When bureaucratic planting schemes go wrong, an entertaining story from Blackout News - AI translation of the original German.
False oaks planted - compensation forest for A14 to be cut down again
A large-scale mixed forest near Gardelegen is on the verge of closure - and only six years after its planting. The reason: The oaks planted there do not come from the legally prescribed zones of origin. Although the young trees look healthy and have grown well, their clearing is now threatened. This compensation area, created because of the expansion of the A14, was actually a symbol of ecological responsibility. But now this is developing into a bureaucratic dilemma, growing citizen protest, rising costs and massive criticism of forestry policy...
In the affected mixed forest, there are hardly any problems. The oaks have taken root deep into the dry Altmark soil. Other species such as the European beech, a close relative of the oak, are also developing positively. So far, the area has fulfilled its function as a near-natural compensation area for the infrastructure project.
According to forestry authorities, however, the planting does not meet the legal requirements – a classic case of incorrectly delivered seeds. The question of guilt is therefore directed against the contracted company. In case of doubt, this must not only pay for the damage, but also provide replacement areas.
In the affected mixed forest, there are hardly any problems. The oaks have taken root deep into the dry Altmark soil. Other species such as the European beech, a close relative of the oak, are also developing positively. So far, the area has fulfilled its function as a near-natural compensation area for the infrastructure project.
According to forestry authorities, however, the planting does not meet the legal requirements – a classic case of incorrectly delivered seeds. The question of guilt is therefore directed against the contracted company. In case of doubt, this must not only pay for the damage, but also provide replacement areas.
7 comments:
Stupid idiots, People are happy, the trees are happy, the wildlife is apparently happy, leave the things alone.
So let me get this right: the trees are fine - in fact they're thriving. They are in the right place as required and intended. All permits and so on are in order.
But they have to be cut down because some bureaucratic box has not been ticked.
How very German.
Woodsy - ah but that's merely the rational, based on observation thing to do.
Peter - that's it, must follow the rules even when the rules make no sense.
Planting "forests" is a mug's game. In Britain all you need usually do is fence off an area to keep out grazing animals (e.g. deer, rabbits, sheep) and wait. Local species will spring up entirely naturally. The exception might be land that's been heavily fertilised for arable use. Then don't use that land - it's far more valuable in its current use.
Evidence: all the new woods that have sprung up unbidden on abandoned railway company land - and even on the under-maintained sides of railway cuttings. After all that's why we get so many leaves on the lines in Autumn.
dearieme - yes, we've seen natural regrowth in a number of areas over the years. An area we walk through was cleared of trees because of some notion about returning the land to its original heathland state. That idea seems to have been forgotten quite quickly because masses of young saplings were already well over head height when we were last there.
Insofar as studies of ancient pollen can be trusted, very little of Britain was ever in an "original heathland state". The great bulk of the land was wooded: exceptions would be cliff tops by the sea, mountain tops above the tree line, and some land that was too wet or salty for good tree growth. Heaths were largely man-made. The amount of labour the earliest farmers must have expended clearing land is impossible to calculate because nobody knows how they did it. My guess is that they made heavy use of goats to suppress regrowth from tree stumps. But still they had to fell the trees with stone tools. How they even disposed of felled trees is a mystery: how long must you let a tree trunk dry before it becomes combustible? Probably so long that in practice you have to chop it up to get it into bits small enough to burn. With stone tools again! How did they feed themselves while they were expending all the effort to clear woodland? Lord knows. Yet by the time the Romans came the land had largely been cleared though admittedly later with bronze and then iron tools.
dearieme - I'm not sure why this land was claimed to be heathland originally, it's rough , rocky and uneven with fairly sandy soil, but trees seem to thrive on it. There was an intention to put animals on it to keep the trees down by grazing, but that idea seems to have been dropped.
I don't know how ancient peoples removed tree stumps, it's a puzzle, but they must have done in a way that was worthwhile for them. Maybe one possibility is that they had techniques to encourage accelerated rotting such as making holes in the stump then adding a nitrogen source such as urine. I've seen claims that it can be done that way.
Post a Comment