New Wilderness vision for Europe

How much Wilderness is needed in Europe?

People asking this question probably expected a modest answer, which one might call a realistic target, but I don’t want to be realistic now. Our ambition is to be a European leader on Wilderness protection, and to be more visionary. What size or territory would be needed from moral point of view? For instance the Federal Government of Germany made a pledge of protecting 2% of its territory Wilderness by 2020, but we the, European Wilderness Society, want more. We have a new Wilderness vision for Europe! We argue and fight for 5% Wilderness in order to compensate our human footprint on the continent.

How would this be put together?

The core of the 5% is the network of existing Wilderness protected areas, which is often cited as being around 1%. There are also protected areas which can be turned into Wilderness with non-intervention management with small changes in management practice. I believe these two types of areas will make up at least 3%. The other 2% can be made up by the 200,000 km2, which was argued in the 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook report as areas to be restored as Wilderness.

What would the 5% mean in practice?

With 5% Wilderness, we would only compensate our human footprint on Europe’s land territory. We have already managed to cover 4% of land with completely artificial surfaces (houses, industry and infrastructure) by 2006. Between 2000 and 2006 the annual land taken by artificial surfaces was over 100,000 hectares per year! Based on this tendency, we are getting close to covering 5% of Europe with artificial surfaces. Without using any economic arguments, we – Europeans – have a moral obligation to compensate the artificial surface with 5% Wilderness in our continent!

Is this 5% vision hard to reach? – Not really!

Although it requires a lot of change in the current management practices of protected areas, but we should recognise the followings: the Natura 2000 network covers roughly 20% of land and we also have the Emerald network and a network of protected areas in Europe. The European governments as parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity committed themselves to reach 17% of terrestrial and inland water protection by 2020. The 5% Wilderness we want to achieve would mean less than 1/3 of this 17%! We do not argue for any new or a parallel system next to for instance the Natura 2000 network. We argue that the 5% Wilderness – areas with non-intervention management and no extractive use – can and must be accommodated within the current system. And the current targets support our arguments!

So the European Wilderness Society sets a new Wilderness vision for Europe! We want to see 5% Wilderness which will form the European Wilderness Network. And we are constantly  looking for partners who share and like our vision and are willing to cooperate with us for raising up the protection of Europe’s last remaining Wilderness.

You May Also Like

2 thoughts on “New Wilderness vision for Europe

  1. About 15 years ago I participated in a great discussion at a wilderness conference that included biologists and the disucssion ended with a sort of consensus that you need to protect about 12-15% of any landmass to prevent extinctions and ensure habitat quality. That is a minimum. Of course its not just ANY12-15%. You have to protect the key…most important 12-15% obviously. I think therefore that your current 5% goal for a place as populated as Europe is very reasonable and acheiveable. Maybe a 15% goal over the next 100 years should be promulgated. We have a long way to go over here too.

Please Leave a Comment

Join more 100+ forest experts demanding a radical change in German forestry management.

Sign the Open Letter to the German Federal Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

Open Letter to the German Ministry of Food and Agriculture

Federal Ministry of
Food and Agriculture
Minister Julia Klöckner
11055 Berlin

Dear Minister Klöckner,

The current situation of the forest in Germany is worrying. It is a forest crisis not only driven by climate change. The current crisis management of the forestry industry is backward-looking and harmful to the forest. The declaration announced at the meeting of ministers in Moritzburg can be described as a `Moritzburg declaration of bankruptcy´. We call on the state forestry industry to, instead of expensive rushed actions, finally carry out an expert analysis of its own work and to involve all stakeholders in this process. What is called for is a consistent departure from plantation forestry and a radical shift towards a management that treats the forest as an ecosystem and no longer as a wood factory.

On 1stAugust 2019, five forestry ministers of CDU and CSU-led states adopted a so-called “master plan” for the forest in Germany, which was affected by heat, bark beetles, fire and drought. As of 2020, the federal government is to make 800 million euros available as a reaction to climate change. This money is to be used to repair the damage caused, reforest the damaged areas and carry out `climate-adapted´ forest conversion – including the use of non-native tree species that have not yet been cultivated in the forest. Research should therefore focus on on tree species suitability and forest plant breeding in the future – keyword: `Climate-adapted forest of the future 2100´.

Remarkably, the damage caused primarily by the extreme drought of 2018 is attributed solely to climate change. Climate change is meeting a forest that is systemically ill due to the planting of non-native tree species, species poverty, monocultures, uniform structure, average low age, mechanical soil compaction, drainage etc. A healthy, resistant forest would look differently! The master plan emphasizes: sustainable, multifunctional and `active´ forest management remains indispensable – and thereby means that its unnatural state cannot be changed. Reference is made to the `carbon storage and substitution effects´ of wood products. The use of wood, e.g. in the construction industry, should be increased and thus the demand for wood should be further fueled – while knowing that the forest in Germany already cannot meet this demand. In fact, forest owners are suffering from poor timber prices due to an oversupply of trunk wood on the world market.

All these demands make clear: the current forestry strategy, which has been practiced for decades, should not change in principle. The concept is simple: cut down trees – plant trees. At best, the `design´ of the future artificial forests consisting of perfectly calculated tree species mixtures, that are believed to survive climate change without damages, can be changed. In all seriousness, the intention is to continue selling the public a so-called `future strategy´ to save the forest. This strategy seamlessly follows the model of a wood factory, that is met with general rejection and must be regarded as a failure in view of the coniferous plantations that are currently collapsing on a large scale. An essential part of the forests that have currently died is exactly the part that was reestablished in 1947 as coniferous monocultures on a much larger area than today. There is only one difference to the situation at the time: considerable amounts of money are to be made available from taxes for forest owners this time.

Climate change is progressing, and this, without a doubt, has massive impacts on all terrestrial ecosystems, including forests. To pretend that the last two years of drought alone caused the disaster is too cheap. On closer inspection, the disaster is also the result of decades of a forestry focused on conifers – in a country that was once naturally dominated by mixed deciduous forests. People do not like to admit that for more than 200 years they have relied on the wrong species of commercial tree (spruce) and have also created artificial, ecologically highly unstable and thus high-risk forest ecosystems. A whole branch of business has become dependent on coniferous wood. And now the German coniferous timber industry is on the verge of bankruptcy.

It would only have been honest and also a sign of political greatness if you and the forestry ministers in Moritzburg had declared: Yes, our forestry industry has made mistakes in the past, and yes, we are ready for a relentless analysis that takes into account not only purely silvicultural, but also forest-ecological aspects. Instead, you have confined yourselves to pre-stamped excuses that are already familiar to everyone and that lack any self-critical reflection.

Clear is: We finally need resting periods for the forest in Germany, which has been exploited for centuries. We need a new, ecologically oriented concept for future forest – not a hectic `forest conversion´, but simply forest development closer towards nature. This gives the forest as an ecosystem the necessary leeway to self-regulate and react to the emerging environmental changes. We need a systemic forest management that is no less profitable than the present one, but must be substantially more stable and resistant to foreseeable environmental changes. The aid for forest owners that all citizens are now required to pay through their taxes is only politically justified in the interest of common good, if the forests of the future that are being promoted by it, do not end up in the next disaster, some of which is produced by the forest management itself.

That is why the signatories request from the the Federal Government, and in particular you, Mrs Klöckner, a master plan worthy of the name:

On disaster areas (mainly in public forests!) reestablishment through natural forest development (ecological succession), among other things with pioneer tree species, is to be brought about. In private forests, ecological succession for reestablishment must be purposefully promoted. Larger bare areas should be planted with a maximum of 400 to 600 large plants of native species per hectare in order to permit ecological succession parallelly.
To promote ecological succession, the areas should no longer be completely and mechanically cleared; as much wood as possible should be left in the stand (to promote optimum soil and germ bed formation, soil moisture storage and natural protection against browsing). In private forests, the abandonment of use in disaster areas should be specifically promoted for ecological reasons and in order to relieve the burden on the timber market.

Regarding the promotion of reestablishment plantings in private forests: priority for native tree species (of regional origin); choose wide planting distances in order to leave enough space for the development of pioneer species. For the forests of the future: Minimize thinning (low-input principle), build up stocks through targeted development towards old thick trees, protect the inner forest climate / promote self-cooling function (should have highest priority due to rapidly progressing climate change!), prohibit heavy machinery, refrain from further road construction and expansion, permit and promote natural self-regulatory development processes in the cultivated forest and on (larger) separate areas in the sense of an compound system; drastically reduce the density of ungulate game (reform of hunting laws).

Like in the field of organic agriculture, which has been established since the 1980s, the crisis of our forests should be the reason today to transform at least two existing forestry-related universities. They should be turned into universities for interdisciplinary forest ecosystem management. This is a contribution not only to the further development of forestry science and silviculture in Germany, but also of global importance! The goal must be to produce wood through largely natural forest production and to start with it here in Germany, the birthplace of forestry.


**your signature**

Share this with your friends:

%d bloggers like this: