Court decides: Geitauer must let the alpine area grow over

Created: 08/13/2022, 16:00

By: Christian Masengarb

Lots of green: Three years ago, court representatives had already viewed the cleared area on the Klareralm on site.

Even then, the court had recorded that it was clearly a forest – a bad omen for the plaintiff.

© Thomas Plettenberg

A Geitau farmer sued because the AELF demanded that he allow twelve hectares of forest that he had felled without permission to grow over.

He lost.

Bayrischzell/Munich – Plaintiffs and defense agreed that a lot depends on the judgment of the Bavarian Administrative Court in Munich in the lawsuit of a Geitau alpine farmer against the Free State.

"This is about the undisputed largest unapproved clearing in Bavarian history," said Stefan Kramer, head of the forestry department at the Office for Food, Agriculture and Forestry (AELF) Holzkirchen, who represented the defense.

If the farmer is now in a better position than the alpine farmers who apply for felling, this sends a fatal signal.

Our article on the on-site visit from 2019:

Dispute over clearing: Geitauer farmer sued the Free State

Court decides: Geitauer must let the alpine area grow over

For lawyer Michael Pießkalla, who represented Geitauer, the influence of the forest on alpine farming was at stake.

If the court decides in favor of the plaintiff, it would deprive the authorities of 40,000 hectares, he said.

"The importance of this case goes far beyond this pasture."

The felling of the Almwirt is now 14 years ago.

In the fall of 2008 he had cleared 1,500 cubic meters of wood on around twelve hectares on the Klareralm am Seeberg – without permission and, according to the court, clearly illegal.

He was threatened with a fine of 25,000 euros, which the AELF did not impose and which is now statute-barred – lucky for Geitauer.

Because the office is asking him to let the area grow over again, he has now sued it anyway.

He wants to get the clearing approved afterwards.

the initial situation

The case is interesting for all alpine farmers because the Geitauer justified his lawsuit with an amendment to the federal forest law.

This states that just because there are many trees on an alpine property does not necessarily count as a forest.

To support alpine farming, it excludes "areas with trees that are also used for the cultivation of agricultural products" from the forest concept.

Because grass grows under the trees on the Klareralm, on which cows can graze, and this historically served as pasture, this rule applies to the Geitauer area, said lawyer Pießkalla.

If the trees did not count as forest, they could be felled.

Kramer contradicted: The passage refers to forest areas that are to be used for agriculture, not all alpine areas.

The most serious thing, however, is that the change in the law did not come into force until 2010, two years after the Geitauer felling operation.

The fact that he submitted an application later, when the law was already in effect, does not help him.

also read

Bottlenecks in the hospital: Chief physician describes the dramatic situation – "Decide every hour what is still possible"

Bauhof Miesbach is at a disadvantage: paid-off tractor must remain in use - no new leasing

So the question was how the law should be interpreted and whether it applies in the case of the Geitauer.

Since the interpretation of the paragraph is controversial among experts, lawyer Pießkalla hoped for a precedent ruling that would attribute control of the areas to the alpine farmers.

Interesting side aspect: With the clearing, the Geitauer lowered the degree of canopy of its area - the part of the ground covered by treetops - from 0.8 to 0.2 (i.e. from 80 to 20 percent).

Under a degree of coverage of 0.4, he would be entitled to agricultural subsidies.

If he gets the felling approved, he could possibly ask for the money for years.

The judgment

Judge Dietmar Wolff suggested a comparison: only reforest half of the area or, for example, only the upper area.

Since only 50 cows graze around the pasture, a smaller pasture is enough.

The proposal failed because of Kramer's resistance: The law indisputably defined the site as a protective forest in view of its incline, calcareous soil and south-facing orientation.

Due to the clearing, the forest could not fulfill its protective function: rockfalls and avalanches developed an unstoppable energy on the slope length of up to 200 meters, which also rolled down the forests further down.

Dense forest cover is needed to slow down the forces of nature.

"I like to make compromises and admire everyone who does alpine farming," said Kramer.

"But we need at least 70 percent forest there." Since Kramer rejected the comparison, the court did not ask Geitauer about his position.

Forced into a verdict, the court dismissed the lawsuit.

The Geitauer has to let the place grow over.

Kramer has thus achieved his goal: the alpine farmer is now in a worse position than if he had properly applied for his felling.

Kramer emphasized: "If he had submitted a correct application beforehand, we would have found a compromise."