Can triad forestry reconcile Europe’s biodiversity and forestry strategies? A critical evaluation of forest zoning

• DOI: 10.1007/s13280-024-02116-2
• Publication Date: 2024-12-19T14:08:24Z
• Authors: Thomas A. Nagel; Mariano Rodríguez...; Tuomas Aakala; Per Angelstam; Admir Avdagić; Zbigniew Borowski; Andrés Bravo-Oviedo; Gediminas Brazaitis; Thomas Campagnaro; Michał Ciach; Milic Curovic; Inken Doerfler; Dimitrios Fotakis; Zoran Govedar; Konstantin Gregor; Yaşar Selman Gült...; Jacob Heilmann-Cl...; Johanna Hoffmann; Jeňýk Hofmeister; Diāna Jansone; Āris Jansons; Sebastian Kepfer-...; Thibault Lachat; Katharina Lapin; Asko Lõhmus; Michael Manton; Stjepan Mikac; Martin Mikoláš; Frits Mohren; Björn Nordén; Peter Odor; Janine Oettel; Yoan Paillet; Momchil Panayotov; Catalin-Constanti...; Tommaso Sitzia; Miroslav Svoboda; Eszter Tanács; Giovanni Trentanovi; Giorgio Vacchiano; Theo van der Sluis; Tzvetan Zlatanov; Sabina Burrascano
• Keywords: Ecoforestry

Abstract Balancing increasing demand for wood products while also maintaining forest biodiversity is a paramount challenge. Europe’s Biodiversity and Forest Strategies for 2030 attempt to address this challenge. Together, they call for strict protection of 10% of land area, including all primary and old growth forests, increasing use of ecological forestry, and less reliance on monocultural plantations. Using data on country wide silvicultural practices and a new database on strict forest reserves across Europe, we assess how triad forest zoning could help meet these goals. Our analysis reveals that zoning in Europe is overwhelmingly focused on wood production, while there has been little concomitant protection of forests in strict reserves. Moreover, most strict forest reserves are < 50 ha in size, likely too small to capture the minimum dynamic area necessary to sustain many taxa. We outline research priorities to meet future demands for timber while minimizing the impact on native biodiversity.