The future:
free and wild?

Humans are a recipe for success. Starting with a few apes in Africa, he has conquered the whole world. There are hardly any places left in the world where he has not already been, where he has not found a way to survive and live. At the same time, it has displaced many animals and plants, forced the wilderness into a corset and established human structures. Today we are talking to biologist Christine Sonvilla, who still knows the real wilderness and, together with Marc Graf, has dedicated an entire book to the subject.

ChristineSonvilla, you have been a biologist and nature photographer for many years and have been to the most remote places on this planet. What does wilderness mean to you?

For me, wilderness means a piece of nature that is largely left to its own devices. This is where trees are allowed to outlive their "felling maturity" and grow old, where dead wood is not seen as a threat to forestry, where rivers are allowed to meander unhindered through the landscape, where gravel banks are allowed to build up and move again, where mountains are not developed by ski tourism in the furthest corners, but are left to the chamois, ibex, edelweiss and the like.

Does real wilderness still exist? Where in the world are the largest wild habitats?

Most of the wilderness on earth today can be found where man has hardly penetrated, simply because the landscape is too barren, too cold, too inhospitable or too hot, too dangerous, too impassable. This applies, for example, to large areas of Canada, Scandinavia and the Arctic, to the tropical rainforests in the Amazon, Equatorial Africa or South East Asia. And even there, as we know, man is penetrating deeper and deeper, clearing ancient forests that - calculated in human generations - are irretrievably lost or tearing up tundra soils in order to squeeze every last bit of oil out of our planet. The wilderness, or what is left of it, is shrinking rapidly.

Whatis the situation in Europe, can you still find real wilderness here?

Looking at Europe, especially Central Europe, many would probably claim that there is no such thing as "real wilderness" anymore. This may be true for the most part, but if you take a closer look, you will discover small, wild spots even in densely populated Central Europe, such as the Rothwald forest in the Dürrenstein wilderness area, the last large remnant of primeval forest in the Alpine arc or the Sulzbachtäler wilderness area in the Hohe Tauern National Park. The last truly extensive primeval forests closest to us can be found in Romania, but are currently under massive threat from illegal logging.
In the Alpine region, most of the wilderness potential lies dormant in the mountains, especially where valleys have become "wild" again because the population has moved to the cities. This is not original wilderness, but these are areas that at least have the chance to become wilder again.

Inyour book "The Wild Heart of Europe", you visited the last corners that are still real wilderness, but also habitats that have the potential to become wilder again, i.e. to become wilderness through so-called "rewilding". What is meant by "rewilding"?

"Rewilding" means something like "making wild again" or is comparable to the word "renaturieren", which is commonly used in German, but ultimately goes beyond that. Until 2010, this word, which was coined by the organization Rewilding Europe, did not even exist in Europe. Rewilding aims to restore wilderness and wilderness-associated processes. To achieve this, humans are responsible for initiating measures such as creating natural floodplains around rivers or reintroducing herbivores such as grazing cattle and horses. However, humans then largely withdraw and allow nature to develop as independently as possible. This is a big difference to the usual nature conservation practices in Europe to date, which have primarily had a "preservative" focus, i.e. emphasizing the maintenance of the status quo. Rewilding provides impetus, but then lets things take their course and in this respect corresponds more to the idea of process protection as practiced in wilderness conservation areas.

Inour current focus, we discuss how freedom and sustainability can be reconciled. Is our current life compatible with more wilderness? Or would more wilderness restrict our freedom?

More wilderness is not the same as less freedom. Many people believe that they can no longer go into the forest once a wolf or bear is at home there. For many years, I have been moving around in areas where large predators live, even in high densities. However, I have never been in danger for one simple reason: I am aware of the presence of these animals and behave accordingly. I avoid simply charging blindly through the thicket where a bear might be camped. Startling a large predator is never a good idea because you don't know how the animal will react in this stressful situation. Apart from potential direct encounters with "wild elements", it is important to mention that large carnivores, which are increasingly returning to Europe, have a massive impact on our ecosystems, in a positive sense. Bears, for example, act as "gardeners", planting the bushes and trees of tomorrow. Wolves control herbivore populations, to mention just two aspects. And finally, if we humans become a little more creative, we can even benefit economically from their presence. Ecotourism with wildlife watching or hiking on the tracks of large predators can provide significant impetus, especially for economically weak regions. This does not restrict our freedoms, but gives us new opportunities. Large carnivores and the potential for more wilderness that is returning with them are not our enemies, they are our opportunity!

Whatdo you feel when you are in the wilderness? Isn't it the epitome of freedom?

At first glance, wilderness is perhaps the epitome of freedom, but I now have a more nuanced view. I myself like being in untouched, wild areas because they are good for the soul, because they make us feel that we too have emerged from this "wild primeval pot" and because they are of central importance for the health of our planet. At the same time, I am aware that - unlike the Stone Age hunter-gatherers - I would have virtually no chance of surviving on my own in real wilderness today. Nor do I long for a return to living in a cave and warming my stiff limbs around a laboriously lit campfire. In fact, I am very grateful for the achievements of civilization that allow us to sit in a warmed room, pursue different creative work and reach a potentially old age. However, we cannot continue on the path of civilization by thoughtlessly exploiting nature. We cannot continue to grow forever, neither in terms of the human population nor the economy. For the simple reason that we are destroying our own livelihood and that of countless other species at the same time. If we want to survive and live well, then the wilderness must continue to exist alongside civilization to a certain extent, or become more so again!

Whatfascinates you most about wilderness? What is your favorite European animal?

What fascinates me about the wilderness is the unpredictable, the uncontrollable. Life is just as unpredictable, even if we like to "reassure ourselves" in every conceivable way and "plan and control" our processes. The wilder we become in our hearts, the more we can accept the wild and unplanned in the outside world.
My favorite European animals are constantly changing. It's usually the animal I'm currently working on intensively. I'm currently working on a non-fiction book about the European wildcat and am completely fascinated by this distinctive, mysterious creature. At the same time, together with my partner Marc, I managed to see and photograph wolves for the first time in the turbulent 2020s. That made a deep impression on me. The lynx is just as exciting and the bear is and remains simply the "coolest". As I have been so intensively involved with large predators in recent years, they are the most present in my mind, but at the same time I am also fascinated by those animals that are disliked or overlooked by most people. The common toad is one of my favorites.

In his film "The octopus teacher",wildlife filmmaker Craig Foster describes the feeling of no longer being a visitor to nature, but of becoming part of the action, part of nature. Can you relate to this feeling? Do you think it is important that we humans learn to see ourselves as part of nature again?

I can empathize with this and believe that it is absolutely essential that we see ourselves as part of nature again. However, I don't believe that we all have to go to the most remote, wildest areas to do this (let alone want to); a forest close to nature or the stream behind the house can also give us this feeling. It is crucial that we find moments in which we can find peace in nature, so that we no longer perceive the forest, meadow, mountain and river and all the animals in them as just a nice backdrop, but as an extension of ourselves. This is the basis for making the protection of nature and its diverse animal and plant species a concern for us all, and not just in the distant Arctic or in the rainforest, but here with us, on our doorstep, in our midst. And the good news is that there are concepts, ways and means by which we humans can earn our living by preserving nature instead of destroying it.

Whydo you think it is so important to preserve wilderness?

Wilderness is our life insurance. In terms of human generations, we cannot bring back a deforested primeval forest, watch a peat layer grow or reanimate a blasted mountain. Erich Weigand, a scientist specializing in biodiversity who conducts research in the Kalkalpen National Park in Austria, once put it like this: "Where should biodiversity come from if not from the wilderness?" There is no better way to put it. We must preserve the wilderness that is still there - there must be no room for negotiation - and we must allow those habitats that are still largely untouched to become more as candidates for the wilderness of tomorrow - for the time when we are long gone, but perhaps our distant descendants will be. But we can only do this if we realize that life is not an enrichment marathon with the disciplines of "higher", "faster" and "further", but a fascinating journey that we can help shape in our short existence on earth: destructively or constructively. For my part, I find the second option more tempting.

Andfinally, what can we do to preserve the last wild corners of Europe?

We could be guided by the following credo: Intervene where we can and must help biodiversity (a corsetted river will not begin to meander on its own) and otherwise do nothing, i.e. gradually give nature more freedom. Bit by bit.