Nature conservation organisation (NaBu) reacts to BIKE article: MTB restrictions just a wording glitch?

The demand is clear and tough for all forest visitors. In its policy programme for the new Federal Forest Act 2024, the Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NaBu) calls for Mountain biking and horse riding will only be permitted on specially designated trails. In addition: "... Hikers and skiers should not leave the trails, as this causes additional stress for forest animals".

That would be a significant restriction. Not only for mountain bikers, but also for mushroom pickers, for example, who would be considerably restricted in their right of access. If the NaBu demands were to be implemented in the Federal Forest Act in this way, we would have Conditions for bikers like in Austria.

NaBu reacts to BIKE article and defuses

The NaBu responded to our BIKE article on the Federal Forest Act 2024 and gives the all-clear. It appears to be a wording glitch. However, there are no plans to change the basic programme. Birte Cordts, NaBu's officer for forest conservation and sustainable forest use, answered BIKE's questions in an interview.

BIKE: The NaBu formulated harshly against mountain bikers and riding on trails in its basic programme, is this all just a misunderstanding?

Birte Cordts (NaBu): Yes, you could say that. We don't want to drive mountain bikers or horse riders out of the forest - not even from the paths. The right of walkers to access the forest is also a valuable asset that is important to us as NABU. We do not want to restrict mushroom pickers and the like, on the contrary: we welcome the love of nature shown by many forest visitors. We are more concerned with considerate behaviour towards nature and forest animals.

That is good news. But the wording seems unambiguous. How could such a wording mishap happen?

A policy programme like this passes through many hands before it is adopted and is therefore often reworded. In a 60-page document, it is quite possible that some sentences are worded ambiguously. The decisive factor is the perspective from which you read the text. Our aim was to address illegal off-path trails. Once again, we don't want to ban mountain bikers from the forest, nor do we want to ban e-mountain bikers. But we do want them to abide by the rules, just like any other forest visitor.

The policy statement reads: "Sporting activities such as mountain biking or horse riding may only be practised on specially marked trails. That sounds unambiguous. If this demand were to be honoured, we would have conditions like those in Austria.

This is where the aforementioned mistake occurred in the wording. It was not our intention for it to be understood as a ban. It is important to us that paths are utilised and that we do not go cross-country. Nevertheless, the basic programme should not be seen as a political paper. Isn't such a basic programme always to be understood politically? After all, the content cannot deviate from the political position on the Federal Forest Act. And it won't. On the contrary: at the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, for example, we are currently clearly in favour of the right of access. The policy programme, on the other hand, sets out the perspective for the next ten years, i.e. until 2032. For the Federal Forest Act 2024, we are submitting separate papers that specifically address politics. Here we prioritise and address our demands more specifically. These formulations are far more precise. And no, we don't want to ban mountain bikers or horse riders from the forest.

Let's be clear: NaBu does not want to restrict mountain bikers, e-bikers or horse riders from trails in the forest. And NaBu does not want to ban them from "designated paths".

Right, that's not our intention, but the action should still take place on trails. However, it must be clear that rules also apply to mountain bikers in the forest. Not everyone seems to realise that.

What does biking on trails mean?

BIKE: A brief definition of trails to avoid any misunderstandings. Trails are paths, trails, forest roads - which are already laid out. Cross-country is in the middle of the forest where there are no recognisable paths.

Birte Cordts (NaBu): I am a forestry expert, not a lawyer. I cannot provide you with a watertight formulation, but the way you describe it is how I understand it. At the same time, however, we also need a clear understanding that not every recognisable trail is automatically a path according to this definition. And the demand for the right of access for hikers and mushroom pickers should not be restricted either.

Quote from the NaBu basic principles programme: "...hikers and skiers should not leave the paths, as this represents an additional stress load for forest animals".

No, that's not how it should be understood either. It's about being considerate and working together. Nature and forest animals should not be harmed.

So will the basic programme be rewritten?

It will not be rewritten, although individual clarifications and corrections are conceivable. The programme was developed over two years and democratically agreed within the association. It cannot simply be rewritten. In our view, this is also not necessary. Should any ambiguities arise, we will be happy to clarify them - as we have done here in this interview.

In this case, the ambiguous wording would remain in place until 2032. Wouldn't it be worth the effort of a change?

The resulting uproar has made us more aware of the specific wording. We believe it is right to make our intentions clear. We can be contacted at any time and provide information. In this case, all mountain bikers should now know. Only a small part of the 60-page policy programme deals with questions of recreational use. There are also many other aspects that are of great importance to us and which should ensure that the forest remains a natural habitat for biodiversity in the future - and at the same time a lively recreational area for all visitors and sports enthusiasts.

We would like to thank the Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NaBu) for the interview.