EcoHearth: Come Home to the Earth

In 19th-century Europe, it was still possible to scare children with stories about forests—dark and treacherous places, filled with spirits, wolves, bears and other man-eating animals. Nowadays, these stories don’t work anymore. The forests of Europe have become friendly places with names like “Green Heart” and “Lake Park.”

Thanks to mobile phone coverage and excellent signage, the modern-day equivalent of Little Red Riding Hood no longer needs to worry about getting lost in the woods. She does not need to worry about wolves and bears, either, because these have long been replaced by deer and ducks. It’s time for European governments to start managing their forests in a less controlled manner. But how?

The Two Extremes
At the moment, many forests in Europe (especially in densely populated countries such as the Netherlands and the UK) resemble English gardens: they do not look like natural forests, but like idealized ones, and are carefully maintained to preserve that impression. I call this the “maximum interference” model. In other parts of the world, the opposite approach is taken, and forests are not maintained at all. Admittedly, this often happens because of a lack of interest (e.g., Siberia) or lack of funding (e.g., Indonesia). In some cases, however, a forest management authority deliberately chooses not to interfere in the growth of a forest, in order to preserve it in its original state.

A good example of this “zero interference” approach is provided by the Gondwana Rainforests in Queensland, Australia. According to the Australian government, “Few places on Earth contain so many plants and animals which remain relatively unchanged from their ancestors in the fossil record,” and for precisely this reason they are left alone.

Most forests in Europe are no longer original, and should therefore not be conserved for historical or scientific purposes. In addition, forestland is much scarcer in Europe than in Australia, and leaving forests unchanged makes them at the same time difficult for the public to access. In other words, European governments should not replace their “maximum interference” model with that of a “zero interference” one. Fortunately, there is a model of forest management that lies between these two extremes.

The Kees and Heleen Model
Many years ago, my aunt and uncle lived in a lovely little house with a big garden, next to a narrow river that was excellent for canoeing. When I was at high school, I often visited them with my friends, partly—I confess—to borrow their canoes. To reach the canoes, we had to claw our way through the big garden, shrug off spiderwebs and avoid stepping into stinging herbs. As a matter of principle, my uncle and aunt (whose names are Kees and Heleen) did not maintain the garden. At its entrance, this policy was announced by a sign that said defiantly: “Whatever nature does, it does it well.” (It sounds better in Dutch, take my word for it.) They were, in effect, treating their garden like a Gondwana Rainforest.

After high school, the canoeing trips stopped for awhile. When I returned to the garden a few years later, the sign was still there, but I noticed that my aunt and uncle had pruned a tree or two and removed some of the thorniest bushes. My uncle explained that they had modified their maintenance principles somewhat. Instead of leaving everything to nature, they had started to do some maintenance work, albeit as little as possible. In the words of Uncle Kees, “Only what’s needed to reach the canoes.”

I believe that European governments should heed these words and start managing some forests based on a “minimum interference” approach. When you enter one of these forests, you’ll read a sign that says: “Caution—Natural Forest,” and you will know that the forest manager has done only what’s needed to allow you to reach the other side. Nothing less, nothing more.

Additional resources:
Gondwana Rainforests of Australia

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's RSS feed

Write comment