Dynamiek in de Nederlandse natuurbescherming

Abstract

In this thesis I have studied the strategy dynamics of the Dutch private nature con-servation movement in relation to the agricultural landscape and agriculture. These dynamics maybe best described as a spiral-like development, which is the result of both continuity and development as oscillations in strategy. From 1932 till 1972 four oscillations can be seen: between a broad and narrow view on nature, between a high and a low appreciation of the agricultural landscape, between more and less attention for agriculture and between a construction and a critical position to agriculture. These oscillations cannot be explained by the agricultural development. The strategy of the agricultural organisations contained potentials for co-operation, in the field of nature, landscape and environment. The strategy shifted from land reclamation of wastelands to the care for the agricultural landscape. Especially the environment became an important problem for the agricultural organisations. The attitude to these fields is not just negative. They recognised the importance of caring for nature and landscape, although they often resisted against concrete restrictions. Initially environ-mental problems were a threat for agriculture especially and they claimed a restriction of water and air pollution. After some time agriculture became a source of environ-mental problems itself. The potentials for co-operation have only been used partly. The four oscillations have more to do with some fundamental ambivalences in the perspective of the conservation movement: modern man versus nature, nature as a resource versus Arcadia, wild versus pastoral nature, and optimism versus pessimism. At a specific moment conservationists take a specific position in relation to these ambivalences. Gradually the risks and disadvantages of that position become clear and their importance increase. They reconsidere their position and move up to the other side of the ambivalences. Because of these ambivalences more oscillations can be expected. The ambivalences can be seen in two debates on the agricultural landscape at the end of last century, one concerning the quality of common nature and the other regarding conservation on the farm. They can also be seen in the use of the multifunctional land management principle. This principle can play an important role in the management of nature. In the second half of last century it sometimes stood high on the agenda. If the principle wants some sustainability, it has to be worked out. Therefore, each function needs a minimum quality. Broadening nature policy is a topical theme. The concept implies a broader concept and functionality of nature and a broader responsibility of other parties. Broadening offers chances but risks too. The biggest risk may arise if broadening becomes an all-embracing new green ideology, the one of the green society. Broadening can go too far. The chances and risks of broadening are dilemmas for conservationists. These dilemmas connect to the fundamental ambivalences that were demonstrated in history. However, broadening fits in a long-lasting strategy. That does not exclude short periodes of restriction or narrowing of strategy.