Today, we are excited to share our latest Teaming Up 4 Forests study Productive and Biodiverse, a new synthesis study examining how Europe’s forests can continue to supply wood while maintaining or improving biodiversity.
The study finds that productive and biodiverse forests are achievable in Europe. But achieving both depends less on finding a single “best” model of forestry than on combining different approaches across forests and landscapes, adapting them to local conditions and understanding trade-offs .
The study brings together research on biodiversity conservation and wood production, biodiversity measurement, forest carbon, climate resilience and the institutional conditions that shape forest management. Across these different areas, three findings stand out.
1. Biodiversity conservation and wood production can and must coexist
Around two-thirds of European forest area supplies timber. Biodiversity conservation therefore cannot be considered only in forests set aside from production. Forests that are used for wood production can also contribute to biodiversity conservation, although what they can provide depends on how they are managed and on the wider context.
Different species require different conditions. Some depend on old trees, deadwood and long habitat continuity; others benefit from more open conditions or earlier stages of forest development. Those requirements cannot all be maximised within every forest stand at the same time.
The synthesis therefore points towards diversity in management rather than one universal prescription. Production forests can retain important biodiversity features, while protected areas and intentionally unmanaged patches provide other conditions. Integrative Forest Management is one framework for coordinating these approaches across individual trees, forest stands and wider landscapes.
The balance will differ between places. Europe’s forests vary in ecology, ownership, management history and exposure to climate change, so the same combination of approaches cannot simply be reproduced everywhere.
2. Whether forest management is working depends on what we measure, at what scale and over what period
Several chapters of the synthesis reach the same conclusion from different directions: the way an outcome is defined and measured changes the picture we see.
Forest biodiversity cannot be represented adequately by a single indicator. It includes genetic and species diversity, forest structure and ecological functions, each of which may require different measures and monitoring approaches.
The same need for precision applies to climate. Carbon stored in living forests, carbon retained in harvested wood products and potential emissions avoided through substitution are related, but they have different effects. The length of time carbon remains stored also changes its climate value.
Resilience presents a similar challenge. A forest may recover from disturbance through its own ecological processes, or management may repeatedly intervene to maintain a particular condition or level of production. Both can produce stability, but they are not the same form of resilience and can lead to different ecological outcomes.
Across these questions, monitoring is not simply about collecting more data. It has to be matched to the outcome being pursued, the spatial scale at which change is expected and the period over which that change can realistically be observed. The synthesis links monitoring directly with adaptive management: evidence needs to inform decisions as forest conditions change.
3. Forest outcomes depend on institutions, incentives and knowledge as well as silviculture
Knowing which management approaches are available is only part of the challenge. Forest owners and managers also operate within rules, markets and policy frameworks that shape what they can realistically do.
The report identifies three enabling conditions: institutional support, incentives and science-driven knowledge sharing. They are closely connected.
Institutions establish responsibilities, rights and the framework within which decisions are made. Incentives influence which choices are financially or practically attractive. Knowledge sharing connects research, monitoring and practical experience with decisions on the ground. These conditions for an interdependent system rather than separate tools – it is vital that they each work to support the same central forest management goals.
Taken together, the findings do not amount to a single recipe for Europe’s forests. Nor do they suggest that the trade-offs between biodiversity conservation, wood production and other forest functions can simply be managed away.
They provide a clearer basis for making those choices: use a diversity of management approaches where different conditions are needed; define and monitor the outcomes being pursued at appropriate scales and over meaningful periods; and ensure that institutions, incentives and knowledge support the decisions being asked of forest owners and managers.
Read the study report and industry brief here: https://teamingup4forests.com/resources/productive-and-biodiverse/
