Mountain bike projects continue to have a particularly difficult time in the canton of Bern. The most recent example is the "Gantrisch Nature Park Mountain Bike Routes Concept". A route is planned that connects Bern with the Gantrisch Nature Park. The Verein Bike Region Voralpen is cautiously driving it forward, involving all those affected. At an information evening at which landowners and other user groups are informed about the project and asked for their opinion, the Bernese Forest Owners Association (BWB) appears, according to eyewitnesses, and distributes a document that it also offers on its website. It states: "The Association of Bernese Forest Owners recommends that all affected forest owners do not sign any "declarations of consent" or similar. Only and exclusively a contract of use with corresponding compensation can be considered as a prerequisite for signing a planning application."

The advantage of a contract of use over a declaration of consent is made clear a little further down: the owners of the forest in which others ride bicycles should be compensated for the damage they suffer as a result. This is because trails and routes restrict forest management: cultivable land is lost and the costs increase due to information, coordination and safety measures during forestry work.

And this brings us to the actual aim of the paper: in the opinion of their association, Bern's forest owners must be compensated if cycling is permitted on their forest land. And not too little:

15,000 francs compensation for 1 kilometer of trail - per year

For a newly created mountain bike trail, 1 to 5 francs per square meter would be appropriate. And because a trail also restricts forest management beyond its own width, a width of three meters should generally be assumed. A trail of one kilometer in length therefore entails an area of 3,000 square meters that can no longer be managed. The private owners of the forest would have to receive between 3,000 and 15,000 francs for this. Per year. If the owners of the forest area on which the Gurten Trail is located were compensated in this way, they would receive 12,000 to 36,000 francs per year. Anyone can work out for themselves what this would have earned them in the 19 years of operation of the Gurten Trail so far.

In addition, the Bernese forest owners also want to be compensated for the shared use of the forest roads by cyclists. This applies to gravel bikers and touring cyclists, for example. After all, this costs a little less, namely CHF 0.50 to 2 per meter and year (here the running meter is decisive). A forest road of one kilometer in length should therefore earn its owner 500 to 2000 francs per year if he has to tolerate cycling on it.

Who should pay for this is left open in the paper from the Bernese forest owners. It's not their problem. For those who promote trail projects, however, it certainly is, as it significantly increases costs, all the more so as these are recurring. Of course, maintaining a trail is not cheap either. But paying an additional 120,000 to 360,000 francs over ten years for the right to use the trail - take Gurten as an example - is likely to make practically any project unaffordable.

Bike use would be much more lucrative than forestry

The question is: have Bern's forest owners discovered cycling as a new source of income? Or are they much more interested in making trail projects unrealizable because they cannot be financed? A third possibility: it is a negotiating tactic and the BWB is trying to get as much as possible for itself with a maximum demand, knowing full well that it won't be quite that much after all.

One thing is clear: compensation of 1 to 5 francs per square meter is far above the average income of Bern's forest owners. This is usually calculated per hectare, which would be 10,000 to 50,000 francs per hectare of managed forest. The latest figure on the income of Bern's forestry operations relates to 2021 and comes from the Canton of Bern's sustainability report. It states that this year was "above average", with a yield of 76 francs per hectare. In comparison, bike trails are a goldmine.

Of course, an owner cannot cover their entire forest with trails. But even a built trail of 100 meters through one hectare of forest (100 by 100 meters) would bring in 300 to 1500 francs, i.e. four to twenty times the cantonal cut.

Despite this, the Association of Bernese Forest Owners maintains at the request of Ride: "The compensation to the landowners is based on the additional costs incurred and the loss of income." Nevertheless, Managing Director Anja Leser clarifies that compensation is a matter for negotiation between the route or trail operators and the landowners. "If the construction of a route or trail relieves the pressure on the remaining forest area and good maintenance and liability regulations are found, the forest owners are certainly willing to waive maximum demands in negotiations." That sounds more like negotiating tactics again.

This is how BEBike, Swiss Cycling and IMBA Switzerland are reacting

The BEBike association, which in recent years has tried with some success to soften the blockade attitude of many stakeholders towards mountain biking, is in talks with the BWB in a working group. BEBike President Hansueli Zwahlen comments on the forest owners' demand: "The issue of compensation has been on our minds for some time, especially in the state forest and in individual municipalities. Interestingly, it is far less of an issue for individual private forest owners. They simply want a regulated solution, a contact person in the bike community and liability insurance for their area."

According to Zwahlen, BEBike has been negotiating an acceptable solution for owners and managers in the canton of Bern with the BWB and the Bernese Farmers' Association for over a year. "We are surprised by the public advance of the Bernese Forest Owners Association, as we are actually still in the middle of the negotiation process." For Hansueli Zwahlen, it is clear that compensation in the amount proposed by the BWB will make mountain bike projects unfeasible. "All they are doing is promoting wild and unorganized mountain biking."

The BEBike President sees the current situation as a wake-up call for mountain bikers. "It is really important that we all stand together, because only as a strong unit of the bike community do we have enough counterweight against the other interest groups. They have their people behind them across the board and are very well organized and networked." Everyone should become a member of an infrastructure or lobby organization, especially in the canton of Bern.

For Swiss Cycling and IMBA Switzerland, the BWB's paper is a case of déjà vu: just over a year ago, WaldSchweiz presented a paper in which the association of Swiss forest owners also demanded financial compensation for bike trails. Accordingly, the two cycling associations point out that their position still applies. "Last spring, we published a position paper on leisure activities in the forest. In it, we advocated a holistic and fair approach and called for mountain bikers to be treated equally with other user groups. At the same time, we made it clear that we are not fundamentally opposed to compensation in certain cases. We are aware of the important role of forest owners and want to actively promote dialog with them."

However, compensation should only be paid if it is objectively justified and proportionate. Swiss Cycling and IMBA Switzerland then refer to the aforementioned working group in the canton of Bern, which is working on joint solutions. "We are therefore all the more surprised by the recently published, one-sided demands of the Bernese forest owners."

The planned route from Bern to Riggisberg will be a first touchstone for both the BWB and the mountain bike organizations, which will show where they can find each other and who can pay for it. Will there be a price tag on every forest trail from now on and will they be charged by the meter? Or is the majority of people of the opinion that it is more important that mountain bikers are guided along attractive routes? One thing is clear: the BWB's maximum demand makes bike projects - whether large or small - unaffordable.