Knowing how a forest could be managed for biodiversity, wood production and other functions does not mean those choices will happen in practice.
Forest owners and managers make decisions within a wider system. Rules determine what they are permitted or required to do. Economic and other incentives affect which options are realistic or attractive. Research, monitoring and practical knowledge help them understand the likely consequences of their choices and adjust as conditions change.
Our recent Productive and Biodiverse study examines these as three interdependent conditions for forest management: institutional support, incentives and science-driven knowledge sharing. Its central conclusion is that none can be considered in isolation. What each can achieve depends partly on how well the others work.
Institutions determine the framework in which forest decisions are made
Institutions include much more than individual laws or public authorities. They encompass governance arrangements, policies, ownership and tenure rules, organisational capacity and the ways different actors coordinate their decisions.
For multifunctional forestry, that coordination is particularly important. Biodiversity conservation, wood production, climate mitigation and other forest objectives are influenced by different policies and interests, which may reinforce one another but can also pull management in different directions.
The Productive and Biodiverse study does not identify one governance model that should be applied across Europe. Instead, it emphasises institutional fit: clear responsibilities, sufficient capacity and coordination between policies and organisations so that different objectives can be pursued coherently.
That is partly a practical issue. Forest ownership alone varies enormously across Europe, from large public and private holdings to landscapes divided between many small owners. The rules and arrangements needed to coordinate management in one setting may therefore be unsuitable in another.
Forest management incentives need to reward the outcomes they are intended to support
Rules establish the framework, but incentives influence what happens within it.
These can be financial, including subsidies, payments for ecosystem services and green finance, or non-financial, such as secure tenure and recognition. Their purpose is not simply to provide money. Incentives can change the balance of risks and benefits facing forest owners and managers and make different management choices more or less attractive.
Coherence and balance between incentives is therefore crucial. On the one hand, payments for ecosystem services, for example, can support biodiversity and other ecosystem services when they are well targeted and embedded in supportive institutions. On the other hand, subsidies and tax relief can continue to favour production unless they are deliberately designed to support biodiversity, climate mitigation or other non-market benefits.
The study broadly concludes that incentives need to fit local ecological conditions, ownership structures and socio-economic circumstances, and poorly designed incentives can create environmental or social consequences that were not intended.
The question is therefore not simply how much support is available, but what behaviour it rewards and whether that behaviour matches the outcomes policy is trying to achieve.
Knowledge must connect evidence with real forest management decisions
Forest management also depends on people being able to use the available evidence.
The study describes this as science-driven knowledge sharing, operating at several levels. International assessments can bring research together for policy. National forest inventories, monitoring systems and advisory services can translate evidence into guidance for management and restoration. At local level, forest owners, managers, researchers, businesses and communities can make use of scientific and practical knowledge together around particular decisions.
Monitoring can show whether management is producing the intended outcome. Forest managers contribute practical experience that may change how research is interpreted or applied. Participatory approaches can help different stakeholders understand trade-offs and develop approaches that fit local circumstances.
Research therefore becomes most valuable when it forms part of a learning process: evidence informs action, outcomes are monitored, and what is learned feeds back into subsequent decisions.
Together, institutions, incentives and knowledge form one enabling system for productive and biodiverse forestry
Institutions determine who can design incentives, who can benefit from them and how they are governed. Incentives influence whether forest owners and managers adopt particular practices. Knowledge and monitoring provide evidence about whether those practices are delivering the outcomes they were intended to support.
Weakness in one area can undermine the whole arrangement. A well-designed payment scheme may achieve little if ownership rights or responsibilities are unclear. Strong research may have limited influence if advisory systems cannot translate it into practical decisions. Incentives may reward the wrong behaviour if monitoring is too weak to show what is being delivered.
That is why the study argues for an integrated approach rather than treating governance, incentives and knowledge as separate policy tools.
Productive and biodiverse forestry ultimately depends on both what can be done in the forest and whether the wider system makes those choices possible. Technical knowledge of forest management remains essential, but implementation also requires coherent rules, incentives aligned with the outcomes being sought, and evidence that can be used and updated as conditions change.
Explore the full Productive and Biodiverse study and its findings here
