1

Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung an der Hochschule Neubrandenburg

Texte aus dem IUGR e. V. ISSN 1861-3020 Oktober 2019

Hermann Behrens & Jens Hoffmann (Translation: Patricia Newman)

Nature Conservation in the GDR—an Overview

Stages in the Development of Nature The historical development of nature conserva- Conservation in the GDR tion in the GDR can be divided into the following This paper traces the development of nature con- stages: servation in the German Democratic Republic 1945 to 1954—Nature conservation under the (GDR). It divides the period of East German mandate of the Reich Nature Protection Act statehood into five stages and describes the defi- (Reichsnaturschutzgesetz, RNG) of 1935, which ning developments within those stages. This divi- remained in effect until the Act for the Preserva- sion into stages (in the sense of periodization, see tion and Care of Nature in the Homeland – Nature Pot 1999, pp. 51–71) is an approach „that is used Protection Act (Gesetz zur Erhaltung und Pflege to understand and structure the flow of history” der heimatlichen Natur – Naturschutzgesetz) of (Wiese 1933, p. 137), and is intended to make it the GDR was enacted in 1954, easier to explore the history of nature conserva- 1954 to 1970—Nature conservation under the tion in the GDR. mandate of the Nature Protection Act of the GDR The years selected as demarcations for the sta- until the enactment of the Environment Act (Ge- ges are those in which influential laws or regula- setz über die planmäßige Gestaltung der sozialis- tions were enacted. Normative underpinnings tischen Landeskultur – Landeskulturgesetz, LKG) such as these (laws and regulations with princip- in 1970, les, objectives, requirements, and prohibitions) 1970 to 1982—Nature conservation under the provide a more or less tangible picture of nature mandate of the Environment Act until the issu- conservation in a given stage, because conserva- ance in 1982 of the Directive Regarding the Coll- tion law strives to codify the principles, objecti- ection, Processing and Safeguarding of Informa- ves, and practices of nature conservation for the tion about the Condition of the Natural Environ- time in which the law is in effect. Continuities and ment of the GDR (Anordnung zur Gewinnung o- changes in conservation law always informed the der Bearbeitung und zum Schutz von Informatio- actions of those engaged in nature conservation and reflected the prevailing ideas and sociopoliti- nen über den Zustand der natürlichen Umwelt in cal conditions of the respective stages. There are der DDR), no established concepts for stages or periods that 1982 to 1989—Nature conservation from the neatly express the entire culture of a time. It was issuance of the Directive Regarding the Collec- therefore necessary to focus on a single perspec- tion, Processing and Safeguarding of Information tive, which is the approach taken here (Pot 1999, about the Condition of the Natural Environment p. 67). of the GDR until the fall of the Berlin Wall, The enactment of a law should not be under- 1989 to 1990—Nature conservation from the stood as a distinct break or clear demarcation of a fall of the Berlin Wall until German environmen- stage. Between the stages there was always a tran- tal unification on July 1, 1990, and unification of sition that sometimes lasted several years. the two German states on October 3, 1990.

2

Nature Conservation from 1945 to 1954 (Landschaftsschutzgebiete, LSG). The new con- cept of Reich nature protection areas owed much Continuity and Change under the Continued to the old idea of state parks. These areas were Mandate of the Reich Nature Protection Act misused as hunting grounds, however (Frohn 2006), a prime example of this being the Reich Prewar nature conservation laws and regulations nature protection area of Schorfheide. remained in effect in the Soviet occupation zone Traditionally, the work of nature conservation following the end of the Second World War on had been done by unpaid, volunteer nature protec- May 8, 1945. These laws and regulations con- tion officers (Naturschutzbeauftragte) holding ho- sisted of the Reich Nature Protection Act norary positions in municipal, county, and state (Reichsnaturschutzgesetz, RNG) of 1935; regula- administrations. The Reich Nature Protection Act tions implementing the Act that were promulgated aimed to change this and stipulated that there on October 31, 1935; and the Nature Protection should be a hierarchical system of public authori- Regulation (Naturschutzverordnung) of March ties staffed with government employees respon- 18, 1936, concerning the protection of wild plants sible for nature conservation. By May 1945, how- and wild, non-game animals. The Reich Nature ever, there was still no such system in place. In Protection Act was not considered to be politically essence, nature conservation continued to be prac- compromised. It remained in effect as a law of the ticed on a largely volunteer basis, as it had been states (Länder) after the founding of the GDR on prior to 1935. As the Prussian model of administ- October 7, 1949, and, following the administra- ration was adopted throughout Germany and its tive reform of 1952, remained formally in effect occupied territories, however, nature protection until 1954. In reality, however, the Act, signed by offices (staffed by volunteers) were created at all „Führer and Reich Chancellor” Adolf Hitler and administrative levels. The Reich Office of Nature „Reich Forestry Chief” Hermann Göring, was ra- Protection (Reichsstelle für Naturschutz) was the rely enforced. central administrative body, and functioned as a The Reich Nature Protection Act regulated na- scientific institution with advisory authority. ture conservation in areas „free” of human settle- This system of organizing nature conservation ment. It addressed „general landscape protection” was not retained in the Soviet occupation zone. 1 and extended protection to natural monuments, There was no central government agency for na- nature protection areas (Naturschutzgebiete, ture conservation at the occupation zone level. NSG), including the newly designated Reich na- The five states in the zone did not take a unified ture protection areas (Reichsnaturschutzgebiete), approach to regulating authority for nature conser- „other landscape areas in free nature,” and endan- vation, which was sometimes handled by the fo- gered species (Reich Nature Protection Act, Sec- restry division of the Ministry of Agriculture and tions 5, 19, and 20). Objects and areas were Forestry and sometimes by the Ministry of Pe- judged to be worthy of protection on the basis of ople’s Education. Unpaid, volunteer nature pro- rarity, beauty, decorative value, distinctiveness, tection officers gradually took up their positions and scientific, ethnological, or historical significa- again in many of the municipal, county and state nce (Reich Nature Protection Act, Sections 1–5). administrations. Nature protection offices no lon- Most of the nature reserves selected in accordance ger existed, however, despite the fact that the with the principles of the Act were considered to Reich Nature Protection Act was still in effect and hold fairly little economic promise, and at the called for these offices to be staffed with an same time to be close to nature, representative of average of eight to ten unpaid expert advisors. a certain native environment or habitat, unique, After the founding of the GDR in 1949, a num- rare, or beautiful. Many of the „landscape areas” ber of new conservation regulations were promul- (Landschaftsteile) protected under the Act were gated, including several concerning the protection later designated as landscape protection areas of bees in 1951.

1 The German term „Naturdenkmal”, meaning „natural monument,” refers to an individual feature of a landscape, such as a tree, waterfall, or rock formation. Later, the term „Flächennaturdenkmal”, or „large natural monument” was created to refer to comparatively small protected areas.—Trans.

3

The administrative reform of 1952 resulted in The districts and counties were instructed to the dissolution of the five states and their respec- „appoint within the district and county nature pro- tive administrations (including nature protection tection officers, who shall support and provide ex- offices), and the introduction of fifteen administ- pert advice to the nature conservation authorities rative districts called „Bezirke”. This reform was in cooperation with the democratic parties and mandated by the Act Concerning the Further De- mass organizations, in particular the Cultural Al- mocratization of the Structure and Functioning of liance for the Democratic Renewal of Germany State Organs in the States in the GDR (Gesetz (Kulturbund zur demokratischen Erneuerung über die weitere Demokratisierung des Aufbaus Deutschlands). The officers selected are to be pro- und der Arbeitsweise der staatlichen Organe in gressive in outlook and possess knowledge of the den Ländern der DDR), enacted on July 23, 1952. country’s geography, history, and natural his- The number of counties (Kreise, smaller administ- tory.”2 rative districts, subordinate to the districts) increa- The Decree on the Preservation and Care of Na- sed substantially, with the result that individual tional Cultural Monuments (Verordnung zur Er- counties represented smaller administrative areas. haltung und Pflege der nationalen Kulturdenk- Throughout 1951, nature conservation records male), issued on June 26, 1952, resolved any am- were divided up and distributed among the new biguity regarding responsibility over the preserva- administrative units. tion of natural monuments, removing it from the One of the results of the reform was State Commission on Art and subordinate institu- considerable uncertainty regarding questions of tions under the Ministry of People’s Education. authority over nature conservation. A directive of However, this move was followed in 1953 by the the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Minis- creation of a department for „Landeskultur”3 terium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft) „regarding within the Central Office for Water Management. the performance of conservation work,” was The department was to take on responsibility for issued to all district councils (Räte der Bezirke) on issues of nature conservation and landscape ma- September 27, 1952, with the goal of providing nagement that arose in connection with land im- clarity on this issue. The directive reaffirmed that provement measures. the Nature Protection Regulation of March 18, On November 12, 1952, another directive was 1936, remained in effect („until the enactment of issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry a law that regulates specific details”) and it clari- „regarding the performance of conservation fied questions of authority over nature conserva- work.” It contained a list of animal and plant spe- tion. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry cies that were placed under protection.4 was given supreme authority over nature conser- Yet another directive of the Ministry of Agricu- vation. Responsibility for these matters at an in- lture and Forestry „regarding the performance of termediate administrative level was assigned to conservation work,” was issued on January 28, the forestry authorities of the district councils, and 1953. It tasked the districts with appointing new at the lowest level to the agriculture and forestry unpaid, volunteer nature protection officers at departments of the county councils (Räte der both county and district levels. Accordingly, the Kreise). The directive also named the German district submitted lists of names to the Ministry of Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Deutsche Agriculture and Forestry.5 Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften, In many cases, considerable time passed before DAL), founded in Berlin on October 17, 1951, as details of government and administrative changes an advisory institution. reached the organizations affected (local admi- nistrations, nature conservation organizations, factories, etc.). The administrative reform of

2 BArch DK 1/3759 (Akte Schutz seltener Vogelarten), p. 25. 3 See footnotes 16 and 18. 4 BArch DK 1/3759 (Akte Schutz seltener Vogelarten), p. 27–30. 5 See BArch DK 1/10290 (Tätigkeit der Abt. Landeskultur und Naturschutz, Band 1), pp. 261–294, containing a list of the then approximately 200 nature protection officers in districts and counties.

4

1952, and later the drafting of the Nature Protec- former territories in the East; solving food shorta- tion Act of the GDR, entailed new challenges in- ges; rebuilding administrative structures and co- volving personnel and organization that could not ping with attendant personnel problems. It was be met satisfactorily. also at this time that the system of property ow- The founding of the GDR in 1949 also spelled nership changed, in terms of both law and orga- changes for the way in which private clubs or nization (the land reform of 1945, and waves of societies (Vereine) were organized. Private clubs socialization in trade and industry). or societies had played a key role in nature con- No attempt was made to reappraise the nature servation and homeland protection (Heimat- and landscape conservation policies pursued un- schutz) until the end of the war. The Decree on the der the Nazis. In the Soviet sector, as in the Bri- Integration of People’s Art Groups and Cultural tish, French, and American zones, there were con- or Educational Societies into Existing Democratic tinuities both in the personnel who administered Mass Organizations (Verordnung zur Überfüh- policy and in certain ideas or philosophies that in- rung von Volkskunstgruppen und volksbildenden formed that policy. Numerous nature protection Vereinen in die bestehenden demokratischen officers had been members of the Nazi party until Massenorganisationen), enacted on January 12, the end of the war and were allowed—as a rule 1949, abolished the legal framework of the private after a „probation period” of several years—to re- clubs or societies. Existing homeland protection turn to their honorary positions. Almost all the and nature conservation groups were incorporated officers had been followers of the Nazis. Those into the Cultural Alliance (Kulturbund). The next whose involvement went beyond mere party few years saw the gradual establishment of a hie- membership had already left the Soviet occupa- rarchically structured, partially state-run and tion zone for other occupation zones (Behrens state-controlled section of the Cultural Alliance 2010 a). called Friends of Nature and the Homeland (Na- In terms of philosophy, Alwin Seifert’s influen- tur- und Heimatfreunde). From April 1952 to tial idea of the German countryside as a „lands- 1961, the Friends published a monthly periodical cape of fields and hedgerows” continued to hold titled „Nature and the Homeland” (Natur und Hei- sway. This owed much to the denuding of fields mat). It had a circulation of 54,000 and was the and meadows after the Second World War, how- only nature conservation magazine in the GDR ever, and was primarily a political response to that was available for purchase by the public. post-war food shortages. These various factors led As a rule, the nature protection officers in the the authors of the 1949 Constitution of the GDR redrawn counties began their work by documen- to name (in Article 26) landscape conservation ting the protected areas of their district, including and management as a precondition for stable registered natural monuments or other landscape yields in agriculture. Thus conservation practices areas that were placed under protection prior to were directly connected with agriculture for the 1945. Despite the fact that Section 20 of the Reich first time (see below). Nature Protection Act required the involvement of conservation authorities in the planning or imple- „Landscape Diagnosis” and Landscape mentation of measures initiated by other administ- Planning rative divisions, this was rarely done and usually happened only when objects or areas already un- The „landscape diagnosis” project was a research der protection were affected. In the early postwar effort headed by landscape architect Reinhold years, nature protection officers spent Lingner, head of the Landscape Department at the considerable time and effort on a variety of local Institute for Civil Engineering, Berlin Academy public outreach initiatives. of Sciences, and his colleague Frank Erich Carl. Nature conservation was not widely embraced Both men had been carrying out preliminary stu- by the public at this time. Their energies were de- dies of land degradation in the Soviet occupation voted primarily to dealing with the aftermath of zone since the autumn of 1948. The „diagnosis” the Second World War, specifically with rebuil- was conducted for the most part in 1950 and, after ding cities, villages, and infrastructure; accommo- a period of inactivity, was brought to an end in dating approximately 4.3 million refugees, dis- 1952. Although not directly related to nature con- placed persons, and emigrants from Germany’s servation, it later served as a model for approaches

5 to research and planning in other fields, including The plan had also called for a second phase of nature conservation (Hiller 2002, p. 277). The the project to study forest monocultures, clearcut- project was part of an attempt to carry out large- ting, damage to selection-cut forests, peat-cutting scale landscape analysis and planning under the sites (started after the end of the war in 1945 in the new sociopolitical conditions in the GDR, in par- face of severe fuel shortages), and climate change ticular centralized state planning and de facto state resulting from the construction of buildings and control of the land. It was also intended to create infrastructure. jobs for unemployed or underemployed landscape The data gathered by the project was intended to gardeners and landscape architects; at the time, it be used for subsequent large-scale landscaping was the „only job in the field that was done measures. In the end, these hopes remained unre- throughout the country” (Kirsten 2002, p. 274). alized. The study was discontinued on August 14, Over the course of the project, more than 90 map 1950, because of concerns that it would endanger makers, divided among five groups representing state security. It was argued that there was no gu- the East German states still extant under the fe- arantee that the extensive information it collected deral system, created an inventory of the most eg- would be „used solely for the purpose of building regious cases of land degradation in the GDR: up [a Socialist state and society].” It was due in – crop and pasture land stripped of protective large measure to Lingner’s commitment and dedi- trees and shrubbery to an extreme or advanced cation that it was possible to complete at least the degree, initial phase in 1952 (Hiller 2002, pp. 86 and 92). – extreme degradation of arable land due to mi- At the same time, however, ambitious measures ning, were being initiated to protect existing hedgerows – extreme imbalances in the water budget, and plant new windbreaks, and considerable – extreme contamination from industrial particu- thought and planning were being devoted to pro- late and gas emissions. grams and organizations for landscape manage- The original plan had called for these issues to ment. As early as 1949, the Ministry of Agricul- be addressed in an initial phase of the project, to ture and Forestry had formed a 60-member lands- be completed by the end of August, 1950. The caping committee tasked with protecting fields. A agenda of this first phase was driven by food shor- number of landscape architects sat on this com- tages and natural catastrophes in the late 1940s mittee, including several who, prior to 1945, had 6 (such as floods in the Oderbruch), a „bark beetle belonged to „Organisation Todt.” On August 29, calamity” in Thuringia and Saxony, land degrada- 1950, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry tion in lignite mining areas, and erosion problems issued a directive implementing Section 30 of the in croplands in Saxony-Anhalt and Brandenburg February 8, 1950 Law Concerning Measures to that had been stripped of protective windbreaks Achieve Peacetime Levels of Crop Yields per (Lingner 1952). The food shortages, together with Hectare (Gesetz über Maßnahmen zur Erreichung difficulties in restarting agriculture after land re- der Friedenshektarerträge). The directive called form, led to the inclusion of a passage in the 1949 for the „organization and implementation of a landscaping program to protect fields and thus sta- Constitution of the GDR (Article 26, Paragraph 3) 7 stating that the „stability of crop yields shall be bilize and improve crop yields per hectare.” On maintained and promoted by, among other things, February 12, 1951, a Central Government Com- landscape conservation and management.” mittee for Landscape Management was establis- hed in the Forestry Division of the Ministry of Ag-

6 Organisation Todt was a civil and military engineering group responsible for a huge range of engineering projects in Nazi Germany. The landscape architects in Organisation Todt were called Landschaftsanwälte or „landscape advo- cates.“ 7 The original German title of the directive is Anweisung des Ministeriums für Land- und Forstwirtschaft zur Organi- sation und Durchführung einer planmäßigen feldschützenden Landschaftsgestaltung zum Zwecke der Sicherung und Steigerung der landwirtschaftlichen Hektarerträge in Ausführung des § 30 des Gesetzes über Maßnahmen zur Errei- chung der Friedenshektarerträge.—Trans.

6 riculture and Forestry. The minutes of the Com- In 1956, landscape architect Werner Bauch mittee’s founding meeting state that the second i- described what the landscape diagnosis project tem on the agenda was the „planning and develo- had accomplished: „For the first time, we had an pment of a five- and possibly twenty-year lands- overview of the most striking damage to the caping plan” (general landscaping plan, called a [country’s] landscape and environment. It was Generallandschaftsplan), which was to apply to documented in the form of maps, texts, and pho- the entire GDR. In 1951, landscape management tographs. The state of [the nation’s] farmland was committees were gradually established in all sta- illustrated primarily by a calculation of the total tes and in numerous counties with the purpose of area of croplands that have been stripped to an developing general frameworks for their particu- extreme or advanced degree of natural windbreaks lar areas. The plan was to establish such commit- (bushes, trees). The study also produced standar- tees throughout the GDR. However, there was no dized maps that revealed water pollution and pro- systematic follow-up on these initial steps toward nounced water budget imbalances. Findings of creating a general landscaping plan for the whole extremely high pollution levels drew attention to country. the considerable impacts of industry, human sett- Two regulatory measures should be mentioned lement, and traffic on air quality. As far as mining with reference to the developments described areas were concerned, research focused on mi- above. The first is a decree issued by the Council ning-related changes to landscapes, in particular of Ministers on October 29, 1953, which the state of spoil banks and large areas of barren addressed erosion problems and called for the pro- land. In the extensive brown coal fields, reclama- tection of hedgerows. This was followed by an tion and reforestation of the spoil banks and bar- initial implementing order that laid out the terms ren lands is being conducted with care and dili- under which the decree was to be implemented. gence. The study was able to quantify mining-re- These regulations had significant consequences, lated changes in soil quality through comparisons as they called for a record to be made of all the with soil values in selected areas. Of particular small thickets, hedgerows, small woodlots, gro- importance for the continuation of this work in the ves, and copses that were located outside town or future is the fact that research priorities were de- village borders and were smaller than 10 hectares. fined.”9 The resulting lists were sent to the unpaid, volun- In the end, the landscape diagnosis project only teer nature protection officers responsible for the produced a few pilot schemes, such as those in the respective areas, who sent them on to the relevant Huy-Hakel area of the Harz foothills and in the branch of the Institute for Land Research and Na- greater Leipzig area (Heinrichsdorff 1959; ture Protection (Institut für Landesforschung und Krummsdorf 1963). The project’s methodological 8 Naturschutz), founded in 1953. approaches and the data it collected were used in The last hopes for a large-scale landscaping pro- the reclamation of large mining sites in Lower Lu- gram were raised by a resolution adopted by the satia and in the tri-state area of Saxony, Thuringia, Council of Ministers on February 23, 1954, and Saxony-Anhalt. The data was also used later calling for the National Planning Commission in support of attempts to establish a cross-border (Staatliche Plankommission, SPK) to create an ac- national park in the Elbe Sandstone Mountains tion plan for the protection of fields via the plan- and also in general land use plans, for example in ting of natural windbreaks. The resolution had vir- the district of Erfurt (Wübbe 1995, 73).10 tually no practical consequences, however.

8 The name of the institute was later changed to Institute for Landscape Research and Nature Protection (Institut für Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz, ILN). 9 BArch DH 2/21626 (Prof. Werner Bauch, TH Dresden, Entwicklung der Landschaftsgestaltung in der DDR, probably 1956). Concerning the use of landscape diagnosis data in the Bezirk of Dresden, see BArch DH 2/21627 (Landschaft und Planung, various manuscripts). 10 The more than 900 maps and record books that were created in the course of the landscape diagnosis project are now housed in the archives of the Leibniz-Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung (IRS), located in Erkner.

7

Nature Conservation from 1954 to 1970 for research. In the wake of these developments, a principle emerged of preserving and developing New Legislation and Changes in the fundamentally threatened areas and objects (as ex- Organization of Conservation Work pressions of biological diversity) and expanding conservation practices to include the protection of The first draft of a new conservation law to re- natural processes, thereby integrating the prin- place the Reich Nature Protection Act was com- ciple of natural development into nature conser- pleted in 1952. Two years later, the Reich Nature vation” (Reichhoff 2010). Protection Act was superseded in the GDR by the The 1954 Nature Protection Act introduced two Act for the Preservation and Care of Nature in the new categories in addition to the natural monu- Homeland – Nature Protection Act (Gesetz zur ments, nature protection areas, and animal and Erhaltung und Pflege der heimatlichen Natur – plant species protected under the Reich Nature Naturschutzgesetz) of August 4, 1954. It exerted Protection Act. These were landscape protection considerable influence on conservation work for areas and large natural monuments (Flächennatur- more than one and a half decades. The Nature Pro- denkmale, FND) of up to 1 hectare. It was one of tection Act of 1954 followed the Reich Nature the first conservation laws to recognize large na- Protection Act quite closely in its sections on na- tural monuments as a protected area category. The ture protection areas, natural monuments, protec- category of Reich nature conservation area was ted animals and plants, nature conservation admi- abandoned. nistration, unpaid, volunteer nature protection Not included in the new Act was the category of officers, the designation of protected areas and ob- national parks. From the mid-1950s to the mid- jects, and sanctions. 1960s, well-known public figures including Kurt Its overall aims tended to be traditional and pre- and Erna Kretschmann, Reimar Gilsenbach, and servationist, but it contained new passages reflec- Erich Hobusch fought (unsuccessfully) for legal ting recent developments in the objectives and recognition of this category and tried to get the practices of nature conservation, and in this areas of Müritz and Sächsische Schweiz desig- respect was an improvement over the Reich Na- nated as national parks. Another proposal had ture Protection Act. In its preamble, it emphasized been made earlier to designate the area of Märki- the scientific aspects of nature conservation a- sche Schweiz as a natural park (Naturpark). longside ethical principles and reflected certain Regulations concerning the protection of rare theoretical developments which came to play an plants were also changed. The Reich Nature Pro- important role in the designation of protected tection Act had distinguished between three gra- areas and objects. des of protection and contained three correspon- The scope of the law was expanded to apply to ding lists: complete protection, partial protection, both unpopulated and populated areas; in reality, and protection from picking. In the case of parti- however, it continued to be limited for the most ally protected species, only the rosettes and the part to the „free” (that is, unpopulated) country- parts that were below ground (for example, bulbs) side, and more specifically to protected areas and were protected. In all, there were 93 protected spe- objects. Unlike under the Reich Nature Protection cies within the territory of the GDR, of which 35 Act, protected areas were now selected on the ba- were completely protected and 15 partially protec- sis of scientific and documentary criteria with a ted. Forty-three species were subject to a ban on view toward creating a record of the country’s na- commercial picking. „There cannot have been tural environment in all its diversity (Weinitschke very many conservationists who perfectly under- 1980). While the Reich Nature Protection Act va- stood these distinctions” (Militzer 1956, p. 16). lued areas that were „rare, distinctive and natural This complexity was done away with in the Na- (or considered natural), from 1954 onward, prio- ture Protection Act of the GDR, which placed all rity was given to those that were characteristic and protected species—now totaling 108—under typical. Areas were selected according to a scien- complete protection. tific classification of the countryside, with parti- There were also changes in the administrative cular attention paid to plant geography and vege- organization of nature conservation. The term tation. Priority was also given to preserving areas „Naturschutzstelle” (nature protection office) was

8 not used in the Nature Protection Act in the to let some of those fires burn out in order to ex- context of volunteer conservation work, as it had tinguish the big fires. [...] The situation in the dis- been in the Reich Nature Protection Act. The in- tricts is similar. After a great deal of effort, ten di- dependent expert advice which that office had stricts have managed to get a government provided and which had been mandated in Section employee assigned to landscape management and 8 of the Reich Nature Protection Act and in Sec- nature conservation, but they are usually extre- tion 3 of the corresponding implementing order mely busy with other responsibilities. In four dis- was thereby abolished. The Reich Nature Protec- tricts, it has not yet been possible to get a govern- tion Act had stated that because nature protection ment employee assigned to these matters. This offices were advisory bodies, they were not part work is currently being done by my coworkers at of the conservation authorities. the Water Management Office, but only as time In all other respects, the new law adopted the ad- permits. What is it like in the counties? Even ministrative model outlined in the Reich Nature worse! We don’t have any people there at all. This Protection Act. Nature protection was assigned to work, too, is supposed to be done by staff at the the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, later cal- Water Management Office. [...] We are very for- led the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and tunate to have the nature protection officers in the Foodstuffs (Ministerium für Land-, Forst- und counties, who have been an enormous help [...]” Nahrungsgüterwirtschaft), and to subordinate (Henkel 1956, p. 214).11 agencies in the districts and counties. For the first Government employees assigned to nature con- time, paid full-time positions were created in servation continued to be overextended, and their those agencies. As a rule, it tended to be a single workload grew as they dealt with the conse- position and the person who held it had several quences of intensified land use. Not until 1964 areas of responsibility. Nature conservation was was the system of forest administration changed just one of these areas and always had lower prio- and every district allocated a government rity (compared to hunting, for example). Insuffi- employee with authority over nature conserva- cient human resources were devoted to the admi- tion. This continued to be a „double-hatted” posi- nistration of nature conservation and there were tion, however, with shared responsibility for widespread complaints in this regard. hunting. At this time, there were standing com- Ambiguities regarding authority over nature missions for nature conservation in the district as- conservation were not resolved until 1956, when semblies of some districts, such as Frankfurt (O- nature conservation was removed from the pur- der), and in East Berlin.12 The head of the ILN view of the Central Office for Water Manage- working group for Potsdam, Karl Heinz Großer, ment, which had been responsible for it until that called for such commissions to be established in time. Georg Henkel, who was in charge of conser- the county assemblies as well. He argued that they vation at the Water Management Office, could help improve the lamentable situation in presented a dramatic picture of the Office’s per- many county administrations, where nature con- sonnel situation at the annual meeting of the servation „always took second place or indeed ty- Friends of Nature and the Homeland, which took pically third or fourth place to other responsibili- place June 1–6, 1956, in Berlin: „In the Depart- ties, and rarely remained within the remit of any ment of Landscape Management and Nature Con- one person for very long” (Großer 1965, 4). servation—within the central administrative body Starting in the 1950s, many counties had unpaid, for nature conservation—I have one employee for volunteer nature protection helpers (Naturschutz- all work related to conservation. I am also respon- helfer) in addition to the unpaid, volunteer nature sible for landscape management and land impro- protection officers whose positions were manda- vement. Basically, as you can imagine, all we can ted by law. In some of these counties, helpers for- do is put out fires and, what’s more, we often have med a nature conservation guard that had not been

11 See also BArch DK 1/3687 (MLF, Abt. Landeskultur und Naturschutz, Bericht über Naturschutzarbeiten, 1956), pp. 23–42, and (Stellenplan, u. a. Landschaftsgestaltung und Naturschutz), p. 42. 12 In East Berlin, this commission was called the Kollegium zur Förderung des Naturschutzes, or Council for the Pro- motion of Nature Conservation.

9 provided for in the law. In the early 1960s, a na- detailed studies that analyzed the general state of tionwide total of 3,700 nature protection helpers the environment and looked at emerging trends. In was recorded. However, the rights and obligations particular, they relied on the conclusions and po- of these helpers had not been regulated in the Na- tential solutions elaborated in such studies, which ture Protection Act of 1954. incorporated technological, scientific, economic, The work of the unpaid, volunteer nature protec- pedagogical, organizational, and legal approa- tion officers was regulated by the implementing ches. [...] The key issues were: the recycling of orders of the Nature Protection Act. The first im- waste products to reduce negative impacts on air, plementing order of February 15, 1955, establis- water, soil, and landscapes; landscape conserva- hed that the officers were to be issued photo IDs tion and management of agricultural landscapes; and given expanded powers. In addition to the ecosystem complexity and interconnections; and right of trespass that had already existed under the the integration of issues including leadership, Reich Nature Protection Act, these powers in- planning, independence [of commercial and in- cluded the right to demand the identification pa- dustrial enterprises], and economic stimulus into pers of „wrong-doers” and to seize stolen goods the ‘New Economic System’ (Neues Ökonomi- (such as bird eggs or skins) or equipment used by sches System, NÖS)” (Oehler 2007, p. 103). the thieves (such as glue traps or other traps). The Conservation work in the 1950s and 1960s con- second implementing order of October 1955 regu- sisted primarily of the following: lated material compensation for the work done by – repeated revision of natural monuments lists in the officers at the county and district levels. the counties; documenting existing natural mo- The Institute for Landscape Research and Na- numents, and working to secure new ones ture Protection (Institut für Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz, ILN) acted as a scientific coor- – marking protected objects and areas with „con- dinator and was responsible for advising and in- servation owl” signs structing the nature protection officers and hel- – helping to regulate the extent and type of com- pers. Together, the Institute and the officers did mercial land use in protected areas and the their best to fill the gap left by the closure of na- construction of buildings there ture protection offices and the shortage of staff in – assessing landscape-altering activities as part government administrations. of the review process for site permits In addition to the regulations mentioned above, – taking inventory and performing upkeep in ma- many more regulations13 were enacted in the nor parks 1950s and 1960s to „efficiently exploit” and „re- – conducting biogeographic mapping of selected produce” natural resources (in accordance with animal and plant species, and drafting the first ecological requirements) (Oehler 2007, p. 102). „red lists” of endangered/threatened species „Drafters of legislation in the 1960s made use of

13 First Implementing Order of 15 February 1955 for the Nature Protection Act of the GDR, containing a list of animals threatened with extinction; Regulation of 15 February 1955 concerning the Protection of Non-Game Wild Animals other than Birds; Regulation of 24 June 1955 concerning the Protection of Wild Plants; Regulation of 24 June 1955 concerning the Protection of Non-Game Wild Birds; Regulation No. 2 of 24 July 1958 concerning the Protection of Non-Game Wild Birds; Directive of the Central Nature Conservation Administration of 22 August 1955 regarding the Procedure for the Declaration of Landscape Areas as Nature and Landscape Protection Areas, and of Individual Natural Areas as Natural Monuments, and regarding the Provisional Safeguarding of Unprotected Objects; Regulation of 24 June 1957 regarding the Declaration of Landscape Areas as Nature Protection Areas; Regulation No. 1 of 30 March 1961 concerning Nature Protection Areas (in which final protection status was awarded to nature protection areas provisionally protected by district councils in the period 1956–1958. It was followed by Regulation No. 2 of 30 April 1963 concerning Nature Protection Areas, Regulation No. 3 of 11 September 1967 concerning Nature Protection Areas, and Regulation No. 4 of 28 November 1983 concerning Nature Protection Areas.); Directive of 6 March 1956 und Regulation of 5 August 1959 regarding the Reclassification of Forests into Cultivation Groups, supplemented by the Directives of 8 July 1966 and 23 December 1967 regarding the Classification of Forests into Cultivation Groups; Water Act of 1963, mining regulations, land regulations, forest regulations, hunting regulations, guidelines for the protection of monuments, regulations for health cures and remedies, protection of the residential environment (mu- nicipal waste management, air pollution control, noise abatement); Directive of 5 September 1969 regarding Measures for the Protection and Care of Waterbirds in the GDR.

10

– systematically selecting, designating, and sign- scape Research and Landscape Protection publis- posting new nature reserves and landscape pro- hed five successive volumes of the „Handbook of tection areas; drafting management guidelines the Nature Protection Areas of the GDR”. for nature reserves and landscape protection Management guidelines for nature protection areas areas had been drafted earlier in the 1960s. They – performing landscaping activities aimed at pro- reflected a need for maintenance and, to an extent, tecting fields from erosion (including a large- for development in the protected areas, and thus scale program for planting poplars outside indicated an understanding on the part of conser- woodlands), and assisting in „Komplexmelio- vationists that the conditions they desired could be ration” (land improvement measures to facili- achieved only by expending effort on mainte- tate industrialized agricultural production )14 nance. This was a new development in conserva- – public outreach in the form of presentations tion theory. The guidelines took the place of sepa- and excursions, as well as designing exhibiti- rate, specific regulations and could be easily adap- ons, educational nature walks, hiking trails, ted if necessary. and natural history collections The first implementing order of the Nature Pro- A new kind of public outreach program called tection Act introduced the possibility of restric- Nature Protection Weeks (Naturschutzwo- ting the designation of nature protection areas in chen) was started in 1957. The concept was accordance with scientific priorities, such as the tested in pilot projects conducted in the dis- collection of data for the development of site-ap- tricts of Potsdam and Karl-Marx-Stadt in 1956, propriate forestry (forest protection areas, Wald- and was later established throughout the GDR, schutzgebiete) or the creation of refuges for ani- together with the Week of the Woods (Woche mal species or communities of animals (wildlife des Waldes). Each of the Weeks was dedicated reserves). Thus a systematic approach was taken to a centrally assigned conservation theme. In to selecting protected areas. In subsequent years, 1966, the tradition of Landscape Days (Land- a system of forest protection areas and water pro- schaftstage) was born. These events took place tection areas was developed, along with a system over several days and featured presentations of wildlife reserves that was „more difficult to de- and discussions. Initially they addressed prob- fine” (Großer 2002, p. 98). lems resulting from the growing popularity of The system of forest protection areas, which was large recreational areas. The first Landscape an early (and unconscious) reflection of the idea Day took place in Neubrandenburg in 1966 and of protecting natural processes, was inspired by addressed the issue of the Müritz lake district. calls made by Herbert Hesmer (from Eberswalde) It was here that the idea of national parks was to protect Naturwaldzellen, or „natural forest publicly debated for the last time. cells” (Hesmer 1934), and supported by Kurt Hueck with his call for „more forest reserves” (Hueck 1937). A System of Nature Protection Areas and One of the new protected area categories, the Landscape Protection Areas landscape protection area, was to be used above One area of conservation work on which there was all for recreation and the creation of recreational general agreement and cooperation was the syste- opportunities. Problems resulting from local and matic selection, designation, and signposting of weekend recreational activities had been on the new nature reserves. Following theoretical advan- rise since the late 1950s, exacerbated by certain ces in nature conservation associated with the Na- government policies such as the introduction in ture Protection Act, there emerged a system of na- 1966 of a five-day work week on alternate weeks. ture reserves designated according to scientific After the Berlin Wall was built in 1961, there was principles. Starting in 1972, the Institute or Land- a dramatic increase in the number of people tra-

14 Komplexmeliorationen encompassed a variety of measures, including the drainage of wetlands, the creation of large fields that could be worked with heavy machinery, the planting of windbreaks, the planning of industrial farming facilities, and the development of rural infrastructure.

11 veling to the woods and lake shores of these recre- ning and shift in conservation theory toward jus- ational areas, and to the shores of the Baltic Sea. tifying protection on scientific grounds and ac- The need for conservation work rose accordingly. tively preserving and shaping protected areas. Areas with lakes were hit particularly hard by these recreational demands on the countryside The First National Institute for Nature (Gloger 1962 and 2007). The law regulating the Protection Research in Germany Seven-Year Plan described the situation as follows: „New holiday areas shall be developed in With the approval of the Presidium of the Council the most beautiful areas of the Republic with par- of Ministers and in consultation with the Central ticular attention paid to climatic conditions” [...] Office for Research and Technology, the Institute „Local government bodies shall significantly ex- for Land Research and Nature Conservation (ILN) pand opportunities for weekend and local recrea- was founded as a member institution of the Ger- tion. The network of establishments where day man Academy of Agricultural Sciences (DAL), trippers can rest and get refreshment shall be im- effective April 1, 1953. The Institute had its head- proved, and new recreational areas featuring na- quarters in Halle/Saale and subsequently establis- ture parks and public parks shall be developed. hed five working groups for the areas correspon- Suitable land shall be made available by local ding to the five former states (Reichhoff and We- government bodies for weekend hostels [state-run gener 2016). In terms of its mandate, the ILN holiday accommodations], holiday housing deve- followed in the tradition of such institutions as the lopments, and camping grounds” (Henkel 1960, p. Prussian National Office for the Management of 10). Natural Monuments or the Reich Office for Na- A systematic approach was also taken to identi- ture Protection. The ILN was founded shortly be- fying and securing landscape protection areas. fore the Nature Protection Act was adopted. Both Part of the landscape areas protected under the the founding mandate of the ILN and the Nature Reich Nature Protection Act were converted into Protection Act point to a specific development landscape protection areas. The work of drafting within the German tradition of nature conserva- management plans for landscape protection areas tion. The principal mission of the ILN, as defined had begun in the 1960s. This, too, was a new ap- by the Act and the ILN charter, was to generate proach in conservation, and an idea that landscape and organize the knowledge of the landscape that architects such as Werner Bauch, Walter Funcke, was considered necessary for nature conservation and Harald Linke had been working on since the and landscape management. early 1960s (see references in Wübbe 1999). Spe- Section 13 of the Act sets out the role and cific details of these plans also go back to this pe- responsibilities of the ILN: riod, as can be seen in work published by Karl „(1) All natural science institutions and govern- Heinz Großer, head of the ILS branch office in ment conservation authorities shall work together Potsdam, among others (Großer 1967). Matters to ensure that nature conservation is practiced in relating to landscape planning were dealt with pri- accordance with scientific principles and know- marily in the district planning offices for regional, ledge. city, and village planning (later called Offices for (2) The German Academy of Agricultural Sci- Territorial Planning). ences in Berlin, Institute for Land Research and It should be noted at this point that the system of Nature Protection, shall harmonize the research protected areas including both nature protection work performed by various institutions in the field areas and landscape protection areas owed its of nature conservation; work with the Central Na- existence in large part to the sociopolitical chan- ture Protection Office; provide expert guidance to ges that resulted from the founding of the East the nature protection officers of the counties and German state, in particular to the fact that private districts, keeping them informed, during mutual property no longer presented the hurdle it once briefing sessions, of the current state of scientific had and public participation played virtually no research; and maintain connections with all scien- role in matters of policy. The approach to protec- tific institutions and organizations dedicated to tion that was taken in practice reflected a broade- nature conservation, both German and foreign.”

12

The ILN charter had previously defined three As at the headquarters, the branch offices later areas of responsibility for the Institute: employed full-time directors. A list of these direc- 1. perform regional landscape studies from biolo- tors and the years in which they were appointed gical, biogeographical, and site-specific per- follows: at the Jena office Ernst Niemann in 1963 spectives, and Walter Hiekel in 1978; at the Dresden office 2. study protected areas and objects, and provide Hans Schiemenz in 1959 and Rolf Steffens in expert advice regarding nature conservation 1985; at the Halle office Hugo Weinitschke in practices in the GDR, 1963 and Peter Hentschel in 1968; at the Potsdam 3. collect all previously published documents and office Karl Heinz Großer in 1962, Lutz Reichhoff maps for the various landscapes of the GDR. in 1986, and Matthias Hille in 1988; at the Greifs- wald office Harry Schmidt in 1963 and Gerhard The mandate given to the ILN clearly gave pri- Klafs in 1970. ority to landscape-related research, which initially The branch offices published their own regional was aimed at areas either worthy of protection or conservation magazines in cooperation with the already under protection and later increasingly district councils. These publications focused on concentrated on landscapes where agriculture and practical issues of nature conservation and fea- forestry were practiced or where mining had been tured articles from both government and volunteer conducted. This firm focus on research, with the conservationists. The first issue of „Naturschutz- mandate not only to organize and coordinate con- arbeit in Mecklenburg” (Nature Conservation servation studies but also to conduct independent Work in Mecklenburg) appeared in 1958, follo- research, was a new development in the history of wed by „Naturschutzarbeit und naturkundliche national nature conservation institutions in Ger- Heimatforschung in Sachsen” (Nature Conserva- many. tion, Natural History, and Heimat Research in Sa- The first director of the ILN was Hermann Meu- xony) in 1959, „Naturschutzarbeit und naturkund- sel, a botanist and university professor at Halle liche Heimatforschung in den Bezirken Halle und who held the position in a part-time capacity until Magdeburg” (Nature Conservation Work, Natural 1963. He was succeeded by two full-time direc- History, and Heimat Research in the Bezirke of tors: Ludwig Bauer (until 1974) and Hugo Halle and Magdeburg) in 1963, „Landschafts- Weinitschke (until 1991). pflege und Naturschutz in Thüringen” (Landscape The first branch offices were also established in and Nature Conservation in Thuringia) in 1964, 1953: one in Halle (initially housed at the head- and „Naturschutzarbeit in Berlin und Branden- quarters, then moved to Dessau in 1983), one in burg” (Nature Conservation Work in Berlin and Potsdam (for the districts in Brandenburg) and Brandenburg) in 1965. In 1961 another publica- one in Jena (for the districts in Thuringia). Addi- tion, the Archive for Nature Conservation and tional offices were opened in 1954 in Greifswald Landscape Research (Archiv für Naturschutz und and Dresden (for the districts in Mecklenburg- Landschaftsforschung), appeared. Published by Western Pomerania and Saxony, respectively). the German Academy of Agricultural Sci- Each of the branch offices conducted research for ences/Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the „scientific priority programs,” in addition to pro- GDR and edited by the ILN, it put greater empha- viding advisory and coordinating services. Initia- sis on scientific topics. lly there was only one part-time director, one to Many different professional and institutional re- two research associates, and a secretary for each lationships were formed with neighboring socia- of the branch offices. The branch offices were list countries. Only after legal changes in 1970 headed by H. Bohnstedt in Halle, W. R. Müller- (when the amended Nature Protection Regulation Stoll in Potsdam, J.-H. Schultze in Jena, K. H. C. was adopted) was the ILN able to profit from wi- Jordan in Dresden, and T. Hurtig in Greifswald. der-ranging international collaboration. All five men were university professors who Starting in the mid-1950s, a number of biologi- taught in the cities where their offices were lo- cal field stations were opened or reopened across cated. the GDR. Here, as at the ILN and its branch offices, scientists conducted applied ecological

13 research, assisted by volunteers. Some of the sta- 10. Neunzehnhain Hydrobiological Laboratory tions were later assigned to the ILN. By the 1960s, (county Marienberg/Saxony), a research and the list of field stations included the following teaching lab for hydrobiology (Müller 1965): 11. Dölzig Field Station, with a satellite station in 1. Seebach Bird Observatory (county Mühlhau- Finsterwalde. It was assigned to the ILN in sen, Thuringia), whose principal activities 1967 and focused on the problems of rec- were in the field of applied ornithology laiming lignite mining areas. 2. Steckby Bird Observatory (county Zerbst, Sa- Earlier, in 1956, the Working Group for the Pro- xony-Anhalt) tection of Animals Threatened with Extinction 3. Neschwitz Bird Observatory (Saxony), dedica- (Arbeitskreises zum Schutze vom Aussterben be- ted primarily to animal and ecological rese- drohter Tiere, AKSAT) was founded under the arch in the fields of Bautzen and in the ponds aegis of the ILN in Halle. and heath of Lausitz A new training facility for nature conservation, 4. Serrahn Biological Field Station (Mecklen- the Zentrale Lehrstätte für Naturschutz (Central burg), which focused for the most part on Educational Institution for Nature Protection), o- questions of applied ornithology and which, pened its doors on September 14, 1954, in Müritz- beginning in the 1960s, performed hydrologi- hof. By 1990, it had trained several thousand pro- cal studies and drafted guidelines for maintai- tection helpers. The facility was established by ning close-to-nature forest ecosystems Kurt and Erna Kretschmann and was managed by 5. Hiddensee Biological Research Institute, them until 1960. Subsequent directors were Wil- which worked mainly on biological studies of helm Linke (until 1975) and Dieter Martin (until the southern shore of the Baltic Sea, in parti- 1990). The facility received regular funding from cular the „Boddenlandschaft” (bodies of water the state budget from 1956 onward and was assig- along the shore that often form lagoons). The ned to the ILN in 1966. Institute’s Bird Observatory Department was The biological field stations and the Müritzhof the central coordinator of all bird-banding ac- facility all employed at most just one to two rese- tivities in the GDR, and the headquarters for arch associates and an average of two technical all studies on bird migration and bird biology. staff (see also Reichhoff 2011 on organizational developments). 6. Langenwerder Island Bird Preserve (between the island of Poel and the peninsula of Wustrow), where phytogeographical and me- teorological data were gathered, together with Nature Conservation from 1970 to 1982 data on coastal morphology 7. Müritzhof Field Office, Institute of Forest Pro- tection and Hunting at the Technical Univer- „Socialist Environment” Policy Sparks New sity Dresden, located in Tharandt, which pri- Hope Among Conservationists marily pursued research in animal ecology in As the economy grew in the 1960s, the objectives the Müritz lake district and practices of nature conservation expanded to 8. Fauler Ort Biological Field Station, Zoological address environmental impacts. These new objec- Institute at Martin Luther University Halle- tives included reducing noise pollution; maintai- Wittenberg. The field station was located near ning good water and air quality; protecting soil the nature protection area „Ostufer der Mü- from erosion; properly disposing of waste; and, ritz” and served primarily as a teaching station following the transition to industrial agriculture, for biology students. tackling overall problems resulting from the ma- 9. Field Station of the Research Center for nagement and development of agricultural lands- Limnology in Jena-Lobeda, located on Stech- capes. Almost inevitably, demands were made for lin Lake near Rheinsberg. Staff there studied comprehensive legislation that regulated not just the ecological consequences of using the wa- issues of nature conservation but also of environ- ters around Rheinsberg to supply cold water to mental protection. The term „Landeskultur” was the Rheinsberg nuclear power plant. taken out of its traditional agricultural context and

14 expanded to mean environmental protection.15 In 1969, a Standing Working Group for Socialist „Sozialistische Landeskultur” came to be synony- Environment Policy was created, also under Ti- mous with environmental policy and protection. 16 tel’s direction. It drafted the bill that was to A shift in this direction could be seen as early as become the Environment Act. Lawyer Ellenor 1963, when, at the urging of the Cultural Alliance Oehler played a key role in that work. Central Commission for Nature and Heimat, On May 14, 1970, the People’s Chamber proposals were submitted for a new law to replace (Volkskammer) of the GDR not only passed the the Nature Protection Act of 1954. Before the year Environment Act (Gesetz über die planmäßige was out, these proposals were adopted under the Gestaltung der sozialistischen Landeskultur – 18 title „Principles of Socialist Environment Policy Landeskulturgesetz, LKG) that superseded the in the GDR” by the Ministry of Agriculture and Nature Protection Act of 1954; it also adopted se- veral implementing orders (I.O. – Durchführungs- Forestry and declared a binding addendum to the verordnung, DVO) for the Act.19 Nature Protection Act. They were the legal The passage of the Environment Act was prece- precursor to the Environment Act of 1970. ded by an amendment of the Constitution of the The work of drafting this new law was resumed GDR that established nature conservation and en- in 1968. That year, under the leadership of Werner vironmental protection as responsibilities of the Titel—the deputy chairman of the Council of Mi- state. Article 15 of the Constitution, which, like nisters (Ministerrat) who had championed the the Environment Act, remained unchanged until „New Economic System of Planning and Man- the end of the GDR, stated: „(1) The land of the agement” (Neues Ökonomisches System der Pla- 17 German Democratic Republic is among its most nung und Leitung, NÖSPL) and was a perso- precious natural assets. It must be protected and nally interested advocate of and acknowledged efficiently used. Land used for agriculture or fo- expert in nature conservation and environmental restry may only be diverted to other uses with the protection—a group of representatives from the approval of the competent government authori- Friends of Nature and the Homeland, the ILN, and ties. (2) The State and society provide for the pro- pertinent universities studied the environmental tection of nature in the interest of the well-being situation and made projections „regarding the de- of all citizens. The maintenance of water and air velopment of socialist environment policy and its purity, the protection of the plant and animal specific objectives and practices.” world, and the safeguarding of the natural beauty of the Heimat [Homeland] shall be ensured by the

15 Landeskultur now referred to „sociopolitical measures for the sensible use and effective protection of the environment (environmental protection) through the combination of production practices with ecological, sociocultural, and aest- hetic requirements”. (BI-Handlexikon, 2nd ed. 1984) – In West Germany, Landeskultur retained its traditional mean- ing as a broad term encompassing measures for soil conservation, soil improvement, land reclamation, and land con- solidation. (Brockhaus-Enzyklopädie, 19th ed. 1990) 16 „Sozialitische Landeskultur” is translated here as „socialist environment policy” or „socialist environmental protec- tion.” „Die sozialistische Landeskultur umfasst alle staatlichen und gesellschaftlichen Maßnahmen zur planmäßigen und rationellen Nutzung und Gestaltung sowie zum Schutz der natürlichen Umwelt der Menschen. [Sie] zerfällt in fol- gende Teilkomplexe: Umweltschutz, Landschaftspflege und -gestaltung, Naturschutz.“ (Martin 1989, p. 6) 17 The New Economic System of Planning and Management, was an economic policy introduced in 1963. 18 Gegenstand dieses Gesetzes ist die planmäßige Entwicklung der sozialistischen Landeskultur als System der natürli- chen Umwelt und zum wirksamen Schutz der Natur mit dem Ziel der Erhaltung, Verbesserung und effektiven Nut- zung der natürlichen Lebens- und Produktionsgrundlagen der Gesellschaft – Boden, Wasser, Luft sowie Pflanzen- und Tierwelt in ihrer Gesamtheit – und zur Verschönerung der sozialistischen Heimat.“ (Environment Act, Section 1) 19 These regulations included the first I.O. concerning the Protection and Care of the Plant and Animal World and the Beauties of the Natural Landscape—Nature Conservation Regulation (Schutz und Pflege der Pflanzen- und Tierwelt und der landschaftlichen Schönheiten—Naturschutzverordnung); the second I.O. concerning the Accessibility, Ma- nagement, and Development of the Landscape for Recreation (Erschließung, Pflege und Entwicklung der Landschaft für die Erholung); the third I.O. concerning the Cleanliness of Cities and Municipalities and the Recycling of Resi- dential Waste (Sauberhaltung der Städte und Gemeinden und Verwertung von Siedlungsabfällen); and the fourth I.O. concerning Protection from Noise (Schutz vor Lärm).

15 competent authorities and are, moreover, the Act, Section 11), the Environment Act—like responsibility of every citizen.” A modern reading West Germany’s Federal Nature Protection Act of this article of the Constitution would find that (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, BNatSchG) of 1976 it defined environmental protection and environ- and various environmental protection laws of the mental management as the responsibilities or ob- 1970s20—provided a political response (even if in jectives of the state. The official order to draft the practice it was not realized for the most part) to Environment Act was issued by the Council of the „blessings” of an industrial energy revolution Ministers in February 1969 with explicit reference after the Second World War. This revolution in- to Article 15 of the Constitution (Oehler 2007, p. volved the increasing use of petroleum, natural 105). gas, and uranium and was distinguished by mass The Environment Act, as a „complex legal motorization, the widespread use of new techno- framework,” defined „fundamental goals and logies and chemicals in private households, the principles and [contained] basic regulations con- encroachment of human settlements on previously cerning nature and landscape conservation, soil, unspoiled areas, and the industrialization of the woods, water, air, waste, and noise. This frame- agricultural sector. Partaking in these „blessings” work was fleshed out and implemented by means was declared an important new social goal under of existing legislation that addressed certain sub- the Honecker administration, which came to jects as well as by regulations that were or would power following the removal of Walter Ulbricht be enacted as implementing orders for the En- as head of state in May 1971. It was to be accom- vironment Act. The stated aims of the Act were as plished by expanding the consumer goods sector follows: overcoming a lack of coordination and was encapsulated in a slogan—“the union of among government agencies and ministries with economic and social policy”—which was quoted regard to measures involving environmental im- incessantly. As a result of widespread shortages, pacts; long-term predictive studies; environmen- however, „consumerism” (Andersen 1996) gained tal impact reductions by means of economic in- relatively little ground compared to the industria- centives; improved economic results through the lized countries of Western Europe. identification and utilization of biogeochemical The strategy of integrating nature conservation cycles and multifunctionality; and cooperation into land use was placed on a firm legal footing by among the various target groups (for example the Environment Act. The „multiple use of lands- between polluters and those affected by pollution) capes” was considered to be a „principle of socia- with broad participation of the public. The list environment policy” (Weinitschke 1980, pp. preamble of the law made note of responsibility 78–79). Under this policy, conservation issues for future generations” (Oehler 2007, p. 106). were to be given the same priority as other inte- The Environment Act also extended the man- rests and to be reconciled with those interests date of nature conservation—which until then, in when deciding matters related to land use. As be- terms of both law and thus tradition, had focused came evident in the years that followed, however, its protective efforts primarily on „living nature,” interests such as agriculture, residential develop- that is, on animal and plant species and their habi- ment, and industry had precedence. tats—to such features of inanimate nature as soil, While the Nature Protection Act contained a se- water, air, and quiet (via noise abatement) (En- ries of clear requirements and prohibitions regar- vironment Act, Section 10). The list of action ob- ding protected objects and areas (even if their im- jectives was also expanded. The effect of these plementation proved increasingly difficult in changes was to completely free nature conserva- some respects), the Environment Act primarily tion from its previous perspective, which was con- contained objectives for representative as- servative and backward-looking. semblies, government institutions, social orga- With this expansion from landscape „protec- nizations, enterprises, and individual citizens re- tion” to landscape „management,” „design,” „de- garding the implementation of environmental re- velopment” (in the sense of planning), and „resto- quirements. The tools put at the disposal of nature ration” (of damaged landscapes, Environment and landscape conservation in the Environment

20 The goal of „restoration” (Wiederherstellung) was included in the amended Federal Nature Protection Act of 2002.

16

Act’s section on „landscape conservation and ma- tion Act („Property owners or those bearing le- nagement, and protection of the nature of the Hei- gal responsibility for the property [...] are to to- mat (homeland),” consisted of regulations con- lerate protective measures. These measures can cerning the protection of endangered species on be implemented through the use of police force the one hand and categories of protected areas on [... and] do not constitute grounds for compen- the other. sation”) was recast as an „obligation to sup- In terms of actual impact on the practice of na- port,” which demanded of property owners or ture conservation, it was not so much the Environ- those bearing legal responsibility for the pro- ment Act but the implementing orders (I.O.), perty that they „undertake any modifications „technical standards, quality regulations, delivery [... in order to] reconcile their [land] use with terms” (Technische Normen, Gütevorschriften measures set out in the management guidelines und Lieferbedingungen, TGL)21, and „department for nature reserves and landscape protection standards” that were key. The first I.O. regulated areas.” the protection and conservation of the plant and – Penalties for violating the provisions of conser- animal world and the beauties of the natural land- vation laws and regulations changed. While se- scape, while the second regulated how landscapes vere penalties could be imposed under the Na- would be managed, developed, and made acces- ture Protection Act, any violation of the first sible for the purpose of recreation. I.O. was dealt with as an infraction (Ordnungs- The first I.O., issued on May 14, 1970, and widrigkeit) and punished with a maximum fine given the title Nature Conservation Regulation of 200 East German marks. (Naturschutzverordnung), was based largely on – The list of categories of protected areas was ex- the Nature Protection Act of 1954, with respect to panded to include wetlands of international im- both structure and content. There were, however, portance (Feuchtgebiete internationaler Be- some appreciable differences: deutung, FIB), wetlands of national importance – The I.O. eliminated the term „nature conserva- (Feuchtgebiete nationaler Bedeutung, FNB), tion body” (Naturschutzorgan) and replaced and biosphere reserves. These changes came the heading of the relevant passage with „Ma- about in part through participation in internati- nagement of Nature Conservation” (Leitung onal conventions, in particular the 1971 des Naturschutzes). Local councils were made Ramsar Convention on wetlands, which came responsible for nature conservation across the into effect in 1975 and which the GDR adopted board. They had the authority to assign council in 1978 in accordance with a resolution of the members responsibility for nature conserva- Council of Ministers. In 1979, Steckby-Löd- tion, but were not obligated to do so. This ar- deritz and Vessertal were designated as biosp- rangement was seen, probably not without here reserves by UNESCO. A long stretch a- reason, as an attempt to further disorganize and long the Elbe River was also designated as a downgrade the significance of nature conserva- biosphere reserve. The Environment Act did tion. However, the terms for the administrative not provide for national parks or natural parks. bodies that dealt with conservation on the dis- The system of administration laid out for nature trict and county levels were so firmly establis- conservation under the Nature Protection Act of hed that, for the most part, they continued to be 1954 was retained, apart from the above-mentio- used. In some cases, a flood of submissions ned weakening of the obligation to appoint autho- was lodged with the council chairman, forcing rities, in particular at the county level. Nor were them to appoint a council member to handle any significant changes made in staffing, which matters related to nature conservation and en- continued to be completely inadequate. What was vironmental policy. new was the establishment of conservation field – The „obligation to tolerate” that was formula- stations, in particular in the districts of Neubran- ted with such stringency in the Nature Protec- denburg and Potsdam, and later in other districts.

21 National technical standards. They were requirements with the force of law and not mere guidelines.—Trans.

17

This resulted in more government employees seen as part- or full-time jobs. This helped dis- working on nature conservation at these locations. guise dire personnel shortages in government ad- The status of the unpaid, volunteer nature pro- ministrations. tection officers essentially remained unchanged. The Ministry for Environmental Protection and With the enactment of the first I.O., the position Water Management (Ministerium für Umwelt- of „nature conservation helper” was officially int- schutz und Wasserwirtschaft, MfUW) was estab- roduced. The unpaid, volunteer nature protection lished in 1972. Subordinate institutions were cre- officers and helpers received an identity document ated, including the following: a national environ- that entitled them to exercise the powers of a mental inspection agency and center for environ- public authority. These powers were the same for mental management; environmental inspection both groups. They were accorded a kind of right agencies in the districts; and standing commissi- of inspection. However, while the Nature Protec- ons for environmental protection, water manage- tion Act of 1954 stipulated that they were „to en- ment, and recreation in the district and county as- sure [...] that nature conservation regulations were semblies. Additional groups of volunteer conser- vationists, called working group for socialist en- followed,” after 1970 they were simply „to contri- vironmental protection (Arbeitsgruppe sozialisti- bute to the enforcement of legal regulations con- sche Landeskultur) were established by the dis- cerning nature protection.” trict councils to work on environment issues.22 In addition to the nature protection officers of In the early 1980s, the number of environmental the counties and their frequently active deputies, protection officers in factories and businesses be- there were communities of protection helpers and gan to rise, reflecting growing environmental other volunteers in all of the GDR’s 227 counties problems. The district councils and some of the (and East Berlin). Martin calculated that in 1982 county councils established standing working there were 12,000 protection helpers across the groups for socialist environmental protection country (amounting to approximately 53 per (Ständige Arbeitsgruppen sozialistische Landes- county). Wegener estimated that the number of kultur) and/or standing commissions for environ- active helpers ranged between 20 and 40 volun- mental protection, water management, and recre- teers per county. „Active counties” counted up- ation (Ständige Kommissionen Umweltschutz, wards of 100 helpers (Wegener 1998, p. 93). In Wasserwirtschaft, Erholungswesen). Personnel addition to the nature protection officers and hel- for „socialist environmental protection” were hi- pers, there were other volunteer conservationists. red in some state-run forestry operations, such as These people included district officers for wa- those in the district of Suhl and Magdeburg. terbird research (Working Order of November 27, While the Environment Act may have provided 1970), species protection and bird banding, as a legal basis for the strategy of integrating nature well as the appointed members of the Cultural Al- conservation into land use, it was a purely formal liance group, Friends of Nature and the Homeland one. Hopes that landscape planning would be in- (heads of the national, district- and county- level tegrated into spatial planning for the country as a expert committees, and various working groups). whole, and not limited to landscape protection Those working on an official basis as volunteers areas and nature reserves, remained unfulfilled. (in all of the above-mentioned positions) were le- The position of nature conservation generally was gally required to be reimbursed for their travel ex- weakened, particularly with respect to agriculture. penses. In addition, the nature protection officers Some progress could be seen in the explicit depar- of the districts and counties received a tax-exempt ture in the Environment Act and associated imple- menting orders from a preservationist philosophy lump-sum payment for the reimbursement of ex- of nature conservation. Among the stated goals of penses. The amount was set by the respective dis- the management guidelines for both nature reser- trict council. Volunteers were sometimes given ves and landscape protection areas were the ma- such generous leave from their paid work that nagement, development, and planning of lands- their protection activities could in some sense be capes. However, there were no other significant

22 For more on the organization of environmental protection in the GDR, see Behrens and Hoffmann (2007, pp. 41–47).

18 changes that could have helped accomplish the prestige projects were given unreasonable targets, expanded objectives of socialist environmental which were not restricted to large-scale land im- protection. provement programs for grasslands. Many agricu- The Environment Act of 1970, like the Nature ltural landscapes were radically reshaped to faci- Protection Act of 1954 before it, applied to both litate industrial production methods, including populated and unpopulated areas. In terms of its sprinkler irrigation and factory-style „animal pro- impact, however, it continued to be restricted lar- duction.” These efforts encompassed drainage gely to unpopulated areas and, in particular, to projects, the construction of access roads and in- protected areas and objects. dustrial farming facilities, land leveling, and land consolidation. „General land improvement plans” Socialist Intensification in Agriculture and (Generalmeliorationspläne), classified as con- Forestry fidential, were implemented systematically. These measures were initiated and enforced by As far back as the 1950s, conservationists had had high-level SED party leadership bodies, often in to contend with demands for extensive increases the face of resistance from the affected enterpri- in agricultural production. The idea of plowing up ses. Farmers did not generally accept these new meadows and pasture lands to gain additional developments as they led to a breakdown in the croplands, for instance, was widely promoted. At relationship between the village and the country- the time, calls to preserve or even expand grass- side and caused an increasing sense of alienation lands were seen as reactionary. In the 1960s, na- from the natural resources of production among ture conservation was increasingly confronted agricultural workers. Evidence of such alienation with problems resulting from intensified land use can be found in remarks made in 1971 by Hans- (including grassland use), and attendant land im- Friedrich Joachim of the Institute of Forestry Sci- provement and fertilization practices. The com- ences in Eberswalde. In a reference to the some- plete collectivization of agricultural production, times extreme denuding of fields and meadows, which had been achieved throughout the GDR by he stated: „Mention should be made of the benefit 1960 and which aimed to industrialize agriculture of bushes and small trees along field boundaries. and revolutionize social structures in villages, put Tractor drivers working on large areas need a vi- increased pressure on agricultural landscapes. sible boundary to the fields in which they work, Contributing further to extensive changes in the both to reduce symptoms of fatigue and to give country’s agricultural landscape were large-scale them a sense of achievement. Aspects of industrial drainage projects in major wetlands such as Fried- and organizational psychology and of occupatio- länder Große Wiese in Western-Pomerania and nal health and safety thus have a role to play in Wische in Altmark. These projects were carried deliberations regarding the planting of shrubs and out by young people as part of government-orga- small trees along large fields” (Joachim 1971, p. nized youth activity programs. 8). It was the policy of „socialist intensification,” The slogan „socialist intensification” origina- however, that first brought about really funda- ted at the Seventh Party Congress of 1967 in the mental changes in the agricultural landscape. The context of attempts to accelerate and intensify the resolutions of the SED’s Sixth Party Congress in use of scientific findings and technological advan- 1963 and Seventh Party Congress in 1967 contri- ces. Another slogan was „überholen ohne einzu- buted to the intensification of land use. holen”, a phrase that used the metaphors of „pul- The New Economic System of Planning and ling ahead” and „catching up” to suggest that the Management was announced at the Sixth Party East should overtake the West economically wit- Congress in 1963. This was an attempt to intro- hout following in its capitalist path. These slogans duce an economic management system that com- were created to further the implementation of the bined a planned economy approach with the price „Economic System of Socialism” (Ökonomisches mechanisms of the market. From that time on, the System des Sozialismus, ÖSS), as the New Eco- state mantras were „specialization, cooperation, nomic System of Planning and Management was and industrial production.” Pilot projects and referred to at this stage.

19

The power of the agricultural lobby can be seen stocking forestry (vorratspflegliche Waldwirt- in Article 15, Section 2, of the 1968 Constitution schaft) to be replaced for a short time by site-ap- of the GDR. While this new version of the Con- propriate forestry (standortgerechte Forstwirt- stitution enshrined nature conservation, it did not schaft). This brief phase—introduced on October contain the section in Article 26 of the 1949 Con- 18, 1961, by a decree of the Ministry of Agricul- stitution which named landscape design and ma- ture and Forestry on the Principles of the Silvicu- nagement as effective strategies for ensuring the ltural Management of Forests in the GDR23—was stability of agricultural production. This change a high point of site-appropriate forestry, in which was related to political and economic develop- stand tending continued to play a major role. ments which saw two new agricultural policies This phase came to an end in 1967, as Gerhard introduced on a grand scale following the Seventh Grüneberg, an influential member of the SED Party Congress in 1967. The first involved the use Central Committee, turned his attention from ag- of a variety of measures aimed at supporting in- riculture to forestry and pushed for the use of in- dustrial agriculture (drainage projects, construc- dustrial production methods there, too. These me- tion of access roads, and industrial agricultural fa- thods were also promoted at the Seventh Party cilities, etc.). The second called for the separation Congress and at the Tenth German Farmers Con- of animal and plant production and established gress in 1967. Forestry policy now favored the use two new enterprise types: Kooperative Abteilun- of heavy machinery, which led not only to the re- gen Pflanzenproduktion (KAP) and Kombinate newed dominance of clearcutting as a practice, but Industrielle Mast (KIM). KAP were cooperatives to ever-larger clearcuts. Under these conditions, timber production took the place of forest ma- that farmed areas encompassing multiple commu- nagement and growth. From 1970/71 on, forestry nities, while KIM—literally „industrial fattening was fully integrated into central economic plan- combines”—were large-scale animal production ning. Special mechanical harvesting crews were operations (Krenz 1996). Preservation-oriented formed as silvicultural practices receded into the landscape management were no longer desired. background. „Utility and economics, combined Food supply targets were raised despite the fact with pronounced dirigisme, determined what was that croplands were shrinking as a share of the done in the forests. District foresters and head fo- country’s total area and air pollution was nega- resters were essentially reduced to mere execut- tively affecting yields. As a result, the agricultural ors” (Milnik, Heyde, and Schult 1998, p. 212). sector was forced to constantly step up produc- This phase of socialist intensification in fo- tion. This led not only to a complete restructuring restry was marked, particularly in the 1970s, by of enterprise and land-use models, but to an in- increasingly frequent and ever larger clearcuts (up crease in the use of heavy machinery and agroche- to 30 hectares), greatly reduced cultivation of de- micals (applied using technology such as crop- ciduous species, and a rise in game populations. dusting), and to complex manipulations of soil The clearcutting inevitably led to the widespread moisture. The consequences were fertilizer and use of chemicals and heavy machinery, as well as pesticide residues in ground and surface water, as the establishment of pine and spruce monocul- well as growing soil erosion and compaction. tures. Increases in population targets for game, in- Large-scale animal production facilities caused cluding red deer, fallow deer, and roe deer, were additional water and air pollution. the result of the greater status accorded to hunting Forestry was not untouched by „socialist inten- as a part of the „developed social system of socia- sification.” In the mid to late 1950s, forced indust- lism.” rialization and better earning potential in other „Socialist intensification” continued to have an sectors resulted in an increasing number of fo- effect, especially in agriculture and forestry, until restry workers seeking employment outside their the late 1970s and, together with lignite mining, field. Soon there was a noticeable shortage of la- dominated the day-to-day problems of nature con- bor. Resulting pressure to streamline operations servation, which, despite the concerns and warni- caused the labor-intensive approach of optimal ngs of its advocates (see Meusel, Bauer, and

23 The original German title of this decree is „Grundsätze zur waldbaulichen Behandlung der Forsten in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik.“

20

Weinitschke 1961; Weinitschke 1962), received nature conservation. Cottbus had established itself virtually no attention. as one of the GDR’s principal coal and energy di- stricts early on, following the launch of a national The Oil Crisis and the Revival of Lignite coal and energy program in 1957. The east of the Mining district contained 45 percent of the country’s in- dustrially accessible lignite reserves. The three The revival of lignite emerged as a serious prob- lignite mines VE Braunkohlenkombinat Senften- lem for nature conservation following the oil price berg, VE Kombinat Cottbus, and VEB Schwarze shock of 1973 (when OPEC dramatically raised Pumpe Lauchhammer employed approximately the price of crude) and other price hikes for raw 79,000 people in the 1980s, amounting to 49.5 materials that the GDR had to import. By 1974, percent of all employees in the industry. In the the price of crude had increased by a factor of five. early 1980s, the SED and the political leadership This trend continued from 1975 to 1980. The price resolved to significantly expand lignite mining. per barrel rose from $1.80 in 1970 to $17.26 in Extraction targets for the district of Cottbus were 1979. That price then doubled within a year and set to rise from 148.9 million tonnes in 1980 to reached $32–34 per barrel in 1980 (Wenzel 1998, 200 million tonnes in 1990, and to stay at that le- pp. 67 and 74; Roesler 2012, p. 78). vel for „decades.” The district assembly of Cott- The strategy of the SED leadership was to re- bus therefore placed 45 lignite deposits totaling place oil with lignite. Considerable investments 172,000 hectares under protection. These „protec- were made in retrofitting measures, with the result ted mining areas” (Bergbauschutzgebiete) com- that funds were not available for repair and mo- prised 21 percent of the total area of the district. dernization needed elsewhere. Ambitious con- In 1980, there were 11 surface mines in opera- sumption-oriented programs, such as the housing tion. By 1989 six more had been started and five program, contributed to lower levels of invest- others—according to government plans—were ment in industry and accelerated the process of supposed to be shut down due to reserve deple- wear and deterioration in manufacturing facilities. tion. Records indicate that in 2000, operations This had the „side-effect” of reducing the role of were to commence at 21 surface mines. Three environmental protection in the one- and five-year hundred areas (villages, municipal districts, and plans (Paucke 1994). By 1990, maintenance costs residential developments) would have been affec- in the manufacturing sector had reached DM 49 ted by lignite mining. billion, the same level as investments. Seventeen Nature conservation was essentially a lost cause percent of total potential output went toward in lignite mining areas. The consequences of lig- maintenance and repair (Behrens 2007, p. 2). nite mining included the razing of towns and land- The constant expansion of lignite mining (as scapes, reductions in ground water levels, changes well as the construction of housing in previously undeveloped areas) resulted in a reduction of in topography, increased environmental impacts arable land. From 1971 to 1985, a total of due to air and water pollution, and spoil banks. If 45,729 hectares of cropland across the GDR was the mining program had been carried out as plan- reallocated to lignite mining. The total area of rec- ned, 12 nature reserves with a total area of 1,044 laimed mining fields, at 12,945 hectares for the hectares, large parts of 14 landscape protection same period, lagged far behind the total area of areas, and 17 parks with a total area of 129 hecta- reallocated croplands, both in terms of quantity res would have been bulldozed. In addition, 16 na- and quality (in particular soil utility). In the period ture reserves and 32 parks would have been affec- from 1971 to 1975, approximately 35 percent ted over the long term by reductions in groundwa- (4,914 ha) of the area that had been appropriated ter levels (Wittig 1982, pp. 4–17). for mining (14,282 ha) was reclaimed, while in The only jobs remaining to the ILN and its vo- the period from 1981 to 1985 that figure was only lunteers in those areas which actually were affec- 19 percent (3,038 ha reclaimed/15,930 ha approp- ted was to step up their efforts at taking inven- riated). tories and documenting natural processes in na- The district of Cottbus provides a good illustra- ture reserves, and to resettle selected animal and tion of the consequences of the lignite revival for plant populations to alternative biotopes.

21

In April 1989, the ILN presented a paper titled approximately 2.2 million tonnes of particulates „Concept for the Development of Nature Conser- and 5.2 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide per unit vation Measures in the County of Weisswasser in area. The principal industrial polluter was the coal View of the Expansion of Surface Lignite Mining and energy sector, which was responsible for 58 Begun in 1988.”24 Its predictions for the future of percent of sulfur dioxid emissions and 41 percent nature conservation were gloomy. According to of particulate emissions, followed by the chemical the paper, the expansion of lignite mining would industry at 12 percent of sulfur dioxid and parti- result in 62 percent of the district of Weisswasser culate emissions. The emissions were con- being razed. Approximately 90 percent of the dis- centrated in the districts of Cottbus, Frankfurt/O- trict would experience reductions in groundwater der, Halle, Karl-Marx-Stadt, and Leipzig. levels, and a number of nature conservation areas Industry in the areas around Halle and Leipzig and objects would suffer increased environmental largely used pre-war technology. Over half of the damage as a result of emissions. It called for as facilities operated by large chemical manufac- much information as possible to be collected from turers here, such as Leuna and Buna, were over 20 the protected areas that were threatened with de- years old in 1990 (Nyssen 1992, p. 15, footnote struction in order to document what had been 11). One of the consequences was that a large worthy of protection there. It also recommended number of the plants’ employees had to be assig- that genetic resources be secured and an attempt ned to repairs. Prisoners and conscientious objec- be made to resettle certain animal and plant spe- tors (called Bausoldaten, or construction soldiers) cies to other locations. were also assigned to these jobs, which were so- metimes quite dangerous (Vesting 2003). Between 1974 and 1989, regions with particu- Nature Conservation from 1982 to 1989 larly high air pollution levels were found to have an increased incidence of respiratory and other il- Environmental Problems—Signs of the lnesses. In some cases, there were quite signifi- Collapse of the GDR cant increases. For example, the number of child- ren suffering from bronchitis in these areas jum- By the 1980s, certain regions of the GDR—the in- ped by approximately 50 percent during this pe- dustrial areas centered around Leipzig and Halle riod. Thirty percent of the children had endo- foremost among them—were facing catastrophic genous eczema. It was estimated that the main im- environmental conditions as a result of the revival pacts on health in these regions, apart from respi- of lignite mining, the consequences of its use in ratory diseases, were psychosomatic disorders. the chemical industry, accelerating deterioration The principal causes of environmental pollution of manufacturing facilities, the burning of lignite and land „misuse” in the industrial problem regi- as heating fuel, and the continued policy of inten- ons of the GDR were lignite mining and the che- sive farming and forestry. mical industry, in particular product lines (such as In the late 1980s, the GDR’s main energy carbide) which had been discontinued in other sources were, as a share of total power generation, lignite at 70 percent, followed by petroleum at 12 countries for economic and ecological reasons. percent, and natural gas at 10 percent. The The country’s often dilapidated factories were a country’s gross domestic energy consumption, at hotbed of health problems, occupational ac- 233 gigajoules per capita, was one of the highest cidents, environmental hazards, and state sur- in the world. Only Canada, the United States, veillance (Plötze 1997; Thielbeule 1983; Hülße Scandinavia, and Luxembourg consumed more 1986; Landkreis Bitterfeld 1996). energy per person. The GDR had the highest le- In 1989, 54.3 percent of the forests in the GDR vels of sulfur dioxide and particulate pollution in showed evidence of negative environmental im- all of Europe, with annual emissions amounting to pacts, 16.4 percent to a moderate or extreme

24 „Konzept zur Entwicklung der Naturschutzarbeit im Kreis Weißwasser unter der Ausweitung des Braunkohlenberg- baues ab 1988 (Bestandteil der komplexterritorialen Raumstudie Weißwasser),” 7 April 1989, folder of correspon- dence for the district of Cottbus 1974–1989 (Schriftwechsel Bezirk Cottbus), ILN Archive, Brandenburg Landesamt für Umwelt.

22 degree, and 37.9 percent to a lesser degree. The 13,000 waste disposal sites, of which approxi- environmental report of the GDR shows an in- mately 2,000 were for industrial waste and appro- crease in negatively impacted wooded areas from ximately 11,000 for municipal waste. In all, 87 31.7 percent in 1987 to 54.5 percent in 1989. percent of investments in waste disposal were tar- Significant funds and effort were needed to geted at the creation or expansion of capacity for make the GDR’s scarce natural water resources the safe disposal of industrial waste; these invest- usable as a stable and sufficiently high-quality ments were aimed at safeguarding continued pro- water supply for the general population, industry, duction, above all in the energy, chemical and mi- and agriculture and to protect the water in water- ning industries. Municipal waste was handled lo- courses that crossed international borders or ran cally and disposed of for the most part in unregu- into the Baltic Sea. The state of the main water- lated sites. Of the approximately 11,000 munici- courses in the GDR was such that in 1990 only 20 pal waste disposal sites, only 120 were sanitary percent of classified river sections could be used landfills. Another 1,000 were regulated landfills for drinking water abstraction when normal water and the rest were created and operated without au- treatment technologies were applied. Complicated thorization or regulation (see Petschow, Meyer- and very expensive treatment technologies were hoff, and Thomasberger 1990 on the environmen- required for 35 percent, and 45 percent were no tal performance of the GDR). longer usable for drinking water at all. In early 1990, 67 percent of industrial wastewater requi- Classified Environment Data and ring purification was processed in wastewater tre- Environmental Dissidents atment plants. Of municipal wastewater, 85 per- cent was treated. Of the wastewater discharged It is not surprising that as adverse environmental into watercourses, 14 percent was untreated. Me- impacts became increasingly evident, environ- chanical processes were used in 36 percent of ment data became a potentially explosive issue for wastewater treatment, and a combination of me- the government of the GDR. There was no official chanical and biological processes in 52 percent. assessment of the situation until 1990, when the Phosphorus was removed from 14 percent of the Environment Report of the GDR was published. total wastewater. A great many of the wastewater Several years prior to that, the Presidium of the plants and pipelines were in need of repair. Of the Council of Ministers had passed a resolution es- existing 36,000 km of wastewater pipelines, ap- tablishing the confidentiality of environment data. proximately 26,000 km were damaged, in some This Directive Regarding the Collection, Proces- cases badly damaged. More than half the organic sing and Safeguarding of Information about the pollution load was discharged into watercourses Condition of the Natural Environment of the GDR untreated. (Anordnung zur Gewinnung oder Bearbeitung In 1988, the GDR produced 91.3 million tonnes und zum Schutz von Informationen über den Zu- of solid industrial waste and secondary raw mate- stand der natürlichen Umwelt in der DDR) issued rials (compared to 80 million tonnes in 1980). Of on November 16, 1982, was followed by a second this waste, 39.9 percent was recycled (compared directive on April 27, 1984. These directives re- to 36.4 percent in 1980). Part of the remaining flected the rigidity of the political system and the 60.1 percent was stored with a view to foreseeable unwillingness of the SED leadership to engage in recycling opportunities that would allow the ma- dialog. terial to reenter the economy and be reused. A It is equally unsurprising that under conditions considerable amount of unusable waste was relea- such as these an environmental movement of dis- sed directly or indirectly into the environment, sidents and independent thinkers sprang up. One however. In 1989, approximately 3.9 million ton- of the first independent environmental groups to nes of solid municipal waste were recorded, of emerge had its roots in tree-planting campaigns which 2.9 million tonnes were household waste. carried out by church youth groups in the town of There was not a complete record made of the Schwerin in 1979. Starting in early 1981, this number and state of waste disposal sites for in- group, centered around Jörn Mothes and Nikolaus dustrial waste and municipal waste in 1989, but Voss, held annual ecology seminars which until according to data for 1988, there existed at least 1983 were the most important platform for orga-

23 nizing and networking in the environmental mo- The environmental problems described above vement. The church was virtually the only place and the work of those who tackled them—both in where an independent ecology movement could the independent environmental movement and in develop (Beleites 2007, p. 185; Gensichen 1994 the critical groups of the Cultural Alliance—hel- and 2007). The church research center (Kirchli- ped to make a „healthy environment” one of the ches Forschungsheim) in Wittenberg—became top priorities of the citizens of the GDR in 1989. the organizational center of the movement. It pub- lished the first issue of its magazine „Briefe zur Government Conservation Work—between Orientierung im Konflikt Mensch—Erde” (Let- Principles and Practice ters Providing Direction in the Conflict between Man and Earth) in 1981. Starting in 1982, at the Government conservation authorities were no initiative of the church, the church research center match for the country’s growing conservation hosted an annual gathering of representatives of problems. The general lack of conservation per- church-sponsored environmental groups. The sonnel in district and county administrations con- Umweltbibliothek (Environment Library) was tinued into the 1980s. The ILN addressed the founded on September 2, 1986, by activists who problem at a meeting of its branch managers and had previously been part of a church-centered Dölzig department staff in Müritzhof on June 24– peace and environment group in Berlin-Lichten- 25, 1986. A document summarizing the results of berg. The group was given space in the Zionskir- the meeting assessed the performance of govern- che church in Berlin-Mitte and started publishing ment conservation authorities and provided a its „Umweltblätter” (Environment Papers) the trenchant account of the general situation: same year it was founded. From 1985 to 1989, – „Local representative assemblies, at both the there were about 60 to 65 independent environ- district and county levels, occupy themselves ment groups across the country, with a total mem- with questions of nature conservation very ra- bership of between 550 and 850 people. They rely (once every five years, on average). came together to form the Netzwerk Arche (Ark – The council members in charge of these issues Network) in 1988, and later the Grüne Liga work on them with similar infrequency, unless (Green League) in 1990. they are given particular cause to do so through One of the principal activities of these groups input from the citizenry (usually regarding was to organize regional protests on issues inclu- only specific, local problems) or proposals ding „coal, chemicals, forest dieback, highway made by the ILN. Conservation is almost uni- construction, waste, uranium, nuclear power que among the subjects handled in government plants, and large-scale, collectivized farming” departments, in that government direction, gui- (Beleites 2007, p. 187). The growth of indepen- delines, or reporting obligations either do not dent environmental groups reflected a failure on exist at all or are rudimentary. This is true of the part of the state to attract people to comparable both central and district administrations. In state-sponsored groups, such as those in the Cul- tural Alliance. One such institution, the Society some cases, however, individual council mem- for Nature and Environment (Gesellschaft für Na- bers may be personally interested in conserva- tur und Umwelt, GNU) was founded as part of the tion and as a result may be unusually dedicated Cultural Alliance on May 27, 1980. It was inten- to the job. ded to provide a „home” to conservationists as – In the districts, a single government employee well as environmental activists who were con- is tasked with all matters related to nature con- cerned with urban and industrial environmental servation and only rarely does this person pos- problems, and it formed working groups to study sess the qualifications required of the job. Mo- issues of urban ecology. Cultural Alliance records reover, it is common for additional, regularly for 1987 show 380 urban ecology groups with a recurring tasks to be given to this employee, total of 7,000 members. The Cultural Alliance did who is generally considered to be non-essen- not accomplish its mission of serving as a home to tial. The position typically also has a high tur- these groups, however. nover (particularly when held by enterprising

24

staff who are familiar with the ways of the ad- government-administered nature conservation ministration). By and large, work at the district is virtually non-existent for years at a time (ap- level can be characterized as a „one-person prox. 20 percent of the counties). job.” – According to a resolution made by the district – At the county level, matters pertaining to na- council of Rostock in 1982, counties that are ture conservation are—or are supposed to be— located in industrial regions or possess large dealt with by staff in the hunting and nature hunting grounds, and as a result have heavy conservation department. The ‘double-hatted’ workloads in either conservation or hunting, status of the department, together with the fact should handle these workloads separately, with that it reports to two different authorities (the each assigned its own government employee. chairperson of the county council and the Ag- This has not yet been implemented. riculture and Forestry Department), place high – The lack or inadequacy of government person- demands on its staff and in practice mean that nel has a particularly negative impact on the re- 80 to 90 percent of the work they do is related view process for site permits. Leaving aside the to hunting. (This is particularly true of counties lack of consistent and binding regulations re- that hold large amounts of woodland, accord- garding the involvement of nature conservation ing to statements made by government authorities in the preparation of all landscape- employees.) altering measures, project documents submit- – The collective agreement (Rahmenkollektiv- ted for conservation-related review to county vertrag) for public authorities mentions only a councils are approved without reservation, pro- „head of the subject area of hunting.” There is vided no nature reserves or natural monuments no mention at all of the subject area of nature are affected. The provisions laid out in regula- conservation. The ranking on the salary scale is tions such as those concerning species protec- relatively low. This is the reason (or pretext) tion continue to be completely disregarded! for the great neglect of conservation work, a- This causes valuable matter to be irretrievably long with the fact that the issues of nature con- destroyed or damaged. servation are not easy to grasp and require hig- – Under these circumstances (and with some her qualifications. The number of counties in exceptions), there can be no question of which government conservation work is applying landscape conservation principles „good,” that is, performed effectively, is esti- and [effectively] working with landscape pro- mated at 20 percent. tection areas. Even in some of the district coun- – At the county level, the effective functioning of cils, landscape protection areas—even those of government conservation work is restricted to central importance—are excluded from the counties in which either or both of the follo- sphere of responsibility of the forestry and con- wing hold true: the county has an enterprising servation departments (for example, the district volunteer force (county nature protection of Rostock). In some cases, this work is taken officers and helpers) and/or the government on by the Environment, Water Management employee responsible for nature conservation and Recreation Department. has a personal interest in it. In some cases, – The training of government conservation offi- members of the Environment, Water Manage- cials on the district level […] is inadequate; as ment and Recreation Department, despite ha- a result, only those staff who are very assured ving a heavy workload related to the depart- and extremely dedicated meet the expectations ment’s own affairs, have performed conserva- placed on them. tion-related tasks better, or have been the only – The public authorities responsible for nature ones to accomplish them at all (documentation conservation do not have the capacity or work available). methods needed to move beyond the activities – When the position of the county nature protec- of old-style, defensive, preservationist nature tion officer is not filled or is inadequately fil- conservation (placing areas/objects under pro- led, and the composition of the county council tection, or creating/enforcing regulations ai- is unfavorable, a situation can arise in which med at mitigating impacts). As a result, it is not

25

possible to implement constructive, long-term Nature Conservation from 1989 to 1990 plans in harmony with use and protection. The standing of nature conservation cannot be rai- Last-Minute Strategies for Change sed under these conditions. – The ILN is required by law to provide expert An amended version of the Nature Conservation advice to [public authorities entrusted with] Regulation titled „Protection and Care of the Plant conservation work [...]. This requires that we and Animal World and of the Beauties of the Na- have partners in government who are authori- tural Landscape” (Schutz und Pflege der Pflan- zed to take this expert knowledge into conside- zen- und Tierwelt und der landschaftlichen ration and apply it in the implementation of Schönheiten) was enacted on May 18, 1989, government guidelines. Without such partners, shortly before the tumultuous events of October research and consultation work in this sector and November 1989. The regulation came into are ineffective. The same is true of unpaid, vo- effect on June 19, 1989, and introduced several lunteer nature protection officers, who are only improvements to the government’s toolkit of con- rarely able to wholly fulfill their social func- servation practices. It was the result of efforts on tion. The esteem in which this function is ge- the part of the ILN to devise a new strategy for nerally held is a reflection of this fact. nature conservation. – As a result of the situation regarding public au- While tackling conservation issues in the natural thorities, complicated conservation work landscape as a whole did not conflict with traditi- (large-scale water management projects, land onal conservation theory and objectives, the work improvement, traffic, etc.) is passed on to the of the ILN, researchers in cooperating institutes, regional working groups of the ILN, whose and conservation volunteers focused on protected lack of capacity forces them to make ad hoc objects and areas (or those deserving of protec- evaluations and assessments that do not do jus- tion) and performed research in large natural mo- tice to the scope and long-term consequences numents, nature protection areas and landscape of these measures. When it comes to imple- protection areas. Conservation successes were lar- mentation, narrow departmental considerations gely limited to these „islands” in the countryside, often tip the scale against optimizing conditi- with large natural monuments and nature protec- ons in the economy and society as a whole. Be- tion areas far ahead of landscape protection areas cause of its limited capacity, it is seldom pos- in terms of priority. The system of nature protec- sible for the ILN to monitor and evaluate the tion areas was considered to be complete as far back as the early 1970s. The areas protected under results.”25 that system constituted at best 0.9 percent of the The signatories to this document made several total area of the GDR and did not conform to the suggestions for overcoming discrepancies between legal regulations and actual conservation dominant, industrial form of land use. The limits practices. The suggestions were modest conside- of the „island” approach to nature conservation ring the extensive list of shortcomings that they could be seen in areas where lignite mining or in- were addressing, however, and were largely rest- tensive agriculture and forestry were heavily pro- ricted to increases in staffing, better qualifica- moted, or where marginal lands were re-assigned tions, and higher wages. to non-agricultural use. The problem of threats to Thus the prospects for nature conservation to- biodiversity, and consequently of cultivar loss and ward the end of the GDR looked anything but the need to protect cultivars, was sufficiently well bright, and without the selfless work of unpaid, known and yet was not reflected in conservation volunteer nature protection officers and other vo- practices. lunteers, there would have been no progress (We- As early as 1976, at a conference in Wesenberg, gener 1998, p. 89). Mecklenburg, 25 leading members of national and

25 ILN publication, „Zur Wirksamkeit der staatlichen Organe auf dem Sektor Naturschutz als Teil der sozialistischen Landeskultur, Greifswald, den 25.8.86, unter Verwendung der Zuarbeiten von Dr. Hentschel, Dr. Hiekel und Dr. Reichhoff zusammengestellt von Dr. G. Klafs,” folder of correspondence for the Bezirk of Potsdam and Berlin, Mee- tings of the Bezirk Council 1970–1989 (Schriftwechsel Bezirk Potsdam und Berlin, Beratungen RdB), ILN Archive, Brandenburg Landesamt für Umwelt.

26 district botany committees called for a new con- of redefining nature conservation as the selection cept of nature conservation, one „that is commen- of proper scientific, legal and practical measures surate with the present and future conditions of should, they said, be used primarily in the protec- land use” (Weber 1998, p. 159). tion of species and forms. They identified the red The traditional concept and practices of nature lists created in the 1970s as „guideposts for a tac- conservation, now almost one hundred years old, tical approach in nature conservation” (Reichhoff appeared increasingly obsolete in the face of fai- and Böhnert 1987, pp. 151–152). The authors cal- lures to tackle conservation issues outside of pro- led for the preventive protection of species and ha- tected areas. bitats. In 1987, employees of the ILN published ideas The concept of resources as a category that for a new definition and strategic realignment of would guide the definition of objectives and prac- conservation. These ideas, which they had been tices was intended to promote the acceptance of preparing for years, articulated a clearer distinc- nature conservation among those who thought pri- tion between the objectives and practices of nature marily in economic terms and acted on the basis conservation and those of environmental protec- of economic considerations. These people in- tion and landscape management (Reichhoff and cluded political decision-makers, staff in other Böhnert 1987). In an approach based on the con- public institutions and administrations, and not cept of resources, they divided natural resources least land users. In this way, species and biotope into exhaustible and inexhaustible resources and protection could be depicted as a measure to pro- the latter category into restorable (soil, biomass, tect exhaustible, unrecoverable, developmentally ecosystems, landscapes) and unrestorable re- active natural resources, thereby safeguarding the sources. The unrestorable resources were divided basic prerequisite of any economic utilization of into those that were developmentally passive (fos- such resources. sil fuels, ores, and minerals) and those that were The phrase „diversity of the species and forms developmentally active (diversity of species and of organisms” was included in the new nature con- forms in organisms, genetic diversity of populati- servation regulation. This change improved the le- ons). Based on this system, they derived strategic gal basis of species and biotope protection and tactical objectives of nature conservation. considerably. Section 11 (2) of the regulation int- Nature conservation, according to their theory, roduced the concept of „total reserve” (Totalreser- was principally concerned with the protection of vat) and expanded the protection of natural pro- exhaustible, unrestorable, developmentally active cesses; Section 12 introduced the legal category resources. Environmental protection was con- of biosphere reserve and Section 13 that of protec- cerned with inexhaustible resources; and lands- ted wetlands; Section 14 enabled the designation cape management was concerned with ex- of sanctuaries for species threatened with extinc- haustible but restorable resources. Resource eco- tion; Section 15 established natural monument nomics, on the other hand, was concerned with ex- areas as an independent category and expanded haustible, unrestorable, developmentally passive the maximum possible protected area from three resources (Reichhoff 2009). to five hectares; Sections 20 and 21 used the term On the basis of this theory, the strategic goal of „red list” and regulated the protection of the loca- nature conservation was defined as the preserva- tions of protected plants and the habitats of pro- tion of the diversity of species and forms within tected animals; Section 22 regulated the designa- living nature (Reichhoff and Böhnert 1987, pp. tion of other protected organisms (for example, 148–149). The authors then developed premises fungi); and Section 24 introduced ecologically for the establishment of a „unified theoretical con- important areas (protected biotopes) (Reichhoff ception of nature conservation” and for conserva- 2009). Toward the end of 1989, numerous small tion research. In view of profound changes in the areas across the GDR were provisionally protec- diversity of natural species and forms, they felt re- ted in accordance with Sections 15 and 24. search needed to focus on preserving threatened The new regulation would not ultimately have populations of species and forms and to do from remedied the problem of understaffing in govern- the perspectives of evolutionary biology, popula- ment conservation departments. The role of vo- tion genetics, and population ecology. This tactic lunteers, however, was strengthened. Section 6,

27 for example, called for citizen participation in head of the church research center in Wittenberg, conservation work. The possibility of forming ad- Hans-Peter Gensichen; from conservationists visory committees for nature conservation (Sec- Uwe Wegener and Heinz Quitt working in the tion 7) was also new. In effect it reintroduced the High Harz; and from others in Sächsische volunteer-staffed conservation offices that had Schweiz. been abolished by the Nature Protection Act of Through March 1990, Succow brought many 1954. people with him to the nature conservation divi- sion of the Ministry. Among them were Rolf The National Parks Program of the GDR Caspar, former secretary of the governing board of the Society for Nature and Environment in Ber- The unexpected opening on November 9, 1989, of lin, Hans-Dieter Knapp (self-employed botanist), the border separating East and West Germany was Matthias Freude of the Humboldt Universität zu followed by the formation of a new government Berlin, Lutz Reichhoff of ILN Dessau (and De- headed by Hans Modrow (from November 18, puty Director of the ILN), Wolfgang Böhnert of 1989, to the early elections of March 18, 1990). It ILN Dresden, Lebrecht Jeschke of ILN Greifs- also heralded a new period of nature conservation wald, and several leading ILN staff members. that set many milestones and laid the foundations for a national parks program of the GDR. The idea On January 27–28, 1990, conservationists from of a national parks program for the entire GDR, East and West Germany met in Berlin for a major which would preserve and develop large areas of conference on nature conservation. The preceding the countryside, emerged in a variety of places. weeks had been spent in a lively exchange, rene- One of those places was Waren an der Müritz wing contacts that had been largely severed after (Knapp 2012, p. 53), where an action group had the Wall was built in 1961. As the Cultural Alli- formed, demanding the closure of the state ance member organization Society for Nature and hunting grounds located on Lake Müritz. „The Environment slowly collapsed in the months from group was quick to react to the political changes November 1989 to March 1990, a number of new and, by December 18, 1989, had presented the Pe- groups were founded in the GDR. These included ople’s Chamber, Prime Minister Modrow, and the the Grüne Liga (Green League), a network of in- Round Table of the GDR with a nine-page dependent, local environment groups, and the Na- document detailing the steps needed to establish a turschutzbund der DDR (Nature Conservation national park on Lake Müritz and outlining a na- League of the GDR). This latter group, formed on tional parks program for landscapes in regions March 18, 1990, was a spin-off of the Society for that they deemed particularly worthy of protec- Nature and Environment. In addition, an increa- tion. These included Southeast Rügen, Darß- sing number of environmental organizations ope- Zingst-Hiddensee, the area around Müritz, Spree- rating in West Germany, including BUND, WWF, wald, the area around the Middle Elbe, the Elbe and Greenpeace, established branches in the GDR sandstone highlands, Eichsfeld, and Rhön. This (Behrens 2010 b). document named eight of the fourteen areas later The first meeting of the Central Round Table protected under the unification agreement (Rösler (Zentraler Runder Tisch) took place on December 1998, p. 562). 7, 1989. The Central Round Table convened a to- The Ministry of Nature Conservation, Environ- mental Protection and Water Management (Mi- tal of 16 times before its last meeting on March nisterium für Naturschutz, Umweltschutz und 12, 1990. The „round tables,” which were also Wasserwirtschaft, MNUW) was founded on Janu- held at local levels, had become „new forms of re- ary 1, 1990. On January 15, 1990, Michael Suc- presentation and legitimation” (Bundeszentrale cow was appointed deputy minister, in charge of für politische Bildung 2013) that tried to fill the resource protection and land use planning. Like power vacuum left after the rule of the SED and the Müritz action group, Succow had proposed the its bloc parties collapsed. The Central Round designation of several national parks in letters Table formed a working group for „ecological re- written in December 1989 to the then Minister of organization” (ökologischer Umbau), which Environmental Protection and Water Manage- presented the results of its activities on March 5, ment. More ideas for national parks came from the 1990, with a „Proposal Regarding the Inclusion of

28

Ecological Principles in Social and Economic De- „The plan was for each district to establish a na- velopment.”26 On April 4, 1990, the Central ture conservation department with a staff of ap- Round Table presented a constitution for a de- proximately eight people. There would be one mocratic and independent GDR based on the prin- person each assigned to species protection, lands- ciples of the welfare state and environmentally cape planning, the protection of woods and parks, sustainable development. „But at this point the po- land use planning, and soil conservation. In addi- litical revolution of the GDR had already moved tion, the districts were to establish nature conser- beyond reform positions such as these. In the end, vation centers, each with a staff of five to ten pe- the Round Table was merely left with the job of ople, and nature conservation stations, each with organizing the first free elections in the GDR, a staff of eight to twenty people. With a view to which were brought forward from May 1990 to the future reintroduction of the states, two March 18, 1990” (Bundeszentrale für politische employees were to be hired per district and tasked Bildung 2013). with setting up environment agencies for the sta- Another round table, the Central Green Table of tes. There were to be changes on the county coun- the GDR, was established by the MNUW. It met cils as well, with three to five employees assigned for the first time on January 24, 1990. Among the to nature conservation and land use. This amoun- issues it discussed was the national parks pro- ted to approximately 1,400 jobs (N.N./Umweltre- gram. The Green Round Table met again on Feb- port 1990). Large parts of the reform were imple- ruary 21, 1990, but was disbanded after the elec- mented in April. Approximately 1,000 new jobs tions on March 18. were created in nature conservation, most of them In early February, 1990, Hans-Dieter Knapp for- filled by people who had previously been active med a National Parks Committee at the MNUW. in conservation in their leisure time. They now Its members included ministry staff as well as re- formed the indispensable basis not only of the presentatives of citizens’ initiatives and members GDR’s national parks program but, more gene- of local administrations from the areas affected by rally, of nature conservation in the GDR and, la- the plans for large-scale protected areas. Meetings ter, in the five new states” (Rösler 1998, p. 567). were initially held once per month but became In March, the Ministry succeeded in closing all much more frequent in the summer of 1990. the industrial animal production facilities for en- Earlier, on January 30, 1990, a preliminary vironmental reasons, with the exception of one in proposal for a national parks program had been Ferdinandshof, Western-Pomerania. drafted. It contained the categories „national Among the most remarkable conservation mea- park,” „biosphere reserve,” and „natural park re- sures taken in the short period of the Modrow ad- serve” (Naturschutzpark), this last category being ministration was the founding of the International a more strongly preservationist variant of the ca- Nature Conservation Academy on the island of tegory of „natural park” (Naturpark), which was Vilm, which until then had served as a resort for enshrined in the West German Federal Nature East Germany’s political elite. At that point, Protection Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, cooperation with the West was already suffi- BNatSchG). Succow presented this proposal to ciently advanced that the academy was establis- the Central Round Table at its meeting on Febru- hed with the agreement of the West German En- ary 5, 1990. The Round Table approved it unani- vironment Ministry. mously and requested that the government make On March 16, 1990, the Council of Ministers ap- the necessary funds available promptly (Rösler proved a draft resolution for the national parks 1998, p. 566). program. It named six biosphere reserves, five na- In mid-February, the MNUW issued its first re- tional parks, and twelve natural park reserves and gulation aimed at strengthening government con- called for these areas to be provisionally secured servation work. It resulted in the formation of as landscape protection areas of central im- functioning conservation authorities in the coun- portance. On the basis of this resolution, develop- ties and districts. ment committees with 20 members each were es- tablished in the affected areas, and 6.55 million

26 StUG 004-1. Collection of the Grüne Liga e.V.

29

East German marks were set aside for the program those issues which were not covered by the Fe- in that year’s budget (1990). deral Nature Protection Act but for which provisi- ons had been made in the GDR’s Environment Environmental Union and the Safeguarding of Act and Nature Conservation Regulation. Examp- the „Family Silver of German Unification”27 les included nest protection zones and biosphere reserves. In May and June, as the prospect of en- The government of Prime Minister Lothar de Mai- vironmental union drew ever closer, the idea of ziere, formed following the election of March 18, natural reserve parks died. As political unification 1990, took up the mandate of the previous admi- approached ever faster, efforts focused on nistration and allowed work on the national parks securing as many areas of the national parks pro- program to continue. This was the primary focus gram as possible via the unification agreement. of its work on conservation, alongside the conso- This was imperative, as GDR law would only lidation of conservation authorities. apply in those areas not covered by the Federal On April 12, 1990, the MNUW was renamed the Nature Protection Act for a limited time after the Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation, transition. [...] Energy and Nuclear Safety (Ministerium für Um- The Environmental Framework Law stated in welt, Naturschutz, Energie und Reaktorsicherheit, Article 6, Nature Conservation and Landscape MUNER) to reflect the wording of the West Ger- Management, man ministry’s name. At the same time, Karl-Her- – that the 23 areas named in the resolution of the mann Steinberg was appointed Minister. Council of Ministers on March 16, 1990, Succow initially remained in charge of his divi- would continue to have provisional protection sion at the Ministry, but he resigned his post on status according to the GDR Nature Conserva- May 15, 1990 (concerning his reasons for doing tion Regulation of May 1989 (Section 5.2); so, see Rösler 1998, pp. 571–574). In the mean- – that national parks, nature reserves, and lands- time, work continued on the national parks pro- cape protection areas of central importance gram. At a meeting on June 25, 1990, at the West would be established by a resolution of the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Council of Ministers (Section 6.1); Conservation and Nuclear Safety in Bonn, the – that the Environment Minister was responsible West German states arranged to support the nati- for the provisional protection of national parks, onal parks program in the form of a sponsorship nature reserves, and landscape protection areas scheme. of central importance; and for regulating the The Environmental Framework Law (Umwelt- establishment and activities of administrative rahmengesetz) was signed on behalf of the bodies for such areas (Section 6.2). governments of the GDR and the Federal Re- public of Germany (FRG) on June 29, 1990, and It is thanks to these provisions that it was pos- took effect on July 1, 1990, the same day that the sible to put the GDR’s national parks program on currency union became effective. With this move, a secure legal footing. The Environmental Frame- large parts of the West German Federal Nature work Law, drafted in large part by West German Protection Act became effective in the GDR. At lawyers who specialized in nature conservation the same time, however, the national parks pro- law, was created with a view to implementing this gram profited from the fact that East German en- program” (Rösler 1998, p. 577). Arnulf Müller- vironmental law and regulations continued to Helmbrecht, a lawyer from the Environment Mi- apply at the states level. nistry in Bonn who had been assigned to MUNER „The Federal Nature Protection Act—and thus in mid-May, 1990, played a critical role in this Section 16, which regulated natural parks—be- work (Müller-Helmbrecht 1998). came directly applicable in the GDR as of July 1, When, on August 23, 1990, the People’s Cham- 1990. East German law continued to apply to ber of the GDR resolved that the GDR would ac-

27 Klaus Töpfer, West German Environment Minister at the time of unification, characterized the national parks program as the „family silver of German unification.“—Trans.

30 cede to the FRG on October 3, 1990, that date be- field stations, a training center, and a branch office came the deadline for all decrees concerning all in Specker Horst. areas to be placed under protection. As the decrees In the new, or rather reinstated, states of eastern were not issued until after the unification agree- Germany, progress was being made in setting up ment between the GDR and the FRG was signed their environment and nature conservation depart- on August 31, 1990, the agreement does not con- ments (the names varied, depending on the state). tain any mention of the national parks program. A number of former staff from the ILN branch Just a short time before unification, in the last offices were heavily involved in these efforts. By session of the Council of Ministers on September May 1991, the five branch offices of the ILN were 12, 1990, six biosphere reserves, five national subsumed into the respective state departments of parks and three natural parks were placed under environment and nature conservation, specifically protection for the national parks program in ac- in the nature conservation divisions of these de- cordance with the law of the GDR. Twelve other partments. For the former ILN staff members who areas were placed under protection provisionally. continued to work on conservation for the govern- On September 18, 1990, an additional agree- ment, the character of that work changed funda- ment pursuant to the unification agreement of Au- mentally from research to responsibilities con- gust 31, 1990, was signed by Wolfgang Schäuble cerned solely with administration. on behalf of the FRG and Günther Krause on be- half of the GDR. This agreement confirmed the 14 decrees concerning the national parks program that had been issued by the Council of Ministers. Assessing Nature Conservation in the The other 12 areas were placed under provisional GDR protection for a period of two years. Assessments of nature conservation in the GDR, „Within ten months, more had been accomplis- and what it was and was not able to achieve, are hed for nature conservation in terms of actual phy- likely to vary greatly, depending on one’s perso- sical area than government and private conserva- nal perspective, the degree to which one was af- tion efforts had managed in the previous 100 fected by it, and one’s own experience in the field years“ (Rösler 1998, p. 583). of nature conservation. Lutz Reichhoff, for exa- While the last chapter of East German history mple, who held a number of different government ended with unification on October 3, 1990, one of positions and thus experienced and shaped the the country’s conservation institutions survived field personally, takes a critical view. „Nature beyond this date. The ILN, established in 1953, protection activities in the GDR were controlled did not close its doors until December 31, 1991, by the state (legally and politically), supported by after it had been evaluated by the German Council scientific research, and executed largely by volun- of Science and Humanities in May 1991. (For teers. It was accorded a social niche that was filled more on the closure of the ILN, see Behrens by volunteers (both the GNU at an organizational 2011.) The GDR’s leading research institution for level and those working as nature protection nature conservation thus existed for another 15 officers and helpers). Conservation work was only months within a united Germany. possible thanks to the constant encouragement of The last research papers had been defended in extremely understaffed and often demotivated the ILN in 1989 (for the research history of the government authorities. This is not to say that ILN, see Reichhoff and Wegener 2016). In the there were not also dedicated and active conserva- first six months of 1990, the Institute’s research tionists. […] Nature conservation in the GDR work was gradually discontinued. Staff who had lacked professionalism in planning and govern- previously been involved in research now assisted ment administration, and among the volunteers. in preparations for the designation of the national There were virtually no advances made in the le- parks, biosphere reserves, and natural parks that gal instruments of nature conservation. It was only were part of the national parks program. In Sep- through international cooperation (MAB, protec- tember 1990, the ILN was divided into eight wor- tion of waterbirds) that new ideas and momentum king groups, two departments, two biological came. […] The organizational structure of public

31 administrations was completely underdeveloped. References This naturally created gaps that the volunteer Andersen, A. 1996: Vom Industrialismus zum Konsu- force could try to fill. By no means, however, was mismus. Der Beginn einer neuen Phase der gesell- it a modern, forward-looking form of conserva- schaftlichen Naturverhältnisse in den 1950er Jah- tion work. […] On the whole, the enforcement of ren. In: Behrens, H.; Neumann, G. & Schikora, A. conservation law was not guaranteed by the rule (Hg.): Wirtschaftsgeschichte und Umwelt – Hans of law, so that enforcement was marked by arbit- Mottek zum Gedenken. Marburg: 205-240. rariness, deficiencies, very subjective judgments Behrens, H. 2007: Rückblicke auf den Umweltschutz in der and relative valuations, personal influence, and DDR seit 1990. In: Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Re- the particular combinations of people involved at gionalentwicklung e. V. (Hg.); Behrens, H. & Hoffmann, specific times and places. J. (Bearb.): Umweltschutz in der DDR – Analysen und In spite of all this, the intensive conservation Zeitzeugenberichte. Band 1: Rahmenbedingungen. Mün- work performed under these conditions, primarily chen: 2-40. Behrens, H. & Hoffmann, J. 2007: Organisation des Um- by volunteers but also by employees of the state, weltschutzes. In: Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regi- yielded considerable results. The approach taken onalentwicklung e. V. (Hg.); Behrens, H. & Hoffmann, J. was typically a practical one. Because private pro- (Bearb.): Umweltschutz in der DDR – Analysen und Zeit- perty issues did not pose a problem, it was easy to zeugenberichte. Band 1: Rahmenbedingungen. München: implement conservation measures. These mea- 41-47. Behrens, H. 2010 a: Naturschutzgeschichte und Natur- sures were even supported by the state. Volunteer schutzbeauftragte in Berlin und Brandenburg. [Lexikon nature protection officers and helpers were finan- der Naturschutzbeauftragten, Band 3]. Friedland. cially and otherwise supported in accordance with Behrens, H. 2010 b: 1990-2010 – Das Ende der „Gesell- political parameters. In the end, the results of this schaft für Natur und Umwelt im Kulturbund der DDR” work – protected areas, preserved populations of (GNU) – Ein Zeitzeugenbericht. Studienarchiv Umwelt- geschichte 15: 39-72. [threatened] species, practical experience, and a Behrens, H. 2011: Das Institut für Landschaftsforschung specific understanding of nature conservation— und Naturschutz (ILN) Halle (S.) und die deutsche Natur- were passed on to the Federal Republic. It is vir- schutzgeschichte – Zur Abwicklung des zentralen Natur- tually impossible, however, to continue work in schutzforschungsinstituts der DDR im Jahre 1991. the same vein, as sociopolitical conditions (i.e., STANDPUNKTE 5. Texte aus dem IUGR e.V. Neubran- denburg. property law, conservation law, administrative Beleites, M. 2007: Die unabhängige Umweltbewegung der law and labor law) have changed” (Reichhoff DDR. In: Umweltschutz in der DDR – Analysen und Zeit- 2009, pp. 24 and 25). zeugenberichte. Band 3: Beruflicher, ehrenamtlicher und In terms of physical space, conservation work freiwilliger Umweltschutz. München: 179-224. focused on the rural areas of the GDR, and above Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Hg.); Frohn, H.-W. & Schmoll, all on protected areas and objects. Its successes F. (Bearb.): Natur und Staat. Staatlicher Naturschutz in Deutschland 1906-2006. Naturschutz und Biologische were restricted to the nature reserves, natural mo- Vielfalt 35. Bonn-Bad Godesberg. numents, natural monument areas, landscape pro- Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung 2013: tection areas (recreational areas), and the popula- http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/handwoerter- tions of [threatened] species that were preserved. buch-politisches-system/40259/ddr-geschichte?p=all. It was powerless against industrial agriculture, fo- Aufgerufen am 7.2.2013. Frohn, H.-W. 2006: Naturschutz macht Staat – Staat macht restry, and fishing operations. It was just as Naturschutz. Von der Staatlichen Stelle für Naturdenk- powerless against problems in the traditional in- malpflege in Preußen bis zum Bundesamt für Naturschutz dustries (lignite mining, lignite chemical industry, 1906 bis 2006 – eine Institutionengeschichte. In: Bundes- and uranium mining) and against urban environ- amt für Naturschutz (Hg.); Frohn, H.-W. & Schmoll, F. mental problems, such as open space protection, (Bearb.): Natur und Staat. Staatlicher Naturschutz in Deutschland 1906-2006. Naturschutz und Biologische air pollution, waste and wastewater disposal and Vielfalt 35. Bonn-Bad Godesberg: 85-342. treatment, noise pollution, etc. There was, how- Gensichen, H.-P. 1994: Das Umweltengagement in den ever, an awareness of these problems, which were evangelischen Kirchen in der DDR. In: Behrens, H. & the source of constant local conflicts. Paucke, H.: Umweltgeschichte: Wissenschaft und Praxis. Marburg: 65-83.

32

Gensichen, H.-P. 2007: Die Beiträge des Wittenberger For- Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e. schungsheimes für die kritische Umweltbewegung in der V. (Hg.); Behrens, H. & Hoffmann, H. (Bearb.) 2007: DDR. In: Behrens, H. & Hoffmann, J. (Bearb.): Umwelt- Umweltschutz in der DDR. Bände I, II, III. München. schutz in der DDR – Analysen und Zeitzeugenberichte. Institut für Umweltschutz (Hg.) 1990: Umweltbericht der Band 3: Beruflicher, ehrenamtlicher und freiwilliger Um- DDR. Informationen zur Analyse der Umweltbedingun- weltschutz. München: 150-177. gen in der DDR und zu weiteren Maßnahmen. Berlin. Gloger, O. 1962: Maßnahmen zum Schutz der Seen im Be- Joachim, H.-F. 1971: Landeskulturelle Probleme im Rah- zirk Frankfurt (Oder). Mitteilungen Naturschutz 7 (4): 19- men der Flurneugestaltung. Archiv für Naturschutz und 22. Landschaftsforschung 11 (1/2): 3-15. Gloger, O. 2007: Entwicklung der Landschaftsschutz- und Kirsten, R. 2002: Diskussionsbeitrag. In: Hiller, O. (Hg.): Erholungsgebiete im ehemaligen Bezirk Frankfurt (Oder). Die Landschaftsdiagnose der DDR. Zeitgeschichte und In: Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwick- Wirkung eines Forschungsprojekts aus der Gründungs- lung e. V. (Hg.); Behrens, H. & Hoffmann, J. (Bearb.): phase der DDR. Materialien zur Geschichte der Garten- Umweltschutz in der DDR – Analysen und Zeitzeugenbe- kunst. Berlin: 274. richte. Band 2: Mediale und sektorale Aspekte. München: Knapp, H.-D. 2012: Das Nationalparkprogramm der DDR. 27-43. In: Succow, M.; Jeschke, L. & Knapp, H.-D.: Naturschutz Großer, K. H. 1965: Ziele unserer Arbeit. Naturschutzarbeit in Deutschland. Rückblicke – Einblicke – Ausblicke. Ber- in Berlin und Brandenburg 1 (3): 3-10. lin: 53-62. Großer, K. H. 1967: Landschaftskundliche Gesichtspunkte Krenz, G. 1996: Notizen zur Landwirtschaftsentwicklung in zur Entwicklung von Pflegeplänen für Landschaftsschutz- den Jahren 1945-1990: Erinnerungen und Bekenntnisse gebiete. Naturschutzarbeit in Berlin und Brandenburg 3 eines Zeitzeugen aus dem Bezirk Neubrandenburg. (1): 39-52. Schwerin. Großer, K. H. 2002: Schutzgebiete im Wandel der Zeit – Krummsdorf, A. 1963: Über die natürlichen standörtlichen Beispiele aus Brandenburg bis 1990. In: Institut für Um- Grundlagen im MTS-Bereich Taucha im Hinblick auf die weltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung (Hg.): Natur- Zweckmäßigkeit und Wirkung meliorativer und land- schutzgebiete im 21. Jahrhundert. Berlin: 91-120. schaftspflegerischer Maßnahmen: Habilitation. Leipzig. Heinrichsdorff, G. 1959: Erkenntnisse und Erfahrungen aus Landkreis Bitterfeld (Hg.) 1996: Umweltreport Bitterfeld den Forschungs- und Entwicklungsarbeiten im Huy-Ha- 96. Akten aus dem Archiv des Landkreises Bitterfeld. kel-Gebiet. Naturschutz und Landschaftsgestaltung im Lingner, R. 1952: Landschaftsgestaltung. Herausgegeben Bezirk Magdeburg. Sonderdruck aus der 3. Folge. Her- vom Kulturbund zur demokratischen Erneuerung ausgegeben vom Rat des Bezirkes Magdeburg. Magde- Deutschlands. Berlin. burg 1959. Henkel, G. 1956: Diskussionsbeitrag auf dem Kongress der Martin, D. 1989: Landeskultur und Umweltschutz. 4. Lehr- Natur- und Heimatfreunde, 1.-3.6.1956 in Dresden. Aus brief Naturschutzarbeit. Dresden. der Arbeit der Natur- und Heimatfreunde 3 (9): 214-215. Meusel, H.; Bauer, L. & Weinitschke, H. 1961: Die Neuord- Henkel, G. 1960: Die Aufgaben des Naturschutzes im Sie- nung der Fluren als landeskulturelle Aufgabe. Mitteilun- benjahrplan und Maßnahmen zu ihrer Verwirklichung. gen Naturschutz 6 (1): 3-7. Mitteilungen Naturschutz 5 (3): 7-12. Militzer, M. 1956: Geschützte heimische Pflanzen. Leipzig, Hesmer, H. 1934: Naturwaldzellen. Der Deutsche Forstwirt Jena. 16 (13): 133-134 und 16 (14): 141-143. Milnik, A.; Heyde, V. & Schult, R. 1998: In Verantwortung Hiller, O. (Hg.) 2002: Die Landschaftsdiagnose der DDR. für den Wald. Die Geschichte der Forstwirtschaft in der Zeitgeschichte und Wirkung eines Forschungsprojekts Sowjetischen Besatzungszone und der DDR. Hrsg. vom aus der Gründungsphase der DDR. Materialien zur Ge- Brandenburgischen Ministerium für Ernährung, Land- schichte der Gartenkunst. Berlin. wirtschaft und Forsten. Potsdam. Hueck, K. 1937: Mehr Waldschutzgebiete! Jahrbuch Natur- Müller, H.-J. 1965: Die Biologischen Stationen der Deut- schutz 1937: 1-32. Berlin. schen Demokratischen Republik, ihre Aufgaben und Er- Hülße, C. 1986: Wirkung von Luftfremdstoffen auf den gebnisse. Sitzungsberichte der Dt. Akad. der Wiss. 14 (1). kindlichen Organismus und Ergebnisse der Dispositions- Berlin. prophylaxe bei Schulkindern aus Industriegebieten; Kon- Müller-Helmbrecht, A. 1998: Endspurt – das Nationalpark- zentrationsvermögen u. Untersuchung der erythropoeti- programm im Wettlauf mit der Zeit. In: Institut für Um- schen Reaktion. Habilitation. Humboldt-Universität Ber- weltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e. V. (Hg.): Na- lin. turschutz in den neuen Bundesländern – ein Rückblick. 2 Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e. Halbbände. Marburg. Band 2: 597-608. V. (Hg.) 1998: Naturschutz in den neuen Bundesländern Nyssen, S.: Die sozialistische Arbeitsgesellschaft in der – ein Rückblick, 2 Halbbände, Forum Wissenschaft Stu- ökologischen Transformation: Arbeit und Umwelt in der dien 45/1 und 45/2, BdWi Verlag Marburg. 2., überarb. ehemaligen DDR. In: Nyssen, S. (Hg.): Modernisierung Aufl., Berlin 2001. nach dem Sozialismus: ökologische und ökonomische Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e. Probleme der Transformation. Marburg 1992. V. (Hg.) 1999: Landschaft und Planung in den neuen Bun- Oehler, E. 2007: Zur Entwicklung des Umweltrechts. In: desländern – Rückblicke. Berlin. Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung

33

e. V. (Hg.); Behrens, H. & Hoffmann, J. (Bearb.): Um- Weber, R. 1998: Der Zentrale Fachausschuss Botanik im weltschutz in der DDR. Analysen und Zeitzeugenbe- Kulturbund – sein Werden, Wachsen und Wirken. In: richte. Band 1: Politische und umweltrechtliche Rahmen- Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung bedingungen. München: 99-128. e. V. (Hg.): Naturschutz in den neuen Bundesländern – Paucke, H. 1994: Chancen für Umweltpolitik und Umwelt- ein Rückblick. Marburg: 147-165. forschung. Zur Situation in der ehemaligen DDR. Mar- Wegener, U. 1998: Ohne sie hätte sich nichts bewegt – zur burg. Arbeit der ehrenamtlichen Naturschutzhelfer und -helfe- Petschow, U.; Meyerhoff, J. & Thomasberger, C. 1990: rinnen. In: Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regional- Umweltreport DDR. Bilanz der Zerstörung – Kosten der entwicklung e. V. (Hg.): Naturschutz in den neuen Bun- Sanierung – Strategien für den ökologischen Umbau. desländern – ein Rückblick. Marburg: 89-108. Frankfurt/M. Weinitschke, H. 1962: Naturschutz und Landwirtschaft. Plötze, H.-J. 1997: Das Chemiedreieck im Bezirk Halle aus Mitteilungen Naturschutz 7 (3): 3-5. der Sicht des MfS, Landesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen Weinitschke, H. 1980: Naturschutz gestern – heute – mor- des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen DDR Sach- gen. Leipzig, Jena, Berlin. sen-Anhalt. Sachbeiträge 4. o.O. Wenzel, S. 1998: Plan und Wirklichkeit. Zur DDR- Pot, J. H. J. van der 1999: Sinndeutung und Periodisierung Ökonomie. Dokumentation und Erinnerungen, St. Katha- der Geschichte. Eine systematische Übersicht der Theo- rinen. rien und Auffassungen. Leiden, Boston, Köln. Wiese, B. v. 1933: Zur Kritik des geistesgeschichtlichen Reichhoff, L. & Böhnert, W. 1987: Aktuelle Aspekte des Epochenbegriffs. DVLG 11. Naturschutzes. Archiv für Naturschutz und Landschafts- Wittig, H. 1982: Aufgaben der Gesellschaft für Natur und pflege 27 (3): 139-160. Umwelt im Kulturbund der DDR unter den Bedingungen Reichhoff, L. 2009: Die Entwicklung der Strategie „Erhal- erhöhter Leistungsanforderungen an die Kohle- und Ener- tung der Arten- und Formenvielfalt” als zentrale Aufgabe giewirtschaft im Bezirk Cottbus. Natur und Landschaft im des Naturschutzes in den 80er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts Bezirk Cottbus. SH. Cottbus. in der DDR. Studienarchiv Umweltgeschichte 14: 15-26. Wübbe, I. 1999: Landschaftsplanung in der DDR. In: Insti- Reichhoff, L. 2010: Brief vom 2. Januar 2010 an Behrens. tut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e. V. Reichhoff, L. 2016: Kurze Geschichte der strukturellen Ent- (Hg.): Landschaft und Planung in den neuen Bundeslän- wicklung des Instituts für Landschaftsforschung und Na- dern – Rückblicke. Berlin: 33-56. turschutz Halle. In: Reichhoff, L. & Wegener, U.: ILN – Institut für Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz Halle – Forschungsgeschichte des ersten deutschen Natur- schutzinstituts. Hrsg. vom Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e. V. Berlin: 28-39. Reichhoff, L. & Wegener, U. 2016: ILN – Institut für Land- schaftsforschung und Naturschutz Halle – Forschungsge- schichte des ersten deutschen Naturschutzinstituts. Hrsg. vom Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwick- lung e. V. Berlin. Roesler, J. 2012: Geschichte der DDR. Köln. Rösler, M. 1990: Naturschutz in der DDR. Bonn. Rösler, M. 1998: Das Nationalparkprogramm der DDR. In: Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e. V. (Hg.): Naturschutz in den neuen Bundesländern –

ein Rückblick. 2 Halbbände. Marburg. Band 2: 561-596.

Succow, M.; Jeschke, L. & Knapp, H.-D. 2012: Naturschutz

in Deutschland. Rückblicke – Einblicke – Ausblicke. Ber-

lin.

Thielbeule, U. 1983: Beitrag zur Ausarbeitung praxisrele-

vanter Methoden zur Beurteilung des Einflusses der all- gemeinen Luftverunreinigung auf ausgewählte Bevölke- rungsgruppen in Ballungsgebieten. Habilitation. Witten- berge. Vesting, J. 2003: Mit dem Mut zum gesunden Risiko. Die Arbeitsbedingungen von Strafgefangenen und Bausolda- ten in den Betrieben der Region Bitterfeld, Buna und Leuna unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des VEB Che- miekombinat Bitterfeld, Sachbeiträge 30, hrsg. von der Landesbeauftragten für die Unterlagen des Staatssicher- heitsdienstes der ehemaligen DDR in Sachsen-Anhalt. Magdeburg.

34

Selected Publications

Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e.V. (Hrsg.), Lutz Reichhoff, Uwe Wegener (Bearbeitung): ILN – Institut für Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz Halle. Forschungsgeschichte des ersten deutschen Naturschutzinstituts Steffen-Verlag Friedland-Berlin 2011, 649 S. ISBN 978-3-942477-10-9

Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e.V. (Hrsg.), Hermann Behrens (Bearbeitung): Lexikon der Naturschutzbeauftragten. Band 4: Naturschutzgeschichte Thüringens Steffen-Verlag Friedland-Berlin 2015. 772 S. ISBN 978-3-95799-004-4

Arbeitskreis Wasserwirtschaft im Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regional- entwicklung e.V. (Hrsg.), Wilhelm Thürnagel (Bearbeitung): Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbehandlung in der DDR edition Lesezeichen Friedland 2014. 397 S. ISBN 978-3-941681-74-3

Hermann Behrens und Jens Hoffmann: Naturschutzgeschichte(n) – Lebenswege zwischen Ostseeküste und Erz‐ gebirge Steffen-Verlag Friedland-Berlin 2013. 564 S. ISBN 978-3-942477-64-2

Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e.V. (Hrsg.), Hermann Behrens (Bearbeitung): Lexikon der Naturschutzbeauftragten. Band 3: Naturschutzgeschichte und Naturschutzbeauftragte in Berlin und Brandenburg Steffen-Verlag Friedland-Berlin 2010, 964 S. ISBN 978-3-940101-83-9

35

Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e.V. (Hrsg.), Her- mann Behrens (Bearbeitung), Bernd Ziese (Mitarbeit): Lexikon der Naturschutzbeauftragten. Band 1: Mecklenburg‐Vorpommern Steffen-Verlag Friedland 2007, 470 S. ISBN 978-3-940101-03-6

Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e.V. (Hrsg.), Her- mann Behrens und Jens Hoffmann (Bearbeitung):

Umweltschutz in der DDR. Analysen und Zeitzeugenberichte

oekom-Verlag München 2007, 1100 S. ISBN 978-3-86581-059-5

Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e.V. (Hrsg.), Her- mann Behrens (Bearbeitung), Bernd Ziese (Mitarbeit): Lexikon der Naturschutzbeauftragten. Band 2: Sachsen‐Anhalt Steffen-Verlag Friedland 2006, 373 S. ISBN 978-3-937669-93-9

Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e.V. (Hrsg.):

Naturschutz in den neuen Bundesländern. Ein Rückblick 2. verbesserte Auflage Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung Berlin, 2002, 705 S.

ISBN 978-3-89700-312-5

Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e.V. (Hrsg.):

Landschaft und Planung in den neuen Bundesländern. Rückblicke

Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung Berlin, 1999, 387 S. ISBN 978-3-89700-069-5

36

For further information visit our homepage: www.umwelt-hat-geschichte.de

Impressum STANDPUNKTE – Texte aus dem IUGR e.V. ISSN 1861-3012 (Printausgabe) ISSN 1861-3020 (Internetausgabe) Herausgeber: Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e.V. an der Hochschule Neubrandenburg (IUGR e.V.) Redaktionsanschrift: IUGR e.V. an der Hochschule Neubrandenburg Postfach 11 01 21, 17041 Neubrandenburg, Germany Telefon: +49 395 5693 8201