE”) in Europe
• Crucially: this lineage was morphologically similar to other horses but genetically very different 

2. Schöningen horse genome study (2025, Nature Ecology & Evolution)

What it found:

• Reconstructed DNA from a ~300,000-year-old European horse (Equus mosbachensis)
• Showed this was an evolutionary dead-end lineage, not directly ancestral to modern horses  
• Europe hosted multiple extinct horse lineages over time, reinforcing that:

• The continent was not dominated by a single “Przewalski-like” population
• Many European horses were genetically separate branches

3. Body size, dental pathology and maternal genetic diversity of ancient horses (2026 BioRxiv preprint)

What it shows:

• Ongoing work sequencing horses from the Baltic and Russia
• Focus on maternal genetic diversity and population structure  
• Przewalski horses carry very old genetic lineages that were already present in ancient Eurasian horse populations, reflecting a deep shared evolutionary history.
• Even regional datasets show high diversity and multiple lineages, not a single uniform wild horse population.

4. Complete genome of Przewalski’s horse (2024)

What it shows:

• High-resolution genome of the only surviving wild horse lineage
• Provides a baseline for comparison, allowing scientists to test whether ancient fossils belong to the Przewalski lineage
• Most European fossiles don’t.
• This reinforces that Przewalski’s horses are not a distant “wild ancestor” of European horses, but a sister lineage within the same wild horse species complex.

The post Europe’s Horses Weren Not “Przewalski” appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

Europe is witnessing what appears to be a remarkable wildlife recovery story. After centuries of persecution, habitat loss, and population declines, gray wolves (Canis lupus) are recolonising much of their former range. Today, the estimated population exceeds 21,000 individuals, and wolves are increasingly visible in landscapes across central and western Europe. At first glance, this demographic rebound seems to signal a conservation triumph. Governments and policymakers, interpreting these numbers, have even relaxed legal protections in some regions, granting more flexibility for lethal control and management interventions. However, recent genomic research suggests that the story of European wolves is more complex and far less reassuring than census numbers might imply.

A team of researchers led by Sara Ravagni and colleagues analyzed over 200 whole genomes from wolves across Europe and Türkiye, revealing a mosaic of genetically distinct, isolated populations rather than a single, recovering metapopulation. The study, currently available as a preprint on bioRxiv, highlights that despite the apparent demographic recovery, European wolves remain at significant risk of genetic erosion and inbreeding, which threaten their long-term survival. These findings challenge assumptions that European wolves are now secure and underscore the importance of incorporating genetic data into conservation assessments.

A Mosaic of Wolves

The study focused on five major European wolf populations: the Italian Peninsula, Iberian Peninsula, Dinaric-Balkan, Karelian, and Scandinavian wolves. Each of these populations represents a distinct lineage, largely isolated for thousands of years. Genetic analyses revealed deep divergences among these groups, most tracing back to the late Pleistocene. In practical terms, this means that what looks like a single, recovering species across Europe is in fact a collection of independently evolving lineages, each with its own evolutionary history, vulnerabilities, and genetic identity.

Using advanced genomic tools, the researchers examined effective population size (Ne), a key measure of genetic health that reflects the number of individuals contributing genetically to the next generation. For long-term viability, conservationists generally consider Ne ≥ 500 to be necessary, with Ne ≥ 50 as the short-term minimum to avoid inbreeding depression. Alarmingly, all five European wolf populations studied fell below this threshold, with some, like the Italian Peninsula and Scandinavian wolves, approaching or even below the critical short-term boundary. Inbreeding coefficients were high, particularly in isolated populations, and the proportion of deleterious genetic variants realized within genomes indicated emerging risks of inbreeding depression.

Why Census Counts Can Be Misleading

The findings reveal a key disconnect between visible population recovery and underlying genetic health. While census numbers in Europe are increasing, genomic recovery has not kept pace. Wolves may appear abundant in certain regions, but their genetic diversity—the raw material for long-term adaptation and resilience—is severely constrained. The Italian Peninsula population, for example, shows extensive signs of historical bottlenecks and prolonged isolation, while Scandinavian wolves, founded by just three immigrants from Karelia in the 1980s, display extreme genetic drift and recent inbreeding.

This genetic fragility has practical consequences. Populations with low genetic diversity are less able to adapt to environmental change, disease, or human pressures. Inbreeding depression can manifest as reduced fertility, higher mortality, and increased susceptibility to disease. Even if wolves appear to be recovering numerically, these underlying vulnerabilities make them precariously close to the brink in evolutionary terms.

Legal Protections and Natural Recolonisation

Despite these risks, the natural recolonization of wolves in Europe demonstrates the effectiveness of legal protection and habitat connectivity. Unlike in North America, where active reintroduction programs supported wolf recovery, European wolves have expanded their range largely through natural dispersal from remnant refugial populations in southern and eastern peninsulas. This natural rebound underscores the importance of maintaining legal safeguards, as well as the ecological versatility of wolves, which can thrive in human-modified landscapes when protections are in place.

However, the study warns against complacency. Relaxing protections based solely on apparent population growth could exacerbate genetic risks. Policies that allow increased lethal control or habitat fragmentation threaten to depress already low effective population sizes further, accelerating inbreeding and eroding adaptive potential. The recent extinction of the Sierra Morena wolf population in southern Spain serves as a stark reminder of how quickly isolated, genetically compromised lineages can disappear when conservation measures are relaxed.

The Role of Genomics in Conservation

The European wolf case illustrates the growing importance of genomic data in wildlife conservation. Traditional monitoring methods, including population counts and range mapping, provide only partial information about species health. Genome-wide analyses reveal hidden vulnerabilities that cannot be detected through census data alone. By examining genetic diversity, inbreeding, and the distribution of deleterious variants, scientists can identify populations at risk, guide management interventions, and prioritize conservation resources.

For European wolves, the implications are clear. Each of the five populations analyzed should be treated as a separate management unit, with strategies tailored to its unique genetic and demographic context. Measures could include facilitating connectivity between populations to increase gene flow, protecting critical habitats, and maintaining legal protections until effective population sizes are sufficient to ensure long-term viability.

Conservation Policy and Public Perception

One challenge highlighted by the study is the gap between public perception and biological reality. Wolves are often perceived as overabundant in areas where they are recolonizing landscapes, particularly when they come into conflict with livestock farming. This perception has contributed to political pressure to downlist protections, yet the genomic data indicate that these populations remain genetically vulnerable. Communicating these findings effectively to policymakers and the public is critical for ensuring informed decisions that balance human-wildlife coexistence with long-term conservation objectives.

The research also highlights the broader principle that demographic recovery does not automatically equate to genetic recovery. Wolves may be visibly thriving in terms of numbers and range, but without genetic health, these populations remain at risk of long-term decline. Conservation frameworks, including the European Union’s Habitats Directive and the Global Biodiversity Framework, increasingly recognize the importance of incorporating genetic criteria into assessments of favorable conservation status. This study provides concrete evidence supporting the integration of genomics into policy decisions.

Lessons Beyond Wolves

European wolves are emblematic of a broader conservation challenge: reconciling visible recovery with underlying genetic stability. Many species that have rebounded from historical declines may still harbor hidden vulnerabilities that threaten their long-term survival. Applying genomic tools can help conservationists detect these risks early, guide targeted interventions, and ensure that populations not only survive but thrive in the face of environmental change.

Moreover, the study underscores the importance of legal protection in facilitating natural recolonization. Wolves are recolonizing Europe primarily because of protections and ecological opportunity, not because of intensive management programs. This suggests that maintaining robust legal frameworks and connectivity corridors can be an effective, cost-efficient strategy for conserving wide-ranging species.

A Call to Action

The message from the genomes is unambiguous: European wolves have returned to much of their historical range, but they are not yet safe. Conservationists, policymakers, and the public must look beyond apparent population growth to consider the genetic health of these populations. Effective conservation requires protecting both numbers and diversity, ensuring that wolves retain the evolutionary potential necessary to adapt to future challenges. Failure to do so risks repeating the mistakes of the past, when isolated populations were lost despite seemingly stable numbers.

This research represents a critical step toward more informed wolf management in Europe. By integrating genomic data into conservation planning, Europe can ensure that wolf populations are truly viable over the long term. It also serves as a model for other species, illustrating how modern genomics can reveal hidden risks and guide more effective, evidence-based conservation strategies. The survival of Europe’s gray wolves—and the ecological roles they play—depends not just on their return, but on safeguarding the genetic foundations that will allow them to thrive for generations to come.

References and Further Reading

Ravagni, S., Battilani, D., Salado, I., et al. (2026). Misleading Success: Genomes Reveal Critical Risks to European Gray Wolves. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.20.713253

The post Beyond the Numbers: The Genomic Fragility of Europe’s Gray Wolves appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

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.

Tool Use Beyond Primates

Tool use — defined as the manipulation of an external object to achieve a goal — has traditionally been seen as a hallmark of advanced cognition. Chimpanzees, certain birds like New Caledonian crows, and a handful of other species have demonstrated this ability in ways that imply problem solving and intentional action. Yet until now, no experimental evidence existed showing that cattle could independently use tools in a flexible manner.

Veronika doesn’t fashion tools the way a chimp might. Instead, she selects and manipulates objects in her environment — sticks and deck brushes — to scratch parts of her body that would otherwise be unreachable. In controlled trials, researchers presented a deck brush on the ground in random orientations and recorded how Veronika approached it. She didn’t simply swipe at it randomly. Instead, she consistently chose a functional end of the brush depending on which body region she wanted to relieve. For broad, firm areas like her back, she used the bristled end, applying a forceful, sweeping motion. For softer, more sensitive regions underneath her belly and around her udder, she strategically used the smooth handle in slower, more controlled movements. Across repeated sessions, her choices were both functionally appropriate and consistent, hallmarks of genuinely flexible tool use.

Multi-Purpose Problem Solving

What makes this discovery especially striking is not only that Veronika uses tools at all, but that she does so in different ways with one object, adapting her behaviour to meet specific needs. Until now, multi‑purpose tool use — the use of different parts of the same tool for different functions — had been convincingly documented only in chimpanzees outside of humans. The observation that a cow can display this kind of behavioural flexibility challenges narrow assumptions about cognitive capability and draws attention to how much we may be overlooking in species we have lived alongside for millennia.

Context Matters

This revelation raises important questions about how we assess intelligence in animals, especially those domesticated and managed within human systems. Cattle are among the earliest large domesticated species, shaped by thousands of years of human selection for production traits. Their behaviour — especially cognitive capacities — has largely been interpreted through the lens of efficiency, yields, and control, rather than curiosity, problem‑solving, or innovation. Many researchers suggest the lack of documented tool use in cattle until now reflects observation bias more than genuine cognitive limitations. As study authors note, most cows do not live as long as Veronika, nor do they inhabit environments rich in manipulable objects or opportunities for exploratory behaviour. In Veronika’s case, a long life, daily contact with humans who treat her as a companion animal, and access to a varied physical landscape likely created conditions where her natural capacities could emerge and be observed.

It is tempting to view Veronika as an exception — a cow with extraordinary smarts. But researchers emphasize that what is truly special may be the context, not the individual. Given time, space, and a stimulating environment, other cattle might well demonstrate similar behaviours. Tool use has likely gone unnoticed simply because the environments and interactions required to bring it out are rare in modern livestock systems.

Observing Natural Intelligence

This insight has profound implications for how we conceive of animal minds and the value of creating conditions that allow natural behaviour to emerge. In rewilding work, whether on a landscape scale or within innovative agricultural systems, the emphasis is not on training or engineering behaviour, but on restoring environments that allow animals to express the full range of their behavioural repertoires — from exploration and play to problem solving and choice. Veronika’s case illustrates that cognitive abilities are not fixed traits visible only in controlled experiments, but can be revealed when animals are afforded the time, complexity, autonomy, and diversity of experiences they would naturally seek out.

In a world increasingly defined by human control, moments like these remind us that we have much to learn from the beings we share the planet with. When we step back and observe with curiosity rather than expectation, we may find that intelligence — in its many forms — is far more widespread, nuanced, and surprising than we ever assumed.

Veronica’s owner, organic farmer Witgar Wiegele said: “Save the nature, then you protect yourself. And nature diversity is the key to survival of this planet“.

Source: Flexible use of a multi-purpose tool by a cow

The post Tool‑Using Cow Challenges How We See Animal Intelligence 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.

A Trans-European Network for Nature

The project’s core ambition is to build a Trans-European Nature Network (TEN-N) — an interconnected mosaic of protected areas, ecological corridors, and semi-natural landscapes. While protected areas currently cover about 26% of the EU’s land, only a fraction enjoys strict protection, and many key species remain underrepresented. Using a method called Integrated Spatial Planning (ISP), NaturaConnect identifies where new protection can do the most good — especially for species and habitats in decline. The project emphasizes targeting protection where it delivers the highest conservation value, not just where it’s politically convenient.

Going Beyond Borders

One of the brief’s most striking findings is that EU-wide planning outperforms national efforts. When countries plan conservation independently, they often prioritize species that are rare nationally — but common elsewhere. In contrast, cross-border collaboration ensures attention goes to truly endangered and range-restricted species, maximizing biodiversity gains across Europe. Maps created through ISP show that shared planning leads to more cost-effective, complementary, and resilient conservation outcomes. “We can do more with the same space if we work together,” says Dr. Martin Jung, lead analyst for the project.

Strict Protection: Not One-Size-Fits-All

The concept of “strict protection” — areas where natural processes are left largely undisturbed — is gaining traction in EU policy. But NaturaConnect highlights a nuanced reality: different places require different strategies. Some sites may thrive under total non-intervention, while others, like ancient wetlands or species-rich pastures, may need active management to support biodiversity. The team is also exploring how strict protection could align with social and cultural values, ensuring that communities remain allies in restoration efforts.

Next Steps: A Living Plan for a Wilder Europe

Over 100 experts from 20+ institutions are contributing to NaturaConnect. Their evolving models will soon incorporate ecosystem services, climate change resilience, and socio-economic costs, aiming to deliver a roadmap that is scientifically sound and politically feasible. The message is clear: we can still choose a future where Europe’s landscapes pulse with wildness, resilience, and life — but only if we plan smartly, inclusively, and together.

🔗 Read more about NaturaConnect and the full science brief here.

📩 Contact the Rewilding Academy if you’d like to collaborate on transnational conservation planning.

The post Rethinking Protection: A New Map for Europe’s Wild Future 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.

Shaped by Shadows: Coexisting with Hominins in the Tropics

In Africa and tropical Asia, large mammals shared their ecosystems with hominins for millions of years. Early human ancestors hunted, scavenged, and shaped the landscape long before modern Homo sapiens emerged. Over time, this continual pressure acted like a natural filter. Species that were especially vulnerable to human hunting—whether due to their behavior, reproductive strategies, or habitat use—were eliminated early on. The ones that survived evolved under the shadow of human presence. They became more elusive, faster to reproduce, and better equipped to avoid becoming prey. This deep-rooted coexistence gave African and Southeast Asian megafauna a distinct evolutionary advantage: familiarity with danger.

Europe’s Vulnerable Titans

When modern humans arrived in Europe around 45,000 years ago, they encountered a very different kind of wildlife—one that had not known predators like them. Species such as the woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis), the straight-tusked elephant (Palaeoloxodon antiquus), and the aurochs (Bos primigenius) had evolved in ecosystems shaped by climate, competition, and predators like wolves or sabre-toothed cats—but not by upright hunters with fire and projectiles. These animals were, in ecological terms, naïve. They lacked the behavioral adaptations to cope with human tactics. Many had long gestation periods and low reproductive rates, making it impossible for populations to recover once hunting began.

The Traits That Sealed Their Fate

A recent study analyzing 544 large mammal species—both extinct and extant—identified several traits strongly associated with extinction. Species with large body size were more frequently targeted for their meat, fat, and hides. Those living on islands or in isolated mountain ranges were especially at risk, as they had nowhere to flee. Plantigrade species—those that walk flat-footed, like bears—were also more vulnerable, possibly due to their slower, more deliberate movements. But most strikingly, species that were evolutionarily distant from those in Africa and Southeast Asia faced greater risk. Without the inherited adaptations that came from millennia of human contact, they stood little chance.

Rewilding with Eyes Open

This history carries crucial lessons for today. As Europe looks to rewild its landscapes—reintroducing bison, restoring lynx, or imagining a future with elephants or lions—it must grapple with the past. Many of Europe’s lost species lacked the evolutionary conditioning to survive humans, but that doesn’t mean their ecological roles are gone forever. Rewilding must consider not just which species once lived here, but which ones can thrive now, in a world permanently shaped by human presence. Conservation plans should prioritize species resilience, ecological fit, and the social contexts of modern landscapes.

Echoes from the Ice Age

The mass extinction of Europe’s megafauna was not inevitable—it was evolutionary. Their bodies and behaviors told a story of survival in a world without humans, and when humans came, that story ended abruptly. But understanding why it ended gives us a new kind of power: the ability to reimagine a future where such disappearances are no longer the rule. In learning from extinction, we shape the path to restoration.

reference:
Lemoine, R. T., R. Buitenwerf, S. Faurby, and J.-C. Svenning. 2025. “ Phylogenetic Evidence Supports the Effect of Traits on Late-Quaternary Megafauna Extinction in the Context of Human Activity.” Global Ecology and Biogeography 34, no. 7: e70078. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.70078.

The post Why did so many large animals go extinct outside Africa? appeared first on Rewilding Academy.

There is growing concern among stakeholders such as livestock farmers, hunters, and land managers about how wolves navigate and feed within the human-dominated Dutch landscape. Understanding what wolves eat, where, and when, is essential to inform both public debate and effective policy. Robust, science-based insights into wolf feeding behavior can help predict trends and mitigate conflicts.

To that end, researchers carry out a comprehensive, multi-year dietary analysis of wolves in the Netherlands. They combine environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques with traditional microscopic analysis of prey remains—such as hairs and bones found in wolf scat—to build a detailed picture of their diet.

Scope of the Study

In 2023, 735 wolf scats were collected and analyzed. Of these, 624 were used to determine dietary composition based on frequency of occurrence (%FO), and 427 were used to estimate consumed biomass (%BM).

The findings reveal that wild ungulates form the core of the Dutch wolf’s diet. The most common prey species were:

• Roe deer – 59% FO, 35% BM
• Wild boar – 37% FO, 29% BM
• Red deer – 18% FO, 8% BM

Domesticated livestock also featured prominently, accounting for 30% of the scats by occurrence and 23% of the consumed biomass. Of this, cattle and sheep were the most frequently represented (21% and 8% FO, respectively).

Other prey included birds (12% FO), lagomorphs (11% FO), and small mammals (10% FO).

Spatial Variation: Veluwe vs. Drenthe

The study found notable regional differences in diet between wolf packs in the Veluwe and Drenthe:

• In Drenthe, cattle made up 37% of the consumed biomass.
• In the Veluwe, wild ungulates dominated, accounting for a striking 96% of the biomass consumed.

In Drenthe, the presence of cattle in the diet is believed to be largely due to calves or carcasses from free-ranging conservation herds used in nature management. However, due to the nature of scat analysis, it is not always possible to determine whether an animal was killed by wolves or scavenged after natural death.

These differences reflect the contrasting availability of wild prey. The Veluwe hosts a relatively complete community of wild ungulates, allowing wolves to rely almost entirely on natural prey. In contrast, Drenthe has fewer wild ungulate species, leading wolves to supplement their diet with domestic animals—especially where they are accessible in open, unmanaged grazing systems.

Seasonal Shifts in Diet

Seasonal variation was also observed. During the wolf birth season (April–June), which coincides with the birthing period of many wild ungulates, wolves shifted from consuming adult ungulates to targeting more vulnerable young animals, such as wild boar piglets and red deer calves.

Conclusion

The study underscores the opportunistic and adaptive feeding behavior of wolves and offers valuable ecological insights into how they function within fragmented, human-influenced landscapes. This knowledge can directly support science-based policymaking, reduce conflict, and facilitate informed dialogue on the future of wolves in the Netherlands.

Report: Onderzoek naar het voedingsgedrag van wolven (Canis lupus) in Nederland 2023 (in Dutch)

The post Understanding the Feeding Ecology of Wolves in the Netherlands 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.