How ecological restoration differs between Europe and the US

I was fortunate to travel to Ghent, Belgium in September of 2008 to present the program for which I work at the 6th European Conference on Ecological Restoration. Right away I noticed the stark differences in culture: beer and wine served at lunches, more frequent breaks, the seriousness of speakers (which, admittedly, most of them were speaking in their second or third tongue), and the ease of meeting fellow ecologists. This was my fourth time in Europe, but first time at a work related event and was nervous that it would be more formal than in the U.S. I rehearsed my talk many times, and felt it was delivered well, but was dismayed that I got few questions at the end. I came from America for heaven's sake, don't you have a few questions to ask me? But after pondering our program (one that uses large crews with chainsaws to battle noxious weeds), I saw that our program is leading in many ways, and in other ways, we have a lot to learn from Europeans. My program, the Watershed Revegetation Program within the City of Portland, is trying to reforest areas of the city that are covered in weeds, such as the English Ivy seen in the photo. We use many different techniques (think integrated pest management) to manage the weeds, and we replant with native species to aid in the recovery of the native forest. And we have been enormously successful: planting over 3 million trees and shrubs in over 2,000 acres. We work on private and public property, on industrial land and in neighborhoods, with private contractors and many collaborating agencies. I think we have a model program because of this, but found out that our program is very "American". I was labeled "chainsaw guy" by a Greek man who I met previously, and realized that my openness about describing our use of herbicides may have been too hard hitting, too American. Also our program has a shorter-term outlook on our sites compared to many Europeans. This is partially funding based, but it also is our thinking (and our documented results) that we can change weed infested land into a young flourishing native forest. Many Europeans presented a longer term view and a view including more philosophical intentions. The first day at the conference I was near the point of rage when a woman from France showed how an oak floodplain forest was recuperating until a few years ago when noxious weeds started to out-compete the native vegetation. The oaks would no longer regenerate, and only fields of knotweed are in its future. Her conclusion, after years of study, was to do nothing: let nature take its course. How can we afford to let nature take its course, when humans are responsible for transporting these weeds around the world, and we have the ability to help slow the spread of the weeds, allowing the forest to recover! Its our duty to become the most humble and well intentioned stewards of our land. This includes direct intervention when we see declining biodiversity because of noxious weeds. This presentation threw me off a bit, but I soon realized from other conversations and presentations that many groups are doing similar work and having similar struggles. I thought it would be nice to summarize my comparisons from a short week in Belgium. Where Europeans are leading:

• Reserves : The EU has set up an ecologically-based mandate for each member country to have a network of reserves (Natura 2000). These are for the preservation of natural systems and to provide bird habitat.
• Funding: The Habitats Directive also formed a funding branch called LIFE which provides 2.1 billion Euro over 6 years to fund the restoration of these reserves.
• Research: Judging from the conference presentations, more research about ecological changes and impacts of restoration is taking place in Europe. A field trip visit to the GulkePutten Nature Preserve demonstrated many careful experiments that were installed to find the best method before larger scale impacts were taken.

Other differences between Europeans and the US:

• Diverse culture and ecology: Although the US maybe about as diverse ecologically as Europe, the diversity of the cultures, languages, and bureaucracy add a heftier challenge to restoration. With a somewhat coordinated effort, trying to achieve not only the halt of the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and restoring ecological processes continent-wide is a huge challenge. Its large bureaucracy can slow many projects down with their many requirements, but also can make projects better with more oversight and review.
• Scale: Many Europeans were commenting on the scale at which some restoration projects are taking place in the US. Many, such as the everglades, are huge in scale and can be many times the size of all the Natura 2000 sites in one country combined. But since I work for a municipality and work on restoration sites ranging from 200 acres to sidewalk strips, I don't doubt the need to work on small sites.
• Pollution: Europeans have worked much of their land hard, with fertilizer for many generations. The accumulation of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and other pollutants can cause severe and lasting changes in the plant community. Much research and management is trying to tease out how to reduce these contaminants and the tolerance level of many rare species.
• Private Consultants: Many restoration practitioners in the US work with private companies; providing research, reports, installation and management on many restoration projects. These types of companies don't exist much in Europe, although there seems to be some public/private ventures that are in business. Most restoration in Europe is designed, researched, and managed by agencies, although private contractors are hired for the implementation of some projects. The harvesting and removal of a conifer plantation in the Hautes Fagnes Park in Belgium was done by private contractors under the watch of agency land managers.

There are many interesting techniques being used in Europe, which a program like mine has much to gain. Using the right tool should be the most effective at returning the natural processes back with the least intervention. Often there are huge restraints to how much of the process we can get back (for example degraded soil), but I think Europeans are much better than us at solving this problem first, through research and then applying it. Climate change is studied much more in Europe and its effects are often greater, as seen in the sharp decline of the Black Grouse as the snow season gets shorter. I am still learning from ecologists that I have met and that I contact after reading their abstract. Continued sharing through conferences like this, field trips and job swapping help disseminate information quicker . This is important because many areas are reaching a critical tipping point, and the longer we wait, the more biodiversity will be lost forever.