Search

Natural forest expansion (NFE), that is, the establishment of secondary forest on non-forested land through natural succession, has substantially contributed to the widespread expansion of forests in Europe over the last few decades. So far, EU policies have largely neglected the potential of NFE for meeting policy objectives on restoration. Synthesising recent interdisciplinary research, this paper assesses the challenges and opportunities of NFE in view of contributing to European forest and ecosystem restoration. Specifically, we discuss the potential for supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity conservation, and forestry and economic use, summarize the current knowledge about societal perceptions and the policymaking on NFE, and make policy recommendations to better use the potential of NFE. We conclude that NFE has the potential to contribute to the European restoration policy agenda if local contexts and possible trade-offs are properly considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retention forestry implies that biological legacies like dead and living trees are deliberately selected and retained beyond harvesting cycles to benefit biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. This model has been applied for several decades in even-aged, clearcutting (CC) systems but less so in uneven-aged, continuous-cover forestry (CCF). We provide an overview of retention in CCF in temperate regions of Europe, currently largely focused on habitat trees and dead wood. The relevance of current meta-analyses and many other studies on retention in CC is limited since they emphasize larger patches in open surroundings. Therefore, we reflect here on the ecological foundations and socio-economic frameworks of retention approaches in CCF, and highlight several areas with development potential for the future. Conclusions from this perspective paper, based on both research and current practice on several continents, although highlighting Europe, are also relevant to other temperate regions of the world using continuous-cover forest management approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Private forests are widespread in Europe providing a range of ecosystem services of significant value to society, and there are calls for novel policies to enhance their provision and to face the challenges of environmental changes. Such policies need to acknowledge the importance of private forests, and importantly they need to be based on a deep understanding of how property rights held by private forest owners vary across Europe. We collected and analysed data on the content of property rights based on formal legal requirements existing in 31 European jurisdictions. To allow a comparison across jurisdictions, we constructed an original Property Rights Index for Forestry encompassing five rights domains (access, withdrawal, management, exclusion and alienation). We documented substantial variation of the private forest owners’ rights, and notably to i) make decisions in operational management and the formulation of management goals, ii) withdraw timber resources from their forest, and iii) exclude others from the use of forest resources. We identified broad relations between the scope for decision making of private forest owners and jurisdictions’ former socio-political background and geographical distribution. The variation in the content of property rights has implications for the implementation of international environmental policies, and stresses the need for tailored policy instruments, when addressing European society’s rural development, the bioeconomy, climate change mitigation measures and nature protection strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy integration is a challenging process that involves the renegotiation of interests, beliefs, and sectoral policy boundaries. In this paper we introduce European forest policy as an arena that is characterized by a policy (dis)integration paradox. On the one hand, the need for better coordination and integration of fragmented policies is frequently expressed. On the other hand, little has been achieved in terms of policy integration despite several initiatives. Drawing on fifty semistructured interviews with European forest policy makers and participatory observation, we assess, firstly, effects of and reasons for the disintegration paradox and, secondly, the strategic importance of distinct forest policy initiatives that are legitimized by the need for better policy integration. Our data demonstrate that the forest policy (dis)integration paradox can be explained by different factors, with economic interests and sectoral and institutional competition being most important. Under such circumstances, policy integration serves as frequently used rhetoric to consolidate sectoral interests; however, substance-wise, it is simply not happening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ecosystem services framework has become one of the most important paradigms in forest planning and management as a way to link the multiple provisioning, regulating, and cultural services derived from ecosystems and their benefits to human wellbeing. Recently, there have been multiple efforts in emphasizing the importance of cultural ecosystem services (CES). However, the consideration of CES in management models remains a challenge. In the current context of increased demand for the joint supply of multiple ecosystem services, we aim to evaluate which CES are currently promoted by European landowners, what their the future could be, and which factors support or hinder these processes. Our findings are based on a survey of 1182 forest landowners from 25 European countries. By using a mixed-method approach that combines descriptive, ordination, and cluster analysis with qualitative data, our results reveal that CES are currently of high relevance in European forests and forest owners and managers have a generally positive attitude toward further promotion of CES through forest management. There is a high degree of synergy between CES, which suggests that many of them could be jointly promoted. Our analysis further identifies the existence of four differentiated types of forest owners based on their attitudes and management in relation to CES. These groups also differ in regard to the challenges and barriers they perceive in relation to forest CES. These diverse perspectives among Europe's landowners suggest the need for different strategies that satisfy the diverse context-related social-ecological needs required to further promote CES in European forests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Against a background of intensifying climate-induced disturbances, the need to enhance the resilience of forests and forest management is gaining urgency. In forest management, multiple trade-offs exist between different demands as well as across and within temporal and spatial scales. However, methods to assess resilience that consider these trade-offs are presently lacking. Here we propose a hierarchical framework of principles, criteria, and indicators to assess the resilience of a social-ecological system by focusing on the mechanisms behind resilience. This hierarchical framework balances trade-offs between mechanisms, different parts of the social-ecological system, ecosystem services, and spatial as well as temporal scales. The framework was developed to be used in a participatory manner in forest management planning. It accounts for the major parts of the forest-related social-ecological system and considers the multiple trade-offs involved. We demonstrate the utility of the framework by applying it to a landscape dominated by Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) in Central Europe, managed for three different management goals. The framework highlights how forest resilience varies with the pursued management goals and related management strategies. The framework is flexible and can be applied to various forest management contexts as part of a participatory process with stakeholders. It thus is an important step towards operationalizing social-ecological resilience in forest management systems. • Forest management goals determine the desired level of resilience. • Participatory stakeholder engagement is crucial in operational resilience assessment. • Our resilience framework allows projecting future scenarios for indicator analysis. • Multiple trade-offs should be balanced to achieve resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrative forest management approaches, aiming to combine the provision of multiple forest ecosystem services in the same forest area, are popular forest management concepts in Europe. Their understanding and application varies, however, across the continent. This paper looks at one dimension of integrative forest management approaches in particular – the integration of nature conservation measures into forest management; focusing on its understanding and application, as well as current and future social, technological, ecological, economic and political factors enabling or hampering this integration. Drawing on 42 qualitative in-depth interviews with national experts and forest practitioners, our study provides insights into the integration of nature conservation measures into forest management systems aimed at wood production and the provision of other forest ecosystem services under various conditions. Across the investigated countries, the main factors perceived to facilitate this integration are the personal motivations and knowledge of forest managers and their long-term economic thinking related to the resilience of the forest in the face of climate and societal change. In turn, the main factors perceived as hampering the integration are current wood-market demands, and a lack of (public) financial incentives. Public pressure is also perceived as an important influencing factor, which can both impede or support integration. Other ambiguous factors include societal knowledge and related knowledge gaps, relationships between local stakeholders, and the legal framework in which forest management operates. The study concludes with suggestions of how to enhance the uptake of the integration of nature conservation measures into forest management in Europe. • Societal pressure seen as an important driver for integrative approaches. • Societal pressure perceived to impact both uptake and method of conservation measures. • Intrinsic motivation of foresters and economic sustainability support measure uptake. • The wood market and lack of public finances hamper the integration of nature conservation. • Tension between uptake of integrative approaches and economic goals reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]