13th Vilm Summer Academy

"Nature conservation in democratic societies", 7 to 11 July 2013

Once again, the Summer Academy of the Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Federal Office for Nature Conservation) was carried out in the established cooperation with Prof. Dr. Konrad Ott (until 2012 Professor for Environmental Ethics at the University of Greifswald, now Professor for Philosophy and Ethics of the Environment at the University of Kiel) and Prof Dr. Thomas Potthast (International Centre for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities at the University of Tübingen).

Federal and state laws define the legal framework and at the same time determine the opportunities for participation concerning interventions in nature and landscape. State institutions and nature conservation associations accept their respective responsibilities in the democratic system of the Federal Republic of Germany.

This says little about the implementation of specific measures and the achievement of the ambitious goals of nature conservation policy. Many people who are committed to nature conservation complain that even the enforcement of regulatory law is an every-day problem. In case of more substantial interventions, investments or protected area designations, nature conservation often loses out. Mid- and long-term goals are missed rather than reached. The 2010 goal (stop the loss) of the Biodiversity Strategy can serve as an example.

The same observation could be made regarding the 2002 Sustainability Strategy when today’s state of affairs is compared with the goals for the years 2010-2020, whether one considers organic farming or land consumption, to name only two examples. These facts occasionally cause doubts in the own ranks on whether or not democracy and nature conservation always go well together. They suggest the justified assumption that there is an immense gap between our current model of politics and economy and a policy of sustainability and nature conservation which is fit for the future.

A modern nature conservation policy which is open for development has to go beyond the observation and enforcement of regulatory law. It has to actively inject itself into the social discourse which considers a bridging of the above mentioned gap as necessary and does not accept the lack of alternatives to certain courses of action which is often called upon. Therefore, it will militantly advocate more democracy and sustainability.

At the same time, such a policy has to adamantly oppose anti-democratic agendas. In light of the urgency and the pressure for action – e.g. concerning climate change or the energy transition – there are indeed voices that want to limit the right to participation, that consider an “eco dictatorship“ as inevitable, or even “brown Greens“ who try to catch votes with simple but völkisch-racist agendas.