The Klever Reichswald is to become a national park
Situated directly next to the Reichswald forest, the Aspermühle naturally always had a special relationship with it.For many centuries, the Reichswald forest served as a reliable and valuable supplier of raw materials.
Originally a mixed beech and oak forest, the oak, which was widespread in the forest, mainly provided oak bark, which was processed into tanning agents in the 16th century in the Aspermühle tanning mill, which was developed at the time.
Around 300 years later, a frame saw was added to the Aspermühle, which sawed beech and oak trunks from the Reichswald forest.
You can find more information about the Aspermühle and the Reichswald forest in our guide "The Aspermühle - through the ages".
Due to the constant deforestation, the Reichswald, which in the 14th century still stretched from Nijmegen via Goch to Xanten, naturally continued to lose area.
This development reached an inglorious climax during and after the Second World War. At the end of the Second World War, the forest became a theater of war in the "Battle of the Reichswald" and was of course already considerably damaged as a result. In the following years, it was further decimated for firewood and the construction of the settlements of Nierwalde and Reichswalde.
While around 6,700 hectares of the Reichswald were still left in 1945, more than 65% of the remaining forest area was cleared in the following years, leaving an area of only 2,200 hectares. You can find more information on this topic in our guidebookThe renaturation of the Niers and other near-natural areas between Aspermühle and Kessel Part 2".
As in many parts of Germany, the destroyed forest was reforested with spruce trees in monoculture.
This is of course not ideal in times of climate change, as the spruce is a shallow-rooted tree and was originally more at higher, cooler altitudes around 1000m.
It is therefore not very resistant to drought and has therefore repeatedly fallen victim to the bark beetle in recent years, as you can read in our guidebookThe bark beetle between forestry and forest conservation" by Anna-Lea Ortmann.
Reichswald in autumn
Referendum - Should the Kleve Reichswald become a national park?
However, there are now efforts to counteract this development and turn the Kleve Reichswald into a national park.An endeavor that is naturally the subject of controversial debate among the population, with many arguments for and against.
In mid-November, the residents of the Kleve district received the documents for the referendum to determine whether the Reichswald should become a national park or not.
The referendum was accompanied by voting documents which, among other things, once again contained the most important arguments from the perspective of the local parties.
Let's take a look at the arguments one by one, starting with the arguments of the opponents of a possible national park.
Deadwoodin the Reichswald forest
Does deadwood increase the risk of forest fires?
One of the possible risks of converting a forest into a forest is the risk of forest fires, which would allegedly be increased by the accumulation of deadwood.
However, this argument is not conclusive, as deadwood is, on the contrary, an important water reservoir in the forest. The further the decomposition of the wood continues, the softer the wood becomes and the more water it is able to store.
In contrast, monoculture coniferous forests significantly increase the risk of fire.
On the one hand, because the trees are often pre-damaged due to the drought of recent years and do not hold much water, which, in combination with dry needles and the higher resin content of conifers, results in a good combustible mixture.
An excess of spruce needles causes another problem due to over-acidification, namely an insufficient humus layer, which normally represents a large water reservoir.
In combination with the canopy, which is very translucent compared to deciduous forests, a coniferous forest dries out relatively quickly.
Beech trees are natural water reservoirs
As the risk of forest fires in the Kleve Reichswald is also increased by the unexploded ordnance left behind during the Second World War, the conversion to a natural or near-natural forest could have a positive effect on the risk of forest fires. (More information on this can be found in our guideThe renaturation of the Niers and other near-natural areas between Aspermühle and Kessel Part 2.)
Even though the Reichswald bears the word forest in its name, it is largely a monoculture commercial forest used for timber supply.
Is the drinking water supply in the Reichswald at risk?
The next argument would be the allegedly impaired drinking water supply of the Kleve district. Around 100,000 residents in the Kleve district are supplied with drinking water, which is extracted from under the Reichswald.The opponents of the initiative believe that this drinking water supply would be jeopardized if the Reichswald were to be converted into a national park.
The state of North Rhine-Westphalia contradicts this on a website set up specifically for this purpose:
For example, on the website https://nationalpark.nrw.de.
With regard to a possibly endangered drinking water supply, it is clearly communicated in this forum that the supply of drinking water to citizens is an overriding interest and therefore both the maintenance of existing well systems and the construction of new ones are ensured.
Lack of access to nature in the national park?
The following sentence can be read in the argumentation of the opponents of the national park:"The forest should remain accessible to all people without restriction - for families, children, schools, dog owners, horse riders and cyclists".
It is not clear why access to the forest should no longer be possible for these groups of people in future.
However, it must first be made clear that there is already no unrestricted access to the Reichswald, as the majority of the Reichswald is designated as a landscape protection or nature conservation area. It therefore goes without saying that people as well as dogs and horses do not leave the paths in order to keep the forest intact and not disturb the animals.
Of course, it will still be possible to enter the forest on horseback, bicycle and dog on the existing paths in the future. After all, this works without any problems in the Eifel National Park.
Does the wolf pose a threat in the forest?
The return of the wolf is apparently just as problem-free in the Eifel National Park. There have been confirmed wolf sightings in the Eifel National Park since 2021 and a pack of wolves, consisting of a total of 12 wolves, 2 parents, 3 yearlings (wolves in their 2nd year of life) and 7 pups, has settled there since 2024.
Wolf with pack
However, this is not expected to pose a threat to the population. The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection states that wolves are extremely shy animals, avoid humans and even wolves that are native to densely populated areas do not lose their fear of humans.
The BMUV refers to a study by the Institute for Nature Research in Norway, which has evaluated worldwide reports of wolf attacks on humans and concluded that there have only been a few attacks by wolves on humans in the past and that these were generally associated with rabies, provocation and food conditioning. Rabies no longer exists in Germany and it can be assumed that humans are smart enough not to lure wild animals with food or chase them, for example, because they find the young animals so cute.
As the wolf also cannot read, it does not know that a forest is a national park. It would therefore of course already have the opportunity to settle in the Reichswald.
And since even an illiterate wolf is still a very intelligent animal, the argument about the lack of fences cannot apply, since the current fence around the Reichswald is of course not hermetically sealed and has openings over the entire area, some of which are equipped with wildlife grids, but which are unlikely to offer the wolf an adequate obstacle.
A similar argument is likely to apply to the fear of wildlife accidents, especially as, according to the state government, fences are of course also used in a national park and therefore do not necessarily have to be removed and wildlife accidents are already occurring, as in any other forest area.
Farmers' protests against the Reichswald National Park
We would also like to mention the farmers who were out and about in the Kleve district on 16.11.204 with a procession of 130 tractors to demonstrate against the national park. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the website of the Rheinischer Landwirtschafts-Verband what the farmers' fears are.Increased browsing damage is not to be expected as a result of the fences remaining in place and distance regulations for the application of pesticides and herbicides already apply and will not change.
The increased nitrate levels expected by the farmers due to deadwood are already a problem, but not because of the deadwood, but because of the constant over-fertilization of the soil by the farmers, which is why proceedings have already been initiated against Germany by the EU Commission, which led to the adoption of stricter fertilizer rules.
Reichswald with adjacent field
High costs for the Reichswald National Park?
At this point, the Eifel National Park is used to argue that it would cost the state of NRW 10 million euros a year and that the money would be better spent on schools and kindergartens.This is, of course, a bogus argument, as the national park not only causes costs, but also generates a whopping 76 million euros in revenue from tourism in the entire region, which represents a doubling of revenue within a decade and thus naturally creates jobs and drives infrastructure development. Employees also pay income tax and reinvest their salaries in the region. This investment of 10 million euros will therefore be recouped many times over.
But it is not only the turnover that is relevant here.
Anyone who thinks they have to play off kindergartens and schools against environmental protection and nature conservation is really only revealing how little a modern and sustainable education system has been understood.
Panorama Eifel
The Eifel National Park hosts educational programs with several tens of thousands of participants every year, which impart knowledge in a vivid way and give children an appreciation for the forest, the animals and plants living in it and their symbiosis that they are unlikely to learn in a classroom. If the well-being of children is being put forward, then we should not forget that we are living in an age of climate change, flood disasters and droughts and that a healthy forest is a basis for a future worth living for those currently growing up. But not only for humans, but also for all the species that can be found in the forest, which are often threatened with extinction and which we still want to find on this planet in 50 or 100 years' time.
Deforestation of European rainforests in forestry
Another and probably one of the most important arguments that cannot be dismissed is the deforestation of virgin forests in countries such as Romania to satisfy the hunger for wood, which is mainly processed into disposable furniture, pellets and construction timber from the DIY market.This sad practice is of course intensified when wood from forestry becomes scarcer.
Today, it is estimated that around 45% of Europe's virgin forests have disappeared in the last 20 years, for which the illegal timber trade is likely to be primarily responsible.
While around 30% of traded timber worldwide can be traced back to illegal sources, in Romania the figure is as high as 50%.
But what needs to be done to tackle this inglorious development?
Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to this, because on the one hand the demand for raw materials is constantly growing and on the other hand climate change is forcing us to rethink and make changes. This is, of course, a confrontational development.
Dead spruces
The past few years have shown that monoculture forestry is not a model for the future. Drought and bark beetles have affected the spruce forests to such an extent that, depending on the region, up to 80% of the trees have died and had to be felled.
At this point we would like to refer you once again to our guidebookThe bark beetle between forestry and forest nature conservation by Anna-Lea Ortmann.
The advocates of this forestry model are therefore in a losing position.
It is undisputed that forest conversion must take place, as a healthy mixed forest with as many species as possible is significantly more resistant to drought, pests and diseases.
Beech and oak trees in the Reichswald
Although forest conversion began in the 1990s, deciduous trees such as beech and oak are slow-growing trees that take decades to grow into large trees. Clear-cutting, as used to be the case in the past, is also viewed critically nowadays, as there is an increased risk of soil drying out and erosion. Regrowing trees have little chance here, as the protection and shade that large trees would provide is lost and trees are literally suffocated by so-called grassing.
Counter-examples to complete clearing are, for example, umbrella felling, in which individual trees are removed, or fringe felling, in which only narrow strips are cleared from an area.
In both cases, it is important that at least 40% of the original shading is retained in order not to impair the prevailing forest climate too much.
In any case, the conclusion remains that the quantities of timber harvested as a result of forest conversion are likely to be lower in the future.
This actually only leads to the conclusion of more sustainable consumption. Even if the desire for a permanent increase in prosperity is understandable, it is not realistic. A constantly growing population and the constant need to increase prosperity do not go hand in hand with a planet that only has finite resources at its disposal. You can't harvest 200kg from a tree that only bears 100kg of apples.
So the only real option is to make consumer goods as durable as possible. Whereas nowadays we often buy furniture that might survive a move, in the past it often lasted for several decades and was even passed on as an inheritance if necessary. This example can be applied to many other areas such as fashion and technology.
It is hard to understand why a tree that has grown over centuries is turned into a cupboard that ends up in the shredder 5 years later.
A large part of our wealth is not reflected in our bank account, but in an intact and species-rich natural environment.
The following video shows how sustainable forest conversion can take place.
With the topic of bank accounts, we come to a point on which many supporters and opponents of the Reichswald National Park seem to agree, but which is certainly somewhat controversial: wind turbines.
Wind turbines in the Reichswald
The pros and cons of wind turbines in the forest will be discussed later. First of all, we want to shed light on the political dimension.Political opponents of the "Reichswald National Park" project bring many untenable arguments into the discussion.
However, one fact that has not received much public attention, and obviously should not, is the interest of the CDU-led NRW Ministry of Agriculture in preventing the Reichswald National Park for purely financial reasons.
In 2014, the then NRW state government signed a preliminary contract with a wind turbine provider to erect a total of 11 wind turbines in the Kleve Reichswald.
Each wind turbine would cost the Ministry of Agriculture 286,000 euros, i.e. a total of over 3 million euros per year, because in 2023 alone, the ministry was short of around 5.88 million euros due to the state enterprise "Wald und Holz NRW", which is subordinate to the ministry.
This clearly explains why the CDU is massively stirring up public opinion and does not shy away from deliberate misinformation, which is absolutely unworthy of a democratic party.
In addition, it deliberately exploits the fear of wind turbine opponents by writing in its argumentation against the Reichswald National Park "A national park does not prevent the construction of wind turbines in the Reichswald!" in an attempt to corner the opponents of wind turbines, to get them to give up and to oppose a local consensus that has already been reached in order to push through their own interests.
It is absolutely fine to have opposing views. However, it is simply immoral to mislead your political opponents with deliberate misinformation and exploit their fears.
Especially as the issue of wind power is already sufficiently heated.
So let's take the issue of wind power as an interface between supporters and opponents of the national park.
While some opponents only claim to be against wind turbines in the Reichswald for political reasons, there are actually people among the supporters who are certainly not fundamentally opposed to wind turbines, but do not want to see them erected in the Reichswald.
One of the main reasons for the rejection of wind turbines is probably the supposed bird mortality. But how big a problem is this really?
Bird mortality due to wind turbines?
The engineer and scientist Professor Volker Quaschning writes somewhat polemically on his website on the subject of "Bird killer wind power? Shoot all the cats!", pointing out on the one hand that wind turbines do indeed kill birds, around 100,000 per year, but on the other hand the majority of birds in Germany, between 190 and 283 million according to Nabu, are killed by glass panes, traffic, cats and poorly insulated power lines. The number of birds killed by wind turbines is therefore in the per mille range in relation to the other causes of bird deaths.For this reason, bird conservationists are generally in favor of wind turbines, as the far greater threat to birds is likely to be future climate change. Loss of food sources, habitat, breeding grounds and the shifting of seasons are just some of the problems that birds are already struggling with today and which will become even more acute in the coming decades.
Whether it is better to use fields for wind turbines is again up to the consumer. Currently, one million hectares of land alone are used to grow maize for fodder. A less frequent and more conscious consumption of meat could certainly free up land here.
This brings us to a clear plus point for the Reichswald National Park: species protection.
Hornet On a tree trunk
Reichswald National Park - A step for species conservation
There is no doubt that species conservation is one of the greatest challenges for future generations.The "Red List of Threatened Species", which has been published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN ) since 1966, set a sad record in its latest report in October 2024.
According to this report, 46,300 species of the 166,000 species on the Red List are acutely threatened with extinction. Tree species were also on the list for the first time, 38% of which were also classified as endangered. One animal that made it onto the list for the first time and that most people can probably relate to is the Western European hedgehog, which has seen its population plummet by up to 50% in some regions.
It is important to note that the Red List only lists a fraction of the species that are actually present worldwide.
There are currently around 1.8 million species that have actually been identified and described.
However, scientists believe that there are at least 10 million species on our planet, possibly even significantly more.
In its report on biodiversity and ecosystem services in 2019, the World Biodiversity Council (IPBES ) highlights the dire state of our planet. Below are some of the facts contained in the report:
- 85% of existing wetlands have already been lost
- Plastic pollution in the oceans has increased tenfold since 1980
- 300 to 400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge and other industrial waste end up in water bodies every year
- Also from 1980-2015, 132 million hectares of tropical rainforest were cut down
- Around half of the coral reefs have disappeared since the end of the 19th century
- The loss of coral reefs increases the risk of flooding for up to 300 million people
- The loss of insects threatens a pollinator loss of up to 577 billion dollars per year
Rainforest deforestation
These figures are simply unbelievably sad and highlight the need for immediate action.
Therefore, the option of transforming the Reichswald into a national park and thus making a contribution to the preservation of biodiversity and species protection should be taken.
The examples of the Bavarian Forest National Park and the Eifel National Park show that such a transformation does not happen overnight, but takes a lot of time and a lot of work.
We are not just talking about a period of decades here, but rather centuries, so we should start as early as possible.
In recent years, many measures have already been initiated in the two national parks, starting with the rewetting of moors, renaturation of rivers, regeneration of tree populations and forest development, the targeted creation of biotopes for animals and the removal of unwanted neophytes.
These developments can be seen in the respective reports of the two national parks and the successes are obvious.
According to the website of the Eifel National Park, 11,413 species have been recorded in the national park, of which 2,617 are on the Red List as endangered species.
The same can be observed in the Bavarian Forest National Park, where habitats are returning to their natural state and displaced species are able to regain a foothold.
Renaturation measures have also been carried out directly at the Reichswald. Sections of the Niers have been restored to their original state and provide new habitats for numerous species. As a rule, deadwood is no longer removed and many species worthy of protection can already be found in the Reichswald. For example, buzzards, goshawks and sparrowhawks can be found in high population densities. The call of the owl and the eagle owl can also be heard at night in the Reichswald. The caves of the black woodpecker can be found in the beech trees and the banks of the river Niers are home to the kingfisher. But the Reichswald is also home to various species of bat, beavers, cross snakes, grass snakes, slow worms and badgers. In other words, it's definitely a jumble worth protecting.
Niersin the Reichswald
Restoring the forest is not only important for reasons of species and diversity conservation, but also for climate protection.
Reichswald National Park for climate protection
Alongside the oceans and soil, forests are among the largest CO2 reservoirs on the planet.But this system is in danger of collapsing.
While the forests in Germany absorbed around 100 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent between 2001 and 2022 and emitted around 30 megatonnes, i.e. were able to store around 70 megatonnes net, the forest became a net emitter of CO2 after the drought years between 2018 and 2023.
As already described above, drought particularly affects pure monoculture coniferous forests, especially spruce as a shallow-rooted tree, and offers the bark beetle the opportunity to infest the weakened trees in excess and cause them to die.
But where do the spruce forests come from?
The deforestation of forests that began in the Middle Ages for the extraction of arable land, timber (also by rafting for shipbuilding), fuel for heating, glassworks, salt works or charcoal works was continued and intensified for the extraction of charcoal as an energy source in iron ore mining in the 16-18th centuries, until the onset of the industrial revolution, which led to large losses of forest areas.
Hallimasch on spruce stump
This deforestation ultimately led to a timber shortage. Even though charcoal was gradually replaced by hard coal and other fossil fuels in industry and wooden buildings were replaced by stone buildings, wood was still in demand as a fuel and building material and ultimately led to the introduction of forestry and reforestation with primarily spruce trees and all the problems we know today,
The only remedy here is a rethink and restructuring into a near-natural mixed forest, which is much more resistant in comparison.
It has become clear that such a conversion will certainly cost time and money, but of course it also brings other advantages.
One of these advantages is likely to be tourism development and the associated expansion of the infrastructure.
Tourism and infrastructure through the development of the national park
Almost 1.4 million visitors came to the Eifel National Park in 2022/2023, generating a turnover of 76 million euros, which should do the regional economy a lot of good.Of course, it is not realistic to expect the Reichswald in Kleve to attract such numbers of visitors.
But on the one hand, the Eifel National Park also started small, with 450,000 visitors in 2007, and on the other hand, the Reichswald must of course first be developed, and that does not happen overnight.
It must also be taken into account that the Reichswald, with 5100 hectares, has a significantly smaller area than the Eifel NP with 10,770.
But here one can certainly hope for synergy effects with the surrounding areas.
For example, the forest near Groebeek, the Mookerheide, the Maasduinen NP, the Kranenburger Bruch, the Uedemer Hochwald and the Düffel nature reserve, including the Old Rhine and river marshes, border on the Kleve Reichswald.
The Reichswald NP is therefore in good company.
The beauty of the Eifel National Park can be seen in the following video.
The last point we want to address is education.
The forest as a cross-generational educational facility
The fact that learning through personal experience is more memorable than face-to-face teaching is now well established in pedagogy, even if there is unfortunately still a lack of implementation.Pupils should therefore benefit from a visit to the forest in some subjects.
The most obvious subjects here are science and biology lessons. Of course, it is easiest to learn in the forest what animals and plants there are, what they look, sound, smell and taste like and what function they fulfill in an ecosystem. But of course, the best way to learn how an ecosystem is structured, what significance it has for humans and why it is worth protecting is on site.
Niersaueam Reichswald
This is exactly what is already happening in the Eifel National Park. Here, daycare centers and school classes already take advantage of a broad and curriculum-related educational offer. Of course, the Reichswald in Kleve also offers the same opportunity.
But the forest is not only useful as an educational site for primary schools. Biology, chemistry and geography can also be experienced well in the forest at higher levels.
The functioning of photosynthesis and its importance for the planet, the water cycle, the structure of soil layers, the structure of cells and much more.
The Reichswald is particularly suitable for geography and history lessons, as it stands on a terminal moraine that has had a lasting impact on the landscape with the Lower Rhine mountain range and because battles were fought in both world wars that have left clear traces. Trenches, bomb craters, positions and bunkers from the First and Second World Wars can still be found in the Reichswald.
Of course, this is an easy link to ethics and politics lessons. The purification function that the Reichswald has for our drinking water can also be easily addressed and global political issues such as the lack of access to clean drinking water, the deforestation of rainforests and the resulting effects on climate change can also be easily addressed here.
So it remains to be said that the Reichswald in Kleve will certainly not become a functioning national park along the lines of the Eifel National Park overnight and certainly not without effort and hard work, but there is still great potential. It remains to be seen what the referendum will bring.