GNP Interview with Dr. Marie Sophie Schmidt, IfLS
What might a constructive dialogue between forest management and nature conservation look like?
This is the question being addressed by the three-year NaBioKom project. The Geo-Nature Park (GNP) and two other large protected areas in Germany were selected as “living labs” for this dialogue.
The interview on November 20, 2024, was conducted by Susanne Brendle (GNP) with Dr. Marie Sophie Schmidt (IfLS), one of the two project leaders. The forestry expert had already focused on regional value creation during her studies.
GNP: The three-year project is coming to an end? What is your assessment?
M.S. Schmidt: We still have nine months to go until the project concludes. Together with our three practice partners, one of which is the GNP, we have currently held 10 of the 16 planned dialogue events. The IfLS and our project partner team ewen—we see ourselves as initiators and support the process by facilitating it, helping to refine the event objectives, the questions, and the agenda. Our practice partners play a major role in shaping the dialogue processes; they use the project to expand their networks and broaden the range of topics they can address. We are very pleased with the level of commitment and interest our practice partners have shown in the Forest Dialogue. They have demonstrated that nature parks and biosphere reserves can actively shape the dialogue on future-oriented topics in the forest. They can successfully contribute as multipliers and networkers. Precisely because of their size, their reach across municipalities and even states, and their consideration of different land uses and their transitions, they are key players in the Forest Dialogue.
GNP: Numerous workshops on topics such as soil, climate change, forest edges, and forest margins have taken place in the Geo-Nature Park. What conclusions do you draw from these events?
M.S. Schmidt: Three of the five events we are organizing with the GNP focus on the topic of forest edges and forest margins. A central question is what role the GNP can play in the development and promotion of forest edges. This question concerns both the GNP’s perspective and opportunities, as well as the interests and perceptions of regional stakeholders.
At a kick-off event with regional stakeholders in person, there was an exchange of perspectives between representatives of forest management and nature conservation, and substantive contributions were discussed. The GNP provided a platform for dialogue and simultaneously identified its own opportunities to engage with the topic. Partly due to the participants’ interest, a joint field trip on the topic of forest edges and water retention was subsequently organized in cooperation with HessenForst. Additionally, the GNP aims to develop a funding initiative in the area of forest edges through a small online workshop with HessenForst and selected municipalities, and to implement pilot projects in collaboration with these municipalities.
I believe this series of events impressively demonstrates the various ways the GNP can engage with a topic: facilitating the exchange of perspectives, promoting network expansion, and initiating projects. These are just a few of the tasks the GNP can undertake in this regard. ESD is certainly also an important task. For example, another excursion on climate change specifically targeted multipliers in the field of ESD (teachers, rangers, etc.). The event on the topic of soil had a strong focus on networking and knowledge transfer.
GNP: How do you see the future role of the Bergstraße-Odenwald Geo-Nature Park in dialogue processes in and around the forest?
M.S. Schmidt: The range of topics and potential tasks is very diverse, as the NaBioKom project has shown. It is advantageous for the GNP to identify and develop these topics and tasks in collaboration with other regional stakeholders, and to align not only with its own goals but also with their interests and expectations. The GNP is already very well-connected and serves as an important multiplier, in part through the integration of its member municipalities. It makes sense to design dialogue processes together with other partners, as was done, for example, through collaboration with HessenForst on the events regarding forest edges. This also allows synergies to be leveraged and the necessary resources to be deployed as efficiently as possible.
GNP: How do other large-scale protected areas and interest groups benefit from the project’s results?
M.S. Schmidt: We are currently working on developing a guide that will provide practical assistance, questions, and checklists for nature parks and biosphere reserves on how they can design these dialogue processes regarding the forest. This particularly addresses their role and potential tasks, the selection of topics, the involvement of regional actors and stakeholders, and possible dialogue formats that can be chosen.
GNP: Will there be a continuation of the project or a follow-up project?
M.S. Schmidt: In the NaBioKom project, we identified water retention as a very significant topic requiring dialogue. About 9 of the 16 NaBioKom events were dedicated to this topic or made a connection to it. There are considerations and activities underway to further explore and develop this topic. However, this depends not least on the funding landscape. In any case, it became clear that collaboration within regional networks on the topic of water and water retention is important, and that nature parks and biosphere reserves are key regional players in the dialogue on this issue.
Contact person at IfLS: Dr. Marie Sophie Schmidt (schmidt[at]ifls.de)
