Wilderness Stewardship in Majella Wilderness

The 15 960 ha Majella Wilderness zone is located in the core zone of the Majella National Park, located in thes outhern Abruzzo Region in Central Italy. Majella Wilderness is home to some of the most impressive, wild and extensive mountain ranges of the Apennines. The Wilderness combines forest and mountain ecosystems reaching up to 2 793 m at its highest peak Mt. Amaro. Majella Wilderness zone is located about 170 km east of Rome.

The Majella Wilderness zone represents an outstanding example of wild and naturally rewilding mountain and forest ecosystems in the Mediterranean. The area has a high biodiversity hosting numerous rare, endangered and endemic species. Majella Wilderness contains a large genetic reservoir on which many species populations depend on.

The Majella Wilderness zone is an area of great international importance and a regional and Europe-wide hotspot for biodiversity, which depends on spontaneous natural processes and ecosystem dynamics. It contains representatives of flora and fauna typical for the Apennine Mountains.

Please also ready: Re-Audit Of Majella Wilderness

Management of the Majella National Park

The management of the Majella National Park has advanced Wilderness stewardship, including strict non-intervention management, a zoning system, maps, ecological corridors to the surrounded areas, a Wilderness focused communication concept as well as Wilderness focused research, monitoring, and seminars.

Majella National Park has a committed management team which is led by a director who strongly supports the Wilderness concept. The park management has a strong Wilderness vision. Because of this, their work focuses on maintaining and increasing the quality of Majella Wilderness.

The Majella National Park is an internationally significant institution for science and research in nature protection. It receives financing from the EU and state budget.

Stewardship of Majella Wilderness

Non-intervention management and natural spontaneous restoration are the main objectives of the stewardship concept of the Majella Wilderness. The creation of a core zone with non-intervention management has been an objective since the beginning of Majella National Park. This approach has been fully reconfirmed during the last Re-Audit mission and is in line with the European Wilderness concept.

Non-intervention management is still not a very common management approach in this area. However, the abandonment of areas that were previously used for forestry or agricultural activities opened up opportunities for non-intervention management. These areas in Majella Wilderness are able to rewild and restore in a natural way without human intervention. Therefore Majella Wilderness is a great example to underline the power of nature to restore itself if granted enough time and space. The European Wilderness Society and the European Wilderness Network support this process by providing technical and communication support, alongside international credit and visibility.

Due to the commitment of the entire management team, Majella Wilderness became a partner of the PAN Parks Network in 2005. It then transferred to the European Wilderness Network in 2014. Since then, the management has been working closely with the European Wilderness Society on contributing to Wilderness protection.

Protection status

The Majella National Park is protected as a National Park according to the IUCN category II. It became a National Park in 1991, and falls under the authority of the Ministry of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea.

Uniqueness of Majella Wilderness

Majella National Park has already been subject to a European Wilderness Quality Standard Audit in 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009. This Re-Audit in summer 2018 of Majella Wilderness extends the area’s membership in the European Wilderness Network for another ten years. Majella Wilderness is a unique example of Wilderness in the Mediterranean region, and provides a motivation and example for other Wilderness stewards.

Stay up to date on the Wilderness news, subscribe to our Newsletter!

You May Also Like

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.

Motto: SYSTEMIC FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT INSTEAD OF WOOD FACTORY

**your signature**

Share this with your friends:

%d bloggers like this: