The Netherlands – a compromise between the state and the monarchy in forest management
Dutch forestry is defined by a transition from historical deforestation to highly developed, biodiversity-based management; forests cover around 11% of the country's territory. The Netherlands has almost no primeval natural forest: most of it is human-planted, carefully planned and strictly protected. Ecological function dominates in forestry, and the country has a unique balance between private organisations and state institutions in nature conservation.
Around the start of the 19th century, overuse, agriculture and grazing had reduced Dutch forests to just 2% of the country's land area. The situation was as hopeless as in Denmark. The Dutch realised there was no time to lose, and in the second half of the 19th century large-scale afforestation began, aimed at halting the movement of sand dunes and securing timber for industry and shipbuilding. Today the emphasis has shifted entirely away from timber production towards multifunctional forest management, where the priorities are biodiversity, carbon sequestration and public recreation. The country can afford this because income per capita is very, very high.
What is the situation today?
Mixed forests dominate in the Netherlands, made up mainly of pine, oak, beech and birch. The oldest planted conifer forests, such as Mastbos, date back as far as the 16th century. Forests currently cover around 370,000 hectares, or roughly 11% of the territory, and their area has grown slightly in recent years. Forests are negatively affected by high nitrogen deposition from intensive agriculture, drought caused by climate change, and habitat fragmentation due to dense infrastructure.
Roughly half of all forest is managed by state institutions and municipalities. The other half is “shared” between nature conservation associations and private individuals. The royal family also holds substantial forest properties. The most famous is Kroondomein Het Loo – an estate covering around 10,000 hectares. It is a historic estate in Apeldoorn that belongs to the state, but whose use rights and day-to-day management have been entrusted to the royal house. Every autumn, King Willem-Alexander closes off a large part of the Het Loo nature reserve for private hunting. This regularly draws sharp criticism from the public, politicians and animal rights advocates, particularly because the estate’s upkeep is funded by state subsidies.
The specifics of nature conservation
The state forest and nature conservation agency Staatsbosbeheer was founded in 1899 and manages more than 270,000 hectares of nature areas.
Natuurmonumenten is a private nature conservation association founded in 1905 with more than 850,000 members. It buys up land, establishes nature reserves and manages them. Separately, there are also landscape funds run by the 12 provinces, known as LandschappenNL.
National parks and reserves are tightly integrated into Natura 2000 and the Dutch Nature Network. Ambitious nature restoration projects are being carried out, such as the rehydration of peatland ecosystems and the construction of artificial nature islands in lakes.
Dutch nature management contains a contrast between two enormous structures – the state-owned but royal-family-run Kroondomein Het Loo, and the entirely private, member-run Natuurmonumenten. Although both hold vast natural riches, their legal status, aims and day-to-day operations are entirely different.
The royal domain as a compromise between state and monarchy
Kroondomein Het Loo is a legal exception under Dutch law. The forest in Apeldoorn covers more than 10,000 hectares, making it the largest continuous nature area in the country. Since 1959, when Queen Wilhelmina transferred the land to the state to protect it from being broken up, ownership has belonged to the Netherlands, though under a special law exclusive rights of use and management have been entrusted to the reigning monarch.
King Willem-Alexander decides for himself how the forest is managed, keeping all revenue from timber sales. This status also carries the right to close most of the area every autumn so the royal family can hold private hunts. Because the estate is maintained with the help of state subsidies, closing the forest for hunting regularly sparks sharp political disputes in Dutch society and parliament over the use of taxpayers’ money and royal privileges.
The power of society and private initiative in saving nature
The counterpart to the royal domain is the association Natuurmonumenten, founded in 1905. It is a fully independent, private non-governmental organisation with more than 850,000 members. The association manages more than 350 separate nature areas across the Netherlands, covering a total of around 100,000 hectares.
Natuurmonumenten strategy is unusual – using donations, membership fees and lottery funds, the association buys up forests, peatlands and even farmland that it considers under threat. As soon as the land comes into its ownership, it is turned into a protected nature site. The association’s goal is biodiversity and full public accessibility. Unlike the royal domain, Natuurmonumenten areas are open to any walker or cyclist all year round. The association takes part in ambitious projects such as building the artificial nature archipelago Marker Wadden, demonstrating that private civic initiative can transform an entire country’s ecosystem. The Netherlands has a level of economic prosperity that allows Natuurmonumenten to pursue such goals without difficulty. It should be stressed that the structure of the Dutch state’s revenue sources is entirely different from that in, say, the Baltic states or the Nordic countries.
Disputes and scandals
It has not been without scandal. The conflict between farmers and Natuurmonumenten is one of the sharpest clashes in the Netherlands in recent decades. At its core is a fundamental struggle over limited space and resources in a country where one of the world’s most intensive agricultural sectors has to coexist with strict nature conservation goals. Several critical points feed the conflict.
The biggest cause of the dispute is the so-called “nitrogen crisis”, or stikstofcrisis. Natuurmonumenten together with other environmental organisations won court rulings requiring the government to strictly comply with EU nature conservation directives. Because agriculture, particularly intensive livestock farming, is the main source of the ammonia and nitrogen emissions polluting neighbouring nature reserves, the court decisions forced the government to draw up plans for radically cutting livestock numbers and even for the forced buyout of farms. Farmers believe that Natuurmonumenten directly threatens their existence, their traditions and their family businesses through legal pressure, making the association one of the main targets of farmers’ protests.
The fight over land and its purchase
Land in the Netherlands is “scarce” and very expensive. Natuurmonumenten strategy is to buy up farmland in order to convert it into nature areas or “buffer zones” around existing nature parks. Farmers’ unions and activists see this as brutal, unfair competition. In their view, the association, using its huge donor funds and state grants, “takes” land away from working farmers, shrinking the total area of farmland and driving up land prices on the market.
Drainage versus flooding
To ensure productive farming and stop heavy agricultural machinery sinking into the ground, the Dutch water authorities and farmers have historically kept groundwater levels very low. In its peatland and wetland restoration projects, Natuurmonumenten calls for raising groundwater levels. When water levels are raised in nature reserves, it often floods or over-saturates the neighbouring farmers' meadows and fields as well, damaging crops and making farming more difficult.
Dictating lease terms
Natuurmonumenten owns around 25,000 hectares of farmland, which it leases to roughly 1,900 farmers to ensure the natural management of meadows, such as controlled grazing. The organisation imposes extremely strict ecological conditions on its tenants, such as a ban on artificial fertiliser and pesticides, as well as tight restrictions on mowing dates to protect ground-nesting birds. Many farmers complain that these rules, which could be called “calendar farming”, are out of touch with reality, unpredictable, and make farming economically unviable.
Despite the sharp conflicts and “tractor protests” outside the offices of environmental organisations, in recent years both sides have been trying to come to the negotiating table. Joint projects are emerging, such as Pacht & Perspectie (Lease and Perspective), through which Natuurmonumenten tries to offer farmers long-term lease agreements and financial compensation if they switch to ecological farming that promotes biodiversity. The ideological gap between the two sides remains deep, and no resolution of the conflict is in sight for the foreseeable future.
Public attitudes
Attitudes towards forest in the Netherlands are very protective. Foresters, in the sense we understand the term, are in every respect seen here as “enemies of nature”. Because the Netherlands is so densely populated, forest is regarded as a recreational space for enjoying nature. There is strong public support for sustainability and forest certification, and large areas of forest are FSC or PEFC certified.
The Netherlands is a timber importer and logistics hub, since domestic timber harvesting covers only a small share of national consumption. The sector is represented by the Dutch Timber Trade Association (VVNH). Demand is currently growing rapidly for eco-friendly building materials such as cross-laminated timber, or CLT, driven by strict government climate rules in construction.
The Kingdom of Belgium – forests, nature and hunting in Wallonia and Flanders
Belgian forestry is marked by stark regional inequality, with the main source of timber and natural resources lying in the French-speaking southern part – Wallonia, while the northern region, Dutch-speaking Flanders, is a densely populated area with fragmented forests. Overall, forest covers around 22-23% of Belgium's territory, or roughly 690,000 hectares. The country is moving away from the intensive conifer plantations of the 20th century towards modern, ecologically oriented management focused on biodiversity.
More than 75% of Belgium’s forest lies in Wallonia, especially in its mountainous Ardennes region. Flanders has little forest, serving mainly for recreation. Deciduous forest, made up mainly of oak and beech, and coniferous forest with spruce, Douglas fir and pine occupy almost equal areas.
The Ardennes forests of Wallonia have huge economic importance for timber production, while recreation – tourism such as cycling – is the most important aspect of forests in Flanders and the Brussels region. It should be noted that hunting management in the Ardennes is an economically very lucrative sector.
Forest policy – in the 20th century and today
The 20th century was a period of intensive production. After the First and Second World Wars, Belgian forest policy was geared towards maximum productivity and self-sufficiency in timber. Vast monoculture plantations of Norway spruce (Picea abies) were established in the Ardennes mountains. The intensive approach delivered quick profits but created ecologically unstable stands.
Since the 1880s, forest policy has been handed over entirely to the regions – Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels – to run for themselves. The country has no forestry ministry. Today’s guidelines call for a shift to mixed-type forests under the so-called Pro Silva principles, banning large-scale clear-felling and promoting natural regeneration to adapt to climate change.
Ownership and royal estates
Around 60% of Belgium’s forest is privately owned, belonging to more than 100,000 individual owners; it should be noted that most own no more than 1-2 hectares of forest. The remaining 40% belongs to municipalities and state or regional authorities.
The Belgian royal family owns almost no forest of its own; instead, the largest historic royal forest tracts belong to the organisation Donation Royale, founded in 1909 by King Leopold II, who transferred vast estates to the state on condition that they would never be sold and would remain for the use of the king’s successors. Donation Royale manages more than 7,500 hectares of forest and land, including large Ardennes forest tracts around the châteaux of Ciergnon and Fenffe, as well as the famous Tervuren Arboretum near Brussels. These forests are managed commercially, with part leased out for private hunting.
The timber industry – private and large companies
Belgium has no state timber or forestry companies. The sector is made up entirely of private capital, ranging from small family logging businesses in the Ardennes to international conglomerates. Belgium is a major exporter of high-quality oak and spruce sawn timber in Europe.
Leading wood processing companies include, for example, Fruitier, one of the largest sawmill networks in the region, and the wood panel manufacturer Unilin, known for its Quick-Step and Spano brands.
Nature conservation and forest owner organisations
Because private forests are so fragmented, the main credit for bringing them together belongs to the Royal Forestry Society of Belgium (SRFB), founded in 1893, which provides owners with technical and legal support. Regional forestry cooperatives also operate, helping small owners sell their timber.
In nature conservation, the largest environmental organisations are Natagora in Wallonia and Natuurpunt in Flanders. As in the Netherlands, they actively buy up and privately manage nature areas. A large share of Belgium’s forest is included in the Natura 2000 network, which imposes strict management restrictions, especially during the bird nesting season.
Conflicts and scandals
Belgium's forest sector is regularly shaken by ecological and political conflicts.
Because of recent years’ dry summers, the Ardennes spruce forests have been struck by an invasion of the European spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus) causing enormous losses, forced salvage logging to save what remained, and a collapse in timber prices on the market. The public and green activists sharply, and rather pointlessly, criticised foresters for the stubborn planting of monocultures in the past, which has left Belgium’s forests unable to withstand climate change.
As in the Netherlands, the activities of Donation Royale, the manager of the former royal estates in Belgium, are also viewed with controversy. Investigative journalists and politicians have brought to light the fact that the state funds the upkeep of the historic castles’ and parks’ infrastructure, while the royal family and their guests use the closed forest areas for exclusive hunts, denying access to ordinary citizens. One wonders what “ordinary citizens” would even be doing at a royal hunt?
In Wallonia there is a sharp conflict between green energy developers and nature advocates over the construction of wind farms in the Ardennes forest massifs. Environmental organisations argue that building roads for heavy machinery and felling trees to make way for turbines destroys unique forest habitats and endangers protected birds such as the black stork.
Every autumn, fierce conflicts flare up in the Walloon Ardennes between forest owners, who earn substantial income from leasing hunting rights, and the tourism sector. During the hunting season, large forest areas and popular hiking trails are closed to walkers, causing frustration among the public and local recreational tourism businesses.
“Different sisters”
Because of Belgium’s political and geographical division, nature conservation in the country is split apart. The two largest nature conservation NGOs – Natuurpunt and Natagora – are effectively “sisters” that emerged from the split of the historic Belgian nature conservation society; today they operate under entirely different conditions and with different dynamics. Natagora and Natuurpunt divide the country along linguistic and regional lines, which also shapes the specifics of their work and strategy.
Natuurpunt in Flanders
Flanders is one of the most densely populated, wealthiest and most industrialised regions in Europe. Forests and natural areas here are small, heavily fragmented and under enormous pressure from urbanisation.
Because “free nature” is scarce, Natuurpunt focuses aggressively on buying up land and creating micro-reserves, purchasing even small plots – former industrial sites, abandoned farm meadows or small patches of forest, in order to restore them, link them into “green corridors” and protect them from development. Natuurpunt is a huge, financially strong organisation with more than 130,000 members and thousands of volunteers. The Flemish regional government has historically provided generous subsidies for land purchase, which has allowed the organisation to become one of the largest landowners in the region.
Natagora in Wallonia and Brussels
Wallonia is geographically larger, more mountainous, richer in forest and considerably less densely populated than Flanders. This is where the large Ardennes forest massifs are found.
Since natural areas in Wallonia are already extensive, Natagora focuses less on mass land purchases, although it does own around 5,000 hectares of nature reserves. Instead, the emphasis is on protecting large ecosystems, monitoring species and political lobbying. It works to integrate nature conservation requirements into Wallonia’s forestry and agricultural legislation, and helps private forest and land owners farm in an environmentally friendly way. Natagora has fewer members and a smaller budget than its northern neighbour, since Wallonia’s regional funding for nature conservation has historically been more modest than in Flanders, though its “level of expertise” in species protection and the management of international LIFE projects is very high.
Restoring the Ardennes forests – from monocultures to the forest of the future
The Ardennes mountain region is currently undergoing the most far-reaching forest transformation in the last 150 years, driven by the urgent need to correct the mistakes of 20th-century forest policy, mistakes that the climate crisis has laid bare. After the world wars, monoculture plantations of Norway spruce were planted en masse in the Ardennes for profit. Spruce is not native to this region; it naturally grows in mountains or northern regions. Extreme drought and summer heatwaves in recent years weakened these stands. The bark beetle followed, literally destroying thousands of hectares of forest and forcing foresters to carry out massive sanitary clear-fells. The era of spruce in the Ardennes has come to an irreversible end.
The Walloon government, working with the Royal Forestry Society of Belgium and environmental organisations, has introduced new guidelines described as a shift to sustainable, mixed forest. Mixed-forest planting is now mandatory in place of spruce. The share of native broadleaf species is being raised to at least 50-60%. Since the timber industry still needs softwood, spruce is being replaced with species that better tolerate drought, such as Douglas fir and European larch. The new policy calls for abandoning large-scale clear-felling. Forests are being restored gradually, making maximum use of natural regeneration. Trees in the forest are of varying ages and heights, creating a more stable microclimate and protecting the soil from drying out and eroding. As part of forest restoration, the drainage ditches of old plantations are being removed. Water is deliberately being retained within the forest ecosystem by restoring the small Ardennes bogs and wetlands, which act as a sponge during periods of drought.
Hunting in Belgium – a fight over opportunity
Belgium’s hunting lobby, represented mainly by the influential Walloon hunters’ association Royal Saint-Hubert Club de Belgique, or the Royal Saint Hubert Club of Belgium, exerts huge pressure to keep hunting available in the Ardennes, affecting the forest ecosystem. This influence directly and negatively threatens the survival of new, climate-adapted tree plantings. The conflict between foresters and hunters in the Ardennes has reached a critical point, driven by several key factors.
Leasing hunting rights in the Ardennes is a significant matter of business and prestige. To guarantee wealthy local and foreign clients trophies each autumn, the hunting lobby has for decades secured high hunting quotas for wild ungulates – red deer, roe deer and wild boar – tied to population size. In many parts of the Ardennes, the number of animals per hectare far exceeds the forest’s natural carrying capacity. In winter, hunters often supplementary-feed animals in the forest to artificially prevent natural mortality, which further increases population numbers.
As mentioned above, the Ardennes are currently undergoing a shift from spruce monocultures to mixed forest. Foresters are planting valuable, climate-resilient broadleaf trees – oak, beech, maple, as well as conifers. For deer and roe deer, the young, succulent broadleaf saplings and buds are the best possible food; it is like being at an “ungulate restaurant”. They gnaw off the leading shoots of the young trees, causing the saplings to die or grow deformed. In effect, the forest’s natural regeneration is being halted, because young trees cannot outgrow the grass in time.
Additional costs for forest owners and political resistance
Because the hunting lobby successfully resists any radical reduction in animal numbers, forest owners and the state forest service are forced to spend enormous sums protecting new plantings. For the saplings to survive, every hectare of young forest must be physically fenced with expensive fencing, or every small tree individually fitted with plastic guards and repellents. If an owner cannot afford fencing, in an area overcrowded with ungulates the young stand is destroyed almost 100% within a few months.
Belgium’s hunting lobby has historically had close ties to the political elite and major landowners, including the royal fund Donation Royale. When Walloon environment and forestry ministers try to introduce stricter rules to achieve a balance between nature and hunting, or équilibre forêt-gibier, hunters’ associations use legal and political pressure to soften or delay these decisions. Hunters argue that hunting brings millions of euros to the region and boosts tourism, while blaming forest damage on climate change rather than animal numbers. Each side has a point.
The “wolf factor” as a new twist
In recent years, wolves have returned to the Walloon Ardennes after a long absence. Environmental organisations such as Natagora, and more progressive foresters, view this positively, since predators help naturally regulate ungulate numbers and change their behaviour – deer no longer linger in one place and cause less damage to young stands. The Walloon hunting lobby, by contrast, is extremely hostile to the wolf’s presence, seeing it as a direct competitor for trophies.
Walloon legislation imposes strict financial liability on hunters for damage caused by forest animals, but for forest owners, claiming this compensation is legally more complicated than it is for farmers.
While farmers’ compensation is guaranteed by a special historic law, forest owners have to fight for their rights in court, proving specific hunters’ negligence and failure to carry out their duties.
The legal framework – agriculture versus forestry
Under the historic law of 14 July 1961, still in force in Wallonia, the holder of hunting rights – the hunter or the club – is automatically deemed guilty and liable for damage that large game animals, such as deer and wild boar, cause to agricultural crops, meadows and harvests. The farmer does not have to prove the hunter’s fault, only the fact of the damage and the forest tract the animals came from.
The 1961 law does not apply to forest stands. If deer gnaw young tree plantings or strip bark from mature trees, the forest owner cannot claim automatic compensation. They must instead rely on the general provisions of the Civil Code – the articles on recovering damages for personal negligence.
To force hunters through the courts to pay for a destroyed young stand, the forest owner must prove two things. First – the hunters’ negligence, meaning it must be shown that the hunting club failed to fulfil its duties, for example by deliberately not meeting the hunting quotas set by the Walloon government, artificially feeding animals to increase their numbers, or ignoring the forest owner’s written warnings about damage. Second, it must be proven that the specific animals came directly from the hunting district managed by that particular club.
An example from case law: the Liège Court of Appeal once handed down a landmark ruling, ordering hunters to pay the forest owner compensation running into thousands of euros. The court found that the hunters had acted negligently, since the high density of red deer in the hunting district made it impossible for the tree saplings to survive.
Because the hunting lobby in the Ardennes often prefers to pay individual compensation rather than reduce animal numbers, the Walloon regional government has introduced administrative penalties.
For each hunting district, the government sets a mandatory minimum number of red deer and wild boar that must be culled each season. If a hunting club fails to meet this quota in order to preserve a larger population for the following year, it is subject to substantial fines for every animal not culled.
In cases of repeated violations or deliberate disregard of quotas, the government can revoke the hunting licence for a given district or close the right to hunt a particular species.
Wallonia has introduced strict restrictions on winter supplementary feeding of forest animals. Hunters caught illegally placing feed, such as maize, to attract wild boar and deer are punished with large administrative fines, since this practice contributes to the destruction of young stands.
In Walloon court assessments, the financial value of a single destroyed tree sapling is not determined “by eye” or by the ordinary nursery price of a sapling. Because forest restoration is a long-term investment, court-appointed agronomy and forestry experts use mathematical calculations to determine the real losses. Walloon courts most often recognise precisely such an expert’s opinion, calculated using the officially approved system, as the only objective evidence.
Luxembourg – the country where the grand duke gives way…
Luxembourg's forestry reflects the efforts of a small but very wealthy country to balance historic private ownership with extremely strict nature conservation and tackling the climate crisis. Forests cover around 35% of the country's territory, roughly 92,000 hectares. In modern Luxembourg, forest is no longer viewed as a source of timber, but as a national natural ecosystem, strictly protected by law and watched over by the public. Broadleaf trees dominate Luxembourg's forests, covering 64-75% of the total area, mainly beech and oak. Conifers make up the rest, historically planted for intensive production use. Forests play a critical role in purifying groundwater, since Luxembourg relies heavily on forest spring water, and in carbon sequestration. The economic value of timber sales is secondary for the country – the primary values are recreation, public health and ecosystem value.
Ownership and the grand duke’s estates
Around 52% of the forest is privately owned, belonging to more than 14,000 individuals. The remaining 48% belongs to the state and municipalities. The grand duke’s estates lie in the Grünewald, the most famous forest tract and the largest old crown forest in Luxembourg. The grand ducal family still owns around 850 hectares of forest.
In 2009, the grand ducal family, facing sharp public criticism over plans to sell part of the forest, signed an agreement with the state. Under it, forest management and usage rights for 25 years (until 2034) were handed over to the state for a symbolic €1 a year. The new Grand Duke Guillaume, who took the throne after his father Henri, has asked the government to terminate this agreement early and return the forest to the direct management of the ducal foundation. His aim is to invest in the forest, developing recreational, therapeutic and sports programmes; the government has rejected this request, maintaining strict state control over the Grünewald.
The specifics of logging and nature conservation
All state and municipal forest, as well as part of the private forest, is supervised and managed by the state Nature and Forest Administration (Administration de la Nature et des Forêts), or ANF.
In Luxembourg, clear-felling is practically banned. Only selective felling is permitted. The state actively subsidises private owners so that they refrain from any intensive economic activity in their forests at all, instead allowing the forest to age naturally.
A very large share of the forest is included in the international Natura 2000 conservation network and in strict nature reserves.
Public attitudes, owners' rights and compensation
In densely populated Luxembourg, public attitudes towards forest are extremely protective, even emotional. Any tree felling in public space is closely scrutinised in the media.
Luxembourg’s laws state that the public has the right to freely access and walk through all forests, including private ones, along existing roads and paths. A private owner may not fence off their forest or forbid people from picking mushrooms or walking there, except where this is necessary to protect young stands. Because state environmental rules limit private owners’ ability to profit from timber, Luxembourg operates one of the most generous compensation systems in Europe, the so-called climate and biodiversity grants. Owners receive annual direct payments per hectare if they commit to leaving dead wood in the forest, avoiding chemicals and protecting habitats.
Forest problems and scandals
According to the latest national forest inventory data, nearly 80% of Luxembourg's trees are in poor condition or weakened. Because of dry, hot summers and bark beetle infestations, forests are declining on a mass scale. This raises concerns that the current forest ecosystems will not survive the coming decades unless a radical change of species takes place.
Scientific studies show that the soil in Luxembourg's forests is oversaturated with nitrates and nitrogen from intensive agriculture and transport. This alters soil acidity and literally poisons tree roots. Environmentalists are demanding radical agricultural reforms, which is causing conflicts between farmers and aggressive eco-activists.
Meanwhile, the grand duke’s wish to regain the Grünewald forest before the agreement’s term expires has become the most important political discussion topic of late. Concerns are being voiced in society and parliament – if the forest returns to the ducal foundation’s hands, there is a risk that forestry will be commercialised, that citizens’ free access will be restricted, or that “promotional” infrastructure dedicated to the monarchy will be built, such as renaming trails after the dukes, and so on. The grand duke justified his idea by saying that his foundation faces rapidly growing demand for help from individuals who do not qualify for ordinary state social support. The forest income would be used to support people with disabilities, social kitchens and citizens in crisis situations. As an argument for ending the agreement, a plan was cited to fully renovate the forest trails using the duke’s own funds, install educational panels on the dynasty’s history, and create therapeutic, educational and sports programmes for young people and people with special needs. The forest would remain fully accessible to the public.
Despite this noble aim, the Luxembourg government, led by the environment minister, rejected the request. The main argument was fear of setting a precedent – the forest, under state management since