The first pro­tect­ed areas in the low­er Oder val­ley emerged at the begin­ning of the 20th cen­tu­ry. The flood­ing pold­er near Schwedt became exten­sive in 1980 after the RAMSAR Con­ven­tion Declared a Wet­lands of Inter­na­tion­al Impor­tance (FIB). Today is the Ger­man Nation­al Park

The Pol­ish land­scape pro­tec­tion parks are also reg­is­tered as Natu­ra 2000 areas of the EU. In sum­ma­ry, it can be stat­ed that the nation­al park is pro­tect­ed on the Ger­man side in accor­dance with all the rules of inter­na­tion­al, Euro­pean, Ger­man and Bran­den­burg nature con­ser­va­tion law.

The major project

From 1992 to 2000, the Low­er Oder Val­ley was fund­ed by the Fed­er­al Repub­lic of Ger­many and the State of Bran­den­burg as a major nature con­ser­va­tion project of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment (water strip project). The nature con­ser­va­tion require­ments for the project have been laid down by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment in the dis­tri­b­u­tion let­ter to the state and by the state in the grant noti­fi­ca­tion to the friends’ asso­ci­a­tion. They pro­vide for demand­ing nature conservation.

The protection concept

As is usu­al in a nation­al park, the first pri­or­i­ty in the low­er Oder Val­ley is the pro­tec­tion of the nat­ur­al process­es of an ecosys­tem. Here nature should be allowed to be nature. In the new Nation­al Park Act of 2006, 50.1 per­cent of the 10,000 hectare nation­al park is pro­vid­ed for this process pro­tec­tion, but with­out a spe­cif­ic time lim­it for achiev­ing this goal. So far, only 1,351 hectares have been des­ig­nat­ed as wilder­ness area (total reserve, zone I). Human inter­fer­ence of any kind is pro­hib­it­ed there.

On the remain­ing 50 per­cent, i.e. a good 5,000 hectares, exten­sive agri­cul­ture should con­tin­ue to be pos­si­ble under nature con­ser­va­tion require­ments. In the areas of the Nation­al Park Asso­ci­a­tion, the ear­li­est pos­si­ble time of use is set to July 1st, in the case of a corn­crake or reed war­bler stock­ing to August 15th of each year. The stock­ing den­si­ty with live­stock is also lim­it­ed to an aver­age of a max­i­mum of one live­stock unit per hectare. In the case of the mead­ows, the edges of the water and wood­land must be exclud­ed; when mow­ing, alter­nat­ing strips should be left as retreat areas for the mead­ow dwellers. In con­trast to the wilder­ness areas, these exten­sive­ly used pas­tures and mead­ows do not have process pro­tec­tion as a pri­or­i­ty, but also species pro­tec­tion, where­by the focus has been on some par­tic­u­lar­ly pri­or­i­ty species, such as the reed war­bler (Acro­cephalus palu­di­co­la), the corn­crake (Crex crex) or also the burn­er umbels (Cni­d­i­um). It has long been dis­cussed in advance whether if the area were to be pro­tect­ed as a bios­phere reserve, the cul­tur­al suc­ces­sors, for exam­ple the white stork (Cico­nia cico­nia), but also the mead­ow breed­ers would find bet­ter liv­ing con­di­tions on exten­sive­ly farmed areas than in the wild. In fact, oth­er species ben­e­fit from aban­don­ment and nat­ur­al suc­ces­sion than from exten­sive agri­cul­ture. Since both argu­ments and approach­es have some­thing for them­selves, it was final­ly agreed that half of the nation­al park should be kept open for eco­log­i­cal agri­cul­ture and thus for biotope and species pro­tec­tion (zone II) and open half to wilder­ness devel­op­ment (zone I).