by Bengt Holst | Jan 23, 2023 | Bio-diversity, Nature view
Just before Christmas, 196 countries signed the Kunming-Montreal agreement on how to reverse the biodiversity crisis, in the same way that the 2015 Paris Agreement set targets on how to reverse the climate crisis. The agreement sets a number of overarching goals for how to improve biodiversity globally by 2030, partly by conserving existing biodiversity and partly by restoring that which has been lost.
Denmark’s challenges with nature management
These are very general goals, and it will now be interesting to see how the individual countries will implement these goals in their daily nature management. This also applies to Denmark, which for many years has been very poor at looking after nature and which, in a list of how good the EU countries are at looking after their natural areas, is in a woeful second-to-last place. An unfamiliar place for those of us who, in our own self-image, are supposed to be very green and advocates for more wild nature.
Need for action and link to the climate crisis
But with the new, ambitious global goals that Denmark supports, we need to take a step back. The most significant target is probably that 30 percent of the world’s land and marine areas must be protected by 2030. It’s hugely ambitious and will probably be difficult to achieve. But it sends a clear signal to countries. Now all the fine words need to be translated into action. And it’s urgent if we want to have any hope of halting the decline and achieving a sustainable relationship with the nature we are so dependent on. And let’s not forget that if we don’t solve the biodiversity crisis, we can’t solve the climate crisis either. The two crises are inextricably linked and must be solved together.
Denmark’s contribution to the Global Goals
Although the 30 percent protected nature cannot be transferred to all countries on a one-to-one basis, it will be a great challenge for Denmark to make a serious contribution to the common goal. Currently, around 60 percent of Denmark’s land area is covered by agriculture, 15 percent is zoned for cities and roads, and almost 15 percent is left as forest, but mostly as production forest, which is not very exciting for biodiversity. Read the rest of the post at Kristeligt Dagblad.
by Bengt Holst | Oct 19, 2022 | Bio-diversity, Nature view
Climate crisis and biodiversity crisis. Two words that we hear over and over again, and which unfortunately are often treated as separate crises that require their own solutions. But at their core, they are both the result of our reckless actions on the planet in pursuit of wealth and personal gain, and as such, common solutions should be found for them. The climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis are by no means opposites, but rather prerequisites for each other, so it makes no sense to treat them separately.
SDGs and silo thinking
When the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals were adopted in 2015, it was recognized that solving the world’s many problems required a holistic approach with international cooperation and the blurring of boundaries between disciplines. However, when you look at the results today, it’s unfortunately clear that the intentions have not made it through to implementation. People still think in silos and try to solve individual problems separately, and sometimes even in competition with each other, as can be seen on a small scale in the domestic debate about what is more important: untouched forest or production forest. The former benefits biodiversity due to the variety of habitats, and the latter benefits the climate due to the high CO2 uptake.
Integrated solutions for the future
But what we need is not an either-or, but a both-and. In our management of the landscape, we need integrated solutions where both biodiversity and climate are taken into account from the beginning and not just added on as a band-aid after one has been fully taken into account.
The balance between untouched forest and production forest
It is debatable from now until doomsday which of the two forest types stores the most CO2 and is therefore best for the climate. One may win in the short term, while the other may win in the long term. And there is no doubt that we will need large amounts of production wood in the sustainable construction that will replace much concrete construction in the long term. So of course there will have to be production forest to some extent. Read the rest of the post at Kristeligt Dagblad.
by Bengt Holst | Jun 29, 2017 | Animal ethics and welfare, Bio-diversity, Nature and environment
Rewilding is a concept that is really getting on the agenda in Danish nature management. As a result, it was a central theme several times at the Nature Meeting in Hirtshals in May. But what exactly is rewilding? It’s not always easy to understand. The common definition is that rewilding is about re-establishing the biological processes in nature that over time have created different habitats and thus the conditions for species diversity. In other words: to get more wild nature by using nature’s own means.
Large grazers as tools of nature
In practice, rewilding often involves the reintroduction of large animals like moose and deer that help shape nature. But it can also be horses, cattle or sheep. What these animals have in common is that they are herbivores and in their own way they work the vegetation and soil to create better living conditions for other species. They create the conditions for open forest and open meadows. A good example is the reintroduction of the beaver in Jutland and North Zealand, where this “nature’s engineer” has recreated wetlands and thinned out forest stands by building dams – an effort of great importance for the management of natural areas and the preservation of biodiversity.
Challenges and ethical dilemmas
But rewilding is not without its challenges. To recreate natural dynamics in the landscape, it is important that humans do not interfere. The processes must find their own balance to achieve the greatest effect. Fallen trees should be left to decompose naturally and dead animals should remain in the landscape for scavengers like crows, beetles and microorganisms to benefit. But where do you draw the line? It’s one thing to let wild animals die a natural death, but what about horses, cows or other domesticated animals that are used to human protection? Are we prepared to let them starve during harsh winter months and perhaps die a painful death to keep our balance? Or is there a point where we must intervene – and compromise the basic principles of rewilding?
Rewilding and legislation – who is responsible?
Another important aspect is legislation. What rules should apply to animals that have previously been under the care of humans, such as horses, but are suddenly released into the wild? Do we still have a responsibility for them, or does it end the moment they become part of the wild? These questions are crucial to how rewilding can be integrated into Danish nature management. The debate has now been taken up in the Animal Ethics Council, but rewilding must also be part of the wider societal debate. We must ensure a clear framework for rewilding – for the animals and for society.
This post was originally published at Animal Ethics Council
Recent Comments