THE ROLE OF DISCOURSES IN THE CONSERVATION OF THE EUROPEAN HAMSTER IN ZUID-LIMBURG, THE NETHERLANDS By Michelle Vanderschuren s4366999 / C1367573
MSc Spatial Planning and MSc European Spatial Planning, Environmental Policies and Regional Development
Abstract The European Hamster is protected by the EU’s Habitats Directive, which requires national governments to protect this species. Yet, the European Hamster went nearly extinct in the Netherlands in the 1990s. Since the national government lacked capacity and expertise to sufficiently address this complex environmental issue, the policy making process was largely initiated and steered by other societal stakeholders, including NGOs and researchers. This phenomenon is described by Hajer (2003) as the ‘institutional void’. When the policy making process takes place in the institutional void, power is dispersed and rules and norms are negotiated though communication, making language a very important variable in the policy making process. In this research, Hajer’s institutional void theory has been used as a framework to understand how discourses have influenced both the policy making process and agricultural practices to protect the European Hamster in the Netherlands. Thereby, stakeholder interviews and media articles were analysed to identify dominant discourses and to understand how these discourses have influenced the policy making process in the last two decades.
THE ROLE OF DISCOURSES IN THE CONSERVATION OF THE EUROPEAN HAMSTER IN ZUID-LIMBURG, THE NETHERLANDS MASTER THESIS Programme: Erasmus Mundus PLANET Europe (MSc Spatial Planning and MSc European Spatial Planning, Environmental Policies and Regional Development)
BY MICHELLE VANDERSCHUREN s4366999 / C1367573
JUNE 2015
SUPERVISORS: DR. DUNCAN LIEFFERINK (Radboud University) AND DR. MARA MIELE (Cardiff Univeristy)
Word count: 20628
Acknowledgements
Hereby, I would like to pay special thanks to Gerard Müskens, a researcher who has been involved in the hamster project from the beginning. He has been most helpful by providing me with contact details of some of the farmers involved in the project. It is also thanks to him that I have been able to see several European Hamsters for myself. I would also like to thank my academic supervisors Duncan Liefferink and Mara Miele, for their thorough and quick response to my questions, for their constructive feedback and suggestions and for making time to discuss progress on a regular basis. Last but not least I would like to thank my dad, who is living in the region of my research, to let me stay with him so frequently so I could conduct interviews. I would also like to thank my car who has always taken me to interviews without any problems (we have driven over 3,000km together to visit farmers and other interviewees!). Michelle Vanderschuren Amersfoort, the Netherlands, 1 June 2015
Table of contents Acknowledgements
Chapter 1 – Introduction of the research topic
p. 1
1.1 Background
p. 1
1.2 Relevance of this research
p. 2
1.3 Research objectives and questions
p. 3
1.4 Structure of this research
p. 3
Chapter 2 – Theoretical Framework
p. 5
2.1 Identifying framework theories
p. 5
2.2 Institutional void theory
p. 6
2.3 Discourses
p. 7
2.4 Agriculture and nature conservation
p. 8
2.5 Conclusion: Connecting the institutional void theory to the hamster case
p. 9
Chapter 3 – Methodological Framework
p. 11
3.1 Ontology and epistemology
p. 11
3.2 Research strategy
p. 11
3.3 Research methods
p. 12
3.3.1 Case study design
p. 12
3.3.2 Case study selection
p. 12
3.3.3 Longitudinal design
p. 15
3.4 Methodology
p. 16
3.4.1 Discourse analysis
p. 16
3.4.2 Analysing farming practices
p. 17
3.5 Data collection
p. 17
3.5.1 Interviews
p. 17
3.5.2 Analysis of media articles
p. 19
3.6 Methodological weaknesses
p. 20
3.7 Ethical considerations
p. 20
Chapter 4 – Context
p. 22
4.1 Introduction of the European Hamster
p. 22
4.2 EU regulation: Habitats Directive
p. 23
4.3 Regional policy: Species Protection Plan
p. 24
4.4 Identifying stakeholder roles
p. 25
4.5 Conservation status of the hamster over time
p. 26
4.6 Conclusion
p. 27
Chapter 5 – Discourse analysis
p. 29
5.1 1995-1999: ‘Time for action’ but also ‘distrust’
p. 29
5.1.1 Media analysis: ‘Time for action’
p. 29
5.1.2 Interview analysis: ‘Distrust’ towards outsiders
p. 31
5.2 2000-2004: ‘Hamster vs. economic development’ and ‘distrust’ towards the hamster programme
p. 33
5.2.1 Media analysis: ‘Hamster vs. economic development’
p. 33
5.2.2 Interview analysis: ‘Distrust’ towards the programme
p. 35
5.3 2005-2010: ‘Hamster does not fit in contemporary society’ but simultaneously increased support
p. 38
5.3.1 Media analysis: ‘Hamster does not fit in contemporary society’
p. 38
5.3.2 Interview analysis: ‘Increased stakeholder support’
p. 38
5.4 2011-now: ‘Nature should take care of itself’ or ‘pay whatever it takes’?
p. 41
5.4.1 Media analysis: ‘Nature should take care of itself’
p. 41
5.4.2 Interview analysis: ‘Pay whatever it takes’
p. 42
5.5 Conclusion
p. 48
5.5.1 Umbrella discourse: Time for action
p. 49
5.5.2 Umbrella discourse: Distrust
p. 50
5.5.3 Umbrella discourse: Economic incentives
p. 52
5.5.4 Connecting findings to Hajer’s institutional void theory
p. 53
Chapter 6 – Comparing agricultural activities
p. 55
6.1 Comparing agricultural practices
p. 55
6.2 Changes over time
p. 58
6.3 Conclusion
p. 59
Chapter 7 – Conclusion and further research
p. 61
7.1 Research findings
p. 61
7.1.1 SQ1: What stakeholder groups have aimed to influence the policy making process and how did they do this?
P. 61
7.1.2 SQ2: How have discourses changed over time?
P. 64
7.1.3 SQ3: How have agricultural activities in Zuid-Limburg changed over time to support conservation of the European Hamster?
P. 66
7.1.4 RQ: How have stakeholder discourses and agricultural activities in Zuid-Limburg changed over the last two decades and how has the interaction of these variables influenced the conservation status of the European Hamster in this region?
P. 67
7.2 Lesson drawing
p. 69
7.3Critical reflection
p. 70
7.4 Further research
p. 71
Bibliography
p. 72
Annexes
p. 76
Annexes
p. 76
1. Interview questions
p. 76
2. Full interviews
p. 80
3. List of newspaper articles
p. 113
List of figures Figure 1.1: Hamster population in Zuid-Limburg from 1994 till 2014 Figure 2.1 Conceptual model: Stakeholder discourses indirectly influence farming practices. Figure 3.1 Stakeholder interests at all levels of scale Figure3.2 Conservation status of the European Hamster in western-Europe is poor Figure 4.1 European Hamster, to be released in Zuid-Limburg Figure 4.2 Hamster habitats in Zuid-Limburg; nowadays there are 7 in total Figure 4.3 Hamster population in spring in the three clusters in Zuid-Limburg Figure 5.1 1998 Action by Natuurmonumenten: donate money so Natuurmonumenten can buy land to protect the European Hamster. Figure 5.2 Hamster field covered in weeds (nettle and dock) Figure 5.3 Field with sufficient coverage in April Figure 5.4 Bare field, offering no protection in April Figure 5.5 Road block causing traffic to drive though a field of Natuurmonumenten Figure 5.6 Tree planted in the middle of hamster fields Figure 5.7 aggregated discourses: Discourses found in analysis Sub-discourses Umbrella discourses Figure 6.1 Modern ploughing technique whereby soil is only loosened but not turned Figure 7.1 correlations between discourses, agricultural practices and the hamster population List of boxes and tables Box 3.1 Basic discourse-analytic questions Table 5.1 Sub-discourses used under umbrella discourse ‘time for action’ Table 5.2 Sub-discourses used under umbrella discourse ‘distrust’ Table 5.3 Sub-discourses used under umbrella discourse ‘economic incentives’ Table 6.1 management practices by farmer 1 Table 6.2 management practices by farmer 2
Table 6.3 management practices by farmer 3 Table 6.4 management practices by SLL Table 7.1 Stakeholders, their ambitions and means to achieve their goals Table 7.2 Changes in stakeholder discourses over time
Chapter 1 – Introduction of the research topic 1.1 Background
In this master thesis, the influence of language in steering policy making processes as well as ‘reality’ will be analysed, using the case study of the European Hamster in Zuid-Limburg, the Netherlands. The European Hamster is an Annex IV listed species protected by the European Habitats Directive. The habitat of the European Hamster (Cricetus Cricetus) generally overlaps with the most productive agricultural land, as they rely on wheat and Lucerne fields for coverage and food (European Commission, n.d.). However, despite protection under the Habitats Directive, intensification and abandonment of agricultural land, as well as changes in crops planted and habitat fragmentation threaten the existence of the Hamster, with the European Hamster nearly being extinct in Zuid-Limburg by 1999 (Compendium voor de Leefomgeving, 2014). When scientific reports published in the mid1990s showed a rapid decline in the number of Hamsters
in
Zuid-
Limburg (see figure 1.1), substantial
media
attention was given to the case in the late 1990s and early 2000s (NRC Handelsblad, 1998). Non-governmental
Figure 1.1: Hamster population in Zuid-Limburg from 1994 till 2014 Source: (Compendium voor de Leefomgeving, 2014)
institutions pushed the case up on the political agenda, using different channels of power including seeking media attention and threatening to take the case to European court, claiming the government did not meet European requirements. In response to this threat,
1
the policy making process was sped up and several consecutive programmes were developed from 2000 onwards to protect the Hamster’s habitats and to restore the population (Hajer, n.d.). The Hamster case thus provides an interesting example of a policy making process that was strongly influenced by non-governmental institutions, who cleverly used language and relatively new channels of influence (such as media) to pressure the government and to influence policy outcomes. The Hamster case is a multi-actor policy making process, transgressing traditional policy institutions and topographies. This non-traditional policy making process in which power is dispersed and where there are no generally accepted rules and norms, is described as the ‘institutional void’ by Hajer and other authors. Hajer (2003) argues that traditional institutions often lack the capacity to address contemporary policy issues on their own, a more polycentric network approach in which power is dispersed is often needed. In such networks, policy outcomes have become dependent on discursive interactions, which means rules, norms and knowledge are deliberated and negotiated (Hajer, 2003). Hajer argues that language shapes our world view and thereby the actions we base upon this view. This theory will be at the heart of this research, it will be used as a theoretical framework on which the analysis of stakeholder discourses and the analysis of agricultural practices in the case of the conservation of the European Hamster in Zuid-Limburg will be based.
1.2 Relevance of this research The case of the European Hamster in Zuid-Limburg can be described as a representative environmental case reflecting the struggles of a multi-actor policy making process wherein stakeholders bring in different values and routines and use different channels of influence to steer the decision making process towards favourable outcomes. Attention for the hamster case started in the mid-1990s and is ongoing until today. This allows a longitudinal study to be conducted on changes in stakeholder communication and discourses, and on agricultural practices that are derived from this interaction. The availability of data going back up to twenty years enables changes over time to be analysed.
2
Another valuable aspect of this research is that changes in discourses and policy outcomes found within the decision making process can be coupled to an analysis on a set of agricultural practices that have a direct impact on the conservation status of the hamster. By coupling both analyses, insights can be gained on how discourses and other communicative practices between stakeholders are implemented on the ground and how this affects the conservation status of the hamster.
1.3 Research objectives and questions The goal of this research is to analyse how discourses related to the conservation of the European Hamster in Zuid-Limburg have evolved over the last 20 years. In order to identify the role of discourses in the hamster case, changes in farming practices and the ambitions of stakeholders were analysed. The following research question will guide this thesis: How have stakeholder discourses and agricultural activities in Zuid-Limburg changed over the last two decades and how has the interaction of these variables influenced the conservation status of the European Hamster in this region? Three sub-questions have been developed to help address the research question: 1. What stakeholder groups have aimed to influence the policy making process and how did they do this? 2. How have discourses changed over time? 3. How have agricultural activities in Zuid-Limburg changed over time to support conservation of the European Hamster?
1.4 Structure of this research This research will be structured as following: in order to address the research questions, a suitable theoretical framework will be introduced first in chapter 2. Thereby, Hajer’s theory on the institutional void was chosen to guide this research. Based on the research question and on the selected theoretical framework, the methodological choices will be discussed in
3
chapter 3. A literature review and broader introduction to the hamster case in the Netherlands will be introduced in chapter 4. Chapter 5 and 6 incorporate the empirical research, whereby a discourse analysis is conducted on newspaper articles and stakeholder interviews in chapter 5. In chapter 6, agricultural practices are analyzed by comparing management activities on hamster fields to activities and crops planted on regularly managed fields. Finally, in chapter 7, the research will be concluded by addressing the research questions, discussing the weaknesses of the research and offering suggestions for further research.
4
Chapter 2 – Theoretical Framework
The institutional void theory introduced by Hajer and co-authors has been chosen as a theoretical framework to guide this research. In the institutional void theory attention is paid to changing policy processes, whereby traditional governmental institutions, such as the national government, often lack knowledge, expertise and topographical character to effectively address contemporary policy issues alone. The case of the European Hamster in Zuid-Limburg could be categorized as one of those complex contemporary issues, wherein multiple actors and their knowledge and expertise are needed to effectively address the issue. However, as we will see later in this chapter, policy making in an institutional void means there are no generally accepted rules and policy outcomes are dependent on priorities, ambitions and the use of language by these stakeholders. Before the institutional void theory is introduced in greater detail, paragraph 2.1 will introduce some other theories that may have provided a relevant framework for this research as well.
2.1 Identifying framework theories Similar to Hajer’s theory on the institutional void, Callon et al. (2009) argue that technological innovations and increased knowledge simultaneously lead to greater uncertainties. Callon et al. (2009, p. 18) introduce hybrid forums as an appropriate response to these uncertainties. In hybrid forums actors come together to discuss technical options involving the public. The forum is hybrid in the sense that a heterogeneous group of actors can participate, and it is also hybrid in terms of the issues discussed. Whereas Callon et al.’s (2009) theory predominantly focuses on acting in an uncertain world, Hajer’s institutional void theory pays more attention to the nature of contemporary problems and the misfit with traditional institutions. Both theories imply communicative processes are important to address issues in the modern world. A third theory, introduced by Reed (2008), confirms that the complex nature of
5
contemporary environmental issues require flexible and transparent decision making processes wherein diverse forms of knowledge and values are embraced. In his theory, Reed (2008) argues the participation of multiple stakeholders in the policy making process will considerably enhance the quality of decisions due to an integration of local and scientific knowledge. All three theories could provide a suitable framework for the hamster case study, since they all emphasize the importance of a multi-actor process to effectively address contemporary environmental issues. However, in the hamster case, it is not necessarily technological development or contradicting information provided by scientists that cause the hamster case to be complex, in contrast to Callon et al.’s (2009) argumentation. Instead, issues at the forefront of the hamster case include contradicting stakeholder interests, lack of capacity of the government to address the issue alone and lack of knowledge among both local stakeholders and scientists. For this reason, Reed’s (2008) theory also becomes less suitable as a theoretical framework, because his argumentation is centred around the integration of existing knowledge of different stakeholder groups, which is lacking in the hamster case. The institutional void theory is a better fit with the case study, since it pays most attention to the creation of new knowledge and practices through communication.
2.2 Institutional void theory In the past decades, the policy making process has gone through some significant changes, traditional institutional arrangements such as the state or province often lack the capacity to address contemporary policy issues on their own. Hajer (2003) argues shortcoming of traditional institutions originate in the increased attention given to new problems and new policy fields such as the environment. Many of those contemporary problems are too contested and complicated to be addressed through schematic and centralized regulation. Furthermore, these problems often transgress sovereignty of traditional institutional settings and demand interactive approaches to public policy in a polycentric network setting,
6
emphasizing a pragmatic, participatory and local problem solving process (Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003). In such polycentric networks, action often takes place in an ‘institutional void’, which means there are no generally accepted rules and norms according to which policy making and politics are conducted (Hajer, 2003). It is a multi-actor process, wherein civil servants, citizens and private actors, acting as ‘entrepreneurs’ or ‘problem-solvers’ all bring in their own institutional expectations and routines (Hajer & Wagenaar). When policy making and politics take place in an institutional void, there is a double dynamic: actors deliberately steer the process towards favourable outcomes and while doing so they also negotiate new institutional rules and develop new norms of appropriate behaviour and develop new conceptions of legitimate political interventions. Consequentially, communicative policy making processes as found in the institutional void are characterized by multiple forms of knowledge and realities, depending on stakeholder’s interests and influence (Healey, 1992). Thereby, the use and understanding of discourses plays a crucial role in the policy making process. When rules and norms are negotiated, one cannot assume policy structures are stable, instead policy networks are the outcome of a constant struggle to address problems in a way that is considered both effective and legitimate. Ideas on effectiveness and legitimacy are changeable, meaning that similar problems may be addressed differently over time, depending on discursive interactions (Hajer, 2003). Furthermore, the type of actors involved and the positions they take and the channels of influence available to them are also changeable over time, thereby also influencing policy outcomes. For example, media has become an increasingly powerful means of influence for stakeholders, used to stage both politicians and policy themes. Consequentially, government control over problem definitions and action is weakening (Hajer, 2003).
2.3 Discourses Hajer & Versteeg (2006) argue that it is often not the environmental phenomenon itself that is the most important variable in the policy making process, it is the way society perceives a
7
particular phenomenon that strongly influences policy outcomes. Hajer & Versteeg (2006), and Bryman (2008, p. 508) argue that social reality is produced and made real through discourses. In relation to this, Bryman (2008) argues that social interactions cannot be understood completely without paying attention to discourses that give meaning to those interactions. Thereby, discourses change when the constitution of political networks, the nature and topography of politics change (Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003). The argument mentioned above implies that language is a very powerful tool that does not only reflect reality, it also shapes the way we perceive and understand it. Consequentially, it is able to shift power balances, render events harmless, or create political conflict. Hajer & Versteeg (2006) arguments on the power of language and communication was already highlighted by Healey (1992) a decade earlier, when she argued that all forms of communication contain assumptions and metaphors which, by conveying meaning, affect what people do. Hajer & Versteeg (2006) define a ‘discourse’ as an ensemble of ideas and concepts through which meaning is given to phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices. Furthermore, Hajer & Versteeg (2006) argue that meanings of concepts (like ‘sustainable development’ or ‘nature conservation’) cannot be imposed in a top-down way, but meaning, interpretation and implementation of such concepts are shaped and continuously contested in an interactive process between stakeholders. Hajer & Versteeg (2006) also argue that the fact that stakeholders communicate in shared terms does not necessarily mean they understand one another, since interpretations of meaning given to those terms may differ depending on the position of stakeholders and message they want to convey. Therefore, there is a strong need to overcome those discursive barriers, networks of actors must create the capacity to interact and communicate (Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003).
2.4 Agriculture and nature conservation The hamster case in the Netherlands could be seen as an example of a policy making process taking place in an institution void, whereby power is dispersed and wherein different
8
stakeholders use different sources of power to influence the policy making process, thereby creating and changing the rules of the game over time. Hajer (n.d.) himself indicated that the hamster case is a good example of a situation where NGOs and other stakeholders have gained influence at the expense of governmental institutions. However, one could argue that the institutional void in this case is incomplete, since actors cleverly use existing rules and regulations to their advantage, which means some pre-determined frameworks are used indeed. NGO Das & Boom for example, has been pressuring the government to protect the European Hamster by threatening to take the case to European court because the national and regional government failed to meet EU requirements (Hajer, 2003). Not only is European regulation used to exert pressure and to steer national and regional policy making processes, the conservation status of the European Hamster is also closely tied to the success of implementation of requirements set at the European level. This means that not only the way a problem is perceived and addressed matter, the degree to which farmers and other land managers implement policy requirements also strongly influences the conservation status of the hamster. The European Hamster requires very specific management practices to ensure its survival. In order to provide the right habitat conditions, farmers and other managers of agricultural land should take into account the crop they plant, since European Hamsters’ diet exists primarily of wheat and Lucerne (European Commission, n.d.). Furthermore, crops should not be harvested too early in the year and strips of wheat should not be harvested at all to enable the hamster to gather enough food for winter. In addition, the soil should not be ploughed too deep, as hamster burrows are at a depth of 0.5-2m below ground (European Commission, n.d.).
2.5 Conclusion: Connecting the institutional void theory to the hamster case The theoretical framework has shown that in contemporary policy issues, power is often dispersed and knowledge is contested, and that traditional institutions such as the national government often fail to address these issues on their own. Hajer introduced us to the
9
institutional void, which occurs when knowledge is debated and policy making takes place in a communicative process with no generally accepted rules and norms. Instead, rules and norms are negotiated and continually contested and reshaped through the use of language and discourses. This implies that language should not only be regarded as a means to reflect reality, it is also a tool to create, shape and change it. This research will focus on the policy making process of the European Hamster conservation programme in the Netherlands. Hajer himself has identified this case as an example of a policy making process taking place in an institutional void; power is dispersed, and stakeholders use media attention and language to steer policy outcomes (Hajer, n.d.). However, NGO Das & Boom, which is a key stakeholder in this case study, also uses existing frameworks, norms and regulations to exert pressure on the government. As mentioned in paragraph 2.3, the NGO cleverly used European regulation and institutions to speed up the national and regional policy making process and to influence policy outcomes. In the case of the hamster, language could have shaped reality. However, simultaneously there is also a need to meet a set of measurable criteria to improve the conservation status of the hamster, including planting the right crops, harvesting at the right moment and in the right way. Therefore, this research will analyse the case in two ways. First of all, discourses used over time by different stakeholder groups will be analysed. Secondly, agricultural management practices will be analysed to identify till what extent policy outcomes have influenced and even ‘shaped’ reality. Thereby, the starting point of this research is that discourses influence policy outcomes, and policy outcomes influence reality, which is in this case analysed through agricultural practices, see figure 2.1.
Stakeholder discourses
Policy outcomes
Agricultural practices
Figure 2.1 Conceptual model: Stakeholder discourses indirectly influence farming practices. Source: by Michelle Vanderschuren, 2015
10
Chapter 3 – Methodological Framework
In this chapter, methodological choices made will be explained. The ontological and epistemological stances will be introduced first, after that choices for the research strategy, research design and research methods will be explained.
3.1 Ontology and epistemology Ontology refers to the nature of reality. This research will adopt the constructivist view, which believes that realities are derived from perceptions, believes and interpretations, implying that multiple realities co-exist (Saunders, et al., 2012). This constructivist perspective will enable the development and changes of different discourses and activities over time to be analysed. It also allows us to understand how discourses affect the policy making process and relations between different stakeholder groups, thereby enabling the research question to be addressed. Epistemology addresses the question of what constitutes acceptable knowledge in the field of study (Saunders, et al., 2012). The aim of this research is to understand how stakeholder discourses have influenced both the policy making process and agricultural activities over time. In order to address the research aim, the epistemological stance of this research will be interpretivism, because interpretivism takes into account the different roles of humans within society, it does not regard humans as objects but as social actors, taking decisions based on their interpretation of reality (Saunders, et al., 2012).
3.2 Research strategy A research strategy is explained by Bryman (2008, p. 22) as ‘a general orientation to the conduct of social research’. Because this research aims to get an in-depth understanding of how language influences the policy making process as well as ‘reality’ (agricultural practices) in the case of the conservation efforts for the European Hamster in Zuid-Limburg, the Netherlands, the research is of qualitative nature. Qualitative research emphasizes words 11
rather than quantification in the process of collecting and analysing data (Bryman, 2008, p. 22). Furthermore, in qualitative research emphasis is placed on how individuals interpret the world, whereby it is also believed that social reality is constantly shifting, this matches the ontology and epistemology of this research.
3.3 Research methods 3.3.1 Case Study design A case study design was chosen as a research method, because this research is of explanatory nature and because a case study allows an in-depth analysis of a complex social phenomena (Yin, 2009). Furthermore, a case study enables the researcher to trace operational links over time that can help explain why things are the way they are. Since the objective of this research is to understand the role of discourses in steering the policy making process towards favourable policy outcomes as well as on how it influences reality, a representative case was chosen (Yin, 2009, p. 48). In this case, the link between policy discourses and reality is explored within the case of the European Hamster in Zuid-Limburg. Selecting a representative case also means that findings may be used as lessons for other, similar cases (Yin, 2009).
3.3.2 Case study selection The European Hamster provides an interesting case for several reasons. First of all, the decline of the hamster population throughout Europe is considered an environmental issue, which is a relatively new policy focus whereby traditional government institutions are generally not well equipped to deal with those issues independently (Hajer, 2003). Therefore, the Hamster case is a practical example wherein the ‘institutional void’ described by Hajer can be recognized. In this case power is dispersed and non-governmental institutions such as NGOs and academia have played an important role in the policy making process. However, it is important to keep in mind that the institutional void in this case is only partial, since stakeholders simultaneously used European regulation as a source of influence by threatening the national government to take the case to the European court (Das & Boom, 2015).
12
Another reason to select the case of the European Hamster in the Netherlands, is that stakeholder interests are found at all levels of scale and in all societal spheres, see figure 3.1. Stakeholder interests are often contesting, particularly in case of environmental issues where a balance between nature and economic interests needs to be found (Beunen, et al., 2011). This can create misunderstandings between actors in the policy making process. Since the European Hamster case gained so much media and political attention in the early 2000s it provides an interesting case to analyse how the language used by stakeholders changed over time, and whether these discourses represented conflict or mutual understanding.
EU Level
•European Commission --> EU Habitats Directive
National Level
•National government •NGO Das & Boom •Natuurmonumenten (nature conservation organization) •Staatsbosbeheer •Alterra (research institution)
Regional Level
•Province of Limburg --> Species protection plan •Stichting Limburgs Landschap (nature conservation organization)
Local Level
•Local government •Farmers
Figure 3.1 Stakeholder interests at all levels of scale Source: Michelle Vanderschuren, 2015
Furthermore, the European Hamster provides a relatively reliable and measurable case because the European Hamster requires a very specific habitat, namely wheat fields. Moreover, specific management practices are required to protect the hamster, not only the type of crop planted matters, but harvesting practices such as the time and depth of ploughing also directly impact the conservation status of the European Hamster. Therefore, it is possible to identify correlations between discourses in the policy making process on the one hand and farming practices derived from this on the other. Since measures contributing to the conservation status of the hamster are clear and measurable, there is relatively little
13
uncertainty about whether it is policy influencing the conservation status of the hamster, in contrast to many other cases where the correlation is much more vague. Although the European Hamster has habitats in many European countries, Zuid-Limburg in the Netherlands was chosen as the case study area. The reason to choose for this region is that reports from the European Commission indicate that the conservation status of the hamster is particularly poor in north-western Europe, see figure 3.2 (European Environment Agency, 2009). In Zuid-Limburg, the population has been rapidly declining since the 1990s. Despite the protection of the European Hamster under the European Habitats Directive, the policy making process at the national and regional level was very slow, and activities disrupting hamster habitats continued despite European regulation (Das & Boom, 2015). However, in contrast to Belgium where the Hamster has gone extinct completely, and in contrast to West-Germany and France where the hamster population is still rapidly declining, protection efforts in the Netherlands are considered relatively successful.
Figure3.2 Conservation status of the European Hamster in western-Europe is poor Source: (European Environment Agency, 2009)
In the Netherlands, the case was pushed by NGOs and by the civil society, who pressured the government to take action by seeking media attention and by threatening the government to take the case to European court (Das & Boom, 2015). Therefore, it provides an interesting case to analyse stakeholder interactions and the use of discourses by these different stakeholder groups. Furthermore, the case partially reflects Hajer’s theory on the
14
institutional void, since the topic exceeds the capacities of traditional institutions and since power relations in this case are dispersed.
3.3.3 Longitudinal design In this research the evolvement of a policy making process will be analysed over a longer period of time, this will enable changes to be measured in variables such as stakeholder discourses and agricultural land management practices (Bryman, 2008, p. 50). Longitudinal elements will be included in the analysis through archival information and through retrospective interviewing (Bryman, 2008, p. 57). The first scientific reports showing a significant decline of the hamster population in ZuidLimburg were published in 1994 (Das & Boom, 2015). Therefore, 1994 was also chosen as the starting point of this research. The research has been divided in four periods, the first period is from 1994 till 1999, when population declines were measured, but when political attention and action at the national and regional level were largely lacking. Media attention and action by NGOs was significantly increased from 1999 onwards, leading to the establishment of the first Hamster Protection Plan for the period 2000 till 2004. Therefore, this constitutes the second period distinguished in this research, media attention also remained high throughout this period. From 2005 till 2010 the Species Protection Plan was introduced as a follow up of the Hamster Protection Plan, this will make up the third period of this research (Korenwolfwereld, 2015). The fourth period is from 2011 onwards. The government anticipated the hamster population would have recovered sufficiently by 2010 to end the Hamster Protection programme, but statistics showed the hamster population had not recovered sufficiently to sustain itself. Despite disappointing statistics, the Dutch government wanted to significantly reduce funding for hamster conservation programmes (Wesseling, 2011). In response, media attention increased again and NGO Das & Boom took the case to court. The judge agreed that breeding programmes should be extended and a new Hamster Protection Plan was established for 2011-2015 (Soortenbescherming Nederland, 2011).
15
3.4 Methodology In this section, methods of data analysis chosen in this research will be explained. A discourse analysis and an analysis of farming practices and policy documents together form the methodology of this thesis.
3.4.1 Discourse analysis A discourse analysis is chosen as a research method because it allows the research objective, to identify the relationship between political discourses, policy objectives, agricultural practices and the conservation status of the Hamster to be met. Furthermore, because of the nature of the discourse analysis, it is also a good match with Hajer’s institutional void theory introduced in chapter 2. In a discourse analysis, the role of language as a source of power in relation to ideologies and socio-cultural change is emphasised (Bryman, 2008, p. 508). However, a discourse entails much more than language as such, it constitutes the social world (Bryman, 2008, p. 499). In a discourse analysis, one assumes that there is no external reality, instead reality is constructed by stakeholders who seek to accomplish something through the language they use when speaking or writing (Bryman, 2008, p. 500). Bryman (2008, p. 500) has identified three questions to analyse discourses in order to understand what actors seek to accomplish by using certain discourses, see box 3.1. These questions will be used to guide the discourse analysis. However, it is also important to keep in mind that codification
Box 3.1 Basic discourse-analytic questions:
What is this discourse doing? How is this discourse constructed to make this happen? What resources are available to perform this activity?
Source: (Bryman, 2008, p. 500)
should be avoided in a discourse analysis (Bryman, 2008, p. 501). In a discourse analysis it is important to be critical to what is said, how it is said, and what is not said. Conveying arguments in one way rather than another, and highlighting some aspects of an issue while being silent about other aspects will frame the problem and solution in a specific way (Bryman, 2008, p. 502).
16
Discourses found in an analysis of newspaper articles and discourses identified within interviews are clustered and listed under three umbrella discourses: time for action; distrust and; financial incentives. These umbrella discourses will enable trends to be identified over time and will also to help structure overlapping and contradicting discourses held by different stakeholder groups. To ensure a good fit with the discourses identified in the analysis, the umbrella discourses were selected on an inductive basis, which means that they are derived from the gathered data.
3.4.2 Analysing farming practices The analysis of farming practices will enable correlations to be found between discourses and agricultural practices. Thereby, the analysis of farming practices will help identify till what extent discourses used in policy, till what extent policy making processes themselves are implemented in practices, and how these discourses and policies eventually influence the conservation status of the European Hamster. Interviews were used to collect data on farming practices, as will be discussed in the next paragraph.
3.5 Data collection In this section the methodology will be made operable. In order to be able to do a discourse analysis and in order to analyse farming practices, interviews were conducted. Furthermore, newspaper articles were analysed as part of the discourse analysis to identify (changing) discourses and to enable a comparison to be drawn with discourses found in interviews.
3.5.1 Interviews In order to address the second sub-question on discourses, and the third sub-question on changes in agricultural practise over time, several interviews were conducted. Interviews will help to understand what was important to stakeholders in the past, and what is important to them now. Interviews were organized with different types of stakeholders, including farmers participating in hamster friendly management, Stichtling Limburgs Landschap, Das & Boom, a researcher and the Province of Limburg to understand where discourses overlap and/or
17
where they differ. Due to time constraints no interviews were organized with farmers who are not participating in the hamster friendly management programme. However, all farmers who are participating in the programme manage both regular fields and hamster field, which means a comparison on agricultural practices could be drawn nonetheless. Furthermore, the interview with researcher Gerard Müskens, who is the contact person of all involved farmers, also indicated why some farmers choose not to participate in the programme. In the interviews stakeholders were asked about the policy making process, how they felt about decisions taken in this process, whether they felt they were involved sufficiently, what they felt their role was and is, and how they felt and feel about their role in this case, how they felt about communication between the different stakeholder groups and whether this has changed over time, see appendix 1. In constructing the interview questions, the basic discourse analysis-questions identified by Bryman (see box 3.1) were used as a guideline to ensure responses to the questions are usable for a discourse analysis. In the table found at the end of Appendix 1, the interview questions are explicitly coupled to Bryman’s guiding questions for a discourse analysis. Conducted interviews are of semi-structured nature, which means some guiding questions were asked on the topics mentioned above, but there also were plenty of opportunities for interviewees to elaborate on matters most important to them. This enabled the interviewer to acquire a better understanding of what really mattered and matters to stakeholders, thereby possibly also understanding why certain discourses were dominant at a specific point in time. Understanding why farmers made a certain choice may indicate shortcomings in the programme or in communication between stakeholders. Two groups of agricultural land managers were identified; nature conservation organisations managing agricultural land and; farmers participating in the hamster friendly management programme. Interviews were conducted with both types of land managers. A choice was made to interview Stichting Limburgs Landschap (SLL), the most important nature conservation organisation in this case study as they have been managing agricultural reserve Sibbe since 2002, making it the first reserve under this programme managed by a nature conservation organization (Stichting Limburgs Landschap, 2015).
18
Since only 34 farmers are currently participating in hamster friendly management, the group is too small for random sampling. Furthermore, in acquiring contact details of participating farmers, the researcher relied completely on Gerard Müskens. This dependence on a single person who had many other commitments, in combination with general difficulties in arranging meetings with farmers drastically reduced the number of interviews that could be conducted within the timeframe given for this research. While initially the idea was to interview at least six participating farmers, time and money constrains meant that only three interviews with farmers were conducted. However, this does not necessarily mean the findings are invalid, since all interviewed farmers brought up comparable arguments and referred to similar motivations, problems and practices, which means it may not have been necessary to conduct additional interviews with farmers. Conflicts and different discourses appeared to be present predominantly among other stakeholders, such as researchers and NGO Das & Boom. Therefore, interviews were also organized with Gerard Müskens (a researcher) and Jaap Dirkmaat, the spokesman of NGO Das & Boom.
3.5.2 Analysis of media articles In order to analyse changes in discourses over time for all stakeholder groups, it is important to acquire data from interviews, but also from other sources, such as newspaper articles. Data were collected from articles published in two national newspapers: Volkskrant and Trouw. A list of articles can be found in Appendix 3. Articles are included in the analysis when they contain the term ‘korenwolf’ which is the name by which the European Hamster is commonly known in the Netherlands. Articles should be written in the period between 1 January 1994 and 1 March 2015. Furthermore, articles needed to be directly related to the Netherlands, articles on the conservation status of the European Hamster in other European countries were not included in this research. The reason to look at two different newspapers, is that newspapers tend to have slightly different angles and point of view, meaning that they may use different discourses and may emphasize different aspects of the Hamster case. In the media analysis, Bryman’s guiding
19
questions on conducting a discourse analysis will be used to understand why discourses are dominant at a certain point in time (see box 3.1).
3.6 Methodological weaknesses Within case study research, as well as within discourse analysis, critics often argue that findings are not reliable and strongly dependent on the researchers interpretation (Bryman, 2008). By clearly listing newspaper articles analysed and by attaching interview questions as well as the responses to these questions in the appendix, the reliability of this research is tried to be improved. Furthermore, since this research is of qualitative nature, findings are likely to differ in contexts, thereby limiting opportunities for generalization (Bryman, 2008, p. 55). Although it is one of the ambitions of this research do draw lessons from the hamster case that may be useful for other countries or regions currently in the process of establishing a Species Protection Programme for species dependant on agricultural land, it is not the intention of this research to generalize findings and to claim that conclusions are always applicable in other cases as well.
3.7 Ethical considerations In communication with stakeholders, it became clear there is some tension between involved actors up to today. Furthermore, farmers participating in the hamster programme experience(d) significant social pressure from neighbouring farmers. To comfort these farmers and other stakeholders and to enable them to speak freely without having to fear experiencing negative consequences, interviews with farmers are anonymous. Since only 34 farmers are participating in the programme, divided over three clusters, a choice was also made to not mention the geographical location of interviewed farmers. Furthermore, some farmers indicated they did not like the interview to be recorded. In other cases it also turned out to be impossible to record interviews, because they would be conducted in the field (instead of in an office or home), or they were conducted on the
20
phone. Despite the lack of recordings, detailed notes were written up during the interviews and transcribed immediately after the interview to minimize errors and false interpretations.
21
Chapter 4 – Context
This chapter will provide a broader introduction to the hamster case in the Netherlands. First, the European Hamster will be introduced, then its protection status by European regulation will be explained. Paragraph 4.3 will explain how EU regulation has been translated into regional policy, and how this regional Species Protection Programme has evolved over time. Since this research focuses predominantly on the influence of stakeholders on the hamster case, key stakeholders and their role in the programme will be introduced in paragraph 4.4. Lastly, paragraph 4.5 will elaborate on the conservation status of the hamster since the establishment of the programme, to understand how the programme has evolved over time.
4.1 Introduction of the European Hamster The
European
Hamster
(Cricetus
cricetus), also known as the korenwolf in Zuid-Limburg, is a small mammal that has a habitat in fertile lowlands, see figure 4.1. In the Netherlands this generally means the hamster’s habitat collides with the most fertile and intensively
used
agricultural
land
(European Commission, n.d.). Since the 1970s intensification of agricultural land created unfavourable conditions, even for this mammal that usually prefers agricultural fields.
Figure 4.1 European Hamster, to be released in Zuid-Limburg Source: Michelle Vanderschuren, 22 April 2015
Intensification led to the near extinction of the hamster in the Netherlands in 1999. The last individuals were caught and used in a breeding programme to reintroduce the hamster in
22
Zuid-Limburg (Kuiters, et al., 2011). In the period between 2002 and 2009, 750 hamsters have been released in hamster friendly managed fields. Despite some policy issues, knowledge gaps and fluctuations in the hamster population after reintroduction, the reintroduction of the hamster in Zuid-Limburg is considered successful by researchers and by nature conservation organizations (Kuiters, et al., 2010; Stichting Limburgs Landschap, 2015).
4.2 EU regulation: Habitats Directive The EU Habitats Directive entered into force in 1992. The directive requires member state to protect listed species and habitats and to implement measures needed to maintain or restore natural habitats and populations of species to a favourable conservation status (European Court of Justice, 2011). The European Hamster is one of the species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive, which means the species is of community interest and is in need of strict protection. Among other measures, this means that their habitats may not be disturbed or deteriorated. Nonetheless, plans were made in the late 1990s to develop a business park on agricultural land in Zuid-Limburg and no attention was paid to the deterioration of the hamster’s habitat as a consequence of this development. This, in combination with alarming scientific reports on the significant decrease of the hamster population in the past decade fuelled NGO Das & Boom’s desire to fight for the hamster. The NGO threatened to take the case to European Court and sought media attention. Thereby, Das & Boom was supported by Dutch celebrities who camped on a field where the last Hamsters were believed to live. Media attention and legal threats sped up the policy making process and les to the development of a Species Protection Plan (SPP) for the hamster. Since the development of the SPP in 2000, Dutch policy has been better coordinated with European regulation and recommendations. For example, European recommendations that are implemented in national and regional policies and programmes between 2000 and now include: Updating knowledge on the hamster and its habitat requirements to be able to regain a sustainable population; conduct studies on genetics of the hamsters in the region as
23
well as studies on the effectiveness of policy measures in the region; develop a long term protection plan; inform the people to increase support and to enable knowledge sharing (Kuiters, et al., 2010).
4.3 Regional policy: Species Protection Plan The first SPP covered the period of 2000 till 2004, core ambitions of this plan included the protection of the hamster and its habitat to prevent extinction; create opportunities for the hamster to re-establish themselves in the region again and to connect to other hamster populations (for example in Germany); stimulate sustainable and hamster friendly management of agricultural land in Zuid-Limburg (Korenwolfwereld, 2015). To meet these objectives, agricultural land suitable for the hamster was purchased in four key areas, a breeding programme was developed, research and knowledge was expanded, regional support was broadened and European Hamsters bred in captivity were released in the four clusters. The SPP for period 2005-2010 was built on the success of the previous SPP, its core ambition was still to regain
a
sustainable
hamster
population in Zuid-Limburg. In order to do this, three additional key areas
Figure 4.2 Hamster habitats in Zuid-Limburg; nowadays there are 7 in total Source: (Kuiters, et al., 2010)
were appointed and more attention was paid to connecting the individual sites, see figure 4.2; more bred hamsters were released; hamster habitats were connected to German hamster habitats; based on scientific results, agricultural management was improved to better meet living requirements of the European Hamster, thereby subsidies are available for farmers who participate in the hamster management programme; and efforts to create
24
and maintain regional support for the protection of the European Hamster were continued (Korenwolfwereld, 2015).
4.4 Identifying stakeholder roles Research institutions such as Alterra have been involved from the early stages, one could even argue they initiated the conservation efforts, since research reports showing a significant decline in the hamster population from the mid-1990s onwards sparked the interest and involvement of other organizations such as NGO Das & Boom. From 2005 onwards, research institutions have predominantly conducted research on the habitat conditions the European Hamster needs to maximize its chances of survival (Kuiters, et al., 2011). Several NGOs have been involved in steering the policy making process, as well as in research and breeding programmes. Das & Boom in particular has been at the forefront, especially in the early stages of the hamster programmes (Schuerhoff & Ruijs, 2015). Although one could argue initial awareness of the case came from research institutions, it was Das & Boom that put it on the political agenda. Therefore, Das & Boom is a key stakeholder steering the policy making process and influencing research and breeding programmes. Since hamsters only live on agricultural land, farmers play a key role in this case. However, participation in the Hamster programme is on a voluntary basis. In exchange of hamster friendly management, which means farmers need to meet certain criteria on which crops to plant, when to harvest and which percentage of crops not to harvest, farmers are compensated with 2.3000 EUR per year per ha of hamster friendly managed land (Korenwolfcommissie, 2015). This amount of money should compensate the farmer for the income they lose when they do not harvest, harvest later in the year and/or only harvest part of their field. The province of Limburg has also been closely involved throughout the whole period, it has been responsible for the coordination of activities (Kuiters, et al., 2010). In general, the province has been very supportive of conservation programmes and activities for the
25
hamster. For example, in the early stages of the programme, no agricultural land was managed by nature conservation organizations, but those were needed to enable secure release of the first generation of hamsters bred in captivity. Therefore, the province made the decision to procure agricultural land from farmers. Furthermore, at the end of the Hamster pilot programme in 2011, the Province had agreed to financially support farmers who managed land in a hamster friendly way, even when the national government had not yet agreed to financially support the programme (Kuiters, et al., 2011).
4.5 Conservation status of the hamster over time In the introduction of this research, figure 1.1 displayed the number of hamster burrows in Zuid-Limburg over time. This figure clearly shows the decline of Hamsters in the 1990s and a recovery since the reintroduction of the European Hamster in 2002. In the period from 2003 till 2008, the population seemed to be recovering, with numbers of hamsters growing rapidly. Population densities are particularly high in the cluster Sittard-Puth-Koningsbosch, with 300 hamsters at the peak moment, see figure 4.3. In the oldest cluster, SibbeAmby-Heer, the population has been stable for several years between 2003 and 2008, with a number of approximately
200
hamsters. The benchmark of
500
hamsters
has,
however, not been met in any of the clusters (Kuiters, et al., 2010).
Figure 4.3 Hamster population in spring in the three clusters in ZuidLimburg Source: (Kuiters, et al., 2010, p. 45)
Kuiters et al. (2010) argue that current clusters are not optimal yet, and that improvements should be made. However, this is challenging since the landscape prevents expansion of hamster friendly management in some locations such as in Heer and Sibbe. These issues are
26
now addressed by focussing on transforming individual sites into clusters by connecting those sites, see also figure 4.2. In 2008 the hamster population collapsed in all clusters, with a reduction of individuals of over 60%, see figure 4.3. Researchers believe it is the cold and wet spring in 2008 that led to this decline (Compendium voor de Leefomgeving, 2014). The hamster population in ZuidLimburg has been unable to recover since then, and is still gradually declining despite continued reintroduction efforts. Therefore, researchers believe the continuation of breeding programmes are still necessary (Kuiters, et al., 2010). Despite the failure to meet programme objectives so far, the hamster case is considered successful by researchers. Scientific knowledge on the European Hamster, stakeholder communication and programme requirements have improved significantly over time which has also improved participation and implementation of policy measures (Kuiters, et al., 2010; Schuerhoff & Ruijs, 2015).
4.6 Conclusion In this chapter, the hamster case and regulation around the case have been introduced. Furthermore, key stakeholders and their roles have been briefly described and will be further developed in the empirical chapters of this research. As also described by Hajer, stakeholders have different sources of influence, some of which have already been identified in this chapter. NGO Das & Boom for example has brought the case to the political agenda in one way by using existing frameworks provided by European regulation. On the other hand, the NGO used the institutional void to its advantage by seeking media attention and sharing their discourses with the public through which they influenced the policy making process. Although channels of influence of other stakeholders may be less prominent, it is important to remember that knowledge in the possession of researchers, and blocking power held by farmers are also very powerful tools when decision making takes place in an institutional void. In the next chapter, means of influence of different stakeholders will be explored in greater detail, through the analysis of discourses. 27
This chapter has also discussed the conservation status of the European Hamster in ZuidLimburg over time. In the 1990s, the hamster population in Zuid-Limburg declined rapidly, with the hamster nearly being extinct in 1999. With the start of a breeding programme and the reintroduction of the hamster in 2002, the population started to grow again. Hamsters were released every year in 7 areas in total. Until 2008 the population was steadily growing. However, from May 2008 onwards, the populations declined rapidly in all sites. Researchers believe this was caused by a cold and wet spring as well as high predation rates, maybe because there was a shortage of mice and other rodents to feed on for predators (Kuiters, et al., 2010). Researchers are not too worried and still believe the hamster programme is a success, but they also argue continuation of hamster friendly management as well as breeding programmes are necessary. Further, to optimize the habitat of the hamster, expansion of existing sites is needed. However, this is not always possible due to physical constraints and due to conflicting stakeholder interests, as will be discussed in the next chapters.
28
Chapter 5 – Discourse analysis
This chapter is structured in four time periods, whereby discourses found in each period, both in media and as used by interviewees will be listed and explained. Thereby, attention will be paid to overlaps and contradictions in discourses used by different stakeholder groups in a certain period of time. In the conclusion of this chapter, all discourses found in the analysis will be categorized under some inductively developed umbrella discourses to identify patterns. These umbrella discourses will improve enable a more structured comparison of discourses, that will enable broader trends to be identified. In the last part of the conclusion, the relation between the findings and Hajer’s institutional void theory will also be discussed
5.1 1995-1999: ‘Time for action’ but also ‘distrust’ 5.1.1 Media analysis: ‘Time for action’ The first newspaper article concerning the European Hamster was published in the Volkskrant in 1995. In this article concerns on the conservation status of the hamster were raised; researchers feared the European Hamster would be extinct in the Netherlands before the year 2000 (van den Broek, 1995). In the same article, the need to develop a species protection plan was brought up for the first time. Those plans were not initiated by the government but rather by civil society organizations who were already researching the hamster and who were ‘guarding’ fields and checking on agricultural practices in the region. In this article and in several other articles published in this period, intensification of agriculture, including lack of herbs and weeds, the increased size of fields and deep ploughing were pointed at as core reasons for the deterioration of the hamster population. Actors already realized in 1995 that close cooperation with farmers is necessary. Nonetheless, not a single farmer has given his opinion on the Hamster case in the media, not in this period, nor in later periods.
29
Except for the occasional article published in 1995, limited attention was paid to the hamster. In articles published in 1998, comments are made that the regional beer named after the Hamster was better known than the mammal itself. Articles published in 1998 were therefore predominantly introducing the species to the public and explaining how intensification of agriculture is to blame for the continued deterioration of the species. In this year, substantial attention was also paid to the heroic role of nature conservation organizations who purchased agricultural land to ‘offer a peaceful life to the endangered Hamster’, see figure 5.1 (Trouw, 1998). In 1999 a tipping point was reached when NGO Das & Boom got involved in the case. Das & Boom actively sought media attention to
Figure 5.1 1998 Action by Natuurmonumenten: donate money so Natuurmonumenten can buy land to protect the European Hamster. Text in picture: Let the Hamster stay! Source: Natuurmonumenten
increase awareness of the severity of the situation and to build support. Thereby, Das & Boom was portrayed as the knight fighting for the needs of endangered species, including the European Hamster. Although Das & Boom also indicated changing agricultural practices had led to the extinction of the hamster, the organization does not blame farmers. Instead, Jaap Dirkmaat from Das & Boom blamed the government, mentioning it is political ‘laziness’ that prevents effective and timely protection of the Hamster (van Slobbe & Knot, 1999). Tensions between the national government, regional government and Das & Boom were rising in this period. Das & Boom claimed there were only four Hamsters left in Zuid-Limburg and wanted to capture these individuals to set up a breeding programme. Since the national government felt threatened by Das & Boom’s threat to take the case to European Court, it consented to the NGO’s wish. The province, however, questioned the truth of the numbers provided by Das & Boom since previous research indicated there were still hundreds of hamsters left in Zuid-Limburg. The regional government believed Das & Boom was exaggerating and the national government should not consent to its wishes so easily. At this point, both the Province of Limburg and Das & Boom were threatening to take the national government to court. Later that year, the absurdity of the discussion on the exact number of hamsters left in Zuid-Limburg was highlighted in the newspaper. In the media, the argument was made that the focus should not be on how many hamsters were left, but on
30
how human activities threatened the Hamster’s, and other species’ habitats. Other questions were raised in the media as well, such as why the hamster should be protected at all cost while other species, such as insects, snakes and frogs go extinct without notice?
5.1.2 Interview analysis: ‘Distrust’ towards outsiders In the newspaper analysis the dominant discourse between 1995 and 1999 was that it is ‘time for action’. Thereby, action was initiated by civil society actors including NGO Das & Boom and researchers. In interviews with Jaap Dirkmaat from NGO Das & Boom, and with Gerard Müskens, a researcher, this discourse was confirmed: ‘The government has signed all sorts of agreements, but they don’t do anything. Due to this, the otter went extinct and we wanted to prevent the Hamster suffering the same faith.’ (J. Dirkmaat, personal communication, 1 May 2015) Das & Boom believed too much attention was given to the protection of foreign species, such as the giant panda and whale, and to the failure of foreign governments to protect them. Thereby, the Netherlands was seen as a frontrunner who could teach developing countries and eastern European countries how to protect nature and species. However, Das & Boom realized that the Netherlands was not doing as well as they claimed in protecting endangered species in their own country, the conservation status of the badger, otter and now the European hamster had been poor for decades. For this reason, Dirkmaat from Das & Boom felt more attention should be given to the conservation of species in the Netherlands and that action was needed. Although the government has signed international and European treaties, the objectives of these treaties are often not translated into national and regional regulation, which means action at the regional level was non-existing. As already apparent from the media analysis, Dirkmaat accused the government of ‘laziness and hypocrisy’: ‘The reason for us to focus on the hamster is that the case shows the hypocrisy of the government, and appearance they are always keeping up.’ (J. Dirkmaat, personal communication, 1 May 2015)
31
In newspaper articles, the province of Limburg seemed reluctant to accept interference from Das & Boom and other Dutch actors, indicating a strong sense of localness in Limburg and distrust towards actors from outside the region. This discourse of ‘distrust towards outsiders’ was shared by regional farmers which made it very hard for NGOs and researchers to communicate with farmers, the province and other regional stakeholders. This discourse of ‘distrust towards outsiders’ was confirmed by Dirkmaat as well as some of the interviewed farmers: ‘In Limburg the attitude was that Dutch people should not interfere with what is happening in Limburg.’ (J. Dirkmaat, personal communication, 1 May 2015) ‘Müskens had asked us to participate in the programme, but he is Dutch and we didn’t have a lot of trust in him’ (Farmer 1, personal communication, 11 April 2015). Placing more responsibilities for hamster management with nature conservation organization proved almost equally as hard as convincing local farmers to participate in the programme, since these organizations did not own any agricultural land and farmers were unwilling to sell their land: ‘Farmers in this region are very attached to their land and were reluctant to sell’. (Employee Stichting Limburgs Landschap, personal communication, 19 March 2015) While farmers were barely involved in the policy making process at this stage, and while researchers and nature conservation organizations only played a minor role, communication between other key stakeholders was troubled. As already found in media articles, the relationship between the national government, province and Das & Boom has been complicated. Discourses identified in the media and in interviews showed that Das & Boom blames the government for not taking responsibility. The province on the other hand is questioning the credibility of Das & Boom. An elaboration on the conflict between Das & Boom and the government, confirming information found in the media, was given by Dirkmaat from Das & Boom: ‘Through summary proceedings, we had received permission to catch the last hamster, but the province fought this decision. They argued there were many more hamsters than the four hamsters burrows had found, this also happened with the 32
otter, which is why I now promised to give a reward of 100 gulden for anyone who could point out a burrow that I had not found yet. Nonetheless, the province started summary proceedings there were plenty of hamsters left and they argued that, even if these were the last hamsters, they should not be caught. In that case, they should be allowed to live out their days in peace, without being forced to reproduce in a breeding programme. If these were the last ones, they should just go extinct.’ (J. Dirkmaat, personal communication, 1 May 2015) Distrust between stakeholders and mutual accusations complicated communication in the newly established Hamster Meeting Limburg (HOL). The spokesman of Das & Boom used to point out all the flaws and shortcomings of the government while the government was only defending itself: ‘In the beginning of the programme stakeholders met in the HOL, hamster meeting Limburg. In these meetings farmers were absent, but Das & Boom was involved. HOL was always one big argument. Das & Boom would show up with a large list of everything that was wrong, and the only thing the province could do was try to defend itself.’ (G. Müskens, personal communication, 22 April 2015) ‘Conflicting interests were often at the forefront of discussions.’ (Employee Stichting Limburgs Landschap, personal communication, 19 March 2015)
5.2 2000-2004: ‘Hamster vs. economic development’ and ‘distrust’ towards the hamster programme 5.2.1 Media analysis: ‘Hamster vs. economic development’ The boom in newspaper articles on the European Hamster that started in 1999 continued in the period between 2000 and 2004, however, the focus was shifting. In previous years, focus was predominantly on the urgency with which action was needed. In this second period, focus of articles was much more on the trade-off between nature and economy. For example, articles mentioned the protection of the hamster led to the loss of 7000 jobs in
33
Zuid-Limburg. Furthermore, politicians find hamster protection plans too expensive, claiming every single hamster cost a million gulden (Trouw, 2000). In this period, decisions were made multiple times to stop development projects because hamsters may have been living on the field that was to be developed. Decisions to stop development were also made for other endangered species, whereby the media frequently made references to the European Hamster case, making the Hamster the symbol for all situations where economy and ecology clash, and where a single species can stop major development projects. Therefore, a strong fear was present among politicians and developers, who were concerned there would always be endangered species somewhere to stop development project. Meanwhile, Das & Boom continued to be portrayed in the media as the knight of endangered species and tensions between the organization and the national and regional government also continued. Politicians claimed Das & Boom creates chaos, they argued Das & Boom is not to be trusted, opportunistic and lacks expertise (Janssen, 2000). Furthermore, different actors with economic interest argued that ecologists use the Hamster as a weapon to stop economic developments. Other metaphors were used to refer to the case as a situation of conflict: ‘Das & Boom may have won this battle, but we care about the war as a whole’ said a civil servant of the province of Limburg (Janssen, 2000). However, Das & Boom argued its only role is to point out the nature conservation agreements signed by the Dutch government, and to ensure these agreements are respected by the government (Lammerse, 2000). Jaap Dirkmaat, spokesman of Das & Boom mentioned on several occasions to be agitated by the slack attitude of the Dutch government, who signs all sorts of European agreements, without making any effort to meet the agreement’s objectives (Klapwijk, 2001). Media seemed to agree with Dirkmaat, highlighting in several articles that the Dutch government was failing to act upon European agreements and regulation. Thereby, the European Hamster case had become the symbol of the weak implementation of European environmental regulation in the Netherlands (Trouw, 2002). Although struggles between Das & Boom and the national and regional government continued, the role of Das & Boom was changing in this period. A shift can be observed from
34
an activist role to an advisory role, whereby Das & Boom started consulting businesses about how to develop while taking the presence of endangered species into account.
5.2.2 Interview analysis: ‘Distrust’ towards the programme Between 2000 and 2004, significant media attention is given to the trade-off between nature conservation and economic development, hence the discourse ‘hamster vs. economic development’. In interviews, however, none of the stakeholders mentioned this discourse of a trade-off between nature conservation and economic development. Other factors highlighted by the media were also contradicted in interviews. For one, the media mentioned developers feared Jaap Dirkmaat from Das & Boom, but in an interview Dirkmaat explained that he did not blame farmers or developers for the poor conservation status of the hamster, and that developers and farmers are generally supportive of Das & Boom’s cause. Another discourse was introduced by Dirkmaat of the ‘government as a common enemy’ of Das & Boom, developers and farmers: ‘My relationship with farmers and developers is actually very good. Most developers are very helpful and sympathetic towards our cause. The government is our common enemy who lets us fight amongst each other, while they are actually the ones responsible, after all, it is the government who has signed all those international treaties.’ (J. Dirkmaat, personal communication, 1 May 2015) ‘We’ve always been on good foot with farmers, who also complained about the government. A farmer once told me “I’ve managed my fields according to the guidelines, but have not received any subsidies.” This is of course very clumsy, it cannot be that hard to get the administration right. Nonetheless, farmers had to ask about their subsidies three years in a row.’ (J. Dirkmaat, personal communication, 1 May 2015) Although this discourse of the ‘government as a common enemy’ seemed less prominent among other stakeholders, farmers also mentioned on several occasions to have experienced problems with the government which has led to doubts and distrust towards the government and to a low number of participating farmers:
35
‘Major problems in the beginning of the programme include the lack of trust among farmers,
which means no one was willing to participate. Consequentially, high
compensation rates were needed to convince the farmers. Under pressure of Das & Boom the province also purchased reserve land above market price.’ (G. Müskens, personal communication, 22 April 2015) Doubts among farmers were twofold, first of all, farmers felt the nature conservation programme was against the nature of farming. Secondly, programme requirements were very hard to incorporate in their business, while compensation at the time was unreliable and on the low side. Scepticism and distrust among farmers was further enhanced by the fact that they were barely involved in the decision making process. Quotes picturing the discourse that ‘scepticism and distrust towards the programme’: ‘The hamster programme is not strictly an agricultural activity, and many farmers believe farmers are not meant to manage nature. Many elderly farmers do not participate in the hamster programme out of principle.’ (Farmer 2, personal communication, 14 May 2015) ‘Children in Africa are hungry, while we leave our harvest rot on the field for the Hamster. In the beginning, this was difficult for us to accept, we felt guilty.’ (Farmer 1, personal communication, 11 April 2015) Quotes picturing the discourse of a ‘mismatch between the programme and farming activities’: ‘In the beginning we have had many doubts about participating in this programme. The subsidies were very low, and payments were inconsistent and unreliable. Further, the demands were much harder, as we were allowed to harvest and plow certain strips of crops, but had to leave other strips until the first of February. If they would still demand us to work this way, we would not have participated anymore.’ (Farmer 1, personal communication, 11 April 2015) ‘On hamster fields, we would not be allowed to use weed control and fertilizers. In our lease contract was written that we had to ensure fields were, and remained weed free, so this was a problem to us. Apart from that, on the farm a lot of manure is 36
produced, which we need to spread on our own fields, but this used to be impossible on hamster fields.’ (Farmer 2, personal communication, 14 May 2015) Other problems were experienced in this period, that were not addressed in the media, included the lack of experience among nature conservation organizations to manage agricultural land for the benefit
of
species.
This,
in
combination with a knowledge gap concerning requirements
the of
the
habitat European
Hamster led to mistakes made in
Figure 5.2 Hamster field covered in weeds (nettle and dock) Source: Michelle Vanderschuren, 22 April 2015
the early stages of the programme that are still noticeable on some fields these days, see figure 5.2. ‘Before 2002, Stichting Limburg Landschap managed significant areas of natural land, but no agricultural land in which the hamster could be reintroduced. […] When we just started managing agricultural reserve Sibbe, very little knowledge on the European Hamster was available. We asked ourselves how the Hamster had grown to be a plague in the mid-1950s-1970s and tried to replicate these conditions.’ (Employee Stichting Limburgs Landschap, personal communication, 19 March 2015) ‘Farmers were not involved in negotiations in the beginning of the programme. Some wrong decisions were taken by nature conservation organizations who believed using weed control and harvesting were disastrous for the hamster. But it turned out the hamster needs fertilized and weed free fields.’ (G. Müskens, personal communication, 22 April 2015)
37
5.3 2005-2010: ‘Hamster does not fit in contemporary society’ but simultaneously increased support 5.3.1 Media analysis: ‘Hamster does not fit in contemporary society’ In this period, the media as well as other actors including nature conservation organizations started to criticize species protection plans, they argued species like the European Hamster should not be wrapped in cotton wool. They believed efforts were futile and that the Hamster would go extinct in the Netherlands anyway (Aarden, 2005). Instead of clinging desperately to the protection of individual species, the focus should be expanded towards protecting natural areas as a whole. The absurdity of the Hamster case is highlighted: ‘The last wild Hamsters (Cricetus cricetus) were caught, fattened, used in breeding programmes and released in Zuid-Limburg. After which they were eaten by foxes’ (Aarden, 2005). In other newspaper articles, similar arguments were made, indicating focus had been too much on protecting individual species like the European Hamster, while the focus should have been on conservation of natural areas as a whole. Thereby, there should be an acceptance that some species may not fit in the contemporary landscape anymore. The Hamster case is now labelled as an extremely expensive project with poor results. Meanwhile, the Hamster case continues to be the icon and metaphor used for every case in the Netherlands where ecological issues threatened to delay or stop large scale development projects, the media referred to the hamster as “the mother of all sabotaging animals” (van Hoek, 2008).
5.3.2 Interview analysis: ‘Increased stakeholder support’ Although newspaper articles showed a dominant discourse of ‘the hamster does not fit in the contemporary society’, arguing that the focus should be on the conservation of natural areas as a whole instead of on individual species, this was not felt by any of the stakeholders interviewed. Based on stakeholder interviews, the period between 2005 and 2010 was experienced as a period with many positive changes. The Hamster Meeting Limburg (HOL) was abolished and replaced by the korenwolfcommission. Strategic choices made within this commission
38
significantly improved stakeholder communication. Furthermore, a lot of research on breeding and habitat requirements had been conducted in the past years, which led to some significant improvements in the hamster programme and requirements were also more compatible with agricultural activities: ‘Within the commission, some strategic choices were made, for example the chairman of the commission is a farmer who is also politically active, this has built a bridge between the farmers an nature conservation organizations.’ (Employee Stichting Limburgs Landschap, personal communication, 19 March 2015) ‘Das & Boom is not involved in the meetings organized by the korenwolfcommission. The korenwolfcommission exists of 10 to 15 people, […] there are three local farmers, each one representing one of the three hamster clusters and there is a representative from each of the three nature conservation organizations. […] I am taking on the role of coordinator and as researcher.’ (G. Müskens, personal communication, 22 April 2015) The reason that Das & Boom was not involved in the programme anymore is that the breeding programme, which used to be led by Das & Boom, was transferred to some other institutions. Dirkmaat felt that, by the loss of the breeding programme, he had lost an important tool to exert pressure on the government, and therefore took the decision to withdraw from the programme: ‘At the time, we ended our involvement in the hamster programme because the breeding programme was taken from us and transferred to Diergaarden Blijdorp and Gaia Zoo. Due to this we lost our weapon. When we were still in charge of the breeding programme, we could demand the establishment of reserves before agreeing on releasing the bred hamsters, now we can’t make these demands anymore.’ (J. Dirkmaat, personal communication, 1 May 2015) Due to the improvements in the hamster programme and a better compatibility with farming practices, support among regional stakeholders, including farmers, increased significantly from 2008 onwards. Farmers contradicted the discourse that ‘the hamster does
39
not fit in the contemporary society’, instead, they perceived the programme as ‘easy to implement’, with ‘reasonable compensation’, making it ‘good for nature and for the farmer’: ‘For each hectare we manage under the hamster programme we get 2240 euro per year. We would never be able to get so much money for the harvest of a regular hectare‘ (Farmer 1, personal communication, 11 April 2015) ‘We had fields to spare since wheat was very cheap at the time, and we didn’t make much profit since we had to compete with prices on the world market. The hamster programme was a financially attractive alternative.[…] The programme also fits well within our company. We can use the Lucerne to feed the bulls and we can spread the manure of the bulls on the fields. The soil also improves when we don’t harvest, this is also an important motivation. And we are very busy with the bulls, which means we were happy that the hamster management programme required less work.’ (Farmer 2, personal communication, 14 May 2015) Farmers also indicated they feel the programme is beneficial to many other species as well, which means the species programme is beneficial to the area as a whole, which is not highlighted in newspaper articles: ‘We also notice the hamster programme is not only good for the hamster population, we have also never seen so many birds around here as we see nowadays. We often see kites and herons, sometimes even ten in one day, while we never used to see these birds before. And we have been living here for over fifty years’ (Farmer 1, personal communication, 11 April 2015). Furthermore, media articles mentioned the programme was a failure altogether since the hamster population was still not at a sustainable level. Although researcher Müskens as well as Dirkmaat from NGO Das & Boom agree that the European Hamster is still in need of support, they do not regard the programme to be a failure. On the contrary, Gerard Müskens made a comparison with neighbouring countries such as Belgium where the European Hamster has gone extinct, and France and Germany where the population is still rapidly declining, thereby Müskens argued the Netherlands should be proud that the hamster is still here:
40
‘ The programme costs a lot of money, but we still have the hamster and there is a lot of support [ amongst stakeholders].’ (G. Müskens, personal communication, 22 April 2015)
5.4 2011-now: ‘Nature should take care of itself’ or ‘pay whatever it takes’? 5.4.1 Media analysis: ‘Nature should take care of itself’ In the most recent period, the number of newspaper articles in which the European Hamster is mentioned is significant. However, in most of these articles the Hamster is only briefly mentioned as one among other endangered species. The Hamster case is often used as an example to point out the ridiculousness, complexity and technocracy of species protection plans. In de Volkskrant, the argument is made that the extreme focus on the protection of specific plant and animal species, including the European Hamster, has led to the degradation of societal support for existing environmental policy (Volkskrant, 2013). These arguments are used to strengthen the claim that the focus of environmental policy should change. The government now argues it should only provide frameworks and not focus on too many details. This should enable the government to invest less money, nature should be conserved and developed largely at its own strength. The Hamster case is one of the projects mentioned for which government funds would be withdrawn (Trouw, 2011). Das & Boom is again a prominent player fighting those cuts in environmental policy, whereby the Hamster is used once more as an icon, representing other individual species in need of protection and funds as well (Marijnissen, 2011). Thereby, the Hamster is presented as a ‘problem child’ that is not capable of taking care of itself, even after ten years of financial investments, research and breeding programs (Wesseling, 2011). This means that the mammal is still in danger of extinction when the government cuts off its funding. Therefore, after ten years, Das & Boom still accuses the national government of laziness and of neglecting their responsibilities under the EU’s Habitats and Birds Directives.
41
5.4.2 Interview analysis: ‘Pay whatever it takes’ The discourse dominant in the media in 2011 till now, is that nature should take care of itself, and that detailed conservation programmes such as the hamster programme should be stopped or at least drastically changed. This discourse is shared by the government, who believes the programme is too expensive while success is limited. As a consequence, the government wanted to stop the breeding programme and reduce investments. This is when NGO Das & Boom came back in the picture, largely using the same methods of influence as they did at the beginning of the programme, in the late 1990s. Das & Boom once again pointed out that the government is not taking responsibility, arguing that lack of political will and a minimalistic approach are causing the disappointing results of the hamster programme, thereby the discourses of the ‘laziness of the government’ and ‘government as the enemy’ seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s remains dominant for Das & Boom these days: ‘The Dutch government is corrupt, it thinks the programme is too expensive, the programme costs 1 million a year. Both the national government and the province think it is too expensive and only at the last moment and under pressure of an NGO will they take action. With every fart we have to kick them in the ass again or everything will stop. They just don’t learn. […] [T]he hamster programme is made ridiculous. They are arguing that after all these investments, the hamster is still close to extinction. But this is in reality because they do everything only half, and because they are trying to only meet the minimum requirements needed to keep the hamster alive. After 15 years the programme is still not working as it should. ‘ (J. Dirkmaat, personal communication, 1 May 2015) While farmers shared the discourse of ‘nature should take care of itself’ in the early 2000s, arguing it is not their role to care for nature, the attitude of most regional farmers has drastically changed over time. In contrast to discourses found in the media and discourses held by the government, support amongst farmers has significantly improved over time. Nowadays, participating farmers are generally very happy with the programme, and they mentioned that non-participating farmers have also gotten used to the programme, and comments have reduced over time:
42
‘In the beginning I had to get used to the expectations of the programme, but now I know what is expected and you do things automatically.’ (Farmer 3, personal communication, 19 May 2015) ‘Now, we have no doubts left. In my point of view this is a fantastic project.’ (Farmer 1, personal communication, 11 April 2015) ‘In the past years we haven’t had any doubts about continuing our participation in the hamster programme, since it is such a good match with our company. Müskens is also easily and timely accessible in case we have questions. […] In the beginning, we did get many comments, but now everyone is used to the hamster programme.’ (Farmer 2, personal communication, 14 May 2015) However, some elderly farmers in particular hold on to the discourse that ‘farmers are not responsible for nature’. These farmers often remember the times when the hamster was a plague, and they fear that by supporting the rodent, they might become a plague once more: ‘Some farmers still remember the time when the korenwolf was a plague, that was at the time my father was also farming. Older farmers want to keep their distance from the korenwolf, because they are afraid they will become a plague again.’ (Farmer 2, personal communication, 14 May 2015) Another fear of farmers, related to the discourse ‘it is not the role of a farmer to care for nature’, is that the government would change the zoning plan from agricultural land to a nature reserve when a field has been used in the hamster programme for too many years, meaning that farmers might lose their land to nature: ‘Farmers are also concerned that the government will appoint agricultural land as nature reserve. The hamster programme is not strictly an agricultural activity, and many farmers believe farmers are not meant to manage nature. Many elderly farmers do not participate in the hamster programme out of principle.’ (Farmer 2, personal communication, 14 May 2015) However, with the discourse of ‘nature should take care of itself’ and the reluctance of the government to invest any more money in the programme, it seems unlikely that the 43
government is willing to purchase agricultural land any time soon. Instead, Dirkmaat from NGO Das & Boom fears planned financial cuts will lead to the decline of the population once more: ‘Now the government wants to weaken the subsidy packages, but neither the farmer, nor the hamster will benefit from this change. Only the government profits. […]The packages are weakened in the sense that farmers are now allowed to harvest, to plough, use weed control, pest control and fertilizers.’ (J. Dirkmaat, personal communication, 1 May 2015) ‘France, Germany, Belgium and Hungary all come to the Netherlands to learn about our hamster policy, while we are still making a mess here. It would be a huge comedown if the Hamster would go extinct after all these years.’ (J. Dirkmaat, personal communication, 1 May 2015) Besides taking the case to European court once again, Das& Boom is now also looking to get actively involved in the programme again. Dirkmaat feels that investing in the programme is the only way to develop a sustainable hamster population. Therefore, another discourse held by Das & Boom is that ‘we should pay whatever it takes’ to create a sustainable hamster network: ‘Now we are going to establish a collective of our own to resist the stripping of hamster packages. What I would like to create is a tartan pattern all over ZuidLimburg, of 100 meter wide, and we should just pay for this.’ (J. Dirkmaat, personal communication, 1 May 2015) Researcher Müskens also feels that the ‘budget is too low to create a sustainable hamster population’. Ideally, Müskens would like to develop a mosaic structure of hamster fields, but subsidies are insufficient to do so. In contrast to Dirkmaat, who has the discourse that ‘we should pay whatever it takes’ to create his ideal structure of a tartan pattern, Müskens supports the new hamster packages which would allow subsidies to be redistributed and become available for more hectares. ‘At the moment most areas are too fragmented. Ideally I would like to create a mosaic structure, in which multiple hamster fields are available, they don’t need to
44
be bordering each other, but they should be in close proximity from each other.’ (G. Müskens, personal communication, 22 April 2015) ‘Now we are starting a new experiment in which we offer participating farmers new packages. In those new packages they are allowed to harvest and they are allowed to sell this harvest. In doing so we notice the support among farmers is increasing while we can reduce subsidies. This way we will be able to increase the number of hectares under the programme.’ (G. Müskens, personal communication, 22 April 2015) Despite Müskens positive attitude towards new hamster packages, farmers seemed hesitant towards these changes. All interviewed farmers mentioned they are still interested in participating, but they want to read the new contract first. Several farmers mentioned they would rather not harvest and continue to receive the subsidy as it is, because harvesting later in the year may reduce crop values when the autumn has been very wet. ‘We don’t know yet if we are happy when we are allowed to harvest crop on hamster fields. When we harvest later in the year, there is a risk that the crops are wet, which reduces the value. But at least we could still feed it to the bulls.’ (Farmer 2, personal communication, 14 May 2015) ‘As far as I have understood, the rules are going to change in 2016, now we receive subsidies from the national government, but from 2016 onwards the Province will take over these responsibilities. In 2016 my contract also ends, since I’ll have participated for 6 years by then. In principal, I would like to renew my contract, but I first want to see the new terms and conditions of course.’ (Farmer 3, personal communication, 19 May 2015) Although farmers are generally supportive of the programme, changes lead to doubts among farmers. Furthermore, nature conservation organizations such as SLL are critical towards changes as well, arguing that politicians often believe change equals improvement, but in their experience this is not necessarily the case, moreover, SLL perceives some changes as problematic.
45
‘A problem that continues until today is that farmers can choose to stop participating every time there is a small change in European policy related to the programme. This means that in the past few months, farmers have had three of these letters informing them about these changes. This causes confusion amongst the farmers and then I have to calm them down again.’ (G. Müskens, personal communication, 22 April 2015) ‘Regulations for subsidies for management of natural land or agricultural land with conservation objective are changing constantly. Since 2002, three new subsidy models have been implemented. Politicians tend to think that change means progress, but this is not automatically the case.’ (Employee Stichting Limburgs Landschap, personal communication, 19 March 2015) Communication within the programme seems to remain a problem, researcher Müskens has expressed his concerns about farmers who prioritize their own fields over hamster fields, which can lead to bare fields in and lack of coverage for the hamster in spring, see figures 5.3 and 5.4. ‘Participating farmers generally choose to work their own fields first, it is more important to them than the fields worked for the hamster. The problem is that by the time farmers have time to work on the hamster fields, it is sometimes too wet or too dry, which leads to delays in sowing and a lack of coverage for the hamster in spring. I always try to encourage farmers to sow sooner, but as you can see this doesn’t always lead to the results I am hoping for. ’ (G. Müskens, personal communication, 22 April 2015)
46
Figure 5.3 Field with sufficient coverage in April Source: Michelle Vanderschuren, 22 April 2015
Figure 5.4 Bare field, offering no protection in April Source: Michelle Vanderschuren, 22 April 2015
Furthermore, Müskens experiences developments in the region initiated by the municipality as problematic to the hamster programme. He feels ‘the government does as they please’ and are reluctant to reverse decisions. ‘We are in a continual battle with the municipality over these developments, but they just do as they please, they have already made significant investments and are unwilling to admit mistakes and reverse decisions.’ (G. Müskens, personal communication, 22 April 2015) In this case, the municipality of Sittard is planning a recreational park that overlaps with hamster fields. To make the area more attractive, roads are blocked for traffic and trees are planted, see figures 5.5 and 5.6. Although Müskens is not concerned about an increasing number of people in the area, he is worried dogs may chase and kill the hamsters. Furthermore, the road blocks have not reduced the traffic, instead of driving over the trail between the fields, traffic now passes the road block by going around it, through a field of Natuurmonumenten. To conclude, the planted tree is expected to attract birds of prey, who can easily spot hamsters from this point.
47
Figure 5.5 Road block causing traffic to drive though a field of Natuurmonumenten. Source: Michelle Vanderschuren, 22 April 2015
Figure 5.6 Tree planted in the middle of hamster fields. Source: Michelle Vanderschuren, 22 April 2015
5.5 Conclusion In the conclusion of this chapter, discourses found in the newspaper and interview analysis are aggregated in two steps, see figure 5.7. All discourses found in chapter 5 have been categorized under several sub-discourses. Thereby, sub-discourses have been labelled in an inductive way to represent discourses in the best possible way. The reason to categorize and rename discourses is that it enables a more structured analysis. For example, in this chapter several discourses were found that described the incompetence of the Dutch government, discourses included ‘the government has a slack attitude’, ‘the government is a common enemy’, ‘the government does not take responsibility’ etc. All of these discourses indicate the same thing, namely that the government is incompetent of dealing with this issue. Therefore, ‘incompetence of the government’ is included as a subdiscourse. A second level of aggregation is made up of umbrella discourses, who were also identified and labelled in an inductive way, meaning that they are derived from the gathered data. Umbrella discourses identify the wider themes wherein sub-discourses can be categorized. For example, the sub-discourse of ‘incompetence of the government’ is classified under the umbrella discourse ‘distrust’.
48
In the sections below, the identified umbrella discourses ‘time for action’, ‘distrust’ and ‘economic incentives’, and the sub-discourses classified within those discourses are explained. Thereby, attention is paid to which discourses are underlying the positions of which stakeholders and how this has changed over time.
Umbrella discourses
Sub-discourses
Discourses found in the analysis
Figure 5.7 aggregated discourses: Discourses found in analysis Sub-discourses Umbrella discourses
5.5.1 Umbrella discourse: Time for action The first umbrella discourse is ‘time for action’, this discourse was only present in the early stages of the process, and all sub-discourses categorized here indicate that change is needed to conserve the European Hamster in Limburg. As seen in table 5.1, media, researchers and Das & Boom are the stakeholders were the stakeholders using discourses indicating ‘time for action’. Thereby, the ambition of stakeholders was largely the same; to prevent the European Hamster from going extinct and to redevelop a sustainable hamster population in Zuid-Limburg. This discourse was prominent in the late 1990s and became less apparent when a hamster management programme was established in the early 2000s. Sub-discourses
Stakeholders
using
discourse Changed
agricultural Media, researchers
practices deterioration
the Period
in
which
the
discourse is used 1995-1999
caused of
the
49
hamster population Beer
named
after
the Media
1995-1999
hamster is better known than the mammal itself In the Netherlands, we are NGO Das & Boom
1995-1999
not as good at nature conservation as we think we are Table 5.1 Sub-discourses used under umbrella discourse ‘time for action’
5.5.2 Umbrella discourse: Distrust The umbrella discourse of distrust was used by almost all stakeholders at a certain point in time. As the sub-discourses displayed in table 5.2 show, several forms of distrust were present in the past two decades. Most of these sub-discourses are related, in the late 1990s for example, the province felt actors from outside the region should not interfere in Limburg. In relation to this, the province distrusted other stakeholders, such as Das & Boom who was pointing out the incompetence of the government to meet EU requirements and who had exerted pressure on the national government so they were allowed to catch the last hamster in the region and start a breeding programme. Because the province fought this decision in court, distrust was now mutual between the province, national government and Das & Boom. Simultaneously, farmers were hesitant towards other actors and to the programme itself. Thereby, their discourses of distrust remained largely the same over time. From the late 1990s onwards, farmers have felt nature is not a responsibility of farmers and they were concerned that their fields would be rezoned into a nature reserve if they would start participating in the programme. Although some elderly and non-participating farmers still hang onto these discourses, most participating farmers have lost their distrust towards the programme because of improved financial incentives, as will be seen in section 5.5.3. However, new doubts among farmers are rising now hamster packages are changing, which means subsidies are also likely to be reduced. Other land managers, such as SLL are also unhappy about the continued changes in subsidy systems.
50
Das & Boom’s distrust towards the government in particular is also refuelled not hamster packages are weakened while the hamster population has not recovered yet. Discourses used in early stages of the programme are resurfacing, with Das & Boom claiming the government is slacking and does not take its responsibility to meet objectives of European environmental treaties. Although there are variations in sub-discourses, one could argue that the umbrella discourse of distrust is a red line running through programme from the beginning. Sub-discourses
Stakeholders using the
Period in which the
discourse
discourse is used
Distrust towards outsiders
Farmers, province
1995-1999 and 2000-2004
Distrust towards other
Das & Boom, national
1995-1999, 2011 till now
stakeholders
government, province
Incompetent government
Das & Boom,
1995-1999, 2000-2004 and 2011 till now
The programme is against
media,
1995-1999
Müskens
2011 till now
Farmers
1995-1999, 2000-2004, and
the nature of farming
to a lesser extent 2005-2010 and 2011 till now
Fear to lose land to nature
Farmers
Throughout the whole period.
Hesitance towards new
Farmers, Das & Boom
2011 till now
Change does not always
Stichting Limburgs
2011 till now
imply improvement
Landschap
hamster packages
Sub-discourses contradicting the umbrella discourse of ‘distrust’: The programme is good for
Farmers
2005-2010 and 2011 till now
Müskens
2011 till now
nature and farmers We still have the hamster in Limburg and there is a lot of
51
support Table 5.2 Sub-discourses used under umbrella discourse ‘distrust’
However, some discourses are contradicting this discourse of distrust. Farmers in particular nowadays refer to the programme in a positive way and Müskens also pointed out that, even though programme aims have not been met yet, the Netherlands can be proud about the steps taken so far, see the last two sub-discourses in table 5.2.
5.5.3 Economic incentives Discourses related to economical incentives have also been found throughout the past two decades. Economical incentives have motivated stakeholders to act in a certain way. Farmers, for example were reluctant to participate in early stages of the process because of their discourses of distrust. In relation to this, insufficient compensation did not motivate farmers to adjust this discourse of distrust and to reconsider their participation. Only when subsidies improved over time did farmers start to participate. The actions of other stakeholders have also been strongly supported by economic incentives. The government aims to meet EU requirements without spending more money than necessary. This is also reflected in their discourses focusing on economical impacts of the programme. While the government is trying to reduce expenses on the hamster programme by claiming that the programme is too expensive while success is limited, Das & Boom and Müskens are arguing more investments are needed to create a sustainable hamster population. Sub-discourses
Stakeholders
Compensation too low
using
the Period
in
which
the
discourse
discourse is used
Farmers
1995-1999 and 2000-2004
Trade-off between nature Media, government
2000-2004,
conservation and economic development Hamster does not fit in the Media, government
2005-2010
contemporary society The
programme
is
too Media, government
2011 till now
52
expensive Budget is too low to create NGO Das & Boom, Müskens a
sustainable
2011 till now
hamster
population Table 5.3 Sub-discourses used under umbrella discourse ‘economic incentives’
5.5.4 Connecting findings to Hajer’s institutional void theory In the hamster case, many stakeholders are influencing the policy making process. As Hajer has argued in his institutional void theory, traditional institutional structures are often incapable of effectively addressing contemporary environmental problems on their own. In the hamster case this means that besides the national government and province, researchers, farmers and NGOs have also played a prominent role in the decision making processes throughout the whole period. However, a note should be made that policy making in the Netherlands is often characterized by a participatory process, meaning that a participatory policy making process does not automatically implies the presence of an institutional void (Reed, 2008). In the participatory process observed in the hamster case, all stakeholders have their own channels of power and influence through which they attempt to steer the policy making process towards favourable outcomes. Thereby, some of the channels were informal, for example when Das & Boom pressured through acquiring media attention and when Das & Boom started a hamster breeding programme without any policy on the matter being in place yet. On the other hand, stakeholders have used traditional frameworks such as EU regulation and court cases to their advantage which means the institutional void in the hamster case is only partial. Keeping in mind that the institutional void in the hamster case is only partial, the discourse analysis has shown that discourses have still contributed significantly to the policy making process. In line with Hajer’s theory, all stakeholders had and still have their own objectives, supported by discourses. Although we have seen in sections 5.5.1, 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 that discourses have slightly changed over time, core stakeholder objectives have remained rather static.
53
Based on the discourse analysis we could say that the government wants to meet EU requirements without spending too much money on the hamster programme. Nature conservation organizations, NGO Das & Boom and researchers on the other hand wants to create optimal circumstances for the hamster, while farmers are primarily concerned about receiving a suitable compensation for their efforts. In the hamster case, prominent discourses often went hand in hand with the goals of individual stakeholder groups. For example, discourses pointing out the trade-off between nature conservation and economic development, and discourses highlighting the ridiculousness and expenses of the programme have supported the government’s ambitions to not spend too much money on the case. Discourses pointing out the failures and laziness of the government on the other hand can be related to Das & Boom’s ambitions to increase support for species protection, thereby shaming and blaming the government in the media and at European court. Thirdly, farmers have used discourses of distrust and hesitance to pressure the government and researchers to increase subsidies and moderate programme requirements.
54
Chapter 6 – Comparing agricultural activities
In this chapter, agricultural practices will be briefly discussed. Thereby, a comparison will be made between regular farming practices, and practices for the hamster management programme. Tables will be used to compare the following variables: hectares used for the hamster programme and hectares used for other crops, crops planted, the use of weed control, time of harvest and the depth of ploughing. For some of the farmers interviewed, it was hard to remember practices executed further back in time. However, information provided by Müskens and SLL enabled insights in the development of programme requirements over time.
6.1 Comparing agricultural practices In the tables below, the agricultural practices of farmers interviewed are listed. Each table is dedicated to one farmer, whereby management practices on hamster fields are compared to practices on regular fields of the particular farmer. Farmer 1
Hectares
Crops planted
Use of
Time of harvest
weed
Depth of ploughing
control Hamster
20ha
field
Wheat, rye,
1x per year
No harvest, work
oats, Lucerne
the field after 1
(and from
February.
autumn
Mowing Lucerne
onwards also
once a year.
max. 20cm
Japanese oats Regular field
40ha
Wheat, beets
3 to 4 times Harvest in
and corn
a year on
Between 25
July/August, work in and 30cm
55
wheat
the field
fields and 8
immediately after
times a
harvest
year on
(August/September)
sugar beet fields Table 6.1 management practices by farmer 1
Farmer 2
Hectares
Crops planted
Use
of Time of harvest
weed
Depth
of
ploughing
control Hamster
20ha
field
Wheat,
1x per year
No harvest.
Lucerne and
Only mowing of
fodder radish.
Lucerne twice a
15 cm deep
year (before 20 June) Regular
20ha
field
Sugar beets
1x per year
In autumn
and corn
Between 20 and 25 cm deep
Table 6.2 management practices by farmer 2
Farmer 3
Hectares
Crops planted
Use
of Time of harvest
weed
Depth
of
ploughing
control Hamster
8 to 12 ha Lucerne,
No weed
No harvest. Only
field
per year
wheat and
control on
mowing of Lucerne
barley
Lucerne
once a year
fields.
(before June)
15 cm deep
1x per year on weed fields
56
Regular
13 to 17 ha Potatoes and
Every week
Sugar beets
field
per year
on potatoes
around mid-
and
December.
4 to 6 times
Potatoes between
a year on
August and
sugar beets
15 cm deep
sugar beets. September, Table 6.3 management practices by farmer 3
Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 largely show overlapping management practices on hamster fields. This could of course be expected since subsidies are not paid when farmers fail to meet the guidelines. Still, some differences are noticeable, particularly in the use of weed control and in ploughing practices. One of the interviewed farmers was very strict and sprayed every hamster field once a year. The other two farmers mentioned they only used weed control on some of the fields, depending on the crop growing on it. In terms of ploughing, the techniques used by farmers differs. Some of the farmers have adopted new ploughing techniques whereby the soil is not turned, but instead loosened with pins, see figure 6.1. This ploughing technique automatically reduces the depth of ploughing to 15cm. Farmers using more traditional techniques plough at a maximum depth of 20cm, which is still less than the 25cm of depth at which regular fields are ploughed. Other differences between hamster fields and regular fields are significant, particularly in terms of the types of crops planted and the time of harvest. Wheat, oats and other crops used on hamster fields are not profitable for farmers. In contrast to the 70s, these types of crops are barely seen on regular fields these days. Instead, those
Figure 6.1 Modern ploughing technique whereby soil is only loosened but not turned. Source: akkerwijzer.nl
fields are planted with potatoes, sugar beets and corn.
57
In terms of harvesting, crops on hamster fields are usually not harvested but only ploughed under and replanted either in late autumn or early spring. Only Lucerne is mown either once or twice a year, farmers are allowed to do so before the 20 th of June. The time of harvest on regular fields depends on the type of crops planted. Stichting
Hectares
Crops planted
Use of
Limburgs
weed
Landschap
control
Hamster field
30ha
Lucerne,
unknown
Time of harvest
Depth of ploughing
No harvest
unknown
wheat, barley, rye, oats
Table 6.4 management practices by SLL
In table 6.4, management practices of SLL in agricultural reserve Sibbe are displayed. Crops planted show significant similarities with those on fields managed by farmers. However, on reserve Sibbe a wider range of crops is found. Differences can also be found in the structure of the reserve, when comparing it to land managed by farmers. On agricultural reserve Sibbe, fields are structured in 40 strips of land with a length between 0.9 and 1.6 ha and a width of 30 to 40 meters. On each of the strips, a different crop is grown. Farmers on the other hand plant only one crop per field, meaning they may have a field with barley, some fields with Lucerne and some fields with wheat. Thereby, fields are rotated every couple of years, meaning that a field that is now used to grow sugar beets on, may be used in the hamster programme next year and vice versa.
6.2 Changes over time In the past decade, requirements of the hamster management programme have changed significantly. As mentioned earlier, when the programme was set up, knowledge on the species and it’s habitats requirements was very limited. In the early stages of the programme, focus was predominantly on managing fields as naturally as possible, meaning that no weed control and no fertilizers were used. Furthermore, wheat was the prominent
58
crop grown on hamster fields, because this was known to be the most important food source of the hamster. To limit subsidies, farmers were initially also allowed to harvest crops, while leaving some strips. As already shown in chapter 5, however, this was very complicated for farmers. Researchers soon learned that these management practices were not ideal, as the survival rate of hamsters was poor, fields were soon covered in weeds and because farmers indicated requirements were too complicated to execute properly. Over time, researchers learned it was not only important to provide food for the hamster, but that providing coverage was perhaps even more important to increase chances of survival of the hamster. This is when other crops, such as Lucerne, became more important in the programme. Nowadays, farmers are even experimenting with ground crops such as clover to be grown under wheat to provide even better coverage. Furthermore, subsidies have been increased and farmers do not harvest on hamster fields at all to simplify rules for farmers. To prevent weeds from taking and to ensure crops continue to grow properly, farmers are now also allowed to use weed control and fertilizers in moderation.
6.3 Conclusion In chapter 4 the conservation status of the hamster in the Netherlands has been discussed. Figures 1.1 and 4.3 have shown the hamster population was close to zero in 1999. When the hamster friendly management programme and breeding programme were established in the early 2000s, the populations slowly recovered. However, the number of hamsters remained far below the desired number. When comparing the population statistics to the findings of chapter 6, a correlation between management practices and the conservation status of the hamster was found. Based on stakeholder interviews, information on the hamster’s habitat requirements were very limited in the early 2000s. Nonetheless, the releasing of bred hamsters since 2002, in combination with the presence of wheat and other hamster friendly crops on some fields led to an increase in the hamster population.
59
Through trial and error hamster packages have significantly improved since the mid 2000s. Furthermore, the number of participating farmers increased in this period and stakeholder communication improved in general with the establishment of the korenwolfcommission and the absence of Das & Boom. All these improvements are reflected in the hamster population which rapidly increased between 2005 and 2008. This indicates a correlation between the hamster population and farming practices. Since changes in communication and a change of discourses in this period were also present, in particular among farmers, there may also be a correlation between stakeholder discourses and the hamster population. In 2008 there was a rapid decline of the population, according to researchers this had multiple causes, one being that the hamster is a rodent, and this type of species is known to have significantly fluctuating population numbers. However, despite increased knowledge and increased support among farmers, the population did not recover as well as anticipated. This may be explained by a fragmentation of hamster fields that prevents hamsters from expanding to other fields. Related to this, a limited programme budget prevents the number of hectares from being expanded, meaning that the hamster population also remains limited. To conclude, one could argue that farming practices have played an important role in explaining fluctuations of the hamster population in the past. However, nowadays it is primarily lack of investments that prevents the hamster to flourish once again. This problem is unlikely to be solved as long as the government is unwilling to invest more in the programme. This again raises questions about the presence of an institutional void in the hamster case. In contrast to the institutional void, where power is dispersed, it seems that power is still very much concentrated within the government and that other stakeholders feel powerless to influence decisions made by the government (for example concerning changes in the hamster packages).
60
Chapter 7 – Conclusion and further research
In this concluding chapter the sub-questions and research question will be addressed first in paragraph 7.1, after which some general lessons will be drawn from the case in paragraph 7.2. In paragraph 7.3 a critical reflection on the research will be given and in paragraph 7.4 recommendations for further research will be made.
7.1 Research findings In this paragraph the questions introduced in chapter 1 will be addressed. Thereby, the subquestions will be discussed first, and the main research question will be addressed in section 7.1.4. When addressing the research questions, attention will also be paid to connecting the empirical findings to the theoretical framework.
7.1.1 SQ1: What stakeholder groups have aimed to influence the policy making process and how did they do this? The hamster case is characterized by the involvement of many different stakeholder groups. Besides the national government and province, NGOs, researchers, nature conservation organizations and farmers have all been participating throughout the policy making process. Although the complexity of this policy issue and the presence of a partial institutional void may have contributed to the involvement of a mixed group of stakeholders, it is also important to note that the Dutch policy making context is generally of a multi-actor and participatory nature. The hamster case is a contested issue whereby a significant knowledge gap was present particularly in the beginning of the programme. All participating stakeholders have contributed in the establishment and refinement of the hamster management programme over time by bringing in their own expectations, norms and routines. This is where the institutional void is, or at least has been noticeable. The lack of expertise on the case among
61
any of the stakeholders meant that policy outcomes largely depended on the priorities and ambitions of the stakeholders, and the means they used to achieve these ambitions. The stakeholders, their ambitions and means to influence the policy making process have been listed in table 7.1. Some stakeholders have similar ambitions, for example, both the national government and province used discourses implying that they wish to meet EU requirements in order to avoid fines, but simultaneously they do not intend to spend any more money on the programme than necessary. Policy making expertise is the most prominent tool used by these stakeholders to meet their ambitions. In line with Hajer’s theory, it should be noted that the position and ambitions of stakeholders may change over time. This is most visible among farmers and the province, see table 7.1. Both were reluctant to accept interference from outsiders in the region. The province used legal channels to exert pressure on the national government and to try to prevent the last hamsters in the region from being caught by NGO Das & Boom. When Das & Boom resigned from the programme, the provinces’ focus shifted more towards developing the hamster management programme in an efficient but also cost-effective way. Farmers, who in the beginning wanted nothing to do with the hamster, refused to participate in the programme. Since policy makers relied on farmers to manage fields in a hamster friendly way, this hesitant attitude of farmers led to raising subsidies that eventually motivated farmers to participate. Nowadays, participating farmers seem very happy with the programme. Das & Boom, researchers and nature conservation organisations make up the third group of stakeholders. Although they are all very different, their core ambition shown in table 7.1 is similar; they want to ensure a sustainable hamster population in Zuid-Limburg. However, the means through which they aspire to accomplish this are different. Das & Boom is particularly strong in its use of discourses which are primarily expressed through media channels. Furthermore, Das & Boom uses existing legal frameworks to exert pressure on the government. Researchers and nature conservation organisations on the other hand use knowledge to motivate management choices.
62
Stakeholder
What do they want?
How did they try to achieve their goals?
National government
Want to meet EU
Expertise on policy making
requirements without spending too much money Province
(In the beginning of the
(In the beginning)
programme) Wanted no
Threatening to take the case
interference in the region.
to court.
Now wants to prevent fines, but without spending too much money.
Changing hamster packages to meet programme aims without having to spend more.
Das & Boom
Create optimal
Seeking media attention,
circumstances for the
taking the case to court and
hamster, to ensure a
now establishing a collective
sustainable population
to prevent new hamster packages from being introduced
Researchers
Create optimal
Doing research and
circumstances for the
optimizing hamster
hamster, to ensure a
programmes. Introducing
sustainable population
new hamster packages to enable more hectares to be subsidised under the programme
Farmers
Receiving a suitable
Choosing not to participate
compensation for their
in the beginning of the
efforts
programme
63
Nature conservation
Create optimal
Managing land in the best
organisations
circumstances for the
possible way, based on
hamster, to ensure a
scientific knowledge and
sustainable population
policy objectives
Table 7.1 Stakeholders, their ambitions and means to achieve their goals
7.1.2 SQ2: How have discourses changed over time? In the previous section, stakeholders, their ambitions and means to meet those ambitions were discussed. In accordance with Hajer’s institutional void theory, the previous subquestion has shown that all stakeholders had their own expectations and their own forms of knowledge at the start of the programme, which resulted in multiple realities. Because of this, the policy making process is characterized by a constant struggle to address the case in a way that is considered both legitimate and effective (Hajer, 2003). Thereby, discourses are an important means for stakeholders to communicate and to negotiate new institutional rules and to develop new norms of appropriate behaviour. Table 7.2 shows the most important sub-discourses of the different stakeholder groups at the beginning of the programme and the most recent sub-discourses identified for each stakeholder, sub-discourses have been discussed in chapter 5 and are an aggregated level of discourses found in the discourse analysis. For clarity, umbrella discourses under which the sub-discourses were classified in chapter 5 are also shown in the table in cursive lettering. Although Hajer highlighted that the policy making process in the institutional void is of pragmatic nature, whereby norms, values and discourses change over time, this case has shown that discourses of some stakeholders are rather static (Hajer, 2003). In line with its objectives identified in section 7.1.1, discourses held by the national government and province have been quite stable over time. From the beginning, their focus has predominantly been on the economic implications of the programme, and the national government in particular started to point out the failures of the programme, initiating that the programme is a waste of money and that investments should be reduced even further. Since the discourses and attitudes of the government are rather static, Das & Boom’s discourses who are meant to influence the government’s actions, also remained the same
64
over time. Aspirations and norms of the government and Das & Boom are so far removed from each other that no mutually accepted behaviour and rules have been established yet. In contrast to discourses held by the government and NGO Das & Boom, discourses held by farmers and the media have changed drastically over time, whereby farmers attitudes changed over time from being very hesitant towards the programme to being very accepting and positive. Changes in discourses and attitudes towards the programme may be explained by changes in the programme itself that benefitted participating farmers. Subsidies have improved significantly over time and requirements have also become easier implementable than they were in the early 2000s. Whereas farmers’ discourses towards the programme went from negative towards positive, the opposite is true for the media. In early years of the programme, the media was very positive and supportive of the battle Das & Boom was fighting. However, over time the media became more supportive of discourses held by the government, emphasizing the trade-off between nature conservation and economic development. Stakeholder
Initial discourse
Changes in discourses
Government
Distrust towards other
The programme is too
stakeholders
expensive
(umbrella discourse: distrust)
(umbrella discourse: economic incentives)
Das & Boom Researchers
Farmers
Incompetent government
Incompetent government
(umbrella discourse: distrust)
(umbrella discourse: distrust)
Changed farming practices
We still have the hamster in
caused the deterioration of
Limburg and there is a lot of
the hamster population
support
(umbrella discourse: time for
(umbrella discourse: distrust-
action)
contradicting)
The programme is against
The programme is good for
the nature of farming
nature and farmer
(umbrella discourse: distrust)
(umbrella discourse: distrustcontradicting)
65
conservation Unknown
Nature organisations
Change does not always imply improvement. (umbrella discourse: distrust)
Media
Beer named after the
The programme is too
hamster is better known
expensive
than the mammal itself
(umbrella discourse:
(umbrella discourse: time for
economic incentives)
action) Table 7.2 Changes in stakeholder discourses over time
7.1.3 SQ3: How have agricultural activities in Zuid-Limburg changed over time to support conservation of the European Hamster? In the 1990s the hamster went nearly extinct due to intensification of farming practices. Due to drastic changes in farming techniques and in the type of crops grown , sources of food and coverage had become scarce for the hamster. When the programme started in the early 2000s, nature conservation organisations started managing agricultural land, based on their knowledge. Unfortunately, this traditional knowledge did not match with the requirements of the hamster and soon caused fields to be overgrown with weeds while the mortality of the European Hamster remained high in this period. Over time, researchers learned more about the hamsters and since the mid-2000s the programme was adapted to this new knowledge. The new programme requirements were not only better for the hamster, they were also easier to implement for farmers, thereby improving support among them. In contrast to earlier years, when the hamster population remained rather low, the mammal flourished between 2005 and 2008. This shows a correlation between farming practices and the conservation status of the hamster, since the population increased at the time new knowledge on the hamster was applied within management practices. However, in 2008 the population collapsed due to unfavourable weather conditions, showing other variables also strongly influence the conservation status of the hamster.
66
Up to today, the population has been unable to recover despite higher levels of participation among farmers and despite improved management practices. Therefore, another variable may also influence the population status, namely the amount of fields available to the hamster. Several stakeholders have indicated that programme funds are currently insufficient to finance subsidies for the number of fields necessary to build a sustainable population on.
7.1.4 RQ: How have stakeholder discourses and agricultural activities in Zuid-Limburg changed over the last two decades and how has the interaction of these variables influenced the conservation status of the European Hamster in this region? In the late 1990s contemporary farming practices were so far removed from the habitat requirements of the European Hamster that the rodent almost went extinct. The drastically low hamster population motivated stakeholders to take action, meaning that the status of the hamster population influenced discourses from the beginning of the programme, see figure 7.1.
Hamster population
Agricultural practices
Discourses
Figure 7.1 correlations between discourses, agricultural practices and the hamster population
67
One could argue that the policy making process following the ‘time for action’ umbrella discourse took place in a partial institutional void characterized by significant knowledge gaps on the habitat requirements of the European Hamster and with power being dispersed between multiple stakeholders. In those early years of the programme, it was particularly NGO Das & Boom, and not the government that steered the policy making process towards outcomes they deemed favourable. However, influence was exerted by seeking media attention as well as by using existing European Frameworks, meaning that even in the late 1990s the institutional void was only partial. Over time, with the closing of knowledge gaps and the solidification of hamster management programmes, the institutional void that was only partially present in the first place, decreased. The policy making process is still of participatory nature, but as mentioned earlier, this can be explained by the Dutch culture of policy making and does not necessarily imply the presence of an institutional void. Communication and discourses remained important over time and a relation between discourses and farming practices is found in several forms. First of all, the hesitant position of farmers and discourses through which they expressed this position, influenced their willingness to participate. This had major implications for the hamster population, since the programme is only effective when a sufficient number of farmers is actively involved, because contemporary farming practices are too far removed from habitat requirements of the hamster. If farmers decided not to participate in the programme, the hamster would go extinct in no time. On the other hand, discourses of other stakeholders have influenced farming practices as well, mostly through policy. For example, due to disappointing outcomes of the hamster programme so far, the government is reluctant to continue its investments in the programme which would, according to Müskens and Dirkmaat, have significant consequences for the hamsters’ conservation. Therefore, a correlation is again found between the status of the hamster population and changes in discourses. Since the government is required by EU regulation to protect and improve the conservation status of the hamster, the government and researcher Müskens have the ambition to include more hectares in the programme without increasing subsidies. When new hamster
68
packages are introduced and when subsidies per hectare are reduced, this has direct implications on how the hamster fields are managed. In the near future, farmers will probably be harvesting and selling the crops from hamster fields, which may lead to other management changes such as the amount of fertilizers and pesticides used to maximize harvest, thereby possibly also influencing the status of the hamster population. Therefore, a correlation between the variables hamster population, discourses and agricultural practices was found as displayed in figure 7.1.
7.2 Lesson drawing Although this research focused on a very specific case, some general lessons could be drawn from it. This case study has shown that aspects of the institutional void could be noticeable for a long time, but that one should be careful not to imply that certain variables indicate the presence of an institutional void, there may also be contextual explanations. In this case aspects of the institutional void included a complex environmental policy issue wherein multiple stakeholders have contributed by bringing in their own knowledge and expertise, as well as discourses and ambitions. Thereby, stakeholders have shaped policy towards outcomes they deemed favourable at the time. As discussed earlier, the Dutch policy making context is generally characterized by a participatory policy making process. This means that the culture of policy making is likely to have an impact on the constitution of stakeholders participating in the policy making process and their roles within this process in other cases in another contextual setting as well. In the hamster case, knowledge gaps and competing ambitions and discourses have led to institutional struggles throughout the entire programme. In this case, prominent discourses have strongly influenced policy outcomes. For example, in the context where the umbrella discourse of ‘time for action’ was dominant and when financial matters were of secondary importance, a very detailed species protection plan (SPP) was developed. However, over time, when discourses shifted towards the trade-off between nature conservation and economic development, the SPP was deemed as an ineffective approach by the government and policy focus shifted towards wider framework programmes for natural areas as a whole.
69
Although the SPP for the hamster is still in place, changes in discourses still influence investments in the programme, which leads to changes in policy in the form of new hamster packages, thereby also influencing farming practices. This example shows another general lesson that policy is never static and that policy changes are related to changing discourses. Thereby, this case has also shown that despite a shift towards more participatory policy making processes, decision making power is still very much concentrated within the government. Since this actor has both the legal and financial power to take decisions, policy changes can be made by them, to a certain degree even without the consent of other stakeholders. This case has also shown on multiple occasions that policy changes have a direct impact on (agricultural) practices. For example, over time the hamster programme has been simplified to improve implementation, thereby policy changes directly led to changing agricultural practices. Now, the new hamster packages who will be introduced in 2016 are also expected to lead to significant changes in management practices.
7.3 Critical reflection The number of interviews conducted is on the low side due to many complications in organizing interviews with farmers in particular. For contact details of farmers I relied completely on information provided by researcher Gerard Müskens. Although he was most helpful, his busy schedule limited the information he could provide, despite contacting him on a frequent basis. Due to a disappointing amount of contact details and because this research was conducted in spring, which is a very busy time for farmers, it was hard to cluster interviews. Consequentially, I was only be able to organize one interview a week instead of having three interviews in a row as I initially had intended. Money and time constraints limited the number of interviews that could be conducted. Another constraint of this research is that contact details of non-participating farmers could not be acquired at all. This means that discourses of this group of farmers could only be derived indirectly from interviews with other stakeholders. Furthermore, although some general lessons have been drawn in paragraph 7.2, a single case study limited opportunities
70
for generalization. In order to be able to draw more generally valid conclusions, a multiple case study design would probably have been a better choice.
7.4 Further research In follow up research, another attempt could be made to compare discourses of farmers participating in the programme to farmers working in the same region who have chosen not to participate in the programme. Furthermore, the hamster protection programme in the Netherlands could be compared to policies, discourses and farming practices in neighbouring countries such as France and Germany. Lessons could then be drawn from differences and overlaps in discourses and practices in the three countries and stronger conclusions may be drawn on the degree to which the institutional void leads to certain policy outcomes in contrast to the role of the cultural context. Another interesting topic of research might be the comparison of the hamster case and another species dependent on agricultural practices, such as the black-tailed godwit. Although specific requirements might be different, the learning process of actors who need to find a balance between agriculture and the conservation of a species might be interesting.
71
Bibliography Aarden, M., 2005. Maak de dieren Europees. De Volkskrant, 28 May , pp. http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossier-archief/maak-de-dieren-europees~a652140/. Beunen, R., Duineveld, M. & Van Assche, K., 2011. De perfomatieve macht van mislukking. Moeizame implementatie van Natura 2000.. Landschap, 28(3), pp. 109-118. Bryman, A., 2008. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. & Barthe, Y., 2009. Acting in an uncertain world. An essay on technical democracy. 1 red. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Compendium voor de Leefomgeving, 2014. Herintroductie Hamster 1999-2013. [Online] Available at: http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl1073-Herintroductiehamster.html?i=2-10 [Geopend 14 February 2015]. Das & Boom, 2015. Geschiedenis van Das & Boom. [Online] Available at: http://www.dasenboom.nl/index.asp?pa_id=28 [Geopend 26 February 2015]. European Commission, 2009. Hamster, Cricetus cricetus Factsheet. EU wildlife and sustainable farming project. [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Cricetus%20cricetus%20fa ctsheet%20-%20SWIFI.pdf [Geopend 6 February 2015]. European Commission, n.d.. Common Hamster Cricetus Cricetus fact sheet. [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Cricetus%20cricetus%20fa ctsheet%20-%20SWIFI.pdf [Geopend 10 March 2015]. European Court of Justice, 2011. Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Habitats Directive Inadequacy of measures taken to protect the species Cricetus cricetus (European hamster) Deterioration of habitats. [Online] Available at: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130dee563ec7193954589ba 40f2ff0cbdb8c4.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Obx4Le0?text=&docid=85129&pageIndex=0&doclang=e n&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3920 [Geopend 15 March 2015]. European Environment Agency, 2009. Habitats Directive Article 17 Reporting. [Online] Available at: http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/x_habitatart17report/library/datasheets/species/mammals/mammals/cricetus_cricetuspdf [Geopend 26 February 2015].
72
Hajer, M., 2003. Policy without polity? Policy analysis in an institutional void. Policy Sciences, Issue 36, pp. 175-195. Hajer, M., n.d.. Het korenwolf-effect. [Online] Available at: http://maartenhajer.nl/upload/De%20korenwolf%20als%20versneller.pdf [Geopend 27 February 2015]. Hajer, M. & Versteeg, W., 2006. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), pp. 175184. Hajer, M. & Wagenaar, H., 2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Healey, P., 1992. A Planner's Day. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(1), pp. 9-21. Janssen, C., 2000. 'Stop het bouwe, er zijn hamsters'. Volkskrant, 15 July, pp. http://www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/stop-het-bouwen-er-zijn-hamsters~a578467/. Klapwijk, E., 2001. Bouwbedrijven weten Das & Boom al te vinden. Trouw, 4 April, pp. http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/article/detail/2485210/2001/04/04/Bouwbedrijven-wetenDas-Boom-al-te-vinden.dhtml. Kleijn, D., 2012. De effectiviteit van agrarisch natuurbeheer, Wageningen University & Research Institution: Alterra. Korenwolfcommissie, 2015. Subsidie voor agrariërs. [Online] Available at: http://www.korenwolfwereld.nl/5agrarier.htm [Geopend 15 March 2015]. Korenwolfwereld, 2015. Historie bescherming. [Online] Available at: http://www.korenwolfwereld.nl/wysiwyg.asp?upgroep=4&wwwref=g75cg96ers93bf [Geopend 17 February 2015]. Korenwolfwereld, 2015. Kernleefgebieden. [Online] Available at: http://www.korenwolfwereld.nl/2leefgebieden.htm [Geopend 15 March 2015]. Korenwolfwereld, 2015. Soortenberschermingsplan. [Online] Available at: http://www.korenwolfwereld.nl/5beschermingsplan.htm [Geopend 15 March 2015]. Kuiters, A. T., La Haye, M. J. J., Müskens, G. J. D. M. & van Kats, R. J. M., 2010. Perspectieven voor een duurzame bescherming van de hamster in Nederland, Wageningen, the Netherlands: Alterra. Kuiters, L., Müskens, G., La Haye, M. & van Kats, R., 2011. De evoluatie van de Korenwolfpilot: Een toekomst voor de korenwolf in Nederland, Roermond, the Netherlands: Dienst Landelijk Gebied Limburg.
73
Lammerse, A., 2000. Wethouders gillend over hun nek van Das en Boom. Volkskrant, 2 March, pp. http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/wethouders-gillend-over-hun-nek-van-das-enboom~a564385/. Marijnissen, H., 2011. Klaar om ze terug te pakken. Trouw, 3 May, pp. http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4332/Groen/article/detail/1884206/2011/05/03/Klaar-om-ze-terug-tepakken.dhtml. NRC Handelsblad, 1998. Actie voor behoud van de Korenwolf. NRC Handelsblad, 22 April, pp. http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/1998/april/22/actie-voor-behoud-van-de-korenwolf-7396261. Reed, M. S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), pp. 2417-2431. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2012. Research methods for business students. Harlow: Pearson Education. Schuerhoff, M. & Ruijs, A., 2015. Lessen van twee decennia korenwolfbeleid. Naar verbindend natuurbeleid, The Netherlands: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. Soortenbescherming Nederland, 2011. Das en Boom krijgt gelijk inzake Korenwolf. [Online] Available at: http://www.soortenbescherming.nl/Actueel/tabid/419/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/141/Dasen-Boom-krijgt-gelijk-inzake-korenwolf.aspx [Geopend 27 February 2015]. Trouw, 1998. Redding korenwolf nabij: meer ruimte in Zuid-Limburg. Trouw, 22 August, pp. http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/article/detail/2585479/1998/08/22/Redding-korenwolfnabij-meer-ruimte-in-Zuid-Limburg.dhtml. Trouw, 2000. Een milioen per korenwolf. Trouw, 10 May, pp. http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/article/detail/2522918/2000/05/10/Een-miljoen-perkorenwolf.dhtml. Trouw, 2002. Natuurbeleid EU gebrekkig ingevoerd. Trouw, 18 June, pp. http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/article/detail/2790066/2002/06/18/Natuurbeleid-EUgebrekkig-ingevoerd.dhtml. Trouw, 2011. Alterra bezuinigt onderzoek naar otter en hamster weg. Trouw, 21 April, pp. http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/article/detail/1878670/2011/04/21/Alterra-bezuinigtonderzoek-naar-otter-en-hamster-weg.dhtml. van den Broek, M., 1995. Als de korenwolf uitsterft, heeft Limburg altijd nog het bier. Volkskrant, 12 August, pp. http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossier-archief/als-de-korenwolf-uitsterft-heeft-limburg-altijdnog-het-bier~a395736/. van Hoek, M., 2008. Minder vertraging bouw door slak, pad en muis. Volkskrant, 31 October, pp. http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/minder-vertraging-bouw-door-slak-pad-en-muis~a927776/.
74
van Slobbe, T. & Knot, H.-J., 1999. Korenwolf bedreigd door laksheid ministerie. Trouw, 11 May, pp. http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/article/detail/2654754/1999/05/11/Korenwolf-bedreigddoor-laksheid-ministerie.dhtml. Volkskrant, 2013. Natuurbeleid moet weg van details. Volkskrant, 17 May , pp. http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossier-archief/natuurbeleid-moet-weg-van-details~a3442681/. Wesseling, M., 2011. Korenwolf blijft zorgenkindje. Trouw, 10 May, pp. http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4332/Groen/article/detail/2421534/2011/05/10/Korenwolf-blijftzorgenkindje.dhtml. Wesseling, M., 2011. Korenwolf blijft zorgenkindje. Trouw, 10 May, pp. http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4332/Groen/article/detail/2421534/2011/05/10/Korenwolf-blijftzorgenkindje.dhtml. Yin, R. K., 2009. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. 4 red. Los Angeles : SAGE .
75
Annexes Appendix 1: Interview questions 1. Stichting Limburgs Landschap In Dutch (original): 1. Kunt u kort iets vertellen over uw rol binnen het hamster project? 2. Is uw rol binnen het project in de loop van de tijd veranderd? 3. Kunt u iets vertellen over hoe u Akkerreservaat Sibbe beheert (welke gewassen, hoe diep ploegt u, gebruik onkruidbestrijders etc) 4. Welke problemen bent u tegengekomen binnen het hamster programma? 5. Hoe verliep de communicatie met andere stakeholders bij het opzetten van het hamster beschermingsplan? 6. Hoe is dit in de loop van de tijd veranderd? In English (translated): 1. Could you briefly describe your role in the hamster programme? 2. Has your role within the project changed over time? 3. Could you please briefly explain how the Agricultural reserve Sibbe is managed? (which crops are planted, depth of plowing, weed control etc.) 4. What problems did you experience within the hamster programme? 5. How did you experience the communication between stakeholders in the policy making process of the hamster programme? 6. Has communication between stakeholders changed over time?
2. Researcher Gerard Müskens In Dutch (original): 1. Kunt u kort iets vertellen over uw rol binnen het project? 2. In hoeverre is uw rol in de loop van de tijd veranderd? 3. In hoeverre is de houding van boeren ten opzichte van het project in de loop van de tijd veranderd? 4. Welke factoren hebben hier volgens u een rol bij gespeeld? 5. Hoe is het contact met andere stakeholders veranderd in de loop van de tijd? 6. Welke problemen en moeilijkheden bent u aan het begin van het project tegengekomen? In hoeverre zijn deze problemen en moeilijkheden in de loop van de tijd veranderd/opgelost? 7. Hoe schat u de toekomst van het project in?
76
In English (translated): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Could you briefly explain your role within the programme? Till what extent has your role within the programme changed over time? Till what extent has your relation with farmers changed within the project over time? Which factors have contributed to this changing role? How has your contact with other stakeholders changed over time? Which problems and difficulties did you experience at the beginning of the project? Ill what extent have these problems and difficulties changed of were they solved? 7. How do you see the future of the project?
3. NGO Das & BoomJaap Dirkmaat In Dutch (original): 1. Wat was in eerste instantie uw motivatie om zich in te zetten voor de Korenwolf? 2. Hoe heeft u uw aanpak georganiseerd? / Waarom heeft u op een bepaalde wijze gehandeld? (bijvoorbeeld de media opgezocht) 3. Welke rol speelde Das & Boom bij het opzetten van het hamsterbeheersprogramma? 4. Welke moeilijkheden of problemen kwamen naar voren tijdens het opzetten van het hamsterbeheersprogramma? 5. Hoe verliep de communicatie met andere stakeholders? 6. Hoe is uw rol binnen het hamsterbeheersprogramma in de loop van de tijd veranderd? En in hoeverre is uw verhouding met andere stakeholders veranderd? 7. Bent u tevreden over het hamsterbeheersprogramma zoals het er nu is? Zo niet, wat zou beter kunnen? 8. Hoe ziet u uw huidige en/of toekomstige rol binnen het korenwolfbeleid? In English (translated): 1. Which aspects of the hamster case motivated you in the beginning to commit to the hamster? 2. How did your organization organize your plea? Which methods have you used to get attention for the case? 3. Which role did Das & Boom play in the creation of the hamster management programme? 4. Which difficulties and problems did you encounter during the development of the hamster management programme? 5. How was the communication with other stakeholders? 6. How has your role within the hamster programme changed over time? And till what extent has your relation with other stakeholders changed over time? 7. Are you satisfied with the programme as it is now? If not, what could be done better?
77
8. How do you see the future of the hamster management programme?
4. Farmers In Dutch (original): 1. Sinds wanneer neemt u deel aan het Hamster vriendelijk beheersprogramma? 2. Waarom heeft u er in eerste instantie voor gekozen om deel te nemen aan het Hamster vriendelijk beheersprogramma? 3. Waarom heeft u in een bepaalde periode gekozen om niet deel te nemen? 4. Zijn uw redenen om wel/niet deel te nemen veranderd? Zijn er motivaties bijgekomen of weggevallen? 5. Heeft u op een bepaald moment getwijfeld om uw deelname aan het programma te beëindigen, zo ja, waarom? 6. In hoeverre vindt u dat u genoeg wordt betrokken bij besluiten die worden genomen over het Hamstervriendelijk beheer en subsidieregelingen daaromtrent? Hoe vond u dat u in het verleden werd betrokken? 7. Zou u in het kort iets kunnen vertellen over wat er van u werd verwacht toen u deel nam aan het programma en zijn deze verwachtingen in de loop van de tijd veranderd? (welke gewassen zaaide u, wanneer en hoeveel oogstte u, hoe diep mocht u ploegen, gebruik van pesticiden etc.) 8. Heeft u het gevoel dat de eisen terecht zijn en heeft u het gevoel dat u daarin voldoende begeleid wordt en dat u voldoende gecompenseerd wordt? 9. Hoe was dit in het verleden? In English (translated) : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
When have you started participating in the hamster management programme? Why did you initially choose to participate in the hamster management programme? Why have you chosen to not participate in a certain period of time? (if applicable) Have your reasons to participate changed over time? Have you considered ending your participation in the hamster programme at a certain point in time? If so, for what reason(s)? 6. Till what extend do you feel you are involved in the decision making process sufficiently? How was this in the past? 7. Could you please tell me something about the management the programme required when you started participating in the hamster programme? Have these expectations changed over time? (for example in terms of which crops to plant, the depth of plowing and the use of pesticides and weed control) 8. Do you feel that the requests made by the programme are relevant and do you feel compensation is sufficient?
78
9. How has this been in the past?
5. Coupling interview question’s to Bryman’s guiding questions for a discourse analysis Bryman’s
guiding What
questions
is
discourse doing?
Stakeholders ↓ Farmers Stichting
Questions: 2, 3, 4 Limburgs Questions: 1, 2
Landschap
the How is the discourse What resources are constructed to make available to make this happen?
this happen
Questions: 8, 9
Questions: 5, 6, 7
Questions: 4, 5, 6
Questions: 3
(nature
conservation organisation) NGO Das & Boom
Questions: 1, 7, 8
Questions: 3, 4, 6
Questions: 2, 5
Researcher
Questions: 1, 2, 7
Questions: 3, 5
Questions: 4, 6
G. Müskens Table 1 Coupling interview questions to Bryman’s guiding questions for conducting a discourse analysis
79
Appendix 2: Full Interviews 1. Interview employee Stichting Limburgs Landschap
19 March 2015
In Dutch (original): De geïnterviewde werkt bij Stichting Limburgs Landschap sinds 2002 en is ook betrokken bij het hamsterproject sinds 2002. De hamster wordt gezien als een succesverhaal, waarin de herintroductie van de hamster effectief was. In recentelijk onderzoek werd de vraag gesteld of agrarisch natuurbeleid wel effectief was, en Alterra trok de conclusie dat dat niet zo was. Wij beheren een gebied op het Plateau van Margraten, Akkerreservaat Sibbe is dat dan, in samenwerking met Alterra. Gerard Müskens van Alterra is al vanaf het begin bij de case betrokken en kan je er ook veel over vertellen. In 2001 zijn de laatste hamsters gevangen en met hen is een fokproject opgezet. In 2002 zijn de eerste zwangere vrouwtjes teruggezet, dat werd gedaan op een gebied van 30 ha op het Plateau van Margraten, in Akkerreservaat Sibbe dus. De hamsters werden kooien ingegraven, zodat ze beschermd hun jongen konden werpen. Daarna zijn de kooien opengezet. Voor 2002 hadden we wel al natuurgebieden in bezit, maar geen akkerland waarop de korenwolf kon worden uitgezet. Maar als je een gebied echt veilig wil stellen, als je bijvoorbeeld echt zeker wil weten dat er graan verbouwd wordt en niet opeens maïs, kun je het gebied het beste laten beheren door een natuurbeschermingsorganisatie, daarom is de grond hier aangekocht en wordt deze beheerd door Stichting Limburgs Landschap. Toen het gebied net in ons beheer was, was er eigenlijk nog erg weinig kennis over de korenwolf. We stelden onszelf de vraag hoe de korenwolf een plaag heeft kunnen worden (rond 1950-1970), en de condities die er toen waren hebben we zoveel mogelijk weer gerealiseerd. We zaaiden bijvoorbeeld dezelfde gewassen, hoofdzakelijk graan. In de loop van de tijd is uit het onderzoek van Müskens naar voren gekomen dat het niet alleen belangrijk is dat de hamster genoeg voedsel kan verzamelen, want over het algemeen lukt het ze wel om voldoende graan hun hol in te slepen. Het is ook vooral de dekking die belangrijk voor ze is, want op normale akkers wordt in juli geoogst, binnen drie weken zijn de akkers dan helemaal kaal en is de hamster helemaal niet meer beschermd tegen predatoren. Dus, hoe later je oogst, hoe langer de dekking aanwezig is en hoe meer kans dat de jongen overleven. Tegenwoordig is Akkerreservaat Sibbe opgedeeld in 40 stroken van 0,9 tot 1,6 ha lang en 30 tot 40 meter breed. Op elke strook wordt iets anders geteeld, zoals luzerne, rogge, haver, gerst en tarwe.
80
De hamsterpopulatie nam sterk af eind jaren 90. Sinds 1999 heeft Das & Boom flink stennis lopen schoppen. De hamster is beschermd door Europese regelgeving en Das & Boom vond dat de overheid zijn verantwoordelijkheid moest nemen. Begin 2000 werd Hamsteroverleg Limburg (HOL) opgezet, maar de tegenstellingen waren groot en emoties konden hoog opwaaien, met name tussen boeren en Das & Boom. Boeren wilden de korenwolf best helpen beschermen, maar niet ten kosten van alles, er moest wel een redelijke compensatie tegenover staan. In samenspraak met de provincie is in 2002 besloten dat het belangrijk was akkergrond aan te kopen. De boeren in Zuid-Limburg zijn erg gehecht aan hun grond en willen niet graag verkopen. Officieel mag de overheid grond niet boven de marktprijs aankopen, maar door een goede wil van de toenmalige PvdA gedeputeerde en door een slimme berekening kon grond wel boven de marktprijs worden gekocht. De boeren hebben dus een hele goede prijs gekregen voor hun grond. Uiteindelijk is de korenwolfcommissie opgericht, deze organisatie heeft een adviserende rol. Binnen deze commissie zijn een aantal strategische keuzes gemaakt, de voorzitter is bijvoorbeeld werkzaam in de landbouw en daarnaast ook politiek actief, op deze manier konden landbouwers makkelijker meegekregen worden. Natuurbeheer en subsidieregelingen zijn voortdurend aan veranderingen onderhevig, sinds 2002 zijn er 3 nieuwe modellen voor subsidieregelingen ingevoerd. Er wordt vaak gedacht dat verandering ook vooruitgang is, maar dit is lang niet altijd het geval. 30 jaar geleden kreeg je een subsidiebedrag per hectare land dat je beheerde, dit was dus een heel simpele regeling maar weinig gespecificeerd. In 2002 moest je per gebied de typen gronden aangeven en per gebied een aanvraag doen, dit was erg veel werk. Daarna hoefde je niet meer per gebied een aanvraag doen maar alleen nog per type gronden, dit betekende dat ik nog twee aanvragen moest doen, maar dit is nog steeds een dik pak a-4tjes. Uit het rapport van Alterra bleek dat agrarisch natuurbeheer lang niet altijd effectief is, daarom is de subsidieaanvraag voor boeren nu ook veranderd, zij moeten nu collectief subsidie aanvragen om zo agrarisch natuurbeheer beter te kunnen concentreren in de echt belangrijke gebieden. Er is maar een beperkt budget voor agrarisch natuurberheer, dus niet zomaar iedereen kan subsidie aanvragen, dit kan alleen in relevante gebieden in ZuidLimburg, dit zijn gebieden geschikt voor de korenwolf, waar de korenwolf nu ook al zit. Gebieden richting Roermond komen nu niet meer in aanmerking. Er is budget voor 300 a 350 hectare en er zijn altijd meer aanvragen dan het budget toelaat, dus in die zin is de subsidieregeling zeker effectief. In de periode van 2002 tot 2008 was het veel moeilijk om boeren enthousiast te maken, het contact met de boeren was niet goed en de subsidieregeling was niet goed. Als een hectare graan een opbrengst heeft van 1800-2300 euro, dan moet de subsidie deze gederfde inkomsten dekken. Tegenwoordig is dat ook het geval.
81
De provincie heeft zich gedurende de hele periode sterk gemaakt voor de hamster, of het nou de PvdA, het CDA of een andere politieke partij was die de provincie bestuurde. Het is noodzaak om de korenwolf te beschermen, we zijn het Europees verplicht en de korenwolf komt alleen in Limburg voor dus de provincie voelt zicht verantwoordelijk en maakt zich er sterk voor. In English (translated by the author): The interviewee works for Stichting Limburgs Landschap since 2002 and is actively involved in the Hamster project since then. The hamster case is considered to be a success story, whereby the reintroduction of the species in Zuid-Limburg was effective. However, new research, conducted by Alterra, pointed out that agri-environment schemes are generally not effective. Stichting Limburgs Landschap manages land on the Plateau van Margraten together with research institution Alterra, ‘Agricultural Reserve Sibbe’. Gerard Müskens from Alterra has been involved from the beginning and will also be able to tell you more on hamster friendly management. In 2001 the last wild European Hamsters in Zuid-Limburg were captured, and they were used in a new breeding programme. In 2002 the first pregnant females from this breeding programme were reintroduced in agricultural reserve Sibbe, an area of 30ha. Large cages were placed in holes, where the females could give birth safely. When the babes were old enough the cages were opened and the hamsters were released. Before 2002, Stichting Limburg Landschap managed significant areas of natural land, but no agricultural land in which the hamster could be reintroduced. However, to guarantee certain conditions are met, for example to ensure wheat is grown, and no corn or other crops, it is important that nature conservation organizations, rather than farmers manage land. For this reason the province purchased land that is still managed by Stichting Limburgs Landschap. When we just started managing agricultural reserve Sibbe, very little knowledge on the European Hamster was available. We asked ourselves how the Hamster had grown to be a plague in the mid-1950s-1970s and tried to replicate these conditions. This predominantly means we grew wheat and Luzerne. Over time, research pointed out not only access to food was important, sufficient coverage was also crucial. Usually hamsters are able to gather a suffient food supply for winter. However, once no coverage is gone in July/August after harvest, particularly young hamsters are extremely vulnerable for predation. Therefore, the later the harvest and the better the coverage, the higher the chances of survival for young hamsters. Nowadays, agricultural reserve Sibbe is divided in 40 strips of land, with a length of 0.9 to 1.6 ha and a width of 30 to 40 meters. On each of the strips, a different crop is grown, including Luzerne, rye, oats, barley and wheat.
82
The hamster population in Zuid-Limburg has been rapidly declining since the 1990s. Since 1999 NGO Das & Boom has been actively fighting for the hamster, indicating that the hamster is protected under European regulation, and that the government is not taking responsibility. Since 2000, Hamster Roundtable Limburg was established, where stakeholders tried to take action to protect and reintroduce the hamster. In this roundtable, conflicting interests were often at the forefront of discussions, especially between farmers and Das & Boom. Farmers wanted to help protect the hamster, but not at all cost, a suitable compensation should be made available to them. The province and Stichting Limburgs Landschap decided in 2002 it was important to purchase agricultural land, on which the hamster could then be reintroduced. However, farmers in this region are very attached to their land and were reluctant to sell. Officially, the government is not allowed to procure land above market price, but willingness of the government to pay more, and a flexible method to calculate the market price made it possible to offer farmers a very good price for their land, for which they were willing to sell. Since the roundtable wasn’t successful, the korenwolfcommissie was established as an alternative, this organization has an advisory role. Within the commission, some strategic choices were made, for example the chairman of the commission is a farmer who is also politically active, this has built a bridge between the farmers an nature conservation organizations. Regulations for subsidies for management of natural land / agricultural land with conservation objective are changing constantly. Since 2002, three new subsidy models have been implemented. Politicians tend to think that change means progress, but this is not automatically the case. 30 years ago, we applied for subsidies for all the hectares we managed at once, this means the procedure was very simple but also very general. In 2002, application for subsidies was made more specific, one had to apply for each individual area of land managed, thereby also applying separately for each type of land. This was a lot of work. Now the regulation is different again, we don’t need to apply for funding for each individual area of land we manage, but only for the different types of land, which means we have to apply two times. Still, applications are many, many pages long. A recent report written by Alterra showed that agri-environment schemes were not always effective. To address this, the application procedure for subsidies for farmers also changed recently. Farmers now have to apply for funding collectively, so naturally friendly managed agriculturally managed land could be concentrated in the most important areas. Since the budget for agri-environment schemes is limited, not everyone can apply for funding, only farmers active in areas in Zuid-Limburg’s most important to the European Hamster can apply. This means for example that farmers closer to mid-Limburg will not be granted funding. The budget only allows an area of 300 to 350ha to be managed hamster friendly. Requests for subsidies always exceed the budget, therefore the programme could be considered effective.
83
In the period from 2002 to 2008, enthusiasm amongst farmers was far more modest. Contact with farmers was limited and subsidies weren’t high enough. A farmer would earn between 1800 and 2300 Euro per hectare of wheat. When they are not allowed to harvest this wheat, they should be compensated for the income they lost. Nowadays this is the case. During the entire period, the province has been supportive of hamster friendly policy, regardless of which political party was in power. It is necessary to protect the hamster, European regulation requires it. And since the hamster only resides in Limburg, the province feels responsible and is committed to its protection.
84
2. Interview Farmer 1
11 April 2015
In Dutch (original): We doen met 20 hectare mee aan het programma. Het contract van zes jaar loopt binnenkort af, maar we hebben toevallig een paar dagen geleden een nieuw contract getekend, opnieuw voor zes jaar. We doen al acht jaar mee, het kon al eerder maar we hadden niet veel vertrouwen in het programma. Wij en andere boeren om ons heen vond het niet kunnen om de korenwolf te gaan beschermen terwijl er zoveel honger in de wereld is. Het is toch belangrijker dat mensen te eten hebben dan om de korenwolf te beschermen, we stonden er dus nogal sceptisch tegenover. Op een gegeven moment gingen andere boeren meedoen aan het hamster vriendelijk beheer, en toen dachten wij, dan zullen wij ook maar mee gaan doen. Vroeger plantten mensen bieten en aardappels dichtbij huis, op de velden die verder weg lagen werden rogge en haver verbouwd. De hamster gedijde hier heel erg goed, zo goed zelfs dat het een plaag werd. Toen we nog met paarden ploegden renden ze soms zo voor ons uit. De korenwolf was in die tijd een ergernis, maar geen echte last. Opeens waren bijna alle hamsters weg, toen we stopten met het ploegen met paarden en in plaats daarvan machines gingen gebruiken. De korenwolf is ook niet blij met maïs en aardappels die boeren hier steeds meer gingen verbouwen. Als de boer niet meer meedoet zijn er binnen de kortste keren geen korenwolven meer over. Van Gerard Müskens hebben we gehoord dat het de laatste jaren weer heel goed gaat met de hamsters op ons land, en ook met de hamsters in andere Nederlandse gebieden. We merken dat het niet alleen goed gaat met de korenwolf maar ook met de vogels, er zijn nog nooit zoveel vogels geweest, en we wonen hier toch alweer meer dan vijftig jaar. We zien bijvoorbeeld kiekendieven en reigers, die zaten hier vroeger nooit maar nu zien we soms zelfs tien stuks op een dag. Het gaat ook goed met de vijanden van de korenwolf, hier zitten bijvoorbeeld veel vossen. Maar de provincie staat toe dat de vossen hier worden afgeschoten. De velden die we gebruiken voor het hamsterbeheer wisselen we af. Gerard Müskens begeleid ons hierin. Hij geeft ook aan welke gewassen hij wil dat we planten. We bellen hem soms ook op om te vragen of we bijvoorbeeld mogen oogsten of spuiten (gif). Luzerne mogen 3 a 4 jaar blijven staan. We mogen een keer per jaar oogsten en dit verkopen we aan een boer die het aan zijn stieren voert. Na die 3 a 4 jaar ploegen we de akker om en zetten we er granen op. Gerard Müskens vertelt ons welke gewassen we moeten planten.
85
Op hamsterakkers ploegen we ook minder diep, we mogen niet dieper ploegen dan 20cm. En dit wordt ook gecontroleerd. We hadden een keer 21 cm diep geploegd en daar waren ze niet blij mee. Op reguliere akkers waar we bieten, tarwe en maïs op planten, ploegen we 25 tot 30cm diep. Voor het land dat we bewerken voor de korenwolf krijgen we een vergoeding van 2240 EUR, dit kun je op een gewone akker niet verdienen. Vanaf 2016 zijn de provincie en Brussel verantwoordelijk voor dit project, maar Gerard Müskens blijft wel onze contactpersoon gelukkig, dus we hebben er wel vertrouwen in. Gerard Müskens is echt een hele goeie, hij houdt echt van zijn werk. Hij komt uit Wageningen, maar we zien hem hier nog regelmatig in het veld. Zo iemand moet dit project echt niet kwijt. De provincie is wel aan het bezuinigen maar staat ook helemaal achter het project, we zijn dus niet bang dat het wordt wegbezuinigd. 20 hectaren worden definitief voor de korenwolf gebruikt, maar we gaan in de herfst ook starten met een nieuw project, op initiatief van Gerard Müskens. We gaan dan op vijf hectaren Wikken en Japanse Haver planten om te zien hoe de korenwolf het hierop doet. Wij hebben een bedrijf van 60ha en het land is van onszelf. Omdat we zo goed verdienen aan het hamsterprogramma zouden we wel met meer hectares mee willen doen, maar alleen land op bepaalde locaties mag meedoen, we weten niet precies hoe dat zit maar Gerard Müskens zegt dat het land verbonden moet zijn. Het is ook niet voor iedereen zo makkelijk om mee te doen, veel boeren pachten hun land en de eigenaar. Deze boeren moeten dan goedkeuring krijgen van de eigenaar van de grond voor ze mee mogen doen aan het hamsterbeheer. Vaak wil de eigenaar dan ook een deel van de subsidies, waardoor het voor de boeren die land pachten helemaal niet zo interessant is om mee te doen. Als je land pacht moet je dus ook niet mee doen. Hoewel wij heel blij zijn met het programma en er zelf ook echt plezier in hebben dat de korenwolf terug is, zijn er ook boeren die klagen. Doordat het graan blijft staan zijn er niet alleen meer korenwolven maar ook meer muizen en ratten omdat zij nu ook de hele winter voer hebben. Vooral de koeienboeren zijn hier niet blij mee. In het begin hebben we wel getwijfeld of we mee wilden doen. Je kreeg toen bijna geen subsidie en de eisen waren ook anders. We moesten een strook van 20 hectare laten staan tot 1 februari, de rest mochten we omploegen. Als deze eis er nu nog was zouden we niet mee hebben gedaan. Bovendien gingen de betalingen ook niet soepel waardoor er toch veel onzekerheid was. Zaken zijn zaken, we hebben een bedrijf en moeten er wel aan verdienen. Toch hebben we wel getwijfeld of we door zouden gaan met het project. Kinderen hebben honger in Afrika en
86
wij laten onze oogst op het veld verrotten voor de korenwolf. Daar hebben we het wel moeilijk mee gehad, we voelden ons hier schuldig over. Maar als we niet mee zouden doen aan het project zouden we per jaar 8000 euro minder opbrengsten hebben dan nu. In het begin hebben we wel een beetje de kat uit de boom gekeken. Gerard Muskens was al een aantal keren langsgeweest om te vragen of we mee wilden doen, maar hij praatte dan Nederlands (geen dialect) en we hadden er niet veel vertrouwen in. Het voelt toch vreemd dat er gevraagd wordt om vruchten op het land te laten verrotten op zo’n dure landbouwgrond. Toen we mee begonnen te doen kregen we dat soort opmerkingen ook uit onze omgeving te horen. Iemand zei eens ‘goh, ze hebben hier wel een heel slecht weer gehad, dat ze de oogst nog steeds niet van het land hebben’. Nu is er bij ons geen enkele twijfel meer. Vanuit mijn ogen is het een fantastisch project. Op land dat wordt gebruikt voor het hamsterbeheer spuiten we één keer per jaar tegen het onkruid. Op tarweland dat we wel oogsten wordt 3 a 4 keer per jaar gespoten en op land voor bieten 8 keer. We hebben veel plezier aan dit project, we verdienen er meer aan en het is minder werk.
In English (translated by the author): We are participating in the hamster programme with 20 hectares. The contract, which we signed for six years, will end soon, but we have signed a new contract a couple of days ago. We will again be participating with 20 hectares for another 6 years. We are already involved in the programme for eight years, we could have participated even earlier, but we didn’t trust the programme. We, and other farmers around us couldn’t understand why the hamster should be protected at all cost while there was so much hunger in the world. In our opinion it is much more important to feed the people than it is to protect the hamster, that’s why we were quite skeptical towards the programme at the beginning. At a certain point, other farmers started to participate in the hamster programme, and at this time we started thinking we should probably join as well. In the old days farmers used to plant beets and potatoes close to their houses, while they would plant rye and oats in the fields further away. The hamster flourished, the population was so large it was even considered a pest. When we were plowing with horses, the hamster would sometimes run ahead of us. Although the hamster was a nuisance, I would not say they were a burden. When we stopped plowing with horses and started using machines instead, the hamster vanished. Further, the hamster wasn’t happy that we started growing more and more corn
87
and potatoes. This shows that the hamster will not survive if farmers are not involved in protection programmes. Gerard Müskens has told us that the hamster has been doing well on our land in the past few years. He actually said the hamster is doing well on most fields that are used in the hamster programme. We also notice the hamster programme is not only good for the hamster population, we have also never seen so many birds around here as we see nowadays. We often see kites and herons, sometimes even ten in one day, while we never used to see these birds before. And we have been living here for over fifty years. The hamster’s enemies are also doing well, there are many foxes in the area. But the province has allowed a hunter to kill those foxes. We rotate the fields used for hamster management and the crops we plant on those fields. Gerard Müskens guides us in this process, he tells us which crops he wants us to grow. We sometimes also call him when we have questions, for example, we might ask him if it is ok to harvest or to use weeds control. Lucerne can stay on a field 3 to 4 years, whereby we harvest and sell the crops once a year to a farmer who uses it to feed his bulls. After 3 to 4 years we plow the field and plant wheat. Gerard Müskens tells us which crops to grow. On the fields we manage for the hamsters, we plow less deep, with a maximum depth of 20 cm. They are also very strict with this rule and check regularly whether we didn’t plow too deep. Once we plowed 21 cm and they were not happy … On our regular fields where we grow beets, wheat and corn, we plow between 25 and 30 cm deep. For each hectare we manage under the hamster programme we get 2240 euro per year. We would never be able to get so much money for the harvest of a regular hectare. From 2016 onwards, the province and Brussels (EU) will be responsible for the project, but fortunately Gerard Müskens will remain our contact person. Gerard Müskens is very good, he loves his job. He comes all the way from Wageningen, but we often see him walking in the fields. One cannot afford to lose someone who is so involved and loves the project so much. We are not worried that the province is taking over as long as he is involved. Even though they are cutting costs, they are very supportive of the project, so we believe funds will remain available. 20 hectares are always used for the hamster, but in the autumn we will also start with a new project, initiated by Gerard Müskens. On five hectares we will plant wikken and Japanese oats to see how the hamster likes these crops. We have never planted these crops before, so this project is also completely new for us.
88
Our business is 60 hectares, and we are fortunate to own the land. Because the subsidies we get for the hamster programme are very good, we would like to participate with more land and we have mentioned this to Gerard Müskens. But there are all sorts of conditions to be met, the land needs to be in a certain location so the fields can be connected with other hamster fields. Some farmers who do not own the land but lease it instead, would also like to participate in the programme. But it is much more complicated for them, as the landlord needs to give approval and often wants a share of the subsidies. If this is the case, the programme is not financially interesting for the farmer anymore. I would also not recommend farmers who lease land to participate. Although we are very excited about the programme and are happy to see the hamster has returned, some other farmers are complaining. Because we leave the harvest on the fields, not only the hamster, but also mice and rats have something to eat all winter, which means their numbers have increased. Cattle farmers in particular are not happy with this. In the beginning we have had many doubts about participating in this programme. The subsidies were very low, and payments were inconsistent and unreliable. Further, the demands were much harder, as we were allowed to harvest and plow certain strips of crops, but had to leave other strips until the first of February. If they would still demand us to work this way, we would not have participated anymore. Business is business, financial incentives are important to us. But even though subsidies increased, we still had doubts. It felt wrong to leave our harvest rotting on the field to protect the hamster while children were starving in Africa. We did feel guilty about this. But if we did not participate in the hamster programme, we would make 8000 euro less than we do now. In the beginning we were rather timid. Gerard Müskens had asked us to participate in the programme, but he is Dutch (he does not speak in the regional dialect), and we didn’t have a lot of trust in him. It felt wrong to leave our crops rotting on the field, especially while agricultural land is so expensive. When we started participating, people in our surrounding also didn’t understand and made comments. For example, someone said ‘well, they must have had very bad weather here, the crops have still not been harvested!’. Now, we have no doubts left. In my point of view this is a fantastic project. On the land we use for the hamsters, we spray with a weed controller once a year, while the hamster doesn’t like weeds. On regular fields we spray 3 to 4 times if we grow wheat, while we spray 8 times on beet fields. We are enjoying the project very much, and we make more money while doing less work.
89
3. Interview Researcher Gerard Müskens
22 April 2015
In Dutch (original): Vandaag moet ik drie hamsters terugzetten die een zender hebben gekregen, en ook een aantal vallen plaatsen om weer andere hamsters te vangen. Met deze zenders kunnen we voor elk individu de temperatuur, beweging en hartslag bijhouden. In dit cluster (Sittard) gaat het het beste met de hamster, hier liggen redelijk veel percelen dicht bij elkaar. Maar nu heeft de gemeente bedacht om een soort landbouwpark te maken van dit gebied, zoals je kunt zien liggen deze akkers dicht bij Sittard, en er komen steeds meer recreanten. Het is continu vechten met de gemeente, en die gaat gewoon zijn gang omdat ze al zoveel in de grond en in het aanleggen van paden hebben geïnvesteerd. Hier hebben ze bijvoorbeeld een boom aangeplant, wat funest is voor de hamster omdat de boom een goed uitzichtpunt biedt voor roofvogels. Verder zijn de recreanten op zich niet zo’n probleem, maar de honden die vaak loslopen wel. Verder willen ze verkeer in het gebied ontmoedigen, daarom hebben ze van die blokken op het pad geplaatst, met als gevolg dat iedereen, inclusief de boeren met hun trekkers, over het veld van Natuurmonumenten rijdt. Het is typisch iets voor de overheid om regels te maken die nergens voor dienen. Maar een ambtenaar heeft er dan veel werk in gestoken en weigert om die reden de beslissing terug te draaien. Op sommige akkers staat best veel onkruid, dat komt omdat boeren denken dat ze niet zo veel hoeven te doen voor natuurbeheer en ze nemen het niet zo nauw met het spuiten (van onkruidbestrijding). Maar de hamster is juist niet van onkruid gediend en trekt dan weg. Als er eenmaal brandnetels en zuring op het veld staan, zoals hier het geval is, duurt het jaren voor het hersteld is. De boeren bewerken in het voorjaar vaak ook eerst hun eigen land, want dat is voor hen belangrijker. Als het daarna te nat of te droog is kunnen ze het land niet bewerken waardoor er pas veel te laat dekking is voor de hamster. Ik probeer de boeren altijd wel achterna te zitten om ervoor te zorgen dat ze op tijd inzaaien, maar dat werkt dus niet altijd. Daarom heb ik eigenlijk het liefst dat ze al in de herfst inzaaien. Maar ook hier is nog wel eens verwarring over. Als ik zeg dat er graan moet staan, en het wordt opgevat als ‘het graan moet blijven staan’, dan kunnen ze in de herfst niet opnieuw inzaaien waardoor je in het voorjaar weer een probleem hebt. In het begin van het programma was er een overleg dat HOL werd genoemd, Hamster Overleg Limburg. Hier zaten nog geen boeren in, maar Das & Boom zat er wel in. Het HOL was altijd één grote ruzie. Das & Boom kwam altijd aan met een grote lijst van alles wat niet deugde, en de provincie zat zich alleen maar te verweren. Het is wel zo dat de korenwolf nog in Nederland is dankzij Das & Boom en alle media aandacht. In België zijn er bijvoorbeeld helemaal geen hamsters meer en in Frankrijk en
90
Duitsland gaan de populaties hard achteruit. Maar je moet wel weten wanneer je moet stoppen met dwarsliggen. Das & Boom zit niet bij het overleg van de korenwolfcommissie. De korenwolfcommissie bestaat uit 10 tot 15 mensen, maar meerstal zijn er 10 a 12 mensen bij een vergadering. De voorzitter van de korenwolfcommissie is de oud voorzitter van de LTO, dat is de nationale landbouworganisatie. Verder wordt elk cluster vertegenwoordigd door een locale boer en is er een afgevaardigde van elke natuurbeschermingsorganisatie, dus dat zijn Staatsbosbeheer, Natuurmonumenten en Stichting Limburgs Landschap. Er zit ook nog een vertegenwoordiger van Natuurlijk Limburg bij en een secretaris, dat is Jill Constantain. Ik zit erin als gebiedscoördinator en als onderzoeker en tot slot is er nog Boena van Noorden, die de provincie vertegenwoordigt. Das & Boom had in het begin bedacht dat er 11 gebieden moesten komen van minstens 25 ha voordat ze hamsters wilden uitzetten. Maar het gaat niet alleen om de oppervlakte, maar ook om kennis van de soort. Je kunt er wel geld in blijven stoppen, maar je moet de randvoorwaarden kennen, anders overleven ze gewoon niet. Op dit moment zijn de gebieden nog te fragmentarisch. Ideaal zou zijn om een mozaïek structuur te ontwikkelen, waar dicht bij elkaar veel hamstervelden beschikbaar zijn, ze hoeven niet per se aan elkaar te grenzen. We zijn nu bezig met een nieuw experiment, waarbij de boeren een mogelijkheid krijgen om voor een pakket te kiezen waarbij ze wel mogen oogsten. Het draagvlak onder boeren is groter wanneer ze wel mogen oogsten. Daarnaast kunnen de subsidies omlaag als ze hun oogst wel mogen verkopen, waardoor we hopelijk meer hectares hamsterbeheer kunnen krijgen. In de andere gebieden gaat het minder goed, Amby en Heer zijn opzich redelijk met elkaar verbonden, maar Sibbe is dan weer niet verbonden. In het gebied Wittem-Heerlen zijn de verbindingen al helemaal slecht, hier gaat het ook het minst goed met de hamster. Het gebied in Wittem-Heerlen is door de Europese Unie aangewezen als compensatiegebied voor Avantis, we moeten dus in dit gebied blijven investeren. Boeren hebben een voorzichtige houding als het aankomt op veranderingen of verlening van het contract onder nieuwe voorwaarden. Boeren worden al snel aangekeken alsof ze het wel met een korreltje zout nemen en alleen maar geld willen verdienen en zich niet aan de regels houden. Boeren moeten dan ook kunnen bewijzen dat ze aan de voorwaarden hebben voldaan. In Duitsland zijn ze hier bijvoorbeeld erg streng in, wat boeren ontmoedigt om mee te doen. Maar ook hier moeten ze elk jaar invullen welke gewassen ze hebben gezaaid enzo. De formulieren die ze hierover in mei opgestuurd krijgen zijn heel specifiek. Zo was er een boer die wintergraan had gezaaid, maar die was niet mooi uitgekomen, dus heeft de boer het wintergraan doorstoken met zomergraan. In het formulier moest hij het
91
ene of het andere invullen, dus heb ik gezegd dat hij maar wintergraan aan in moest vullen omdat dat het merendeel was. Boeren moeten dus heel specifiek aan de voorwaarden voldoen, terwijl de overheid het niet zo nauw neemt met de regels. Zo was er een boer in de buurt van Nijswiller die ook wilde heggenranden heeft, hij had het op de centimeter nagemeten, het was volgens hem 590m lang. Maar hij kreeg maar voor 530 meter uitbetaald, hij heeft hier bezwaar over gemaakt en gezegd dat ze maar na moesten komen meten. Maar hij kreeg te horen dat er op de kaart maar 530 meter stond en dat hij niet meer uitbetaald zou krijgen. Dit komt omdat het gebied waar deze boer zit erg heuvelachtig is, en op de kaart worden hoogteverschillen niet mee genomen. De meeste boeren, ook binnen het hamsterbeheer, krijgen dus standaard te weinig uitbetaald. In het begin is er een informatie-avond gegeven waar boeren heen konden die interesse hadden. De boeren konden daarna zelf contact met mij opnemen, of soms kreeg ik te horen dat een boer interesse had en dan nam ik contact met hem op. Het is dus eigenlijk best wel vanzelf gegaan. Maar het gebeurde ook wel eens dat ik langs ging bij mensen die heel enthousiast leken maar waar ik dan toch niets meer van hoorde. Er is best veel sociale druk onder de boeren, sommigen willen niet meedoen omdat ze dan opmerkingen zouden krijgen van de buren. Er zijn ook boeren die zelf heel lange tijd niet mee hebben gedaan, maar toch enigszins jaloers zijn op de boeren die wel meedoen. Het is toch minder werk om mee te doen aan het hamsterbeheer en levert wel meer op. Tegen die tijd dat die boer wel mee wilde doen waren er geen hectares meer over (geen subsidie). Maar intussen kan hij wel meedoen. De provincie is altijd wel betrokken geweest, maar ze moesten ook wel. De hamster is zwaar beschermd door de EU en het Rijk heeft de verantwoordelijkheden bij de provincie gelegd. De provincie krijgt veel geld voor het hamsterbeheer, maar moet ook de boetes betalen. In het begin zat het Rijk er ook bovenop, de kwestie lag erg gevoelig door de media aandacht en door het voortdurende conflict met Das & Boom. Rond 2005-2006 is het wat rustiger geworden toen Das & Boom werd opgeheven, Jaap Dirkmaat is zich toen meer gaan richten op landschappen. Ze hadden toen zo iets van, als het nu mis gaat met de hamster is het niet meer onze schuld. In ieder geval was het een strategische keuze van Das & Boom om toen te stoppen met het fokprogramma, bij deze organisatie heeft alles een rede. Het programma kost een hoop geld, maar we hebben de hamster in elk geval nog en er is een hoop draagvlak. Problemen die we in het begin tegen kwamen waren ondermeer dat er geen vertrouwen was bij de boeren, ze wilden niet mee doen. Er moest dus een hele hoge compensatie worden geboden om boeren te overtuigen. Onder druk van Das & Boom heeft de provincie ook reservaatgrond aangekocht boven marktprijs.
92
Een ander probleem was het wantrouwen dat heerste tussen Das & Boom, de overheid en boeren. Boeren deden in het begin ook niet mee aan overleg waardoor allemaal verkeerde beslissingen werden genomen. Natuurbeschermingsorganisaties wilden dat er niet gespoten werd en niet geoogst werd, maar de hamster heeft juist graag bemeste en bespoten akkers zonder onkruid. Een probleem dat tot op heden bestaat is dat boeren er bij elke kleine wijziging in Europees beleid voor kunnen kiezen om hun contract op te zeggen. Zo hebben boeren binnen een aantal maanden wel drie brieven gekregen. Dit zaait verwarring bij de boeren en dan moet ik ze weer geruststellen.
In English (translated by the author): I have three hamsters in the truck that have gotten a chip with which we can track them, today we’ll have to put those hamsters back in the field. With those chips we can measure their temperature, movement and heartbeat. In this cluster (Sittard) the hamster project is the most successful, this is due to the fact that there are many participating fields on this plateau. However, the municipality has planned to make this agricultural area a recreational park. As you can see, those fields lie within close proximity from Sittard, which means there are more and more people coming here for recreational activities such as walking. We are in a continual battle with the municipality over these developments, but they just do as they please, they have already made significant investments and are unwilling to admit mistakes and reverse decisions. For example, they planted a tree here, in the middle of the fields. This is disastrous for the hamster of course, since the tree offer a great viewpoint for birds of prey. Although people are not a threat to the hamster per se, the dogs most people bring with them and which they often let of the leash, are a threat. To make this area more friendly to hikers, the municipality wants to discourage cars and other traffic on the trails between the fields. For this reason they have placed blocks on the trails, which means that now everyone, including farmers with their tractors are now driving over a field owned by Natuurmonumenten. It is typical for the government to create rules that serve no purpose. It is just that a civil servant has invested a lot of time and effort into developing a plan, and for this reason he refuses to reverse a decision, no matter how ridiculous. Some of the fields are covered in weeds, this is because farmers often think they don’t need to pay a lot of attention to fields used for nature conservation. They believe there is no need to use weed control or fertilizers, but the hamster needs a clean field and will move away from fields covered in weeds. Once nettle and dock take over, it takes years before the field is clean again.
93
Participating farmers generally choose to work their own fields first, it is more important to them than the fields worked for the hamster. The problem is that by the time farmers have time to work on the hamster fields, it is sometimes too wet or too dry, which leads to delays in sowing and a lack of coverage for the hamster in spring. I always try to encourage farmers to sow sooner, but as you can see this doesn’t always lead to the results I am hoping for. Actually, I prefer the farmers to sow in autumn, this way one can be sure coverage is present in spring. However, sometimes there is confusion amongst farmers about what is being asked of them. I may tell them there should be wheat, but sometimes this is understood as ‘the wheat should not be harvested’. If they don’t harvest in autumn, they cannot work the land and sow new crops in autumn, which means we have the problem of no coverage in spring. In the beginning of the programme stakeholders met in the HOL, hamster meeting Limburg. In these meetings farmers were absent, but Das & Boom was involved. HOL was always one big argument. Das & Boom would show up with a large list of everything that was wrong, and the only thing the province could do was try to defend itself. Of course it should be acknowledged that Das & Boom and the media attention they acquired, are the reasons that the hamster can still be found in the Netherlands. In Belgium, there are no more hamsters and in France and Germany the population is declining rapidly. However, at some point Das & Boom should have stopped their obstructive behavior in the meetings. Das & Boom is not involved in the meetings organized by the korenwolfcommission. The korenwolfcommission exists of 10 to 15 people, but most of the time there are 10 to 12 people present in the meetings. The chairman of the korenwolfcommission is the former chairman of the LTO, the national agricultural organization. Further, there are three local farmers, each one representing one of the three hamster clusters and there is a representative from each of the three nature conservation organizations; Staatsbosbeheer, Natuurmonumenten and Stichting Limburgs Landschap. There is also a representative of Natuurlijk Limburg and a secretary, that is Jill Constantain. I am taking on the role of coordinator and as researcher. And then there is Boena van Noorden who is representing the province. In the beginning Das & Boom had set some minimum requirements it thought necessary, there should be 11 sites of at least 25 hectares before they would agree to release some of the bred hamsters. However, it is not just about how many hectares there are available, knowledge of the species and its needs are also essential. You can continue spending a lot of money on the hamster, but if you don’t know the preconditions, they won’t survive anyway. At the moment most areas are too fragmented. Ideally I would like to create a mosaic structure, in which multiple hamster fields are available, they don’t need to be bordering each other, but they should be in close proximity from each other. Now we are starting a new experiment in which we offer participating farmers new packages. In those new packages they are allowed to harvest and they are allowed to sell
94
this harvest. In doing so we notice the support among farmers in increasing while we can reduce subsidies. This way we will be able to increase the number of hectares under the programme. In the other clusters, results are less promising than in this cluster. Amby and Heer are quite well connected, but Sibbe is not connected at all. In Wittem-Heerlen, the connections between the clusters are even worse and the number of hamsters in this cluster is also lower than in the other clusters. Still, we have to keep investing in this site, since the European Union has appointed the site Wittem-Heerlen as a compensation area for Avantis. Farmers are still careful and reticent towards changes in the programme and new contract conditions. People often believe farmers are not taking the programme rules too serious, and that they don’t do what they are asked. Consequentially, farmers need to prove what they have done. In Germany they are even more strict than they are in the Netherlands, which discourages farmers there to participate. But in the Netherlands they are also asked very specific questions that leave no room for practical changes or decisions. For example, one of the participating farmers had sown winter wheat, but it didn’t grow the way it should, so the farmer had also sown summer wheat, which created a field with mixed crops. However, the form left no room to explain this, so I told the farmer just to fill in it was a field of winter wheat, since that was the case for the majority of the field. So, farmers need to meet all the requirements, but the government does not always stick to the rules when it is to their advantage. For example, there is a farmer in Nijswiller who receives subsidies for wild hedges. According to the farmer the hedges are 590m long, he has literally measured this several times. However, he gets paid for only 530m. When he commented, the government told him on the map the hedges were only 530m long, and they refused to come to measure the real hedges. It turns out the farmers land is very hilly, and on the map these hills are not taken into account. Most farmers in this region have hilly fields, which means most farmers participating in the hamster programme also receive too little subsidies. In the beginning, information sessions were organized, where farmers interested in the programme were able to ask questions. Farmers could then contact me, or sometimes I would contact farmers I’d heard were interested. Actually, everything went quite smoothly. Although, occasionally I would go to a family who seemed very interested, but then I never heard back from them. There is a lot of social pressure amongst farmers, some farmers are unwilling to participate because they are worried about what their neighbors might say. There are also farmers who refused to participate for a long time, but at the same time they were quite jealous of farmers who did participate, because fields in the programme require less work while earnings are generally better. By the time this particular farmer wanted to participate, there was no funding left. But by now he is able to participate.
95
The province has always been closely involved in the programme, they had to. The hamster is heavily protected by EU regulation, and the national government has placed a lot of responsibility by the province. The province receives substantial amounts of money for the hamster programme, but in case of fines, the province is also the one to pay. In the beginning of the project, the national government was more closely involved. The topic was very sensitive because of all the media attention and because of the continued conflict with Das & Boom. Around 2005-2006 things calmed down when Das & Boom was abolished. Jaap Dirkmaat had found a new focus in landscapes instead of individual species. They stopped their breeding programme and laid full responsibility with the government, if something went wrong with the hamster now, it was not their fault but the government’s. Everything is always a strategic decision with Das & Boom, they always do things for a reason. The programme costs a lot of money, but we still have the hamster and there is a lot of support. Major problems in the beginning of the programme include the lack of trust among farmers, which means no one was willing to participate. Consequentially, high compensation rates were needed to convince the farmers. Under pressure of Das & Boom the province also purchased reserve land above market price. Other problems include a lack of trust between Das & Boom, the government and farmers. Farmers were not involved in negotiations in the beginning of the programme. Some wrong decisions were taken by nature conservation organizations who believed using weed control and harvesting were disastrous for the hamster. But it turned out the hamster needs fertilized and weed free fields. A problem that continues until today is that farmers can choose to stop participating every time there is a small change in European policy related to the programme. This means that in the past few months, farmers have had three of these letters informing them about these changes. This causes confusion amongst the farmers and then I have to calm them down again.
96
4. Interview NGO Das & Boom: Jaap Dirkmaat
1 May 2015
In Dutch (original): Das & Boom zet zich in voor de waarde van natuur dichtbij. Destijds werd er veel aandacht besteed aan de panda, neushoorn en walvis, maar wij hebben in Nederland onze eigen panda; de das. Nederland heeft altijd maar het idee dat wij het wel goed doen hier, en dat we vooral ontwikkelingslanden of armere Europese landen moeten leren hoe je goed voor je natuur zorgt, maar hier gaat het ook helemaal niet zo goed met de natuur, kijk maar naar de otter. In 1954 werd de das wettig beschermd in het verdrag van Bern, maar dit had niet veel op het lijf. Er werden gewoon plannen gemaakt om een snelweg aan te leggen midden door een reservaat, hoe kan dat nou? De Nederlandse overheid tekent allemaal internationale verdragen, maar vertaalt het vervolgens niet naar eigen beleid. Toen de Habitat Richtlijjn en de Vogel Richtlijn werden opgesteld werd dat door de overheid gezien als een vervanging van het verdrag van Bern. De Habitat Richtlijn is namelijk minder strikt, de das wordt er bijvoorbeeld niet in beschermd. De Raad van State Belde mij op een gegeven moment op over een artikel dat was gepubliceerd door de heer Bakkers, die de bescherming van soorten maar onzin vond. De Raad van State vroeg of Das & Boom een artikel kon schrijven dat hier tegenin ging. Maar daarvoor moest wel een soort genoemd worden die wel door de Habitat Richtlijn wordt beschermd, en toen ben ik met in de veldhamster, alias de korenwolf gaan verdiepen. Het ging er bij de korenwolf eigenlijk net zo aan toe als bij de Otter. De overheid heeft allerlei verdragen getekend maar doet niets, de otter is hierdoor uitgestorven en dat wilden we bij de korenwolf voorkomen. In Limburg heerste een houding van, die Hollanders moeten zich niet bemoeien met wat er in Limburg gebeurt. Alsof Limburg niet bij Nederland hoort. Via een kort geding is toen wel toestemming gegeven om de laatste hamsters te vangen, maar daar werd door de provincie tegenin gegaan. Ze zeiden dat er nog veel meer hamsters waren dan de vier burchten die ik had gevonden, dat was bij de otter ook gebeurd, daarom heb ik een prijs van 100 gulden uitgeloofd voor iedereen die me een hamsterburcht konden tonen die ik nog niet kende. De provincie heeft toch een kort geding aangespannen omdat ze geloofden dat er nog veel meer hamsters waren, en ze zeiden dat de hamsters ook niet gevangen mochten worden als dit echt de laatste waren. Dan moesten ze gewoon rustig hun laatste dagen door kunnen komen en niet gedwongen worden om zich voort te planten in een fokprogramma. Ze moesten dan maar uitsterven. De rechter heeft toen de vraag gesteld of ze dit ook vonden als Nederland het laatste land ter wereld was waar de korenwolf voorkwam, moesten ze dan ook maar uitsterven? Zij vonden nog steeds dat de hamsters niet gevangen mochten worden, maar de rechter liet alsnog toe dat wij de hamsters vingen.
97
Ik heb eigenlijk juist een hele goede verhouding met boeren en projectontwikkelaars. De projectontwikkelaars zijn juist heel behulpzaam geweest, ze voelden sympathie voor onze strijd. De overheid was een gemeenschappelijke vijand, die ons onderling liet vechten, terwijl zij eigenlijk verantwoordelijk zijn, de overheid heeft ten slotte al die internationale verdragen getekend. Projectontwikkelaars hebben me zelfs gevraagd of ik hun advocaat wilde worden – maar ik heb daar natuurlijk helemaal niet de opleiding voor, ik heb ook maar mavo gedaan! In 1994 was in de reservaatstructuur nergens akkergrond meegenomen. Akkersoorten werden dus vogelvrij verklaard. Wij hebben al 8000 jaar akkerland in Nederland en vele soorten hangen ervan af. De media is de helft van de strijd. De media slurpte het verhaal echt op. Bij de nachtwake bijvoorbeeld, waar bekende Nederlanders in de stromende regen in een caravan de wacht hielden over de laatste hamsters, waren alle belangrijke nationale tv stations aanwezig, zoals NOS en RTL. We waren nog net niet op Boulevard omdat dat destijds nog niet bestond. Eigenlijk was het wel een beetje gênant dat er zoveel aandacht was voor de korenwolf, omdat het in de tijd was van Srebrenica. Er gebeurden vreselijke dingen in Joegoslavië, en toch haalde de korenwolf de voorpagina van het nieuws. Toen ik het een journalist vroeg zei hij dat mensen alle ellende in Joegoslavië zo zat waren, ze wilden wel eens iets luchtigs. We sturen altijd wel persberichten uit, maar daar wordt lang niet altijd iets mee gedaan. In dit geval sprong de pers er dus wel bovenop. Dit heeft de overheid inderdaad onder druk gezet, want hun logica is dat als er iets in de media wordt vermeld, dit iets is dat leeft onder de bevolking. Dat is de logica van de overheid. We zoeken niet alleen de pers op, maar proberen ook Kamerleden vragen in te laten dienen. Deze vragen worden wel iets softer gesteld, maar zo proberen we wel aandacht te krijgen voor bepaalde dingen. De rede dat we op de korenwolf zijn gedoken is vanwege de hypoctitie van de overheid en van de schone schijn die ze altijd op houden. De voorwaarden van Europese landbouwsubsidies zijn bijvoorbeeld aan het veranderen, om zo vergroening van het landbouwbeleid te bevorderen. De minister zei dat Nederland hierin voorop loopt, terwijl er statistieken zijn die aangeven dat Nederland een van de slechtst scorende landen van Europa is, nog onder Malta enzo. Voor we aan de heisa van het opzetten van Nederlands korenwolfbeleid gaan beginnen, moeten we eerst een aantal dingen weten. Daarom zijn we naar Tsjechië gegaan, waar mensen zich de korenwolf nog als plaag herinnerden. Daar werd weinig gespoten en werden bijna geen pesticiden gebruikt, simpelweg omdat dit te duur was tijdens de overheersing van de Sovjet Unie. Om onkruid tegen te gaan werd heel dicht ingezaaid met luzerne dat onder het graan groeide. De hamster populatie fluctueerde sterk en groeide om de zoveel jaar uit
98
tot een plaag, waar ze eerst alle gewassen opaten, en daarna aten ze elkaar op. Toen al het eten op de velden op was gingen ze trekken op zoek naar eten en werden ze bij bosjes aangereden, of ze verdronken in rivierbeddingen. Op de weg zag je dan hamsters aan dode hamsters knagen. Van deze Tsjechische boeren hebben we niet alleen gehoord bij welke condities de hamster goed gedijt, we leerden ook over hoe ze we moesten vangen en over het voortplanten. Er was veel kennis aanwezig in Tsjechië, en toch zijn wij de enige die naar Tsjechië zijn gegaan. Nederlanders duiken altijd de literatuur in, ze willen het wiel opnieuw uitvinden terwijl ik vind dat je beter de wielen die er liggen kunt beproeven. Met de grutto wordt nu ook weer zo geklungeld. Maar daar gaat het nu al zo lang slecht mee dat de meeste boeren zich niet meer herinneren onder welke condities het goed ging met de grutto. Je moet eigenlijk gewoon een stel bejaarde boeren uit het verzorgingstehuis halen en hen vragen hoe het vroeger gedaan wordt. Je moet dan gewoon doen wat deze boeren zeggen. Bij de korenwolf zijn ze nu een collectief op aan het richten die het geld moet gaan verdelen, maar die zijn te soft om geld af te dwingen bij de overheid waardoor het hele korenwolfproject in gevaar komt. De overheid weet de dingen altijd ongemerkt af te zwakken. Zo zijn er van de 9 a 11 reservaten die gerealiseerd zouden worden nu al stilletjes 3 geschrapt. De overheid wilde bovendien het fokprogramma schrappen, omdat het te duur was, maar is door de rechter gedwongen om het fokprogramma voort te zetten en reservaatgronden te realiseren. Nu wil de overheid pakketten af gaan zwakken, maar dit vinden zowel de boeren als de korenwolf niet leuk. Alleen de overheid is hierbij gebaat. Frankrijk, Duitsland, België en Hongarije komen nu naar Nederland om van het hamster beleid te leren, terwijl het nu dus weer helemaal de verkeerde kant op gaat. Het zou een enorme afgang zijn als Nederland ze nu toch verliest. De pakketten worden afgezwakt in de zin dat boeren nu wel mogen oogsten, ploegen spuiten en bemesten. De Nederlandse overheid is gewoon corrupt, het vind het programma te duur, het programma kost 1 miljoen per jaar. Zowel de nationale overheid als de provincie vindt het te duur, pas uiterst laat en onder dwang van een NGO wordt actie ondernomen. En bij elke scheet moeten we ze weer een schop onder de kont geven anders valt alles weer stil. Ze leren gewoon niet. Tegelijkertijd wordt het korenwolfbeleid ridicuul gemaakt, ze zeggen dat ze er veel in hebben geïnvesteerd en dat de hamster nog steeds op uitsterven staat. Maar dit komt in werkelijkheid doordat alles maar half wordt gedaan, en doordat steeds de vraag wordt gesteld hoe de hamster met minimale maatregelen en kosten in leven kan worden gehouden. Na 15 jaar werkt het beleid nog steeds niet.
99
Gerard Müskens deelt mijn zorgen, maar tegelijkertijd wordt hij wel gedagvaard als wij een zaak aanspannen en geeft hij aan dat ik overdrijf en dat het allemaal zo’n vaart niet zal lopen. We zijn destijds afgehaakt omdat het fokprogramma bij ons is weggehaald. Het werd overgenomen door Diergaarden Blijdorp en door Gaia zoo, hierdoor zijn wij ons machtsmiddel kwijtgeraakt. Voorheen konden we bijvoorbeeld eisen dat reservaatgronden gerealiseerd moesten worden voor we hamsters gingen uitzetten, maar als we de hamsters niet zelf fokken kunnen we dit niet eisen. Nu gaan we zelf een collectief oprichten om ons te verzetten tegen het uitkleden van de hamsterpakketten. Wat ik eigenlijk wil realiseren is een schotse ruit over heel zuid-Limburg, van 100 meter breed, waar we gewoon voor betalen. We zijn momenteel niet betrokken bij de korenwolfcommissie, maar we zijn wel in gesprek met leden. We hebben altijd wel een goede verstandhouding gehad met boeren, die zelf ook klaagden over de overheid. Een boer vertelde me ‘ik heb een heel duur pakket uitgevoerd, maar heb nog geen subsidie uitbetaald gekregen.’. Dat is natuurlijk ontzettend klungelig, zo moeilijk kan het toch niet zijn om dit in de administratie door te voeren. En toch moesten de boeren 3 jaar op rij om hun subsidie vragen. Het probleem van de overheid is dat ze denken dat ze een eigen invulling kunnen geven aan internationale wetgeving, maar dat is niet zo. Alles wordt altijd met tegenzin en lange tanden gedaan, en we moeten steeds maar weer dreigen met de rechter, nu nog steeds. En ook bij de otter en bij andere soorten, ze leren er niet van. Leugens op tafel, onderzoekers die aan mij vragen om in actie te komen ten tegelijkertijd onder ede bij de rechtbank zeggen dat het allemaal zo erg niet is als ik beweer.
In English (translated by the author): Das & Boom Works to promote the value of nature in our own county. At the time, a lot of attention was paid to the Giant panda, the Rhino and the whale, but we also have our own panda in the Netherlands; the badger. In the Netherlands, the government always claims we are doing well here, and that it is mainly developing countries and less wealthy European countries who need to learn how to take care of nature. But actually, nature is not doing so well in the Netherlands either, look for example at the Otter. In 1954 the badger was protected by law in the treaty of Bern, but this didn’t mean much. Without thinking twice, plans were made to develop a highway right through the middle of a
100
reserve, how is this even possible? The Dutch government signs all these international treaties, but doesn’t translate it in national policy. When the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive were established, the government saw this as a replacement of the treaty of Bern. However, the Habitats Directive was less strict. The badger for example was not protected in this new Directive. The Council of State called me some day to tell me about an article published by mister Bakkers, he argued the protection of species was nonsense. The Council of State asked if Das & Boom could write an article as well, to contradict the article written by Bakkers. In order to write something about species protection, we needed to give an example of a species protected by the Habitats Directive, that’s when I started to focus on the European Hamster. At the time, the Hamster case showed many similarities with the case of the otter. The government has signed all sort of agreements, but they don’t do anything. Due to this, the otter went extinct and we wanted to prevent the Hamster suffering the same faith. In Limburg the attitude was that Dutch people should not interfere with what is happening in Limburg. As if Limburg is independent from the Netherlands. Through summary proceedings, we had received permission to catch the last hamster, but the province fought this decision. They argued there were many more hamsters than the four hamsters burrows had found, this also happened with the otter, which is why I now promised to give a reward of 100 gulden for anyone who could point out a burrow that I had not found yet. Nonetheless, the province started summary proceedings there were plenty of hamsters left and they argued that, even if these were the last hamsters, they should not be caught. In that case, they should be allowed to live out their days in peace, without being forced to reproduce in a breeding programme. If these were the last ones, they should just go extinct. The judge then asked them if they still believed the hamster should just go extinct if these were the last hamsters in the world. They still argued the hamster should not be caught, at which the judge told us we should go ahead and catch the last hamsters. My relationship with farmers and developers is actually very good. Most developers are very helpful and sympathetic towards our cause. The government is our common enemy who lets us fight amongst each other, while they are actually the ones responsible, after all, it is the government who has signed all those international treaties. Developers even asked me if I wanted to be their lawyer, even though I don’t have the right education. In 1994, the Dutch reserve structure did not include any agricultural land. Basically this meant species depending on agricultural land were outlawed. We have had agricultural activities in the Netherlands for over 8000 years, and a lot of species now depend on it.
101
The media is half the battle. The media gulped down the story of the hamster. At the nightwatch for example, where famous Dutch people held watch for the last hamsters in a small caravan in the pouring rain, all the important national media stations were there, like NOS and RTL. The only reason we weren’t on Boulevard is because the programme didn’t exist at the time. Actually, we were quite embarrassed for getting so much media attention for the hamster, since this was also the time of Srebrenica. Terrible things were happening in Yugoslavia and yet the hamster made the headlines. When I asked a journalist, he told me the people were tired of all the misery in Yugoslavia, they wanted something light and airy for a change. We always send out press releases, but these are not always published. In this case, the press were crying for it. This has definitely put pressure on the government, because in they believe that when something is in the media, the particular issue is important to civilians. That is the logic of the government. We don’t just try to get the attention of the press, we also try to get Members of Parliament to submit questions in Parliament. Questions are asked somewhat softer, but it is another way to try and get attention for certain issues. The reason for us to focus on the hamster is that the case shows the hypocrisy of the government, and appearance they are always keeping up. The requirements for receiving European agricultural subsidies are now changing, to improve make the European agricultural policy more green. The Minister said the Netherlands is once again a front runner, while you can see in statistics that the Netherlands actually has one of the worst scores, it is even below Malta etc. Before starting the fuss of developing Dutch hamster policy, it is important to have some basic knowledge. That’s why we went to the Czech Republic where the people still remember the time when the hamster was a plague. In the Czech Republic, barely any weed control or pesticides were used, simply because they were too expensive under Soviet rule. To control weeds, Lucerne was densely sown beneath the wheat. The hamster population fluctuated, and every couple of years would grow out to a plague, they would eat all the crops and when all the food was gone they would eat each other. When the food was gone, they would leave the fields and try to find new food sources. Ofthen this meant they were killed on the roads or drowned in the riverbeds. On the road you would then see hamsters chewing on the dead bodies of other hamsters. From the Czech farmers we haven’t just learned which conditions are beneficial to the hamster, we also learned about how to catch them and about reproduction. There was a lot of knowledge present in the Czech Republic, and yet we were the only ones who went to the Czech Republic. The Dutch tend to dive into literature immediately, and always try to reinvent the wheel, while I always start by looking and testing which wheels are already out there.
102
Now they are making a mess in their attempt to protect the Grutto. But the Grutto population has been in such poor condition that many farmers don’t remember the conditions in which the Grutto thrived. Actually, you have to get a couple of old farmers from a nursing home and ask them how they used to manage their fields. Then everyone just has to do what these farmers say. For the European Hamster they are now establishing a collective to distribute the money, but this collective is way too soft to demand the government to pay, which could endanger the whole project. The government always finds a way to waken their promises unnoticed. For example, 9 to 11 reserves were promised at the beginning of the project, and now three are already silently cancelled. The government also wanted to stop the breeding programme because it was too expensive, but court forced the government to continue the breeding programme and to develop reserves. Now the government wants to weaken the subsidy packages, but neither the farmer, nor the hamster will benefit from this change. Only the government profits. France, Germany, Belgium and Hungary all come to the Netherlands to learn about our hamster policy, while we are still making a mess here. It would be a huge come-down if the Hamster would go extinct after all these years. The packages are weakened in the sense that farmers are now allowed to harvest, to plow, use weed control, pest control and fertilizers. The Dutch government is corrupt, it thinks the programme is too expensive, the programme costs 1 million a year. Both the national government and the province think it is too expensive and only at the last moment and under pressure of an NGO will they take action. With every fart we have to kick them in the ass again or everything will stop. They just don’t learn. At the same time the hamster programme is made ridiculous. They are arguing that after all these investments, the hamster is still close to extinction. But this is in reality because they do everything only half, and because they are trying to only meet the minimum requirements needed to keep the hamster alive. After 15 years the programme is still not working as it should. Gerard Müskens is sharing my concerns, but at the same time he is summoned to court and tells there that I am exaggerating, and that the hamster is doing pretty well. At the time, we ended our involvement in the hamster programme because the breeding programme was taken from us and transferred to Diergaarden Blijdorp and Gaia Zoo. Due to this we lost our weapon. When we were still in charge of the breeding programme, we could demand the establishment of reserves before agreeing on releasing the bred hamsters, now we can’t make these demands anymore.
103
Now we are going to establish a collective of our own to resist the stripping of hamster packages. What I would like to create is a tartan pattern all over Zuid-Limburg, of 100 meter wide, and we should just pay for this. At the moment we are not going to the meetings of the korenwolfcommission, but we are talking to several of its members. We’ve always been on good foot with farmers, who also complained about the government. A farmer once told me ‘I’ve managed my fields according to the guidelines, but have not received any subsidies’. This is of course very clumsy, it cannot be that hard to get the administration right. Nonetheless, farmers had to ask about their subsidies three years in a row. The problem with the government is that they think they can fill in European legislation to their own liking, but this is not true. They always do everything with reluctance, and we continually have to threaten to take them to court, even now. And not just with the hamster, but also with the otter and other species, they just don’t learn. There is so much lying, researchers ask me to take action, but at the same time they say under oath at court that things are not as I say.
104
5. Interview Farmer 2
14 May 2015
In Dutch (original): We hebben een vleesstieren bedrijf met 280 stieren die we in stallen houden. En we hebben 40 hectare akkers waarvan 20 hectare wordt gebruikt voor de korenwolf. Op de akkers voor het hamsterbeheer staan graan, wat bladrammenas en Luzerne. Het voordeel van de luzerne is dat we helemaal niet hoeven te bemesten en dat we het twee keer per jaar kunnen maaien. De luzerne is een deel van het voer van de stieren. Op de andere akkers staan suikerbieten en snijmaïs. De suikerbieten zijn voor de suikerverwerking en de snijmaïs voeren we aan de stieren. We doen sinds 2009 mee aan het hamster beheer, in 2002 hebben we ook al eens overwogen om mee te doen maar toen was het pakket heel anders. We mochten toen niet spuiten en niet bemesten. In ons pachtcontract staat opgenomen dat er geen onkruid op de akkers mag staan. Dus het was wel een probleem dat we niet mochten spuiten. Daarnaast hebben we natuurlijk veel mest, wat we normaal gesproken op onze eigen akkers verspreiden, maar dit mocht dus niet op hamster akkers. We pachten een deel van de akkers en een deel is in ons eigen bezit. Het was nog wel even moeilijk met de pachtovereenkomst. We hadden met de eigenaar van het land besproken dat we mee wilden doen met het korenwolf programma, maar hij twijfelde nog. De heer Müskens heeft hem toen opgebeld en alles nog eens duidelijk uitgelegd en toen is hij wel akkoord gegaan. Nu de eisen zijn veranderd mogen we wel een keer per jaar tegen onkruid spuiten en we mogen het land bemesten. Daarnaast spuiten we het graan ook één keer per jaar kort, om te voorkomen dat het te lang en zwaar wordt en omvalt, want dan hebben de korenwolven alsnog geen dekking meer, en daar gaat het uiteindelijk om. Als we graan hebben staan die we wel oogsten bespuiten we dat ook één keer per jaar, en we spuiten het dan één a twee keer per jaar kort. We bemesten deze akkers ook met kunstmest. Op luzerne hoeven we helemaal niet te spuiten. We mogen de luzerne ook maaien tot 20 juni. De rede voor ons om mee te gaan doen in 2009 is dat de regels waren veranderd, waardoor we wel mochten spuiten en bemesten. Daarnaast hadden we grond over doordat granen op dat moment niet veel opbrachten. We moesten concurreren met prijzen op de wereldmarkt, en die zijn erg laag. Het korenwolf programma was een financieel aantrekkelijk alternatief. Het past ook binnen ons bedrijf, he. We kunnen de luzerne gebruiken als veevoer en we kunnen de mest kwijt. De grond wordt er ook beter van als je niet oogst, dat is ook een belangrijke reden. En we hebben het al druk genoeg met andere dingen, en het hamser beheer is minder werk.
105
We hebben in de afgelopen jaren geen twijfels gehad over het hamster beheer omdat het goed in te passen is in ons bedrijf. Daarnaast is Müskens altijd goed en tijdig bereikbaar als we vragen hebben. Hij steekt er heel veel tijd in, ik krijg ook in het weekend of ’s avonds laat nog regelmatig mailtjes van hem, of ik zie hem in het veld. De heer Müskens is ons enige aanspreekpunt, en hij zei dat hij dit ook ten minste de komende 2 a 3 jaar nog zal blijven. Het is natuurlijk ook van belang welke subsidies er tegenover staan. We hebben dus economische redenen om mee te doen, en het past goed binnen ons bedrijf. We zouden wel met meer hectares mee willen doen als dat kan. Maar we zijn ook wel tevreden zoals het nu is, we proberen ook het quotum van de suikerbieten elk jaar te behalen. En het is ook belangrijk dat we zelf maïs verbouwen in het geval er tekorten zijn, we moeten dan nog steeds een deel van de maïs inkopen, maar het is goed om niet volledig afhankelijk te zijn. Maïs wordt ook veel gebruikt voor biobrandstof, dus er is veel vraag naar. We hebben eigenlijk geen inspraak op besluiten die binnen het hamster beheer worden genomen, ze zouden eigenlijk eens een avond moeten organiseren waar we onze ideeën kunnen delen. De eisen die worden gesteld binnen het programma zijn wel redelijk. Normaal gesproken wordt tussen de 20 en 25 cm diep geploegd, maar wij ploegen helemaal niet meer. In plaats daarvan gaan we met pinnen door de grond, die gaan zo’n 15 cm diep. Dit doen we ook om erosie te bestrijden, dat is een onderdeel van een Limburgs programma. Omwonenden klagen over muizenschade, maar deze schade kan binnen het programma gecompenseerd worden, en Gerard Müskens denkt altijd mee over oplossingen. Zo mogen we stroken klepelen om muizen overlast te beperken. Het zijn niet zozeer andere boeren, maar vooral omwonenden die last hebben van muizen. Dit cluster is er pas later bijgekomen, het gaat hier zo goed met de korenwolf omdat hier typische lössgronden zijn. In het begin hebben we wel veel commentaar gekregen maar nu is iedereen aan het korenwolf programma gewend. Hoewel er nog steeds boeren zijn die zich herinneren dat de korenwolf een plaag was, dat was in de tijd van mijn vader. Oudere boeren willen de korenwolf nog steeds op afstand houden en zijn bang dat ze weer een plaag worden. Maar als Brussel het wil, dan zal het toch gebeuren. En dan kunnen wij maar beter meedoen, want als wij het niet doen, doen de buren het wel. Je moet morele zaken dan maar opzij zetten. Boeren zijn ook bezorgd dat agrarische grond straks door de overheid wordt aangewezen als natuurgebied. Het korenwolfprogramma is ook niet typisch agrarisch, en veel boeren vinden dat wij er niet zijn om de natuur te beheren, oudere boeren doen dus niet mee uit principe.
106
Wij zijn niet direct bezorgd dat landbouwgrond omgezet zal worden in natuurgebied, we hebben toch een contract van 6 jaar en mogen na die zes jaar kiezen om onze deelname te beëindigen. We zijn ook niet zo bang dat de korenwolf weer een plaag zal worden, predatoren houden het toch wel in evenwicht. Het landschap is ook veranderd, alles is grootschaliger geworden door ruilverkaveling. En de akkers die niet voor de hamster beheerd worden zijn ook niet meer geschikt voor de hamster doordat er veel te vroeg wordt geoogst en je dan veel te veel grote, kale vlakten hebt. Er wordt nu een experiment opgestart waarbij wel geoogst mag worden, maar voor ons blijft alles de komende jaren nog hetzelfde. We weten nog niet of wij er blij mee zijn dat er geoogst moet worden. Als je nat moet oogsten, omdat het later op het jaar is, is de opbrengst minder waard, maar gelukkig kunnen wij het altijd aan onze stieren voeren.
In English (translated by the author): On our farm we have 280 bulls for meat production, we keep them in stables. We also manage 40 hectares of fields, of which 20 hectares are used for the European hamster. Op the fields we manage for the European hamster, we grow wheat, Fodder radish and Lucerne. The advantage of Lucerne is that we do not need to use fertilizers on those fields and that we can mow it twice a year. The Lucerne is part of the diet of the bulls. On the other fields we grow sugar beets and corn. The sugar beets are used for the production of sugar, and the corn is fed to the bulls. We are participating in the Hamster programme since 2009, in 2002 we have also considered to participate, but the package was very different at the time. On hamster fields, we would not be allowed to use weed control and fertilizers. In our lease contract was written that we had to ensure fields were, and remained weed free, so this was a problem to us. Apart from that, on the farm a lot of manure is produced, which we need to spread on our own fields, but this used to be impossible on hamster fields. We are leasing part of our fields, and the other fields are our own property. In the beginning, it was quite difficult to convince the landlord. After discussing our interest in participating in the hamster programme, he still had doubts. Mister Müskens then contacted him on the phone and explained everything once more in a very clear way, and then the landlord agreed. Now the requirements of the programmes have changed, we are allowed to use weed control once a year, and we are allowed to use fertilizers. Besides, we also spray once a year to keep the wheat short. This is to prevent the wheat from falling over when it grows taller and becomes heavy. When it does fall over, the hamster would use it’s coverage, and that is what it is all about in the end. When we grow wheat on our other fields, we also use weed control once a year, and we spray once or twice a year to keep the wheat short. We also fertilize our regular fields with fertilizers (kunstmest, not manure).
107
On the Luzerne, we don’t use any weed control. We are also allowed to mow the Luzerne twice a year, as long as it is before 20 June. The reason for us to participate in 2009 is that the rules had changed, which meant we were allowed to use weed control and fertilizers. Besides, we had fields to spare since wheat was very cheap at the time, and we didn’t make much profit since we had to compete with prices on the world market. The hamster programme was a financially attractive alternative. The programme also fits well within our company. We can use the Luzerne to feed the bulls and we can spread the manure of the bulls on the fields. The soil also improves when we don’t harvest, this is also an important motivation. And we are very busy with the bulls, which means we were happy that the hamster management programme required less work. In the past years we haven’t had any doubts about continuing our participation in the hamster programme, since it is such a good match with our company. Müskens is also easily and timely accessible in case we have questions. He invests a lot of time in the project. Often I receive emails on week nights or in the weekend, and I also see him in the field frequently. Mister Müskens is our only contact point, and he will stay for at least two to three more years. Subsidies are also important of course. So, we have financial motivations to participate, and it fits well within our business. We would consider participating with more hectares. But we are also happy the way it is, we try to reach the quota for sugar beets every year, and growing corn is also important to us since there are often shortages. We still need to purchase part of the corn we need, but at least we are less dependent on the market. Actually, we don’t have any influence in the decision making process within the hamster management programme. It would be good if a meeting would be organized where we can share thoughts and ideas. The expectations of the programme, however, are reasonable. It is common to plow between 20 and 25 cm deep, but we don’t plow at all. Instead, we drag pins to the soil that go 15cm deep. We use this technique to prevent erosion, this is part of another programme of the province of Limburg. People living in houses neighboring the hamster fields complain about damage inflicted by mice. Damage is compensated by the programme, and Gerard Müskens always thinks about solutions as well. For example, he allows us to mow the edges to reduce mice nuisance. This cluster was appointed later than the other two. The reason that the korenwolf is doing so well here is that the soil is very suitable for the hamster. In the beginning, we did get many comments, but now everyone is used to the hamster programme. However, some farmers still remember the time when the korenwolf was a
108
plague, that was at the time my father was also farming. Older farmers want to keep their distance from the korenwolf, because they are afraid they will become a plague again. But when Brussels wants us to do this, then that’s what will happen. And if we chose not to participate, our neighbors will. In this case you have to put aside some moral matters. Farmers are also concerned that the government will appoint agricultural land as nature reserve. The hamster programme is not strictly an agricultural activity, and many farmers believe farmers are not meant to manage nature. Many elderly farmers do not participate in the hamster programme out of principle. We are not directly concerned that agricultural land will be transformed into a nature reserve. We have signed a contract for 6 years, and after that we can always choose to end our participation in the programme. We are also not concerned that the korenwolf will become a plague again, predators will keep the population balanced. Besides, the landscape has changed over time, land consolidation has lead to a large-scale landscape. Further, farming techniques have changed significantly, and regular fields are not suitable for the hamsters, because crops are harvested too early, creating large, bare landscapes. An experiment has been started to test new packages in which crops on hamster fields may be harvested, but for us everything will remain largely the same in the next couple of years. We don’t know yet if we are happy when we are allowed to harvest crop on hamster fields. When we harvest later in the year, there is a risk that the crops are wet, which reduces the value. But at least we could still feed it to the bulls.
6. Interview Farmer 3
19 May 2015
In Dutch (original): We hebben uitsluitend een landbouwbedrijf van 25 hectares, waarvan 12ha, of eigenlijk tussen de 8 en 12 ha voor de korenwolf. Ik heb een pakket gekozen van 75%, wat betekent dat een akker drie jaar voor de korenwolf wordt ingezaaid en in het vierde jaar ben ik vrij om een ander gewas in te zaaien. De velden die worden gebruikt voor de korenwolf rouleren, met uitzondering van een paar akkers die in het bestemmingsplan als handelsterrein zijn gecategoriseerd. Hier mogen we het hamsterbeheer niet toepassen. Dit gebied zou eigenlijk ontwikkeld worden, maar is agrarisch gebleven, en nu pachten wij het. Op de akkers die niet voor de korenwolf worden gebruikt verbouw ik aardappels en suikerbieten. Voor de korenwolf worden tarwe, gerst en Luzerne gezaaid.
109
In 2016 gaan zover ik heb begrepen de regels wel veranderen, nu krijgen we onze subsidie van de rijksoverheid, maar vanaf 2016 wordt de provincie verantwoordelijk. In 2016 loopt mijn contract ook af, dan doe ik 6 jaar mee. In principe wil ik wel een nieuw contract tekenen, maar dan wil ik natuurlijk wel eerst de voorwaarden bekijken. Ik doe mee aan het korenwolfproject vanaf 2011, daarvoor heb ik ook een paar jaar meegedaan, maar dat was een pilot, om te kijken of deze regio geschikt was voor de korenwolf. Ik heb Gerard Müskens leren kennen tijdens een informatieavond, en toen was ik wel geïnteresseerd en wilde ik graag meedoen. In principe had ik vanaf 2009 al wel mee willen doen, maar toen was de regelgeving nog niet rond. Sinds ik meedoe heb ik geen twijfels, maar vooraf heb ik toch wel getwijfeld, vooral omdat je je voor meerdere jaren vastlegt. Maar tegelijkertijd betekent dat een gegarandeerd inkomen, het is minder risico. Voor andere gewassen is het vaak maar afwachten wat je ervoor krijgt. Voor granen krijg je vaak niet meer dan de kostprijs en aardappels leveren eigenlijk alleen maar wat op als de oogst in Polen of Engeland mislukt. Suikerbieten zijn wel redelijk stabiel omdat we de fabriek in ons bezit hebben met de corporatie. Economische zekerheid was wel een belangrijke reden om mee te doen. Daarnaast vond ik het programma ook interessant, ik vind natuur belangrijk, maar het moet wel wat opbrengen. Ik vind de eisen die binnen het programma worden gesteld redelijk en de compensatie daarvoor ook. Inspraak is niet echt nodig, de regels zijn duidelijk en redelijk en er zijn geen alternatieven die beter zouden zijn. Korenwolf akkers worden niet bespoten, behalve graan akkers, daar spuiten we een keer per jaar met een onkruidbestrijder. Hoe vaak we op de suikerbieten spuiten hangt af van het weer, maar dat is meestal tussen de vier en de zes keer per jaar. Op aardappels spuiten we elke week, omdat ze zo gevoelig zijn voor ziektes. Op al onze akkers doen we aan niet kerende grondbewerking, daarbij gaan de pinnen 15cm diep. Suikerbieten worden ongeveer midden december geoogst, daarna wordt gerst of tarwe ingezaaid dat in juli of augustus wordt geoogst. Dan zaaien we bladrammenas of een ander gewas dat stikstof in de grond brengt, en dit ploegen we onder in januari. Op een hamster akker blijft luzerne drie jaar staan, we mogen dit wel oogsten to juni. In januari of februari wordt de luzerne dan omgeploegd en wordt er gerst of tarwe ingezaaid. Dit blijft staan en wordt in februari ondergewerkt en daarna opnieuw ingezaaid. In het begin was het wel even wennen en even uitzoeken aan welke regels je moet voldoen, maar nu weet je gewoon waar je aan toe bent en gaat het allemaal automatisch.
110
In English (translated by the author): We have an agricultural company of 25 hectares, thereby 12 hectares, or actually 8 to 12 hectares are used for the European hamster. I have chosen for a package of 75%, which means a field is used for the hamster for three years, and in the fourth year I am free to grow and harvest any crop I like. The fields used for the hamster rotate, except for a couple of fields that are categorized as a trade-area in the zoning plan. The hamster programme does not match with this plan, and therefore these fields cannot be used for the hamster. This area was supposed to be developed, but remained agricultural and now we are leasing it. On the fields not used for the hamster, I grow potatoes and sugar beets. For the hamster I grow wheat, barley and Lucerne. As far as I have understood, the rules are going to change in 2016, now we receive subsidies from the national government, but from 2016 onwards the Province will take over these responsibilities. In 2016 my contract also ends, since I’ll have participated for 6 years by then. In principal, I would like to renew my contract, but I first want to see the new terms and conditions of course. I am participating in the programme since 2011, before that I have also participated for a couple of years, but that was in a pilot programme, to see if this region was suitable for the hamster. I got to know Gerard Müskens at an information meeting, and I was immediately interested and wanted to participate. In 2009 I had wanted to participate already, but there were some problems with regulation. Since I am participating, I have had no doubts about the programme, but before that I have had my doubts, particularly because the contract binds you to the programme for multiple years. But simultaneously this contract means a guaranteed income and a lower risk. For other crops it is always insecure what price you are going to get. The returns of wheat are often no higher than the cost price and potatoes only provide a good return when the harvest fails in Poland or England. Sugar beets are more stable, since we own the processing factory with the farmers association. Economical certainty was an important reason to participate. Besides, I was interested in the programme itself, I think nature is important, but it is still important that efforts are compensated. The expectations of the programme are reasonable and the compensation is sufficient. Participation in the policy making process is not relevant, the rules are clear and reasonable and I don’t think alternatives would be any better. We don’t use weed control on hamster fields, except for wheat fields, on which we spray once a year. How often we spray the sugar beets depends on the weather, but it’s usually
111
between 4 and 6 times a year. On the potatoes we spray every week since they are so sensitive to diseases. On all of our fields we use non-turning tillage (no tillage), whereby the pins go 15cm deep. Sugar beets are harvested around mid-December, after that wheat or barley is sown and harvested in July or August. After harvesting fodder raddish or another nitrogen binding crop is grown and plowed in January, after which another crop can be sown. On hamster fields, Luzerne stays for three years, although we are allowed to mow it until June. In January or February, Luzerne is plowed and barley or weed is sown. This stays on the field until February, and then we plow the field and sow it again with wheat or barley. In the beginning I had to get used to the expectations of the programme, but now I know what is expected and you do things automatically.
112
Appendix 3: List of newspaper articles Date 12 August 1995 22 April 1998 22 August 1998
Newspaper Volkskrant Trouw Trouw
Title Als de korenwolf uitsterft, heeft Limburg altijd nog het bier Actie voor bedreigde korenwolf Redding korenwolf nabij: meer ruimte in Zuid-Limburg
11 May Volkskrant 1999
Nachtwake voor de laatste korenwolven
11 May Trouw 1999
Korenwolf door ministerie
11 May Trouw 1999
Reddingsplan voor de laatste vier
17 May Volkskrant 1999 18 May Volkskrant 1999
De laatste hamsters
20 May Volkskrant 1999
21 May Trouw 1999
Provincie tegen vangen en fokken wilde hamsters Korenwolf mag beginnen aan vermenigvuldiging Woede over vangst hamsters
25 May Volkskrant 1999
Moet de korenwolf nu dankbaar zijn?
26 Trouw June 1999 30 July Volkskrant 1999
Van het menu op de rode lijst
30 July Volkskrant
´van
21 May Volkskrant 1999
bedreigd laksheid
Fokprogramma moet korenwolf redden
Korenwolf slaagt er niet in zich voort te planten fusie
Link http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/als-de-korenwolf-uitsterft-heeftlimburg-altijd-nog-het-bier~a395736/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2645886/1998/04/22/Actievoor-bedreigde-korenwolf.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2585479/1998/08/22/Reddi ng-korenwolf-nabij-meer-ruimte-in-ZuidLimburg.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/na chtwake-voor-de-laatstekorenwolven~a533848/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2654754/1999/05/11/Koren wolf-bedreigd-door-laksheidministerie.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2663459/1999/05/11/Reddi ngsplan-voor-de-laatste-vier.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/de-laatste-hamsters~a532234/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/fo kprogramma-moet-korenwolfredden~a534633/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/provincie-tegen-vangen-enfokken-wilde-hamsters~a542777/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/ko renwolf-mag-beginnen-aanvermenigvuldiging~a545042/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2535598/1999/05/21/Woed e-over-vangst-hamsters.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/moet-de-korenwolf-nu-dankbaarzijn~a529867/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2608627/1999/06/26/Vanhet-menu-op-de-rode-lijst.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/ko renwolf-slaagt-er-niet-in-zich-voort-teplanten~a514901/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossier-
113
1999 10 August 1999
Trouw
02 Septe mber 1999
Trouw
25 Septe mber 1999 13 Octobe r 1999 03 Decem ber 1999 20 Januar y 2000 2 March 2000 07 April 2000
Volkskrant
Volkskrant Trouw
Volkskrant Volkskrant Trouw
10 May Trouw 2000 31 May Trouw 2000 15 July Volkskrant 2000 15 July Volkskrant 2000 15 July Volkskrant 2000 18 July Volkskrant 2000
milieubewegingen kan niets goeds komen´ Meer korenwolven in Limburg, maar te weinig
archief/van-fusie-milieubewegingen-kanniets-goeds-komen~a516895/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2644677/1999/08/10/Meerkorenwolven-in-Limburg-maar-teweinig.dhtml Het gaat wel slecht met http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ hem, maar de article/detail/2580260/1999/09/02/Hetkorenwolf is nog lang gaat-wel-slecht-met-hem-maar-deniet uitgestorven korenwolf-is-nog-lang-nietuitgestorven.dhtml De Nederlandse panda http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/de-nederlandse-panda~a523654/ Buitenlandse korenwolf moet de Limburgse redden Nederland beknord om korenwolf
http://www.volkskrant.nl/voordeel/buite nlandse-korenwolf-moet-de-limburgseredden~a535264/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2700954/1999/12/03/Nede rland-beknord-om-korenwolf.dhtml
Korenwolf kost 7000 http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierbanen werk/korenwolf-kost-7000banen~a572521/ Wethouders gillend http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/we over hun nek van Das thouders-gillend-over-hun-nek-van-dasen Boom en-boom~a564385/ Stelling: we moeten de http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ natuur een handje article/detail/2518770/2000/04/07/Stellin helpen g-We-moeten-de-natuur-een-handjehelpen.dhtml Een miljoen per http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ korenwolf article/detail/2522918/2000/05/10/Eenmiljoen-per-korenwolf.dhtml Eindelijk: een nest http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ korenwolven article/detail/2516715/2000/05/31/Eindel ijk-een-nest-korenwolven.dhtml Leefgebied van http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierkorenwolf mag worden archief/leefgebied-van-korenwolf-magbebouwd worden-bebouwd~a551601/ De armoe der soorten http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/de-armoe-der-soorten~a549024/ ‘Stop het bouwen, er http://www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/stopzijn hamsters’ het-bouwen-er-zijn-hamsters~a578467/ ‘Economische pijn wint http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/econ vaak van mooie natuur’ omische-pijn-wint-vaak-van-mooie-
114
17 Januar y 2001 26 Januar y 2001 29 Januar y 2001 28 Februa ry 2001 28 Februa ry 2001 10 March 2001 04 April 2001
Trouw
Postume overwinning van de korenwolf
Trouw
Hamster miljoen
Volkskrant
Ook knoflookpad dwarsboomt aanleg bedrijventerreinen ‘Nemen we een slakje, is het weer niet goed’
01 June 2001 14 June 2001 30 June 2001 15 August 2001 16 August 2001 28 Novem ber 2001 13 Decem ber 2001 16
Volkskrant
van
een
zit
de
natuur~a556975/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2498469/2001/01/17/Postu me-overwinning-van-de-korenwolf.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/ article/detail/2485473/2001/01/26/Hams ter-van-een-miljoen.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/ook-knoflookpad-dwarsboomtaanleg-bedrijventerreinen~a585681/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/nemen-we-een-slakje-is-het-weerniet-goed~a588181/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2771536/2001/02/28/Dezeggekorfslak-zit-de-A73-dwars.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/verlamd-door-hetbeest~a598733/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2485210/2001/04/04/Bouw bedrijven-weten-Das-Boom-al-tevinden.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2780609/2001/06/01/Koren wolf-moet-wijken-voor-aardappels.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2495425/2001/06/14/Natu ur-is-garantie-voor-eeuwigheid.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/de-korenwolf-blijft-eenzorgenkind~a583678/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2492492/2001/08/15/Reddi ng-korenwolf-blijft-een-worsteling.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/das-boom-dreigt-met-procesvoor-korenwolf~a584633/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/inteelt-nekt-fokprojectkorenwolf~a604301/
Trouw
Zeggekorfslak A73 dwars
Volkskrant
Verlamd door het beest
Trouw
Bouwbedrijven weten Das & Boom al te vinden
Trouw
Korenwolf moet wijken voor aardappels
Trouw
‘Natuur is garantie voor eeuwigheid’
Volkskrant
De korenwolf blijft een zorgenkind
Trouw
Redding korenwolf blijft een worsteling
Volkskrant
Das & Boom dreigt met proces voor korenwolf
Volkskrant
Inteelt nekt fokproject korenwolf
Trouw
Ook modderkruiper http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ kansloos article/detail/2793972/2001/12/13/Ookmodderkruiper-kansloos.dhtml
Trouw
Das & Boom wil veilig http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/
115
Januar y 2002
gebied voor korenwolf
31 Volkskrant Januar y 2002 26 Volkskrant Februa ry 2002 28 Trouw Februa ry 2002
Convenant verzoent korenwolf en bouwer
26 April 2002
De natuur moet het van Brussel hebben
Trouw
Gefokte korenwolf pas in zomer los in wei Nederland negeert de Europese natuurwetten
article/detail/2773295/2002/01/16/Dasen-Boom-wil-veilig-gebied-voorkorenwolf.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/convenant-verzoent-korenwolfen-bouwer~a618314/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/gefokte-korenwolf-pas-in-zomerlos-in-wei~a629275/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2784403/2002/02/28/Nede rland-negeert-de-Europesenatuurwetten.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2769959/2002/04/26/Denatuur-moet-het-van-Brusselhebben.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2790066/2002/06/18/Natu urbeleid-EU-gebrekkig-ingevoerd.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/bescherming-korenwolf-schietdoor~a630136/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2796622/2002/07/18/Vosse n-afgemaakt-ter-beschermingkorenwolf.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/ article/detail/1774977/2003/02/07/Feite n.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/natuurbeleving-begon-toen-denatuur-was-verdwenen~a718273/
18 Trouw June 2002 12 July Volkskrant 2002
Natuurbeleid EU gebrekkig ingevoerd
18 July Trouw 2002
Vossen afgemaakt ter bescherming korenwolf
07 Februa ry 2003 06 Septe mber 2003 15 Septe mber 2004 18 Septe mber 2004 6 Octobe r 2004 31 Januar
Trouw
Feiten
Volkskrant
Natuurbeleving begon toen de natuur was verdwenen
Trouw
Rotterdamse haven http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/ klaagt over regels article/detail/1754145/2004/09/15/Rotte rdamse-haven-klaagt-over-regels.dhtml
Trouw
Korenwolven bij bosjes
Volkskrant
Sorry korenwolf, http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/sor schrijft de minister ry-korenwolf-schrijft-deminister~a694792/ Fokker Rutten is http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/fok verbaasd: habitat- ker-rutten-is-verbaasd-habitat-
Volkskrant
Bescherming korenwolf schiet door
sterven http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/ article/detail/1742184/2004/09/18/Koren wolven-verdwijnen-bij-bosjes.dhtml
116
y 2005 22 March 2005
Trouw
28 May Volkskrant 2005 16 Septe mber 2005
Trouw
29 March 2006 29 June 2006
Trouw
18 August 2006 8 Decem ber 2006 12 June 2007
Volkskrant
28 June 2008 22 Octobe r 2008 31 Octobe r 2008 07 March 2009 21 April 2010 30
Volkskrant
Trouw
Volkskrant
Trouw
Volkskrant Volkskrant Trouw Volkskrant Volkskrant
richtlijn? Dit landschap wordt u aangeboden door Essent
richtlijn~a681368/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/ article/detail/1741043/2005/03/22/Ditlandschap-wordt-u-aangeboden-doorEssent.dhtml Maak de dieren http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierEuropees archief/maak-de-diereneuropees~a652140/ Echte http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/ natuurbescherming article/detail/1708402/2005/09/16/Echte gaat verder dan -natuurbescherming-gaat-verder-dankorenwolven en korenwolven-en-heckrunderen.dhtml heckrunderen Weer volop http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/ korenwolven in article/detail/1683199/2006/03/29/Weer Limburg -volop-korenwolven-in-Limburg.dhtml Niet-gesignaleerde http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/ rustreeppad legt werk article/detail/1515174/2006/06/29/Nietstil gesignaleerde-rugstreeppad-legt-werkstil.dhtml Elk project heeft http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/elktegenwoordig zijn project-heeft-tegenwoordig-zijnkorenwolf korenwolf~a757747/ De das is gered – nu is http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/dede beurt aan het das-is-gered-nu-is-de-beurt-aan-hetlandschap landschap~a802991/ Limburgse boer laat http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/ korenwolven oogsten article/detail/1419682/2007/06/12/Limbu rgse-boer-laat-korenwolvenoogsten.dhtml Lekker doorrommelen http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/lekker-doorrommelen~a906351/ Knokken natuur
voor
de http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/knokken-voor-denatuur~a900258/ Minder vertraging http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/mi bouw door slak, pad en nder-vertraging-bouw-door-slak-pad-enmuis muis~a927776/ 75. Jaap Dirkmaat http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/ article/detail/1136502/2009/03/07/75Jaap-Dirkmaat.dhtml Ook verdwenen en http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierweer teruggekomen archief/ook-verdwenen-en-weerteruggekomen~a983186/ Canon ruimtelijke http://www.volkskrant.nl/recensies/cano
117
June 2010 02 Februa ry 2011 15 Februa ry 2011 16 Februa ry 2011 12 April 2011 21 April 2011
ordening Trouw Volkskrant Volkskrant Volkskrant Trouw
03 May Trouw 2011 09 May Volkskrant 2011 10 May Trouw 2011 10 May Trouw 2011 07 July Trouw 2011 08 July Trouw 2011 30 August 2011 09 Novem ber 2011
Trouw Trouw
31 May Volkskrant
n-ruimtelijke-ordening~a982559/
Nuchterheid over http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/ natuur is welkom article/detail/1846332/2011/02/02/Nucht erheid-over-natuur-is-welkom.dhtml Het gaat goed met de http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/het korenwolf -gaat-goed-met-de-korenwolf~a1834984/ ‘De rancune regeert bij http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossiernatuurbeleid regering’ archief/de-rancune-regeert-bijnatuurbeleid-regering~a1835203/ Het leger van Jaap http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossier-casparDirkmaat janssen/het-leger-van-jaapdirkmaat~a2447550/ Alterra bezuinigt http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ onderzoek naar otter article/detail/1878670/2011/04/21/Alterr en hamster weg a-bezuinigt-onderzoek-naar-otter-enhamster-weg.dhtml Klaar om ze terug te http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4332/Groen/a pakken rticle/detail/1884206/2011/05/03/Klaarom-ze-terug-te-pakken.dhtml ‘Onzin’ Bleker zet http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossiercomité aan tot formele archief/onzin-bleker-zet-comite-aan-totklacht formele-klacht~a2075420/ Zorgen om de hamster http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/2421355/2011/05/10/Zorge n-om-de-hamster.dhtml Korenwolf blijft http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4332/Groen/a zorgenkindje rticle/detail/2421534/2011/05/10/Koren wolf-blijft-zorgenkindje.dhtml Kort geding over http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4332/Groen/a bescherming korenwolf rticle/detail/2534855/2011/07/07/Kortgeding-over-beschermingkorenwolf.dhtml Staat voor rechter http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ wegens verwaarlozing article/detail/2615298/2011/07/08/Staatkorenwolf voor-rechter-wegens-verwaarlozingkorenwolf.dhtml Korenwolf heeft recht http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4332/Groen/a op ruimte rticle/detail/2876864/2011/08/30/Koren wolf-heeft-recht-op-ruimte.dhtml Bleker treft http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4332/Groen/a maatregelen voor rticle/detail/3023999/2011/11/09/Blekerkorenwolf: treft-maatregelen-voor-korenwolfhamsterranden en hamsterranden-en-fokprogrammafokprogramma’s s.dhtml Wijers: aanpak files http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/wij
118
2012
gaat soms voor natuur
28 August 2012
Trouw
Das & Boom gaat voor de otter naar de rechter
04 Octobe r 2012
Trouw
Bedreigd of uitgestorven behalve in de taal
10 Octobe r 2012 20 Octobe r 2012 02 Januar y 2013
Trouw
15 Jaap Dirkmaat
Trouw
‘Ik lijk op een das’
Trouw
Het gaat niet meer om die ene diersoort
08 Januar y 2013 12 Januar y 2013 17 May 2013 17 May 2013
Trouw
Huidige natuurbeleid zo slecht niet
Volkskrant
De diertjesinspectie
Volkskrant
Natuurbeleid te strikt
Volkskrant
Natuurbeleid moet weg van details
11 July Volkskrant 2013
‘Korenwolf staat voor mooi landschap’
10 Trouw Octobe r 2013 10 Trouw April 2014 10 May Trouw 2014
40 Jaap Dirkmaat Hop doet Limburg
leven
in
de Hamster: Steppebewoners gaan ondergronds
ers-aanpak-files-gaat-soms-voornatuur~a3263785/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/3307243/2012/08/28/DasBoom-gaat-voor-de-otter-naar-derechter.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/3326428/2012/10/04/Bedre igd-of-uitgestorven-behalve-in-detaal.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/3329265/2012/10/10/15Jaap-Dirkmaat.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/3334705/2012/10/20/Ik-lijkop-een-das.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4332/Groen/a rticle/detail/3371112/2013/01/02/Hetgaat-niet-meer-om-die-enediersoort.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/3373674/2013/01/08/Huidi ge-natuurbeleid-zo-slecht-niet.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/de-diertjesinjectie~a3375884/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/natuurbeleid-te-strikt~a3442697/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/natuurbeleid-moet-weg-vandetails~a3442681/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossierarchief/korenwolf-staat-voor-mooilandschap~a3473826/ http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/3524548/2013/10/10/40Jaap-Dirkmaat.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/3632646/2014/04/10/Hopdoet-leven-in-Limburg.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/ article/detail/3652587/2014/05/10/deHamster-Steppebewoners-gaanondergronds.dhtml
119
