Addressing the linkage between climate and biodiversity crises is widely regarded as essential for resolving them. Yet this linkage still has to be coordinated in practice at strategic level between key organisations.
A new policy paper with proposals for a Joint SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice) Work Plan, to which Wild Europe has contributed, should help address the situation.
Read More …
The Vjosa in Albania, one of Europe’s last free-flowing natural rivers, was declared a national park by the government on 22nd March 2022.
Its tributaries and a variety of ecosystems harbouring some 1,100 species including 15 under global threat, will be included in a second phase alongside creation of a trans-boundary park with Greece where it is known as the river Aoos.
Read More …
The Montreal-Kunming conference produced a clutch of headline objectives for the Global Biodiversity Framework on 19th December. They follow on from the targets set in Aichi for 2011-2020..
The emphasis now is on ensuring achievement – with 2030 as the imminent target date, aligned with Paris Agreement timelines. Strategies from the EU for biodiversity and forests could provide useful models for the route to implementation. This will occur mainly at national level through NSAPS – National Strategy and Action Plans, with all eyes on the crucial COP16 in 2024 to assess and assist progress over the next two years.
Meanwhile Wild Europe made useful progress with its allies, particularly the Primary Forest Alliance: over one hundred NGOs have now signed the call for a Moratorium on industrial activity in primary forests [the European adaptation excludes all extractive activity], and considerable national support was gained for the importance of ‘natural ecosystems’ with ‘high integrity’ – the core of our agenda.
A brief summary of key achievements from Montreal outlines the opportunities lying ahead, and the scale of the endeavor needed to implement these:
Requirements for assessment and disclosure of biodiversity impact in the corporate sector are a start – though performance here needs to tighten rapidly.
Equally, it would be useful to incorporate targets for awareness of the biodiversity crisis at all levels: among decision takers in particular (reflecting Target 1 from Aichi).
Along with input through its existing projects in Europe, Wild Europe will seek to support development of the GBF through focus on the following aspects:
COP 15 is characterised by several key advances in the objectives agreed. Most of the momentum for implementation of these is expected to come through individual country NBSAPs (National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans).
For this to occur within the short timescales envisaged, focus will be needed on strong overall guidance, adequate incentives (funding, legislation), and more specific overarching targets and indicators. We need to learn from the performance of the Aichi targets.
Support from the private-corporate sector will be critical to success, begging the usual uneasy interplay between self-interest, incentives and obligation.
Bearing in mind the GBF itself is only advisory, an increasing prevalence will be needed of:
Attendance by heads of state is the ultimate hallmark of priority, and most were absent from Montreal. Those tasked with now developing the genuine achievements of COP15 need to secure active engagement at the highest levels of decision taking.
Construction or extension of roads and other ‘artificial interventions’ has been banned across large areas in an Untrodden Mountains initiative announced by Prime Minister Kryiakos Mitsotakis.
Read More …Clear support for the concept and value of old growth forest was expressed by leaders of the European forestry sector at the seminal EU International Conference on Forests for Biodiversity and Climate Change in Brussels.
Hubert de Schorlemer President of the Confederation of European Forest Owners (CEPF) – in grey suit – confirmed “If the small forests we still have which are really really old, we don’t afford to cut them down, no that’s clear“
Reinhardt Nerf, President of the European State Forest Association (EUSTAFOR) – in green jacket – stated “We see the very old forest as a focus of biodiversity and we take it out of timber usage”
Read More …
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that forest bioenergy worsens climate change, with higher emissions than any other fuel including gas or coal, elements within the EC currently considering reform of RED II continue to give it their strong support.
In doing so, they will undermine the recently raised climate targets for 2030 and 2050, the aims of the Green Deal, and the EU’s global reputation for environmental probity.
First we have had strong indications in their consultation process that DG Energy in particular does not wish to see reforms to the Renewable Energy Directive II that currently enables subsidies for commercial scale forest bioenergy burning.
Then, on 22nd May, the EC published the Delegated Taxonomy Act that confirms a wish for such subsidies to remain in place, against the advice of its own TEG consultancy body, together with a weakening of controls on forestry practice.
That was closely followed on 27th May by a Report from the International Energy Agency advocating a 60% increase in bioenergy use. Consumption of forest wood in Europe for bioenergy already runs in excess of 350 million tonnes, at an annual wastage of 6 – 6.5 billion Euro pa for consumers and taxpayers – not to mention additional negative impacts on forests, biodiversity, health and air pollution generally.
Finally, we have the resurfacing of the Energy Charter Treaty, a legally binding instrument which enables energy companies to sue governments and other entities for changes to energy policy that may compromise their future earnings. It is proposed the provisions of this instrument be extended to ‘renewables’, forest bioenergy among them. If enabled, such extension would make it exceedingly difficult to dislodge this damaging and inefficient form of energy generation, indeed it could ossify the overall pattern of investment regardless of technical validity.
Fuelled by heavy lobbying from forestry and bioenergy interests seeking to defend large subsidies without which the commercial bioenergy industry would collapse overnight, this destructive juggernaut is now running out of control.
There are four underutilised opportunities that can help stop this momentum:
Promotion of matched funding from the EC (Just Transition, Climate and Recovery Funds) institutions (EIB etc) and the private sector will greatly reinforce the impact of this subsidy reallocation.
Current campaigning by the conservation sector is poorly structured from a lobbying perspective, despite its technical soundness, offering a problem to decision takers – how to fill the energy gap – rather than a positive way ahead.
Wild Europe is working on all these aspects of campaigning. For further information please contact info@wildeurope.org
10 June 2021
Billed as a last chance saloon to avert profoundly damaging climate change before the 2030 target date, COP 26 in Glasgow from 1-13 November 2021 was characterised by a spate of pronouncements and initiatives.
What did it really achieve for climate and biodiversity, and how can this be built on strategically?
A few bullet points set the scene towards COP27 in Cairo.
Read More …Wild Europe’s Action Plan for large natural ecosystem areas – in EU and non EU countries – has been launched.
Described as ambitious but thoroughly practical, the Plan is strongly supportive of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and many of its key targets run in parallel:
Such targets are underpinned by recognition that adequate compensation must be paid to private landholders, alongside full activation of the Payment for Ecosystem Services agenda and significant support for carbon rich ecosystems from the Climate Fund. It is important to build common ground with inter-sector consensus to achieve this.
There are a couple of dozen projects already underway in support of the Plan, and Wild Europe is one of 6 NGOs (along with IUCN, WWF, BLI, FERN and EEB) on the EC’s Forest and Nature Working Group, providing input for implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Strong emphasis is placed on reasserting the integrity of Europe and the EU’s global status for environmental probity – with a call for cessation of all subsidies for forest bioenergy, and their reallocation to genuine renewables that address rather than aggravate climate change.
Published on 1 March 2021
Protection for several of Europe’s largest remaining wilderness areas is now within reach, thanks to a new mapping initiative. This has been undertaken by Icelandic cartographers in tandem with the Wildland Research Institute of Leeds University, directed by Steve Carver.
Based on Wild Europe’s definition and zonation criteria, itself linked to IUCN Category Ib, the initiative was launched on 22nd March 2022 in Reykjavik with Gudlaugur Thór Thórdarson, Minister for Environment.
Wilderness still covers over 40% of Iceland’s terrestrial area, and this exercise provides a valuable model for identifying large natural ecosystem areas that are suitable for restoration and protection in Europe generally.
It is particularly relevant given the consensus among conservationists for non-intervention to play a significant role in the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy as the default interpretation of “strict protection” applying to 10% of EU terrestrial and marine areas.
Read More …
Author: Bernhard Kohler, WWF Austria
A wilderness area covering 6,700 hectares has been unveiled in the North West of Hohe Tauern National Park in Austria, following formal designation in 2019.
This is based on criteria from the Wild Europe definition and comes under the aegis of the Salzburg municipality.
The wilderness area has great promise as a model for the restoration strategy to implement targets in the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy – echoing Wild Europe’s own objectives of strict protection for at least 10% of EU and non-EU terrestrial areas.
Read More …
A draft definition structure has now been produced to support objectives in the 2030 EU Biodiversity Strategy for protection and restoration of natural forest.
Applicable throughout Europe, this definition was initiated at the 2017 Brussels conference involving input from conservation and forestry interests among others.
It covers an overview of primary forest together with its constituent elements of old growth and virgin forest – the latter a narrower interpretation used mainly in Romania.
Your feedback is welcome please:
A mechanism is being developed to offer private owners the opportunity to protect wild or wilderness areas on their land effectively ‘in perpetuity’.
The initiative has been created by a partnership between Wild Europe and the Lifescape Project conservation charity in tandem with international law firm Clifford Chance LLP.
Known as “The Legal Mechanism”, this involves legal owners granting a guardian charity the right to enforce ecological protections over the land for 150 years or more, whilst retaining effective ownership of the land for themselves and their descendants, using a leasehold structure. The leases would contain covenants stipulating land use that gives full protection to ecosystems with their wildlife.
Based on well-established procedure in the ‘built’ property sector, the concept is now proven for legislatures in England, Wales and Scotland; a technical brochure has been produced and initial consultations are taking place with landowners.
Read More …
A proposal by Wild Europe involves linking a network of NGOs, individual conservationists, land owners and community members dedicated to saving remaining natural forests in Europe.
Named by its acronym of LEAF, Last European Ancient Forests, and coordinated by a small secretariat, the initial objective will be to create a platform in support of the 2030 EU Biodiversity Strategy targets – including strict protection of all old growth/primary forests.
Read More …
Adding his voice to a growing chorus of scientific concerns that wood bioenergy burning worsens rather than resolves climate change, highly respected former UNFCC Vice Chairman of Jean-Pascal van Ypersele has issued a clear statement:
“To subsidise an activity that has negative consequences for the climate and the environment is totally contradictory with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the goals of the conference (COP26) due to take place in Glasgow at the end of the year.”
Read More …
An EP Resolution on implementation of its annual EUAA Report on Ukraine, published 11th February 2021, criticises planned development of this mega ski and recreation complex in the Zakarpattia oblast of the Ukrainian Carpathians, forecast to host 28,000 visitors per day.
The Resolution calls on the Ukrainian government to prevent widespread illegal logging – particularly of primeval forests – which it cites as the main cause of flooding in the region. It further calls on the EU to take steps help prevent such logging “in connection with the unlawful Svydovets ski resort project”.
Establishment of more protected areas in the country is also requested
Read More …
A summit to catalyse joint action for the world’s remaining natural forests was co-hosted in webinars on 25/26th March 2021 by Wild Heritage and Wild Europe.
This represented the European element in a regional series under the auspices of the IntAct initiative, involving participation by Rebecka le Moine MP (Sweden), Ville Niinisto MEP (Finland) Michal Wiezik MEP (Slovakia) and others from the European parliament, with a range of international speakers and NGO expertise.
Cyril Kormos of Wild Heritage (US) introduced the aims of the summit: the European element of a global series promoting coordinated protection of primary/old growth forest. Toby Aykroyd of Wild Europe outlined the special circumstances relevant to forest conservation here.
The summit highlighted the value of old growth/primary forest generally with Professor Brendan Mackay of Griffith University (Australia) addressing the interlinked challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. It also stressed the importance of strict protection involving total non-intervention. Professor William Moomaw of Climate Research Centre (US) introduced the concept of ‘proforestation’ and emphasised the need for restoration to be based on ecological principles, with natural regeneration prioritised over planting wherever feasible.
The global significance of EU and national government forest policy was reviewed, with focus on how to build effectively on policy gains and tackle problematic issues such as forest bioenergy – explained by Mary Booth of PFPI (US), while David Gehl of EIA (US) addressed illegal logging. Virginia Young (Intact Global) introduced the Nexus Report and underlined the need for UNFCC and CBD to appreciate the spiralling link between biodiversity health and climate change.
Following introduction by Matthias Schickhofer (Euronatur, Germany) of a proposed project to promote old growth forest protection in the EU, recommendations were then collated for an international strategy of cooperation. Zoltan Kun of Wild Europe summarised these.
Further details of the strategy will be published.
Updated on 8 April 2021
Our response to the consultation on EIB’s road to becoming a “Climate Bank” stresses its great potential opportunity to underpin major natural ecosystem conservation.
True protection principles must be safeguarded, given greater need to rely on private sector participation as COVID undermines official funding sources. There will also be a need for a more ‘balanced portfolio approach’ to include softer loans and grants. And projects funded must genuinely support the Paris Agreement in addressing climate change, with no more scope for image-tarnishing subsidised wood burning bioenergy.
However, if these issues are addressed, EIB could have a highly important potential role to play in achieving ambitious targets old growth forest protection, and restoration of large no-extraction natural ecosystem areas (AKA wilderness).
Read More …
The EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy published on 20th May 2020 retains the visionary key targets in its earlier version.
Proper implementation of the Strategy will require adequate funding and enforcement on the ground. Nonetheless the Commission is to be congratulated for sticking to its guns, so far, in advocating necessarily ambitious objectives for protection and restoration.
This represents good news for large natural ecosystem areas (“wilderness”) and natural forests – responding positively to major requests in Wild Europe’s most recent representation to Frans Timmermans and the Commissioners for Environment, Agriculture & Rural Development and Energy. This was subsequently responded to by Environment Commissioner Sinkevicius.
Key commitments by the Commission in the Biodiversity Strategy include
Legal protection by 2030 for a minimum 30% of the EU’s land and seas:
For restoration – there is a new EU Nature Restoration Plan, with core focus on ecosystem services:
For renewable energy, and the related RE Strategy, the picture is more mixed.
As Environment Commissioner Sinkevicius said at the Biodiversity Strategy launch “We cannot halt and reverse biodiversity loss without achieving Paris Agreement goals, and vice versa”.
Much work is required to translate the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy commitments into adequate action.
The European Commission should also promote the objectives of its Biodiversity Strategy in non EU European countries.
Many of these contain the most valuable remaining areas of natural ecology in our continent, but generally have the lowest budgets for protection and the least effective legal protection. The EC can achieve much here: through neighbour agreements, accession treaties, trade & aid policies, exchange of best practice.
Implementation of Stage II of the current EU Wilderness Register, proposed by Wild Europe, will be an important step here. This would incorporate non EU countries into the existing Register and focus on non-extractive enterprise to secure conservation funding and local community and landholder support from the PES agenda
The 20 bn Euro funding per year is relatively under budgeted for the scale of the task, and will have to come from private as well as public funds
There is additionally a ‘significant proportion’ of the 25% EU budget on climate change to be spent on nature-based solutions. This allocation needs clearly elaborating, along with other funding instruments – including the Recovery Initiative.
The need to ensure full enforcement is also critical. Many areas in the Natura 2000 network have little or no appropriate protection. Poor management at local level and slow prosecution are a major problem – with Court action at EC level (ECJ) on infringements of environmental law often being a very slow process.
Another glaringly simple problem is key habitats such as old growth forest are still not directly identified as requiring protection – one reason among many why the EU Guidelines on the Management of Wilderness and Wild Areas now need a Stage II version.
Effective reform of the Arhus Convention, strengthening access to information and justice for NGOs and individual citizens, will be helpful.
A complete overhaul of the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure is also urgently needed.
Subject to the above, the EU is to be warmly congratulated for advocating the visionary aims in its Biodiversity Strategy that are so critical for addressing the dual crises of climate change and species extinction.
For its part Wild Europe also looks forward to liaising closely with representatives from forestry and land user sectors – including CEPF, EUSTAFOR and EFI – in identifying common ground and ensuring benefit for local landholders and communities as well as conservation.
The Slovakian government, newly elected on 29th February, has announced strong protection for wilderness, forests and conservation generally.
The programme presented by Prime Minister Igor Matovic introduces three measures of particular importance:
Wild Europe’s feedback on 15th April welcomed the more ambitious target of a 50%+ drop in the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
However it warned that, if subsidies for wood biomass continue, this target would be at risk – as would the EU’s continuing credibility as a respected proponent of best environmental practice.
Payment of these subsidies is a burden on productive business and personal livelihoods. As economies slowly rebuild post COVID-19, proponents of wood bioenergy subsidy will not be lightly forgiven for supporting the wastage of scarce capital on an expensive myth of renewable energy that actually worsens the climate change it claims to mitigate.
Read More …At last key figures in wood bioenergy burning are acknowledging rapidly accumulating scientific evidence on the worsening of climate change caused by their industry.
“Not all biomass should automatically be categorised as carbon neutral” admitted a “chief sustainability officer” of US-based Enviva, the world’s largest producer of wood pellets for commercial power generation, during a webinar discussion on 29th June.
The overall message still lacks full credibility. “To bring climate benefits, biomass needs to come from low-value wood residues or smaller trees coming from timber harvests – not from high-value trees that could be used in products like furniture or construction material” the Enviva spokesperson is reported as saying.
The narrative is thus more about not burning valuable quality timber than the notoriously high emissions from wood bioenergy – and no doubt results from growing concern even within the forestry sector about such blatant wastage. Many energy plants claim to only burn residues, despite clear photographic evidence to the contrary, and there is widespread practice of chipping timber into ‘residues’.
Nonetheless this admittance marks the first sign of realism from a wood bioenergy sector that has devoured massive quantities of consumer and taxpayer resources, to the tune of some 6.5 billion Euros for just 15 EU countries in 2017, despite wood being the least efficient form of renewable energy with emissions even higher than natural gas.
Consuming 400 million tonnes per year of wood in Europe, wood bioenergy is devastating biodiversity rich forests and is likely to make crucial 2030 climate targets significantly less achievable.
An initiative is underway to raise awareness of this situation among voters, consumers and taxpayers. Their eyes will shortly be on policy makers to cease all subsidies to wood bioenergy, reallocating incentives to effective, less polluting sources of renewable energy as well as genuine means of addressing climate change such as insulation, recycling and emission reducing technology.
Banks, funds and general investors wood bioenergy should also take heed that the writing is firmly on the wall for the future value of their holdings.
A collective representation organized by Wild Europe in partnership with Birdlife International, expresses widely held concerns that the current EC consultation on the 2030 climate targets is misleading, and could end up undermining the mitigation of climate change.
It has been signed by 49 organisations across Europe in little over 48 hours.
The EC consultation questionnaire, which aims to collate opinion for developing energy and climate policies, effectively encourages agreement to more ambitious targets for greenhouse gas reduction in 2030 with greater use of renewable energy to achieve these.
Read More …
An independent EU Technical Expert Group (TEG) report just published recommends that only residues, thinnings and stumps should qualify as wood bioenergy fuel, along with separate “advanced bioenergy” feedstocks under the new Sustainable Finance Taxonomy (see technical annex for feedstocks).
This in turn will determine eligibility for “green investment” status, counting towards renewable energy targets and involving literally hundreds of billions of Euros.
The recommendation is in sharp contrast to the broad leeway given for “whole tree” wood use by the EU’s Renewable Directive II.
Read More …
Our input to the consultation exercise stressed the key importance of large natural ecosystem areas to the Strategy for adoption at the October 2020 UN Kunming conference.
This provided a brief summary, with input to follow in a Message from Bratislava containing recommendations from our conference in Slovakia on 20/21 November, and from partners in the Wild Europe network.
For climate change and biodiversity loss to be effectively tackled, and the failures of the 2010 Strategy not to be repeated, a quantum change in the capacity of the conservation sector, NGOs and EC alike, will be essential.
[Please note the consultation imposed a 4000 character maximum. For further information contact info@wildeurope.org]
The New Green Deal is visionary. However, failure of the 2010 Biodiversity Strategy to achieve its main targets, continued loss of biodiversity, the enduring populist mandate from the 2009 EP Wilderness Resolution, the now clearly pivotal role of natural processes in addressing climate change, all point to the need for much stronger focus on protection & restoration of large non-intervention natural ecosystem areas.
The importance of these, also termed ‘wilderness’ and ‘wild areas’, lies in their environmental, economic and social attributes.
• Stronger very long-term protection of existing areas
• Restoration of new areas, on a scale to ensure substantial mitigation of climate change
• Linkage into wider ecological networks
• Full implementation of nature & water legislation
• Promoting protection in non-EU states via Neighbourhood Agreements, Accession Treaties, trade & aid policies
• All biomes, with ecotones
• Specific timeline targets
• Strict protection of old growth/primary forest, clearly defined by criteria
• Enforce full development & use of N2000 management plans, with divulgence of information
• Rapid response to illegal logging, including fast track Court intervention and EC Audit enquiry; promote EUTR reforms
• Increase the scale of old growth/primary forests
• Clarification, to foresters, citizens & governments, of the vital role played by old growth (mature)/primary forest in mitigating climate change
• Cessation of subsidy to timber burning bioenergy that worsens climate change
• Completed mapping of areas for protection & restoration; support for updates, monitoring & intervention [Early Warning System]
• Set-aside of state forest agency areas where logging is uneconomic, or if contain old growth/primary forests
• Adequate compensation for private sector landholders to protect forest & other habitat
• Promoting the value of large natural ecosystems to governments, citizens & sector representatives
Improve inter DG coordination, avoiding contradictory projects
• Capacity building in the conservation sector for key specialisms: economic valuation, enterprise management, finance, sociological input
• Promote legal structures enabling very long-term protection in private ownership: freehold/lease arrangements, easements, trusts
• Stage 2 of the Wilderness Register: include non EU countries; socio-economic & enterprise capacity
• Stage 2 of the Natura 2000 Management Guidelines for wilderness & wild areas: include good practice exchange with Emerald & UNESCO networks; socio-economic & enterprise capacity
• Closer coordination between EC, UNESCO and Bern Convention (if this remains an operating entity)
• Major reallocation of CAP budget to ecosystem service provision
• Include 3% supplement to Ecological Focus Areas, tradable at regional level, creating new natural ecosystem areas
• Double the LIFE budget
• 50% of EIB budget and 45% of the new NDICI (Neighbourhood, Development, International Cooperation Instrument) budget, Europe component, to address climate change with ecosystem restoration as a key element
• Promote iconic regional scale nature-based initiatives addressing climate change – eg Clima Carpathia (FCC)
• Facilitate funding mechanisms for the PES agenda: eg promote good practice for projects implementing forest & peatland carbon codes; support the Market Stability Reserve if Brexit dilutes carbon value
• Promote use of innovative funding: eg Insurance Tax Premium supplements for flood mitigating restoration projects (river basin scale); EIB long-term soft loan capacity; mixed source Green Bonds
• Promote the social benefit and deprivation agendas to key budget holders
20 January 2020
The Shakespearean theatre of Brexit completed its final act on 31st January 2020. Accomplishment of a damaging misrepresentation or a visionary “taking back of control”, according to your viewpoint. We now need to move on.
Wild Europe marked the occasion by funding the latest stage of a wild nature mapping and strategy programme by our partners in France.
There is scope for us all to influence the consequences for environmental policy, from within the UK and – for a short while – also through pan European representation to EC negotiators
Read More …
Yet another victim of the Coronavirus pandemic, the inaugural programme of this pioneering educational project has been cancelled.
Due to run in Lubeck, Germany from 30/08/20 – 10/09/20 the Summer School was designed for advanced students and young professionals in conservation and forestry.
Involving a partnership between Frankfurt Zoological Society and the Natural Forest Academy together with Wild Europe, the programme covered natural forest ecology, protection and management from those with a practical understanding of the challenges involved.
There has been great interest, and the programme should be re-established soon.
Wild Europe has been involved in this vision for the South Eastern Carpathians since its inception in 2009
Established by Fundatia Conservation Carpathia with its directors Christoph and Barbara Promberger, the project aims to create an initial 50,000 hectare wilderness reserve adjacent to the Piatra Craiului National Park, and extending Westwards into the Fagaras Mountains. The eventual objective will be to provide a new National Park for Romania covering some 2050,000 hectares.
Project activities include acquisition of extensive tracts of forest, much of it being old growth or virgin (a Romanian definition), as well as Alpine grasslands. Some 22,000 hectares have been purchased to date, with plans for leasing where ownership is not feasible.
Large hunting concessions have been bought, aiming to boost chamois, red deer and boar numbers, which in turn enables enriched populations of wolf, bear and lynx.
Alongside this are programmes for LIFE+ funded restoration of clear felled or degraded forest and riverine habitats, with reintroduction of ungulates including bison and raptors.
Ecotourism and other forms of non-extractive enterprise are also helping to bring income and employment to local communities. FCC additionally manages two model farms that can provide support with husbandry and other management aspects.
A recent review of Wild Europe’s definition of wilderness, originally produced in 2014, shows its use is widespread and expanding. The intention was to create a set of criteria that produce uniformly high standards for protection and restoration, regardless of biogeographical or cultural circumstance.
Below are some of the applications:
December 2019, this post was updated in May 2021 and in April 2022
Support has been received from the Czech government for Wild Europe’s enterprise initiative for Sumava National Park – the Wild Heart of Europe. This will be initiated by a feasibility study assessing opportunities for business related to wilderness areas in Sumava, designed to benefit local communities; it also proposes close links to the adjoining Bayerischer Wald NP in Germany.
Quote from Vice Minister Vladimir Dolejsky:
“I consider elaboration of this study very important not only for the development of the National Park Sumava region, but also in terms of future course of national parks in the Czech Republic in general” (Environment Ministry, Prague, September 2018)
Wild Europe congratulates the Vice Minister for his vision, and we will do all we can to support this initiative.
We have been involved since 2012 at the invitation of local organizations, including Hnuti DUHA (Friends of the Earth Czech Republic) and the Czech Globe Institute, with a threefold programme that has included representation, economic appraisal (commissioning an independent study) and enterprise implementation.
There is potential for wider replication of this approach in Europe. For further information please contact info@wildeurope.org
A study collating best practice on protection management of wolf, bear, lynx and wolverine in EU member states has been produced by the EC DG for Internal Policies (February 2018).
It was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the EP Committee on Petitions (PETI).
The legal framework for protection is reviewed under conditions of derogation, along with measures to promote coexistence and implications for management.
While populations are recovering, the Study concludes that significant further endeavour is required to recover fuller functionality across former ranges where ecological and spatial conditions remain favourable or can be restored.
Key findings:
The IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas, in tandem with the Wild Foundation, published in 2016 a comprehensive set of guidelines governing all key aspects of management for wilderness areas.
These are applied under all forms of governance – public, private, local community. They also address a range of management instruments, including rewilding and restoration.
A range of case studies are examined, including the Natura 2000 network (Page 38 Case Study 11 provided by Wild Europe), where EC guidelines for management of wilderness areas are based on our definition of wilderness.
Some 2.5% of the EU land area (then including the UK) is protected for its wilderness attributes within the Natura 2000 network, although the proportion covered by wilderness as defined by the minimum scale in Wild Europe’s definition is nearer 2%.
The Wild Europe definition of wilderness was developed over four years by over 50 experts with the input and support of IUCN personnel. It has been adopted by the European Commission and is now used in many areas across Europe.
The definition was established to cater specifically for the needs of a European context, and to offer a relatively rigorous and standardized underpin for both protection and restoration initiatives across a wide variety of geographic and cultural circumstances.
It seeks to build on and strengthen rather than replace the existing IUCN Category 1b definition – which is excellent but global and thus relatively generalised.
Far from being a dilution of the IUCN definition, the Wild Europe definition thus is widely regarded as considerably strengthening the credibility and practical implementation of wilderness in Europe.
“Large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.”
“A wilderness is an area governed by natural processes. It is composed of native habitats and species, and large enough for the effective ecological functioning of natural processes. It is unmodified or only slightly modified and without intrusive or extractive human activity, settlements, infrastructure or visual disturbance.”
There are key elements in the Wild Europe definition of wilderness which in practice help it to build effectively on its Category 1b origin, focusing for a European context:
The Wild Europe definition of wilderness is intended to provide a practical holistic approach: whether in an ecological, economic (non extractive), psychological, aesthetic or spiritual sense.
Construction of the illegal 66A road has reached the core area of Domogled National Park in the Carpathians threatening a key area of old growth forest, designated as an Intact Forest Landscape.
A road to nowhere? Protesters against illegal constructionApproval by the Romanian National Environmental Protection Agency has not been granted due to the reported deficiencies in the environmental impact assessment, including lack of review of the impact of the road itself.
Representatives from local organizations organized a protest camp at the construction site this summer and there is a growing movement against the road, with thousands signing an online petition and liaising through Facebook.
The second section of the road, from Campu lui Neag to Campusel in Hunedoara county, has already been built – without approval of the Environment Protection Agency or the Retezat National Park administration.
It is the third phase, also illegal, which now threatens the core area of Domogled’s ancient forests.
Protesters regard this issue as symptomatic of a wider disregard for safeguarding supposedly protected areas, particularly such a key example of wilderness heritage with its rich biodiversity. On this latter point alone, the Environmental Impact Assessment for the road construction appears to significantly under-report the range of species present.
Local NGOs commissioned a biodiversity counter-study and asked the National Environment Protection Agency not to approve the project.
„The preliminary results of the counter-study already show that the biodiversity here is much higher than stated in the beneficiary’s study”, said Luminiţa Tănasie, WWF Programme Director in Romania. “For example, until now we have registered 109 distinct points where large and medium mammals cross the road. The assessment commissioned by the beneficiary discovered only one bear trace. We found 26 bat species, whereas the beneficiary said that there are no bats in the area. We found 34 breeding places for reptiles and amphibians, as opposed to only two in the beneficiary’s assessment. The differences are significant and they cannot be ignored by the National Environment Protection Agency”.
”But above all to us this road is symbolic of the disregard for protected areas in Romania. The European Commission has already instigated several penalty procedures against the country for not complying with the law when it comes to nature protection”, Tănasie added.
For further information, see this WWF article (external link): Romanian authorities ignore NGO invitation to discuss the 66A road
