I see that a lot of deforestation will take place during this project to support biodiversity. A bit contradictory, isn't it?

Open forests and their past dynamics

Although most of Europe was once populated by vast forests, it is important to realise that these were much clearer than our managed and maintained forests of today. This was mainly due to a number of disruptive natural factors, such as the fall of trees that had become too old, major storms, fires, etc., all of which created gaps that were partially kept open by the large herbivores of the time (aurochs, bison, deer, etc.). It was in these dynamically appearing light wells that a large proportion of the species and environments now under threat were concentrated.

Man and nature evolve together in harmony

With the arrival of the first farmers, man began to shape the landscape according to his needs, encouraging the development of open environments by using wood as the main source of energy and by clearing land for cultivation or grazing. As a result, the biodiversity associated with the open environments of the forests of yesteryear has been able to evolve and develop slowly, in tandem with human activities. Flower meadows, limestone lawns, peat bogs, moors, orchards, agricultural ponds, etc. are all open environments shaped by man in which a rich and very specific biodiversity has been able to develop. This is an extraordinary heritage that must be preserved.

Mechanisation reverses the trend

While the practices of yesteryear enabled biodiversity linked to open environments to develop, the arrival of mechanisation and the race for productivity have greatly simplified these rich mosaics. The enlargement of plots of land, the draining of wet soils, an increase in the number and frequency of mowing and harvesting, the fertilisation of land, etc. are all factors that have led to the banalization of the species likely to thrive in our landscapes.

Conversely, the most unpleasant and difficult-to-mechanise land, deemed unprofitable for agricultural production, has been abandoned and left to spontaneous recolonisation by trees and shrubs, or even replanted with exotic species (spruce, Douglas fir, poplar, etc.).  As these biologically rich environments (limestone grasslands, peat bogs, moors, etc.) close in, a large part of our biodiversity disappears. It is generally these abandoned or replanted areas that we deforest.

Choosing which sites to clear

The sites to be cleared are not chosen at random. First of all, we ensure that the site proposed for clearing would provide a good connection for the most threatened species and natural habitats targeted by the project. Next, we check the potential for restoring this environment, in particular by analysing the site's past. Finally, we ensure that the current forest environment presents few challenges for the species present there. As a result, we are only restoring open areas to former open sites that should have been highly biodiverse and that have either been replanted with exotic species or abandoned and left to recolonise with woody species.

Experience speaks for itself

LIFE projects have been running in Wallonia for over 30 years now, often involving large-scale deforestation to restore areas of high biodiversity. While deforestation can be perceived as shocking and a blow to the landscape immediately after the work has been carried out, this is no longer the case after a few years of revegetation. These deforested sites have become colourful havens of biodiversity where people love to stroll.

Returning land to farmers

Many of the woodlands we restore were once managed by farmers. By clearing them and handing them over to farmers, we are contributing to the development of more sustainable agriculture that respects biodiversity. Although the productivity of land managed as nature reserves is lower, the farmers get quality products from it.