Nature was here first. It is life that makes our planet special, otherwise it would be just be one among the trillions of other lifeless lumps. It would orbit the Galaxy for millions of years without feelings or consciousness, without the festival of ferns, fireflies, flowers and frogs, without the entropy-resisting force of evolution. Life is nature, but life is also man.
A clear line must be drawn between man and nature. The spider’s web and bird’s nest are part of nature, likewise their builders. But skyscrapers and jet planes are not part of nature, and neither are their makers, man. Let man be a part of life, but not of nature.
Man and his constructions are subtractions from nature, they are contrary to nature and encroach upon it. But, so the counter argument goes, man has enrichened nature in many ways and increased its diversity. The cultivation of land and livestock has created clearings and pastures, introduced new species into the environment that would otherwise be rare and threatened. So be it, but should we not view cows and wheat, rats and pigeons, angora cats and azaleas as an extension of man in the same way as houses, roads and fields? Let the evidence of past centuries answer that question.
The gardens created by man are often richer and more colourful than nature, but in who’s eyes? From what do we conclude that some glory is not an abstract but important part of nature, but one that diminishes and threatens its own circle of power? In our own continent this kind of talk distorts reality. Europe’s pure, untouched nature has been reduced to a miserable enclave on the edge of the continent, but there is an unending number of gardens and parks, croplands and managed forests. It’s no good splitting hairs. The untouched, real and original nature of Europe is threatened. And it is man who threatens it.
Man must protect nature and return the land he has conquered. This is a better measure of his maturity than all the knowledge, skills and culture he has created. Protection must proceed simultaneously along two paths. All existing species must be safeguarded and their living conditions guaranteed. At the same time as land use is planned, priority must be given to protected areas. The division between nature and man is the key to land usage. Europe must set the pace, not dither any longer.
THE PROTECTION OF SPECIES
Mihail Maiorescu is a zoologist and responsible to the European Biodiversity Committee for the well-being of the order of psocoptera in Romania. It is a clear May eve in the year 2035, when he assembles the members of the Psocoptera Section of the Romanian Nature Conservation Board to discuss a problem raised by a lady librarian in Craiova. She had complained that one member of the psocoptera order was devouring the library’s ancient tomes, and that all efforts to combat the menace through improving ventilation and protecting the books had failed.
The section is faced with a difficult ethical choice: whether to protect one species of insect or a few old books which would require fumigating the whole library. Such violent measures, especially when it concerns an extremely endangered species, have been strongly condemned in the relevant protocols of the Biodiversity Convention. This was signed by all members of the European Union and its authority is considerable as it incorporates the Rio Agreement signed in the previous century. Opinions in the section are sharply divided. Some feel that the principle of species preservation is absolute and sacred. Others are prepared to feed the species on old newspapers, for example, and consider Romanian literature more valuable than some insect belonging to the family of book lice.
Just when Mihail is about to take the final and extremely difficult decision, the alarm rings on his wall display unit and the meeting breaks up. Saved by the bell, he thinks, as he opens the contact and the faces of his old friends Anna and Pieter appear on the screen.
The value of biodiversity
The protection of nature is a practical objective, but also a strongly ideological issue. The ideology stems from the basic idea of biocentric ethics: the humbling of man from being the dominant species to being one among many.
The ethics of nature protection is only partly based on man’s needs. It’s fundamental basis is the intrinsic value of diversity, which is far more important than artistic or scientific values. All European species should be protected. This demands bespoke plans and lots of money, as land will have to be expensively redeemed and protected against excessive utilisation. In many cases this will mean maintaining their behaviour patterns as they are now or returning them to the sate they were in previously. There are many wild species who are totally dependent upon the areas protected by man.
The world must leave or create extensive green areas extending over the continents. They are essential living space for the larger mammals. From nature’s point of view, these mammals are not of primary importance. Plants, reptiles, fish, birds, insects and even bats are not particularly happy that a few herds of elk or groups of bears are protected. There are tens of thousands of insect species in Europe and thousands of species of flora (Figure 11). There are 184 species of mammals, of which 29 are the larger ones, listed in the following chapter, who are a matter of concern. An integrated protection area would protect more than just the larger mammals. It would also serve as the home to countless numbers of birds, small mammals, frogs, plants and insects. The magnificent larger mammals would be primarily protected to satisfy our own aesthetic interests and benefit, as well as to placate our worst pangs of conscience. For just these reasons they are the Pass of Thermopylae. They are the easiest, most understandable and acceptable to protect. If they go, everything goes. Thus the symbolic value of this green zone extending through the continent is undisputed. It is, however, still not enough.
Figure 11. The numbers of species and endangered species in Europe
(Source: Parks for Life, 1993)
The deeper moral behind nature protection is to protect all species, including the inconspicuous ones. For this reason the whole continent must be covered by a network of small, unfenced conservation areas. What will this look like?
In developing these compact and small-sized networks, two ecological models have been discussed: “the island theory” and “the metapopulation theory” (Bennet, 1991). The island theory imagines areas friendly to animals in the middle of human settlements, which are connected by green corridors or a chain of separate protected niches. Different species require different distances between the islands; the requirements of frogs are tighter than foxes. The sizes of the islands also vary depending on the species. The network is formed from all the islands together. According to the metapopulation theory, whole populations are formed from subpopulations, each living in its own area. Some of these may die out, but then the empty area is occupied by another subpopulation, individuals moving from other island. Both theories assume that species are able to move from one habitat to another, and in both models the islands are formed into networks.
Inventorying species
Holland can be criticised for not responsibly managing its population growth and that its agriculture burdens the environment excessively, but due recognition must be given to the commendable way it has documented environmental conditions. An inventory of species is imperative in all countries, although this is but the first step. In this respect Holland has been in the forefront for years.
At the present moment there are three organisations in Europe making inventories of species and numerous projects with similar aims. The Environmental Law Centre in Bonn has compiled a register of all the endangered species mentioned in the statute books of European countries. These mainly concern birds and mammals, as most countries do not bother with documenting insects. In the Centre’s database there are 10 000 endangered species from around the world, of which a third are European. Then there is the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge which is making an inventory of wetlands and species. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) in Gland, Switzerland, works in close collaboration with the former body.
None of these three bodies has a list of invertebrates or even endangered insects living in Europe. Among the insects, only the number of species of butterflies is approximately known, probably because of their aesthetic interest or easy recognisability. The number of insects would, in any case, be an approximation because every year new species are discovered. On the other hand, precise estimates of the numbers of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish exist. The number of plant species is also roughly known.
Up to now the most important step taken in this field in Europe was the launching of the biotopic inventory CORINE (Coordination of Information on the Environment) (Bischoff et al, 1993). This has not been compiled according to species, but areas. In includes some 12 000 places in Europe chosen because of their biodiversity, uniqueness and the number of endangered species they contain. An effort has been made to list every significant spot in Europe. Such a database provides a superb basis for drawing up an exhaustive inventory of the species and groups of species in Europe. CORINE’s predecessor was PADU (Protected Areas Data Unit) which began collecting information in 1981.
In order to improve the above mentioned surveys, continental, and later global, area and species registers should be created. Beetle by beetle, lichen by lichen, these registers will list how widespread each species is, how endangered, the condition of its habitat, its dependence on external factors and relationship to other species. In extent, the index to the European register of species would resemble a typical small town telephone directory and the global register index the London telephone directory.
The above would only be the reference part, a list of species. This would refer to a library where information on the characteristics and habitats of each species can be found. The compilation of such a register for Europe alone would keep thousands of researchers busy for years. It is an essential basis for planning species protection, but not the actual work of protection. Protection is not research or monitoring, but first legislation and then concrete measures. But for this work to succeed, a vast quantity of hard facts are required.
Protective measures
Protective work involves dispersal, processing and assembling. Hundreds of otherwise useful buildings have to be dismantled and transferred elsewhere, kilometres of roads and rails have to be relayed, filters built, fields left to grow into bushland and commercial forests left to age. Many areas will be restored to their earlier agricultural state as the planned eco-villages, which recreate the environments of former times, will not be ready in time.
A good example from central Europe is the Great Bustard, which nests to the east of Rathenow, between Berlin and Hanover, at the junction of planned rail lines. They have been nesting there for as long as can be remembered. They are large birds, extremely rare and now endangered throughout Europe. At present the Rathenow population consists of 35 birds. They feed on local pastures that are some two hundred years old. Following the reunification of Germany, the railway needed to be upgraded and the planned new line went right through the nesting area of the Great Bustards. In this very typical example, the railway should have been put in a tunnel if, for instance, it would otherwise have driven the birds away.
In May 1995 an agreement was reached between conservationists and the builders which specified the building of a deep gully for the track as it passed through the area. This protective measure added DEM 70 million to the bill.
The species in most urgent need of protection are those which have managed to survive up to now, are not yet facing extinction, but nevertheless endangered. There are thousands of them in Europe, including most plants and insects. Firstly, the populations have to be properly documented and annually monitored; species by species, year by year, area by area. A detailed chart must be drawn up, showing the prevalence and distribution of each species. With the exception of insects, great progress has already been made.
Hard realities will unfortunately dictate the crucial first stage in conservation. Endangered species must be divided into those that can still be saved and those already doomed. The inherited genes of some species are already so weak that they cannot be rescued, even though there are a few of them still living. The minimum size of the stock to be preserved depends on the species. It is smaller for species that live and remain sexually mature for a long time than for others. The problem is the same as for a hospital operating on a tight budget: priority is given to those patients for whom there is still hope. This is heart-breaking strategy for the friends of nature, but a positive result is a better goal than making conservationists happy.
The second necessary step is to separate the completely wild species from those which are to some degree bound to man, to traditional agriculture, parks, forests and even the urban environment. Preserving the latter is not technically difficult, but could require a sharp change in direction away from intensive farming and forestry, perhaps even to former methods. In respect to land use, the preservation of species must take preference over economic considerations.
Species interrelationships
The ultimate goal is complete control of ecological development. We have been taught, for example, to express meteorological or economic phenomena and their interdependencies in the form of equations and mathematical models. Ecological interrelationships could, I suppose, be expressed in the same way. The only problem is their incredible complexity, the relationship of one species to another, and the dependence of all living creatures on the quality of the air, land and water and the climate in general. Trying to express these interdependencies in the form of an equation would be an impossible task, and no computer has the capacity to give more than a rough and approximate analysis. This does not mean that these interdependencies do not exist, neither that they could not, at least in theory, be expressed mathematically. If this were possible in practice, then we would be in a position to explain how the habitat of the osprey in Finland would be affected by a reduction of one metre in the level of ground water in north Africa.
Many rough models for the study of interdependencies have been developed. The best known is the Lotka-Voltera model which allows us to study the relationship between predators and their prey. The food niche of different species has also been analysed mathematically.
It has not been possible to develop more exact models because the connections I mentioned above are only approximately known and technology is not advanced enough to analyse developments, let alone to forecast them. We can draw only one conclusion from this: for the time being science can only observe, study fragments of the whole, but is unable to analyse the overall direction of ecological developments. Therefore all measures relating to the direction of developments can only be very approximate and denotative, never detailed or precise. For the time being, circumspection and non-interference predominate.
The case of Baton Blue and the Greater Meadow Rue
Both in Europe and the world, the most bounteous species are the insects and plants. For this reason I briefly describe studies of the habitats and the measures taken to protect an example of each. Both are from Finland, and, although neither of them are generally endangered, they are very much so within our borders.
The insect is the Baton Blue (Pseudophilotes baton) butterfly. Its distribution extends from the Himalayas to Afghanistan, Iran and Asia Minor to eastern and central Europe. Finland is thus on the periphery of its distribution map, as it does not appear in the other Nordic countries. Within Finland, the Baton Blue only appears in Säkylä, in the western part of the country, on an army firing range.
An in-depth study of the butterfly population of Säkylä was conducted in 1990. The two-and-a-half kilometre long area was first divided into 50 x 50 metre squares and the flight area of the butterfly into 10 x 10 metre squares. Each specimen was marked with a felt pen and its behaviour monitored daily. In the more dense areas of distribution, the vegetation was mapped in 25 x 25 centimetre squares. The ant hills were also charted, as it was thought that the caterpillars spent part of their lives in them or in some way interacted with them.
The outcome of the study was that in autumn 1992 the Finnish section of the WWF and the Pori Brigade agreed to protect the Baton Blue on the firing range. The basic problem now is the existence of an efficient, modern fire-fighting system. Insufficient clearings were created for the Baton Blue as the result of forest fires. The Brigade prevents the habitats from becoming overgrown, as has happened up to now, and also ensures that there is no unauthorised movement in the protected area. Few European insects normally require the firing of live ammunition from mortars to protect them from extinction. Moreover, mortars are a very effective way of preventing unauthorised movement.
The plant is the Greater Meadow Rue (Thalictrum aquilegiifolium). Its distribution extends from the north of Italy to Greece and Bulgaria, the northern Baltic countries and eastward to near Moscow. This, too, is only rare in Finland, and also the most northerly place where it appears. The Greater Meadow Rue grows in Otravaara, in Kitee. An area 0.3 hectares in size has been mapped to show its distribution and expansion, from which six approximately 25 square metre squares, differing according to the amount of light they receive, have been separated. Each individual plant has been marked on the map to within an accuracy of 10 centimetres. Some 67 species of other vascular plants have been registered in the test squares.
Particularly attention has been paid to the fertility and size of each specimen. As some of them were found to be infertile, the relationship between fertility and light was examined, likewise the relationship to the other plants growing in the vicinity. One threat was seen in the over dense growth of bushes and trees.
In this case the measures taken were to cut down a few trees, clear the area of sapling growth over several years, and remove the fir saplings planted in the area. The idea being to improve the amount of light available.
These examples illustrate the amount of work and the measures that have to be taken within one peripheral country to chart and protect a species that is still fairly common in Europe. The task would be much more demanding, and the measures far stricter, if the species was faced with extinction.
A species charter
Some kind of Magna Carta has to be drawn up for nature. It is more important to preserve a wild area and its endangered flora and fauna than an archaeological find or historic building.
Human intervention was necessary to protect the two species mentioned above. With their help too we must study the living conditions of those flora and fauna the preservation of which is not dependent upon human interaction. The environment of all flora and fauna must be studied, sufficient space for their survival provided and protected. Not all European species have been studied with the same thoroughness as the above examples. Every year, dozens of new species of insects are discovered, about which nothing is yet known. Undoubtedly many species disappear before even the first observations have been made.
Two parallel strategies should be followed in the protection of wild species. In the first place, there are groups of flora and fauna whose habitats are so small that even a tiny amount of land will be enough to secure their survival. These are separate strips of land, and no problems arise if they are in prescribed areas where all harmful activities are forbidden in the designated places and buffer zones. In certain cases, banning people is not the right step to take: the Baton Blue and Greater Meadow Rue both required human assistance to protect their habitats. People will then replace their former activities by something different. If a road exists that proves troublesome, then it should be moved away from the sensitive area and the formerly divided wild areas joined together.
The second strategy does not concern specific areas, but the characteristics of the environment in general. The conservation of separate, even extensive areas is pointless if the winds and waters carry industrial and other man-made pollution everywhere. The water, land and atmosphere must be protected so as not to endanger the lives and habitats of any species. Here the norms to be established are those for the weakest species, not the hardiest.
Europe still provides insufficient resources for this work. Thus we must strengthen official, supranational bodies, allocate substantial economic resources, employ thousands of people full-time empowered with a duly recognised status and authority. Their sole task would be to monitor and ensure the protection and living conditions of all species. Each species of grass and bug would have its own protector. All changes in the land, water and atmosphere would be continuously supervised throughout the continent.
These problems can no longer be left in the hands of civic and charitable organisations. They should be treated as seriously as social problems.
Protected area categories
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has placed conservation areas into the following five categories:
I Scientific Reserve/Strict Nature Reserve. Areas designated for the conservation of nature and the protection of natural processes in an undisturbed state. The idea is that they will provide ecologically-representative examples of the natural environment for the purpose of scientific study, environmental monitoring and education. In such areas genetic resources are kept in a dynamic and evolutionary state.
II National Park. Areas designated for the conservation of wildernesses and natural landscapes of outstanding national or international significance. They are used for scientific, educative and recreative purposes. These are relatively large natural areas, not materially altered by man, and where the exploitation of natural resources is forbidden.
III National Monument/Natural Landmark. Areas designated for the conservation and preservation of one or more natural features of outstanding national significance, interest or uniqueness. They are relatively small areas, just large enough to protect the integrity of the site.
IV Natural Conservation Reserve/Managed Nature Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary. Areas designated for the preservation of the natural conditions of species, biotopes or other environmental features of national significance, which require habitat manipulation by humans. The limited exploitation of natural resources may be permitted.
V Protected Landscape or Seascape. Areas designated to maintain landscapes of national significance or that possess special aesthetic qualities which are a result of the interaction of man and the environment, and those that are primarily natural areas managed intensively by man for recreational and tourism uses.
These are semi-natural and cultural landscapes of scenic importance in which traditional occupations are carried on.
Figure 12. European conservation areas by category
(Source: United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas, 1994)
The official figures for conservation areas in Europe are large (Figure 12), but they should be treated with caution. The definitions are vague, and the official categories contain areas that hardly vary from ordinary well-kept countryside. Only those in the first category can be considered true conservation areas. Some of the larger conservation areas in Europe, those over 1000 square kilometres in size, are listed separately in the next chapter (Figure 21). In new books on this subject (Stanners, 1995), conservation areas have been divided according to type, which gives a clearer overall picture of the present situation.
All these classifications should, however, be considered just the first step in a wider programme for the continent which will protect nature for all time.
The approximate sizes of the Category I-IV areas are shown in Figure 13, and the sizes of the proposed areas are shown in Figure 14. What is most disturbing is not the area revealed, but how few there are in Category I. In order to be at least on a par with the world in general, Europe must double the number of these areas. Even though steps are being taken to conserve areas and register species, not even the progress in documentation gives cause to rejoice. The vast majority of species and small areas are still clouded in obscurity. In addition to documentation, the actual work of conservation should proceed much more quickly and on a far wider front. All in all, the greater part of this work and the sacrifice it involves is still in front of us.
Figure 13. European conservation areas, 1995
Figure 14. Conservation areas planned for Europe. (See Appendix 1 for calculations)
THE PROTECTION OF AREAS
In the small village of Deskáti, Greece, two good friends, Ioannis and Giorgios, have always dreamed of visiting the forbidden area, just because it’s forbidden. One morning they decide to play truant, pack a picnic in their rucksacks and, instead of keeping on road to school, turn off a hundred metres before in the direction of the tree-clad mountain, climb the fence and disappear into the forest. What a thrill! All day they roamed among the dense undergrowth, expecting any moment to see a wolf, bear or pardel, or one of the other dangerous predators that dwell in the conservation area. The only animal they saw was a wild boar, and this fled as soon as it saw them. Eventually they became tired from rambling all day and realised they were lost. To add to their plight, dusk was descending on this May evening in the year 2035.
Once the boys failed to return home from school, their worried mothers contacted the village information centre, which flashed a missing notice, complete with photographs, to everyone’s wall screen. Unable to locate the boys anywhere, the emergency helicopter took off to systematically search the conservation area. As the boys were deep in the forest, they could not be seen, and it was only after the sun has set that the heat camera finally found them.
What to protect – species or areas?
In the previous chapter I dealt with the question of conservation from the point of view of flora and fauna; how an inventory should be made of all European species and what measures should be taken to safeguard their living conditions. A serious alternative to this strategy is to safeguard as many biotopes as possible and trust that each species of flora and fauna finds its home in them. This is how nature conservation works when there is sufficient time and space, and all living creatures are treated with the same unreserved respect.
It is clear that protection should be guaranteed simultaneously from two directions: each individual species should be protected but at the same time extensive, untouched and diverse areas placed at their disposal. These two approaches are not contradictory, but complementary.
When planning areas the starting point is land use. Up till now areas have been planned to benefit humans: as transport routes, residential or industrial areas, as farms or forests. In between these acquisitive and excessive seizures, a few pitiful areas have been left as national parks and protected areas, for recreative or scientific purposes. Nothing has been left specifically just for animals and plants. Man has treated other forms of life insensitively, as though they were stones or clods of clay. This is not a morally condonable attitude, as it goes against the very fundamentals of a life-oriented ethic.
The planning of areas should always have been centred around life and not people. However, its scientific basis would have been shaky as it was not until this century that the real study of ecology began. The relationships between the species had never been studied earlier, neither the conditions for their survival or their significance to mankind. Nevertheless, indigenous peoples have lived in harmony with nature for thousands of years. Tradition, beliefs and an intuitive respect for other living things have maintained a balance. If in the past, the industrialising nations had even instinctively possessed a respect for all forms of life, it might have placed limitations on their activities. Now mankind’s selfishness and hubris have produced an overloaded landscape in which nature has been degraded to the level of a diversion. How different things would be if past generations of Europeans had left untouched, out of principle and compassion, even a tenth part of the land now utilised. It’s so easy to look back with wisdom, but it doesn’t help tomorrow.
Once land has been used for some other purpose, it is difficult establishing new, well-functioning conservation areas. Central Europe is full of houses, factories, roads and railways and the areas in between them have been set apart for intensive farming or forestry. There is no room for protected areas and they do not come into existence by themselves. However contradictory this sounds in principle, they will now have to be established, opened and built. Building them requires a lot of labour and money. And even this is only the beginning. It will be decades before the rescued areas go wild and mature, before they regain anything like their original, pristine state and so fulfill the requirements of a protected area. A wild forest is created only after the first major fire and a succession of others.
Integrated conservation areas
Nature conservation should have symbols and manifestoes, just like Communism its Lenin mausoleum, Christianity its cross, and nations their flags and anthems, currencies and borders.
An integrated network of conservation areas stretching throughout the world is not only of practical benefit, but a manifesto. A conservation area that transcends national boundaries is a vow, a solemn oath. It would confirm and offer concrete proof that the earth is not just for one species, Homo sapiens, but that others have a right to the planet. Its message is also that national borders are of lesser significance that the boundary between man and nature. The first integrated conservation area presented here is but a thin thread running through an overpopulated continent, but it is a start and better than nothing (Figure 21). Magnanimous man, unasked, hands over this area and so voluntarily reduces his share of the planet. This area is the starting point for the whole plan concerning land use. A network of green corridors is also to be created because it is the duty of Europe and Europeans to set the world an example of permanent nature conservation. This model can then be adapted in North and South America, in Africa and the South-East Asia. If Europe does not do this, then it is senseless complaining about the destruction of the Brazilian rain forests, the population explosion in Africa or the burning of coal in China. Likewise it is pointless moaning about the slaughter of rhinoceroses in Africa, the fate of the giant panda in China or the disappearance of the tiger in India, unless we are able to protect our own breathtakingly beautiful larger mammals.
The unbroken green corridor throughout Europe will safeguard the habitats of the larger mammals and provide them with room to breed. Naturally, other animals will not observe the boundaries and neither is this the only way to protect the larger ones. They could be isolated in special areas, but that is unnatural. They could not then fend for themselves and discover their natural geographical limits, most suitable habitats, their interrelationships would become artificial, their genetic inheritance distorted and above all they would be living on our terms, like in an out-patients zoo. If the technical preservation of species was the only objective, then it could be managed by an inter-zoo gene bank.
Existing conservation areas
In the preceding chapter I mentioned the five categories in the first group of the United Nations list of national parks and protected areas. The most common one in Europe is Category V, protected landscapes and seascapes. However, of all the categories this resembles real nature least of all, yet it contains 66.8 % of all protected areas. A great number of such areas have been listed by a few of the most densely populated and populous countries of Europe: Britain, France and Germany. According to my interpretation, these countries should be the leading nature conservationists in Europe. Some 16 per cent of their combined area is devoted to conservation areas, with Germany in the lead, according to its own information.
What does this mean?
A visit to such areas reveals a fragment of the truth. For instance, the Schwalm-Nette nature park is situated on the Dutch-German border to the west of Düsseldorf. According to the entry in the UN list, it consists of 43 500 hectares and an area of similar size has been marked in green on the road map for Europe.
The park contains 18 urban areas, and two motorways run through it in addition to countless other roads. On the map, it doesn’t look any different from the surrounding area, except that it’s coloured green. What’s the real truth? Do the roads run through dense forests, and are the urban areas located in otherwise untouched wilderness? Let’s take a closer look.
There is a biological research centre in the area which hands out brochures to anyone interested. A more precise map reveals that the area is not so very different from the surrounding, densely-settled central European landscape. Most of the area consists of close-knit villages with fields in between. Not all the people living in the area even known they are in a protected area. The brochures make it abundantly clear that these 43 500 hectares do not form a single nature park, but that there are isolated patches in the middle which are called protected areas. These patches characterise the whole area, and differentiate it from the surroundings. There are 34 of them varying in size from 2 to 630 hectares. The total given for them altogether is 30 square kilometres. Perhaps these then are the wildernesses?
The largest of them is Krickenbecker Seen. It is 6.3 square kilometres and a detailed map is available. It is divided into a number of paths that follow a grid pattern, numbered A1 to A14, and the time it takes to walk one is stated in the brochure. The area contains a number of restaurants, hotels, car parks and sightseeing spots (Figures 15 and 16).
Thus on closer inspection of a Category V nature area we realise that their conservational value is useless. It is obvious that only areas in Category I are in practice protected areas without any compromises between people and nature. Their combined share of the land area of Europe is 0.3 per cent, which is absolutely too little. The problem is not solved by one green corridor running through the continent, but a network of numerous smallish ones is also required. Now, however, to plan the great conservation corridor running through Europe.
Figure 15. Services in the Schwalm-Nette nature park
Figure 16. Visitors in the Schwalm-Nette nature park
The larger mammals
There are countless numbers of plants and insects, reptiles and small mammals that live in special conditions and demand local action for their preservation. Alongside them are the more impressive larger mammals that require extensive areas in which to roam, breed and feed. To safeguard their existence a large strip across Europe should be separated and which I call the Wolf Way.
Of the 184 mammals in Europe, 29 are such who need this kind of conservation area. In addition to them, there are at least five other mammals in Europe which, for various reasons, I have ignored in this study. These include the polar bears living in Iceland and Greenland, the macaque (Macaca sylvana) monkeys on the Rock of Gibraltar, water buffaloes because they cannot be considered truly wild animals, and the water deer and muntjac (Muntiacus) because of their small size, migratory character and limited distribution. All the others are included.
The great mammals roam over large areas. Their distribution could be restricted to a certain extent and controlled by fencing, particularly as man’s activities in the restricted areas will become insignificant over the next few decades. The segregation of such an area will also protect countless numbers of other species: plants, insects, birds and the smaller mammals. For now, however, we will concentrate on the protection of the greatest and noblest of the mammals. Who are they?
I have grouped the 29 animals according to whether they are common throughout Europe, limited in numbers or appear only in certain localities, whether their distribution throughout Europe is feasible in unencumbered conditions, are they indigenous or introduced from elsewhere, and are they sufficient in number to ensure their survival. I have also included a couple of already extinct species the revival of which has been attempted in recent decades by breeding experiments. The free distribution of these 29 species within the transcontinental conservation area would be a manifesto, a gigantic environmental project, which would justify the old continent suggesting similar measures to the rest of the world. Its example could be astounding.
I shall now introduce the animals one by one.
The first eight species are found throughout Europe or their distribution throughout the continent is possible if not impeded. Their populations have not yet declined so much that they are threatened with immediate extinction. Over the following decades, these beasts could spread freely throughout the continental green corridor.
1. Vulpes vulpes; fox: found throughout Europe from Gibraltar to the southernmost tip of Greece and as far north as the Arctic Ocean. Present population sufficient. Their earths are located in rocky cavities or underground holes. Foxes prefer to hunt in areas where woods and clearings alternate.
2. Meles meles; badger: found throughout Europe except in Scotland and the northern areas of Scandinavia. Like foxes, badgers are nocturnal. They live in deep, underground sets, with several openings and often facing south. Present population sufficient.
3. Sus scrofa; wild boar: found throughout Europe with the exception of the northern areas of Scandinavia. Thrives best in mixed forest areas with abundant water. Present population sufficient.
4. Cervus elaphus; red deer: found in patches throughout Europe, except Finland, and the south of France and Italy. Thrives best in forests and avoids areas settled by humans. Originally from Central Asia. Present population sufficient.
5. Dama dama; fallow deer: found in patches throughout Europe, except southern Italy, Greece and the northern areas of Scandinavia. Preferred habitat sparse woodlands and does not shun humans like the red deer. Avoids areas inhabited by wild boars. Not an endangered species.
6. Capreolus capreolus; roe deer: common in all countries except Finland and the northern parts of Norway and Sweden. Roe deer will live in close proximity to human settlements, but still prefers woodlands nearby meadows and the open countryside. Not endangered.
7. Canis lupus; wolf: the wolf could live throughout Europe, but at present only appears in Portugal, Spain, the mountains of Italy, Greece, Romania, Poland, Slovakia and Fenno-Scandia. The wolf lives in packs of 2-7 within territories ranging from 50-800 square kilometres. Although there are sufficient numbers, the population has been decisively reduced in the 20th century.
8. Ursus arctos; brown bear: its distribution could extend throughout Europe, but is at present limited to the Pyrenees, the Balkan peninsular, Greece and Fenno-Scandia. Prefers to live in the wildness, within small territories ranging from 10-20 square kilometres. Globally speaking, there are sufficient numbers.
The following 11 species are only found locally or in special conditions, but are not, however, in danger of extinction.
Species appearing in southern Europe only:
9. Genetta genetta; genet: although the genet is only found in southwest France and Spain, it is not endangered. The genet is a nocturnal creature, which even fences will not keep out. They prefer to live in dense forests, so conservation areas are of consequential importance. Genets nest in bushes or among rocks, and sometimes in trees.
10. Canis aureus; common jackal: the jackal lives in Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia, sometimes alone, sometimes in packs. Their preferred habitats are hills and mountains, but will also live in proximity to human settlements. The population as a whole is not endangered.
11. Felis pardina; pardel: the pardel or Spanish spotted lynx lives in the wooded mountains of Spain and Portugal, though formerly also in Greece and Romania. The pardel could spread throughout southern Europe. The population is small, endangered, but could be revived by joining existing territories together.
12. Hystrix cristata; porcupine: this is to be found on sheltered mountain slopes in the vicinity of cultivated areas and the dry plains of Italy and Greece. It lives alone in natural hollows. Not endangered.
Species appearing in northern Europe:
13. Alces alces; elk: common in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries, but could spread to the whole of central Europe. Thrives best in damp or swampy woodlands. It is not endangered.
14. Lynx lynx; lynx: lives in Fenno-Scandia and the Baltic countries. At one time common throughout Europe and could return again as the result of the conservation area. The lynx nests in hollow trees and rocky crevices. The population is small but not yet endangered (Figure 17).
Species appearing only in the far north:
15. Gulo gulo; wolverine: the wolverine lives in the northern parts of Finland, Sweden and Norway. Earlier its distribution extended to southern Finland and might well be revived there with the help of a north-south conservation area. There are only a few hundred wolverines in the present population, which is highly endangered due to trapping and disturbance (Figure 18).
16. Alopex lagopus; arctic fox: the arctic fox lives along the coastline of the Arctic Ocean and Norway. It is not shy of humans. It digs its earth in the ground and often moves in packs. In earlier times these packs could be very large. Highly endangered due to trapping.
17. Rangufer fennicus; reindeer: this reindeer only appears in Finland and a limited area in Russia, but could probably spread much further south along the green corridor. In earlier times reindeer were far more plentiful and roamed over a much larger area. Though rare, the species is not endangered.
Species appearing only in mountainous areas:
18. Ovis aries; mouflon: even through it originally lived only in the mountains of Corsica and Sardinia, the mouflon could live naturally throughout southern Europe. It has been introduced into different parts of Europe, but has interbred with domesticated sheep. The mouflon is a nocturnal creature, living in small flocks and is not endangered.
19. Capra hircus; ibex: the ibex lives in the Alps and Pyrenees, even higher up than the chamois. Inhabiting the high sharp slopes during the summer, it migrates lower down during the winter. The population is about 10 000 strong and is not endangered.
20. Rupicapra rupicapra; chamois: the chamois inhabits the woody slopes of the mountains of southern Europe and the Alps, but has now moved higher up. It lives in flocks, a few dozen in size, and grazes the mountains above the 1500 metre level. It is not endangered.
Species struggling for survival in Europe:
21. Saiga tatarica; saiga antelope: outside Europe the saiga antelope is quite common. If conservation areas are established, the saiga antelope could return to its former habitats in Europe, like the plains of southeastern Poland, or even spread along the green corridor into eastern Romania (Figure 19).
22. Ovibos moschatus; musk ox: the musk ox has been introduced into Norway where it could spread to other parts of the Arctic area. It lives in herds, some 20 head strong, but does not migrate. Although few in number the musk ox is not endangered.
23. Bison bonasus; wisent: the wisent was introduced in a semi-wild state into eastern Europe, mainly in the forest of Bialowieza in northeast Poland. Could spread via the green corridor throughout most of Europe. Each wisent needs a grazing area of about 10 square kilometres (Figure 20).
Species that are extinct, but could possibly be revived through genetic action:
24. Bos primigenius; aurochs: this species of wild ox died out some 200 years ago. The half-wild cattle living in British parks are thought to be survivors of the original wild ox. An attempt has been made to revive the species in the Munich Zoo.
25. Equus caballus gmelini; tarpan: the tarpan became extinct some 80 years ago. Attempts have been made to revive the species. Horse-like creatures similar to the tarpan live almost wild in the Pyrenees and Britain.
Species that have migrated or been introduced into Europe from elsewhere:
26. Nyctereutes procyonoides; raccoon dog: the raccoon dog has spread from East Asia to Finland, Sweden, Poland and east Germany. It could spread widely throughout the green corridor. It is not endangered.
27. Procyon lotor; raccoon: a native of North America, the raccoon escaped from farms and now appears wild in Germany, France and Holland. The raccoon is nocturnal and lives on the low banks of rivers and streams. The population is still small.
28. Odocoileus virgianianus; white-tailed deer: introduced into Finland from North America and has spread and increased throughout Europe. For survival it needs shrubland or young woods. It is not endangered.
29. Sika nippon; Sika deer: introduced into central Europe from Japan and now appears in Denmark, Germany, France and Britain. It lives in dense forests where there are glades, and is not endangered.
Figure 17. Lynx
Figure 18. Wolverine
Figure 19. Saiga antelope
Figure 20. Wisent, the European bison
Figure 21. Template for the planned green corridor
Figure 22. European conservation areas once the population has been reduced by 2300
The green corridor
What does this great green corridor look like (Figure 21)? The overall length is about 10 000 kilometres and its average width is a kilometre to start with, but later five kilometres. As such it would occupy about one per cent of the total area of Europe, which is by no means large enough to serve as a conservation area. However, it provides a solid backbone as it includes most of the different types of landscapes and all the climatic conditions that appear in Europe. Within it there is a variety of trees, terrains and vegetation and all species can find a suitable habitat. The populations of herbivores will survive reasonably well as predators reduce will their numbers as in the original wild state. There may be another line in the final plan than the one proposed here.
The area is naturally not of even width, but twists sharply from one place to another. The whole green corridor could be proclaimed as the common property of all Europeans, and should be redeemed at a reasonable price from the national states whose land it occupies. In the future, once the human population has declined, the green corridor could be widened beyond the limits now proposed (Figure 22).
What then will happen to the houses and people falling within the green corridor? Must whole towns be demolished? How will the area be differentiated from its surroundings? Will people be allowed to wander freely in the protected area? What about forest fires? Should animal populations be controlled and limited?
Let us answer these questions one by one. Firstly, the area is fenced off so that the animals remain inside, but also to keep people out. The barrier could be like the deer fences built alongside motorways in many countries nowadays. It would be about 40 000 kilometres long, the circumference of the earth due to its meandering shape. Not all animals will respect the fence. The genets and lynxes will climb over and maybe the bears will break it down, but on the whole they will prefer to stay inside where there is game to be had and no people to disturb them. After the green corridor has been established, entry to other people than researchers and wardens will be restricted. It would be best to protect the whole area, at least for the first few decades, in order to allow conditions to stabilise. Later on it may be possible to allow people conditional entry, provided they move with the same circumspection as in African national parks today.
Any other interference will be prevented. If a forest fire breaks out, or a hurricane or some other natural disaster occurs, it must be allowed to spend itself with any rescue action being taken. The areas to be included must be redeemed as European common property and the present inhabitants persuaded to slowly move elsewhere. This exodus will undoubtedly take a long time, in some cases a whole generation, but the knowledge that their land is to be converted into a protected area will certainly motivate them to move. The whole operation is no more complicated than redeeming and emptying land nowadays in order to build a motorway or airport. In other words, it’s a routine job, but a conservation area is a far more important project than a motorway or airport.
One of the most complex details concerns the more than 200 major roads and railways, and innumerable minor roads, which at the present moment crisscross the proposed corridor. There are many of them, despite the fact that much of the green corridor is planned to coincide with existing national borders, and to a large extent following the boundaries between the countries of the former East and West Blocks. All transport routes must be placed under the area in tunnels. To be economical, junctions can be located to where a road already goes through a rock cutting and so a crossing is easy to carry out. A bridge will be built over the rock cutting, which is then covered with earth and planted with trees and flowers. These tunnels could easily be several hundred metres long, bringing the total up to about 200 kilometres once all nearby roads and railways have been joined at junctions. Each single detail in the terrain must be studied separately and planned carefully.
As an example I have chosen one of the many difficult crossing points: the intersection between busy motorways and railways and the green corridor by the River Danube between Munich and Vienna (Figures 23, 24 and 25). Despite the fact that at the beginning the average width of the corridor is a kilometre and only later five kilometres, at this junction it will have to be squeezed narrower to make the tunnels shorter and the costs lower. Rivers may pose a problem. If they freeze over, then the animals can cross them. On the other hand, wide rivers that never freeze prevent certain animals from over crossing them, so at narrow sections animal bridges could be constructed. There is one such animal bridge over the Danube in the example.
This idea has also been investigated in practice. In Holland there are two motorway crossings, one at Terlet and the other at Woeste Hoeve. They were built especially for animals and observations carried out in 1989 showed that they were crossed by 447 red deer, 51 fallow deer, 168 roe deer and 982 wild boar (Bischoff et al, 1993). When building the transcontinental green corridor, observation posts must be erected where the movement, increase and distribution of animals can be monitored over the decades.
The proposed green corridor is naturally but a modest beginning to the ultimate reality of an extensive network of conservation areas stretching the length and breadth of Europe. Maybe in the far distant future this will be even greater (Figure 22). Its creation would be easier if the population of the continent could be reduced to 300 million in accordance with the ideas suggested earlier.
On-going initiatives
My proposal is not so very radical as similar ideas have already been officially discussed. The most ambitious European project with this objective is EECONET, which is being drawn up on the basis of the CORINE inventory I mentioned in the previous chapter (Bennet, 1991). The aim is to redeem the most important areas in Europe from the point of view of nature protection, turn them into so-called heartlands surrounded by buffer zones, and ultimately join them together into a green corridor.
EECONET is considerably more detailed and comprehensive than the large, fenced, strictly-protected transcontinental green highway I have suggested. My Wolf Way will take decades to revert into a wilderness and remain one. It does not care about the conservation value of some part-area now, only to protect the area so that it would develop into something significant in time. EECONET’s starting point is the existing conservation value and for this reason is different in character.
Nature protection in Europe should proceed on different fronts simultaneously. These would meet after some decades or centuries, but by then it is to be hoped that our continent has achieved a sustainable state in which the rights of nature and its preservation have become axioms that no longer need to be defended.
Figure 23. Planned green corridor between Melk and Gansbach
Figure 24. View at point 1 in Figure 23
Figure 25. View at point 2 in Figure 23
