Attention: This post contains images of severed trees/branches, clearing vehicals and freshly cut deadwood.
On Monday, 2. February 2026 at around 11 o’clock a truck,
On Monday, 2 February, at around 11 a.m., a van, a lorry and a harvester belonging to the company Arbor Artist drove into the forest. We knew from the Parks Department (Grünflächenamt) that ‘road safety work’ was to take place that day. Nevertheless, we decided to stay, observe and ensure that the cut wood remained in the forest.
Arbor Artist HarvesterArbor Artist Van
The Parks Department has classified two trees as dangerous. One is a willow tree to the left of the tree house and the other is to the left of the entrance to the clearing. The forest workers cut them down to 8 metres and 6 metres respectively. At our request, the workers, who, by the way, spoke out in favour of preserving the Wild Forest, left the cut wood in the forest.
Harvester next to the second willow tree
The Parks Department had actually promised us that they would instruct tree care workers to leave dead wood in the forest. However, the workers on site were unaware of this and had to make a follow-up phone call. During two further tree maintenance projects at the turn of the year, a large proportion of the felled wood was not left in the forest either!
bare trunk of a poplar tree, a little dead wood lying on the forest floor
The next day, activists scattered one of the piles of wood into smaller piles in the forest, while we left the second one alone. These piles of dead wood are excellent insect hotels, shelters and food sources! 🐜We are critical of cutting down entire tree crowns; the WiWa is a forest, not a park where everything has to be neat and tidy. Moreover, there are alternatives to felling half a tree.
Activists on top of a pile of deadwood
To our knowledge, no further tree maintenance work is planned for this clearing season. Nevertheless, we remain vigilant! ✊ #WildForestStaysWild
There is no conflict of objectives: wild forests will remain wild!
What happened?
At the public hearing ‘Wild Forest/Spreehafenviertel: Taking the conflict of objectives seriously’ (“Wilder Wald/ Spreehafenviertel: Zielkonflikt erstnehmen”) on 3 February 2026, the politicians of the district assembly, who will decide on the futur of the Wild Forest, and the public were to be informed. To this end, the political parties invited experts and the audience was able to ask questions. No decisions were made there.
Who organised this?
Die Linke and Volt (opposition, want to save the forest) had requested the public hearing, unfortunately with a formal error. The Green Party and SPD (government, want to destroy the forest) then did it themselves and thus had control over the structure and moderation. They put the issue on the agenda of the main committee (faction leaders), even though the politicians responsible for this area are members of the urban planning committee.
Why didn’t you have any banners with you this time?
We did. But the district office banned all signs and banners and even called the police when we arrived in the foyer. And the security service checked bags to make sure no one smuggled in a banner or sign. But we handed out all our flyers!
Were there many people there and what did they ask?
It was packed, even though the district itself didn’t advertise the public hearing. The Waldretter*innen did that as a volunteer based citizens’ initiative! Right at the beginning of the hearing, the entrance was closed, and latecomers weren’t able to participate. All the people who spoke up during the hearing opposed or were critical of the destruction of the forest. But not all questions were heard!
What did the experts say?
There were nine (supposed) experts present, five against the forest, three in favour of the forest and one in favour of sports facilities. NABU, BUND and a professor of social sciences made it clear that destroying the wild forest would violate species, forest and climate protection laws, would only bring disadvantages to the people in the neighbourhood, and that the figures on how much of the forest will supposedly be preserved are incorrect.
And what did the others say?
The district office and IBA once again talked about how great their plans are, the SPD once again exploited people looking for housing and refugees for their outdated housing construction and urban planning policies, and the Greens went along with it. As always: port and industrial areas are supposedly untouchable and new construction absolutely necessary, the waterfront strip and the ‘action area’ (“Maßnahmenfläche”, 0.9 hectares of forest that are to be preserved) will be “a good compromise”.
Did anything come of it?
No. The official statement from the Nature Conservation Working Group (“AG Naturschutz”) in 2023 is against any development. Since then, the IBA has been weighing things up, working on it… without any changes to the plan that could even remotely be considered a compromise. An honest assessment can only be made if a no to the so-called Spreehafenviertel were possible. But with the SPD and IBA, the economy always takes precedence over nature and climate protection.
And what do you think?
We’re fed up with this pseudo-participation theatre. We don’t care what you have to say, we protect the forest – radically! This clearing season still has 20 days to go, and even after that, the same applies: stop the Spreehafenviertel, keep the wild forest! WHOLE!
Banner we held up in front of the building, it reads “We don’t care what you have to say, we protect the forest – radically!”
