BIOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT FORESTS: MEGACORRIDORS OF THE EUROPEAN WILDERNESS?

Lars Lachmann Primeval northern European forest Zoom In

WILDERNESS ORIGIN

“Wilderness” as a concept referring to the IUCN category I of protected areas is defined as a large unmodified or slightly modified area, retaining its natural character and influence, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition. However, the origin of wilderness conservation dates back to as early as 1885 in North America where the concept found fertile ground and support among prominent individuals such as John Muir, Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall and Howard Zahnizer. The preservation of wilderness became an important pillar of US national culture, leading to the foundation of the National Park Service and particularly to a crucial piece of legislation, the US Wilderness Act (1964). Thanks to that powerful legal tool the US has set aside as much as 4.5% of its total area (www.wilderness.net) “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (Wilderness Act).

WILDERNESS IN EUROPE: WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

In our largely “man-made” Continent adopting the wilderness concept encounters serious problems both in terms of the natural world and human societies. Unlike North America, where common language secured a common understanding of wilderness, the numerous and diverse nations of Europe have long followed their separate paths determined by their individual histories and traditions. Wilderness restoration and preservation will not find sufficient support within Europe unless a concerted public-awareness programme addresses the wilderness issue.

In early history, civilization was limited and wilderness was vast and appeared threatening. Today this has turned completely around: wilderness itself is threatened. Except for the areas in the remote Northern regions,  the least productive areas of Fennoscandia and Western Siberia (thus mostly outside EU) and the least accessible parts of mountain ranges, Europe did not preserve any truly wild areas on a scale comparable to the situation in the New World. Reserving the wilderness “tag” to vast tracks of unmanaged ecosystems that developed as a result of long-lasting, unconstrained natural history would exclude almost entirely the applicability of the wilderness concept to our realm and make our discussion purely academic. Because of this , our European wilderness concept should be considered as a wide-ranging concept of the future rather than restricted to the very limited and degraded current  wilderness resources. Scarcity of existing wilderness areas in Europe should be perceived as a challenge and opportunity rather than a cause for despair.

The case of the Šumava NP, nowadays a very strong advocate of wilderness, proves that wilderness can become a core conservation concept also in Europe. Another interesting insight comes from Hungary, where no truly wild forest is retained. Instead, biologically important remnants of culturally modified ancient woodlands provide invaluable habitats. It would appear that the best policy for Europe should embrace the legacy of pre-forestry ancient woodlands with a set of adequate active restoration measures.

OUR CONTRIBUTION: BUILDING UP THE MOMENTUM

There are a number of initiatives stemming from the conviction that the existing set of conservation tools is not able to avert the danger of the loss of Europe’s biological diversity. A tangible evidence of the inadequacy of the existing conservation regime is the High Tatra Mountain in Slovakia. During a 20-km-long hike participants were crossing vast clearcuts – the result of “protection measures” applied in response to windthrow and bark beetle infestation. Alas, this is not the only case in Europe where the existing system does not answer properly urgent conservation challenges.

An outstanding initiative is one led by the PAN Parks Foundation (www.panparks.org). Its goal is to establish a network of effectively managed and independently verified wilderness protected areas. Establishing a PAN Park depends on the fulfillment of several criteria among which the most important is the minimal protected areas of 20,000 hectares including a strictly preserved core zone of at least 10,000 hectares. PAN Parks offers an efficient model for the successful integration of preservation of wilderness with local development.

The BirdLife approach to wilderness is based on a project carried out by the European Forest Task Force: the mapping of Europe’s Biologically Important Forests (www.forestmapping.net). A Biologically Important Forest (BIF) is a forest that has remained in a natural or close to a natural state and is considered a key area for the protection of forest-dependent species, those species requiring a certain amount and quality of suitable habitat to survive and maintain a favourable population status. European BIFs are identified using a set of criteria comprising country-specific indicators. Identification of BIFs can play a fundamental role in the delineation of the large high nature value landscapes with the biggest potential of wilderness restoration, where major conservation efforts should be allocated.

In 2008 a number of NGOs (including IUCN, IUCN-WCPA, EUROPARK Federation, WWF, Countdown 2010, BirdLife Int., PAN Parks Foundation) established a joint initiative aiming to support the development of a European strategy for wilderness; to provide a coordinated voice in policy representation, and to promote the full value of wilderness potential. The initiative called "Wild Europe" has issued a resolution calling on the European Commission to “develop appropriate recommendations that provide guidance to the EU member states on the best ways of ensuring the protection of present and potential wilderness or wildlands and their natural processes.” The Wild Europe Initiative will be a key partner to the European Commission and EU Presidency that organizes in 2009 in Prague the Wilderness Conference. The conference will be covering such problems as definitions and mapping, policy recommendations for improved protection, opportunity for restoration, a possible Action Plan and input to EC Biodiversity Strategy.

Among the most important reasons for wilderness conservation are the preservation of biodiversity, a resource for research and education and gene reservoir for managed ecosystems, the potential for ecotourism and sustainable economic development. Important social benefits will also inevitably flow from this type of development.

There are remnants of wilderness in Europe and there is great potential for restoration. For forests in particular the restoration of wilderness characteristics in those areas altered by human activities is the surest way of safeguarding the biodiversity depending on ancient, natural forests. Even the strictest preservation of small remnants of wild forests will not prevent their degradation if they remain isolated and disconnected.

A model for wilderness conservation in Europe

Although space is limited for large scale natural landscape dynamics, an adequate management of landscapes, based on thorough identification of their most important natural features, can lead to the restoration and optimization of their ecological functions. Larger working landscapes can and must secure harmony between various forms of human activity and successful restoration and preservation of large natural habitats or wilderness. Such landscapes will also play a key role in the survival of rural European cultures, traditions and skills, providing resistance to the often negative side-effects of increased urbanisation. Working landscapes with a substantial component of wilderness will provide to European citizens an indispensable space for their physical restoration, intellectual inspiration, and spiritual renewal.

Acknowledgments

BirdLife’s Eurpean Forest Task Force expresses its greatest thanks to the contributors:

Professor Dr Wolf Shroeder (Technical University Muenchen) – “Wilderness Conservation in North America – What can we learn from there?”

Mr Toby Aykroyd (Wild Europe Initiative) “WILD EUROPE: protection and Restoration of Wilderness and Large Natural Habitat Areas”

Dr Rastislav Jakuš (Institute of Forest Ecology, SAS, Zvolen, Slovakia) „Risk associated with wildness areas in spruce ecosystems and their mitigation: impacts of forest protection”

Dr Zdenka Křenová (Šumava National Park, Czech Republic) – “Case study – National park Šumava/ National park Bavarian Forest - Wild heart of Europe”

Mr Alois Lang (IUCN, Office in Neusield See - Austria) “Green Belt initiative”

Dr Katalin Mázsa (Institute of Ecology and Botany, Hungary) – “Case study – Transition of managed forest to natural one in Hungary”

Dr Vlado Vančura (Pan Parks Foundantion) – “Wilderness initiative in Europe from Pan Parks point of view”

We are indebted to our knowledgeable guides to the High Tatra Mts National Park, Mr. Erik Baláz, Mr. Karol Kaliský and Mr. Tomáš Blaškovič. They shared with us their rich experience in their long-lasting, persistent campaign for the preservation of that pearl of the European nature.