Five years of round table negotiations. Routes were assessed, negotiated and in the end a compromise was reached that all parties could live with. Forestry authorities, landowners, the City of Munich, nature conservation organisations, the DAV and cycling associations such as the DIMB signed the jointly developed, highly necessary management concept for the highly frequented Isar trails. A planning office had already mapped the routes that were to be opened to mountain bikers. That was in 2017, but nothing happened. Why?
The reasons for the 2017 failure
The answer sounds simple, but it is anything but: none of the interest groups involved could or wanted to take on the sponsorship of this major project. However, this would have been necessary in order to apply for funding from the Upper Bavarian government. The process was also blocked by a legal question: "With or without an ordinance?" In other words, the cycling associations (as well as the DAV) did not want to accept the approval of a trail route with an accompanying ban on all other trails. And so the hard-earned steering concept ended up in the authorities' drawers.
However, the pressure of utilisation and the associated conflicts along the Isar did not abate. During the coronavirus pandemic in particular, new trail loops ate their way deeper and deeper into the protected FFH (Flora-Fauna-Habitat) area of the Isar floodplains, which in turn led to new problems.
In February of this year, the topic ended up back on the agenda of the city council meeting. In new round table discussions, all those involved now argued that the concept that was once drafted should be implemented. The Munich section of the DAV should take over the sponsorship of the Isar trails.
Why is the German Alpine Club taking over the sponsorship?
Firstly, the Munich section of the DAV is the best mediator for all parties involved. It is the only association that has both sports promotion and nature conservation anchored in its statutes and even has its own mountain bike group (M97) that meets regularly for joint rides on the Isar trails.
Above all, however, the question of liability insurance has been clarified with the DAV, as the association already has this due to its trail maintenance work in the Alps.
This would solve the problem of sponsorship, but there is still a lot to do before the necessary funding for the project can be applied for from the Upper Bavarian government: The planning concept from 2017 is now outdated. The site has changed, landowners have changed - the whole thing needs to be revisited.
Bea Draese, head of the nature, environment and climate protection department of the DAV section in Munich, recently outlined the next steps in an interview in Alpinwelt magazine: A new licence agreement has already been drawn up with the state forests, which own the largest share of land in the Upper Isar Valley, and will now be presented to all other affected landowners for signature.
A planning office must also check whether the main route defined in 2017 can still be maintained. If not, the route would have to be rerouted. Only then can the application for funding be submitted before the search for a trail construction company can begin via a national public tender. The latter alone will take six months. The first visible ground-breaking ceremony is therefore unlikely to take place before the end of 2025.
And what exactly is now being planned along the Isar?
Between Marienklause and the Dürnsteinerbrücke bridge near Schäftlarn, there will be a designated, legal (shared) trail route on both sides of the Isar. A 70-kilometre route with 30 kilometres of trails. Everyone involved realises that the trails should be accessible to the widest possible audience, but must remain attractive enough to be used by all bikers. The trails should be as narrow as possible for nature conservation reasons, but must allow two-way traffic. Where the FFH area allows it, parallel paths may be possible, which can provide relief. In addition, a trail control system is to be installed in the ground to record the actual number of users.
At the same time, only the trail sections that are most sensitive to the FFH area are to be dismantled. This is the compromise reached with the nature conservation authorities. According to current knowledge, no-bike signs are not to be installed anywhere. The hope is for successful communication among trail users and broad acceptance of the routes so that route closures are not necessary in the first place. "Everyone knows that the need is there," says Bea Draese. "Not acting is the worst alternative for nature and utilisation."
Gitta Beimfohr
Editor
