“This is a fully automated machine translation. The quality and accuracy of machine translation can vary from one text to another and between different language pairs. TRANSFORMIT website admins do not guarantee the accuracy of the translation and accept no liability for possible errors. Please refer to the original text in its original English version if there is any doubt. Some content (such as images, videos, files, HTML links and acronyms) may not be translated or may be inaccurate due to the technical limitations of the system.”
On 1 October 2026, as part of the 2nd TRANSFORMIT Media Study Trip, journalists travelled to Czechia to explore practices of post-disturbance forest management at our Velká Bíteš Satellite Demonstration Areas (SDA). We are happy to share that the trip has already resulted in four reports in Czech media:
This workshop was organised by the European Forest Institute and the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague with the local partner at Velká Bíteš SDA. Three international and five local journalists, including a team from Czech National Television, has joined this trip. Together they walked through forests affected by bark beetle outbreaks and spoke directly with researchers and forest managers. Jiří Nohel, manager of the community forests in Velká Bíteš, guided the group through the day, whereas Miroslav Svoboda and Jan Hofmeister from CZU provided scientific input. The mayor of Velká Bíteš, Ing. Markéta Lavická, also joined the excursion.
More insights from the study trip will follow soon, and we will share further stories as they appear!
How can biodiversity increase the adaptation capacity and resilience of forests that are also managed for wood production? At WaldDialog – Forest Dialogue – Dialogue Forestier 2026, this question brought together forest scientists, practitioners, policymakers, forest owners, communicators and administrators from Switzerland, Germany, France and beyond. On 10 September 2026, we all gathered at the University of Basel to explore what this means for forests facing increasingly uncertain conditions.
The event, organised by the TriNational ForestLab, SwissForestLab, the Conference of Cantonal Foresters (KOK) and the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU), created a space for something our forests – and we as well – increasingly need: dialogue across disciplines, institutions and borders.
I felt that the urgency of this question was made tangible from the very beginning. As Arthur Gessler (WSL/ETH) emphasized, 2026 marks a turning point. Extreme heat and drought are increasingly visible in forests, with trees such as beech already showing severe stress early in the growing season. Across the Basel region, monitoring indicates that rainfall has been reduced in almost every month, leaving forests under considerable pressure, Gessler emphasized.
A strong argument for diversity
A recurring theme throughout the presentations was that diverse forests are better equipped to cope with climate change and uncertainty. Research presented by Hervé Jactel (INRAE) showed that mixed forests tend to be more resilient to drought, fire and wind disturbance than monocultures. They can also be more productive: mixtures of coniferous and broadleaved species can benefit from complementary traits such as different rooting depths and patterns of water use. However, a specific mixture of broadleaved and conifer species is needed for both forest resilience and productivity, and that mixture needs to be identified. Still, the results are promising, highlighting the potential of diversity to strengthen forests in a changing climate.
Diversity, however, is about more than simply planting several tree species. Genetic diversity within species can provide the basis for adaptation to changing conditions, as Jörg Kleinschmit (FVA) highlighted. The choice of tree species — and potentially the use of assisted migration — therefore needs to be considered alongside the genetic resources available to forests.
At the same time, biodiversity conservation cannot be reduced to tree diversity. Frank Krumm and Martin Gossner (both WSL) highlighted the importance of habitat trees, microhabitats and deadwood. Microhabitats are small, specialised structures such as tree cavities, cracks, loose bark or dead branches that provide food, shelter or breeding sites for many species. Many of these valuable structures are found in or develop from deadwood, making it an important element of forest biodiversity. Around a quarter of forest species are closely dependent on it, while many more benefit from it. Natural forest reserves therefore remain an essential component of biodiversity conservation, particularly for species requiring specialised deadwood structures, Gossner emphasized.
Potential of biodiversity in managed forests
But managed forests also offer opportunities, and this event mainly aimed at exploring these. Instead of viewing biodiversity conservation and forest management as separate worlds, foresters can actively create microhabitats and make use of structures generated by natural disturbances. This is where the concept of “close-to-nature forestry” becomes particularly relevant: working with natural processes rather than against them, while maintaining the multifunctionality of forests.
The practical examples presented during the afternoon demonstrated that these ideas are already being put into practice. Case studies from Switzerland included a presentation by our Living Lab partner Amt für Wald beider Basel, Switzerland, represented by the coordinator of the Living Lab Ueli Meier. Examples from Baden-Württemberg (Germany) and Alsace (France) showed how natural regeneration, species diversification, habitat trees and the retention of surviving trees after disturbances can gradually transform forest composition. In Baden AG, for example, the proportion of broadleaved trees increased substantially over 25 years, supported by a strong focus on natural regeneration.
The discussions also made clear that there are no simple or one-fits-all solutions. Increasing deadwood can create safety challenges for forest workers. Changing tree species can involve economic and ecological uncertainties. Continuous-cover forestry offers structural and species diversity but also faces questions around economic risks and social acceptance. And local conditions matter enormously.
From local conditions to European approaches
This is precisely why this cross-border dimension of Forest Dialogue was so valuable. Drought, heat, pests, biodiversity loss and changing societal expectations do not stop at national borders. Forests may be managed locally, but the challenges they face are European.
The direction of European policy reflects this reality. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Nature Restoration Law place increasing emphasis on restoring ecosystems, improving biodiversity and strengthening resilience. Yet this does not mean that Europe needs one standardised model of forest management. Instead, European objectives must be translated into approaches that work under different ecological, economic and social conditions.
FORWARDS presentation by Barbara Mihok
For me, one of the strongest messages from Forest Dialogue was therefore the importance of knowledge transfer as a three-way process. Science needs to inform practice, but researchers also need to learn from the experience of those working in forests every day. The role of policy makers is to provide the interface between science and practice: translating evidence and practical experience into effective policy, while also ensuring that the realities and lessons from the field feed back into policy development. In this way, policy can become not simply an end point for knowledge, but a bridge that connects research, practice and decision-making. Projects such as TRANSFORMIT and FORWARDS as well as an established collaboration like the European Network Integrate (all presented there by my colleagues and me in sessions, via posters and talks) demonstrate different ways of connecting research, policy, and practice. TRANSFORMIT, for example, brings these communities together through Living Labs, stakeholder engagement and the development of practical, evidence-based guidance for Integrative Forest Management. FORWARDS connects scientific monitoring, modelling and data with the needs of forest managers and policy makers, with its ForestWard Observatory designed to support decisions on climate resilience and forest adaptation. The European Network Integrate provides a longer-term interface between the three, combining scientific evidence with demonstration sites, practical experience and policy exchange across countries.
The Forest Knowledge Gateway offers a practical platform to bring these different strands of knowledge together. It makes scientific findings, practical experience, tools and other resources easier to discover and access, helping users find relevant knowledge for the challenges they face in their own forests. In this way, the Gateway can help bridge the gap between knowledge being produced and knowledge being used.
Ultimately, knowledge only becomes valuable when it helps someone to make a better decision in the forest – this is why I also very much enjoyed the presentations by forestry practitioners, who shared what answers they need from research and thus made the exchange more fruitful.
That is what made the Forest Dialogue 2026 particularly encouraging. Despite different perspectives and some smaller controversies, there was a shared recognition that biodiversity, climate adaptation and forest management must be considered together. Bringing different perspectives into the conversation is essential to understand the challenges from all sides, identify solutions that work in practice, and build the trust needed to put them into action. Dialogue and meaningful stakeholder engagement are therefore not just a way of exchanging knowledge – they are part of the process of finding a way forward for resilient forests.
Written by Silvester Boonen, European Forest Institute
In April 15th and 16th 2026, 30 forest practitioners, forest owners, researchers, trainers, and students from 12 European countries gathered in southwest Germany for two intensive days dedicated to one deceptively simple question: How can we better understand the biodiversity potential of forests – in a way that supports real management decisions?
The answer, or at least part of it, was the Index of Biodiversity Potential (IBP), a field-based diagnostic tool that has steadily gained recognition across Europe over the last 15 years. Hosted through the Integrate Network and supported by the HE TRANSFORMIT project, the workshop combined classroom presentations and discussions, insights into the scientific background of the IBP, and extensive field training exercises to prepare future trainers to bring the IBP into their own forestry contexts and institutions.
From the classroom to the forest floor
On the first day, we were welcomed at the town hall of Binzen by Andreas Schuck (EFI) and Frank Krumm (WSL), introducing IBP experts Laurent Larrieu (INRAE, CNPF) and Pauline Marty (CNPF) as our field trainers. Little did we know that the next two days were about to be filled with a tandem of new learnings about the IBP, its theoretical background and a lot of practical knowledge on how to apply the tool in the field.
So, what is the IBP? For starters, rather than directly measuring species richness, the IBP evaluates the so-called hosting capacity, habitats and structural features that support biodiversity at the stand level. Pauline explained that the IBP is used as a diagnostic tool, based on ten factors, seven relating to forest management and three to context. These range from deadwood and vertical forest structure to ancient forest continuity and tree-related microhabitats (TreMs). Each factor is scored from 0 to 5, allowing a maximum of 50. The workshop quickly revealed how much ecological research hides behind this easy-to-apply tool. Pauline explained that the IBP is designed to work fast, ideally within 20 to 30 minutes per stand. She then proceeded to go through each IBP factor and why it matters. Let’s take, for instance, the factor for flower-rich open areas: For this factor, the percentage of flower-rich open areas is recorded in comparison to the surveyed area’s size of the stand. As many species not only rely on deadwood, but also the occurrence of flowers, or both, this factor is highly relevant. Some hoverflies species that need deadwood for their larvae and use the nectar from the flowers in the adult stage.
The IBP, a brief overview of the scientific background
Following the introduction of the 10 factors by Pauline, Laurent took over and gave insights into the science behind the IBP. What appears in the field as a quick and practical scoring tool is, in fact, rooted in two decades of ecological research and development. Laurent reflected on the beginnings of the so-called “Paleo-IBP” around 2004, when he and his colleague Pierre Gonin first explored the idea of creating a rapid biodiversity assessment method for forest managers during their routine work. The first version focused on only five factors – large snags, large logs, very large trees and trees bearing “defects”, large nests, and aquatic habitats. This work eventually led to the landmark 2008 publication introducing the IBP as a “quick and easy method” that did not require taxonomic expertise. Laurent explained how the following years saw continuously refining and validating of the tool. Research explored whether the factors complemented each other, how sensitive the scores were to different forest types and management intensities, and how certain ecological components – especially tree-related microhabitats, deadwood, and forest continuity –could be better understood scientifically. Further, the IBP was adapted to different biogeographic regions (e.g. temperate Europe and the Mediterranean Basin). This process is still ongoing as new regions plan to apply the IBP. Despite all this scientific depth, Laurent stressed that the strength of the IBP remains its practicality: a fast, accessible field tool!
“TreMs are way nicer!”
After all this, it was time to head to the field! We drove to a local communal forest, which Frank introduced to us. The stands consist mainly of high-quality oak with an understory of hornbeam. “They serve the needs of the community as a financial reserve, for example, to renovate a school”, Frank explained.
It was then time to investigate the diverse IBP factors hands-on! Spring was in full swing as the trees had their fresh green leaves, and the ground was covered with spring flora. To start off, Pauline introduced the five layers of the factor, also called ‘vertical structure’ (e.g. 1.5-7 m being the third layer). Here, a layer counts when you can observe a 20% occupancy of leaves in that layer. Important to note is that spring flowers on the forest floor would not be counted as an area for flower-rich open areas, as this factor looks at flowering plants linked to gap dynamics, open areas, and forest edges.
Laurent advised to ‘eliminate’ individual factors as quickly as possible. This means that once the threshold of a factor is reached (e.g. 5 different tree genera), one can neglect that factor, as the maximum score of 5 points is reached. This speeds up the process of filling out the survey and allows forest practitioners to concentrate on the factors which are more difficult to record.
Laurent also noted that an “IBP is a score for today, but one should keep in mind that forests are dynamic and scores can change over time!”
We stopped at a large oak tree. Laurent turns to the group and says: “So, flowers are nice, deadwood is nice, but TreMs are way nicer! I wish TreMs could be higher than 5 in the score, but my colleague Pierre said no, all the factors need to capped at 5”. Everyone laughed! Laurent showed us why he likes this tree, pointing at the loose bark. “This is a bark shelter. It’s loose hanging bark that can serve as a shelter along the trunk with an opening at the bottom; an important feature, e.g. for bats or birds. We then took a look inside and, “voilà”, we could see a nest! Pauline then presented us with a special case, where we saw a combination of both a deadwood log and a snag. While the tree broke down, the lower stem (snag) was still attached to the upper stem that became a log. Such a tree can thus be counted as both lying and standing deadwood.
When we walked further, we came across an atypical kind of pond, a skidding trail, with an aquatic habitat that hosts different species. While this sounds great for biodiversity, skidding trails are caused by harvesting machinery, thus damaging the soil of the forest. This is one of the main reasons why, according to the IBP framework, it is not counted as an ‘aquatic habitat’ and therefore not recorded within the survey. This was the final stop before wrapping up our walk, now having a much better understanding of each IBP factor and ready to soon put the knowledge into practice the next day.
As a final stop we partook in a guided tour through Frank’s farm in Binzen, learned about the local wine culture, and got a small taste of the wine and liquor he makes from his own grapes and cultivated fruit trees.
Walking a plotline
On the second day, we headed out to the Kandern Community Forest, which is part of the foothills of the Black Forest. We met at the natural monument “Beheleneiche”, an old oak tree that has an estimated age of more than 300 years. It only died and fell over around a year ago. Its tree trunk remains, as lying deadwood, offering food and habitat for many organisms – a haven for biodiversity!
So, what was waiting for us that day? With the hope of putting our newly acquired knowledge into action and completing an IBP survey, we divided into small groups. Not sure where to start, Pauline and Laurent helped us by introducing diverse inventory approaches, including 3 possible methods: a route in a) concentric circles, b) a star shape or c) parallel lines. Each group got to pick one method, with our group choosing the concentric circle one.
We then started our survey in the Behleneiche marteloscope, named after the monumental oak tree. To save time, we learned to check the factors as much as possible from one location, as some required much more discussion or detailed observations. Native tree genera were an easy exercise: we spotted beech, maple, oak, wild cherry, and pine… check, 5 points! We then marked the broken tree as a snag, but … wait … another participant noticed that the tree was still alive! Still important for the IBP survey, as it may bear microhabitats. We then were able to count some medium-sized logs as lying deadwood. We also used a TreMs field guide and identified a split fork in a wild cherry.
After the inventory of the inner circle we went on to survey the circular route. We paid particular attention to the factor of ‘vertical structure’, while identifying a few very large trees that were checked for additional TreMs. We then wrapped up our survey : 5 points for native tree species, standing deadwood, living trees bearing microhabitats, very large trees, 2 points for large lying deadwood and vertical structure. The factors with no score were flower-rich open areas, forest continuity, aquatic and rocky habitats, as there were simply none present.
We then started to gather at the Behleneiche, to exchange on what we had surveyed. The local forester, Otto-Jesko von Schröder, joined and shared some insights on the Kandern Community Forest and its management. He highlighted the aim of ensuring a large number of different tree species in stands, emphasising those that can best cope with climate change impacts. One important detail we learned from Otto-Jesko was that formerly these sites were used for mining, which means that in the past, parts of these forests were cleared. For the IBP score this means 0 points for forest continuity over time.
Back in the classroom, the final afternoon sessions gave participants the opportunity to reflect on the IBP survey and place them into a broader operational context, learning about special cases (e.g., the uncapped version of the IBP). They also offered a glimpse into the future development of the IBP, including digital tools and applications designed to support field inventories and data collection more efficiently. By the end of the workshop, the IBP no longer felt like a simple scoring system, but rather like a practical framework that truly connects ecological understanding. Quite a few participants already announced that they will initiate training events in their home countries. Thus, it seems, the mission of training “future” trainers was already accomplished in Binzen! In any case, a memorable workshop for all – one that will hopefully continue to bear its fruits in many forests across Europe.
“Indicators should be implementable, measurable, and aligned with other standards so they can ultimately support forest restoration and Integrative Forest Management across Europe,” said Gesche Schifferdecker as she wrapped up the webinar.
Co-organized with the Integrate Network, our webinar “From Indicators to Action – Bridging Science, Policy and Practice in Forest Restoration and Integrative Forest Management” brought together more than 90 participants from research, policy, and practice to explore how forest indicators can help ambitious restoration policies, particularly the EU Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR), to be effectively translated into action on the ground.
After Gergely Zagyvai, Integrate Network Chair 2026, opened the session with a welcome address, Stefanie Linser (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU)) delivered a keynote presentation on the development of Integrative Forest Management indicators within the TRANSFORMIT project.
This was followed by a rich panel discussion, moderated by Gesche Schifferdecker, featuring José I. Barredo (JRC – European Commission), Bernhard Wolfslehner (European Forest Institute), Teresa Baiges Zapater (Centre De La Propietat Forestal), and Stefanie Linser (BOKU). Together, they explored how diverse forest-related indicators can support decision-making across different governance levels, the practical challenges of monitoring and reporting, and ways to bridge the gap between policy ambitions and practical implementation.
The panel ultimately agreed on one objective: we have to support our forests to become more resilient – and this can only be done if scientists, policy makers, practitioners, and communication experts work collaboratively.
Many thanks to our outstanding moderator, speakers and panelists, and to everyone who joined, asked questions, and shared their experiences!
On 26 June 2026, the FOREXT Fridays webinar series will bring together forest professionals, advisors, researchers, and stakeholders for an engaging webinar exploring how Marteloscopes can support integrative forest management and informed decision-making across Europe’s forests.
Organised in partnership with the EU-funded FORADVISE project, this edition of the FOREXT Fridays webinar series will showcase practical Marteloscope experiences from Ireland and Germany, demonstrating how these innovative learning and decision-support tools help balance ecological, social, and economic forest objectives.
A Marteloscope is a specially designated forest area where every tree is tagged, measured, and mapped. In addition to timber-related information such as wood quality and market value, detailed data are collected on biodiversity features including cavities, deadwood, fungi, lichens, nests, and other microhabitats. By bringing these different dimensions together, Marteloscopes provide a unique environment for training, stakeholder engagement, and testing management decisions in a realistic forest setting.
Marteloscope exercise in the Kottenforst, close to Bonn, Germany (photo: Rosa Castañeda)
As forests face growing demands related to climate resilience, biodiversity conservation, timber production, and recreation, integrative forest management has become increasingly important. Marteloscopes offer a practical way to visualise trade-offs, foster dialogue among stakeholders, and strengthen the capacity of forest advisors and managers to make balanced, evidence-based decisions.
The webinar programme will introduce the Marteloscope concept through the Integrate Network before presenting two case studies. Participants will learn about a Marteloscope initiative in Ireland and discover how Marteloscopes in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, are being used as effective tools for stakeholder engagement. The session will conclude with a discussion on how these approaches can support forest advisors in addressing complex management challenges.
The webinar will take place online on 26 June 2026 from 13:00 to 14:00 CEST. Participation is open to anyone interested in sustainable and multifunctional forest management.
Join FOREXT Fridays to explore how Marteloscopes are helping turn the principles of integrative forest management into practical action on the ground. Register here: FOREXT Fridays – FOREXT
Local and international journalists interviewing Catalan forest owner Antoni Masferrer
In Catalonia a combination of ecological pressures and weakened forest stewardship is increasing fire risks and raising a key question: how can these forests remain resilient and viable?
To respond to this, Catalonia’s Moianès region is emerging as a testing ground for inclusive and place-based innovations. Here, integrative forest management approaches are being developed that combine wildfire prevention, biodiversity conservation, biomass use, and rural development – alongside new forms of collective governance adapted to fragmented ownership.
Together with our local Living Lab partners, we invited a small group of journalists to an immersive, on-site workshop in Moianès to explore these developments first-hand. Through exchanges with forest owners, researchers, NGO representatives, and local authorities, journalists gained grounded insights into how such approaches can work in practice.
Beyond showcasing these initiatives to journalists, the workshop was designed as a two-way dialogue – creating space to reflect on which narratives resonate, and how science and practice can better connect with media storytelling.
Over the coming weeks, we’ll share more insights from the workshop and highlight some of the innovative approaches stewarded within Catalonia’s Moianès region. Stay tuned!
The recent “Train the Trainers” event in Binzen, Germany, jointly organised by TRANSFORMIT project and the Integrate Network, and attended by Jonathan Spazzi (Teagasc) and Dermot Dunphy (DAFM), was instrumental to further bring the IBP survey methodology front and centre as part of the Irish Marteloscope workshops. As fully booked events, these workshop series showcase the current interest in Ireland to learn more about the integration of biodiversity conservation into management practices and, in particular, the Index on Biodiversity Potential. Here a blend of forest owners, practitioners and students are coming together to take part in frank and meaningful discussions.
So far, the feedback received is excellent, says Irish Integrate Network member representative Jonathan Spazzi. The organizers expect around 80 participants to be trained this spring with more planned to attend trainings in Autumn.
Through the Integrate Network and a range of research and development projects, including SimInForest and the TRANSFORMIT project, collaboration across Europe between educators and researchers is ongoing on how best to best promote and communicate new, integrative, and closer-to-nature management solutions and ensure that forest health and productivity can continue to provide essential services to society’s collective well-being.
From 15–16 April, 30 forest practitioners, researchers, and representatives from 12 European countries gathered in Binzen, Germany, for a very special two-day workshop – the first-ever “Train the Trainers” event on IBP, organised by the Integrate Network in collaboration with the EU Horizon TRANSFORMIT Project. We specifically invited a small group of participants to allow for a real hands-on and interactive experience.
On the morning of the 15th, Laurent Larrieu (INRAE) and Pauline Marty (CNPF – Centre national de la propriété forestière) gave us in-depth insights into the science and development of the tool and its ten key factors of biodiversity. In the afternoon, theory was brought to life. In the forest, participants reviewed what had been discussed with real stands and conditions.
Our second day started in a marteloscope in Kandern – participants were split into four groups to test their knowledge and conduct the IBP survey at the forest site. Laurent and Pauline provided hands-on support throughout the exercise, and the local forest manager joined to share the history and management of the forest we were standing in.
Rich Q&As, deep group discussions, and diverse reflections from various national contexts and forest types across Europe – all of these made the exchange valuable, not only with the two trainers but also between participants.
Over the past two days, various participants shared with us their perspectives on the IBP, why the tool is relevant to their local context, and how they are hoping to bring the knowledge from the training back to their colleagues and forests.
With their commitment to bring the knowledge and application of the “Index of Biodiversity Potential” home, we’re grateful for the success of this first iteration of an IBP “Train the Trainers” event!
You could watch the afterevent video on the right to learn more about this event.
Curious to know more about the IBP? Dive into the topic through EFI’s “What is” series and stay tuned for our upcoming articles regarding the IBP, its potential applications, and our IBP “Train the Trainers” participants’ reflections on our two days together.
Join us for a 1.5–2-hour interactive webinar that brings together scientists, policymakers, practitioners, and civil society to explore how knowledge on forests and biodiversity can be better connected, communicated, and put into action. Rather than a series of presentations, this event will emphasize open dialogue and active engagement among all participants.
We’ll kick off with short, insightful inputs from our diverse panelists – representatives from science, policy, practice, indigenous communities, and NGOs – who will share how they prepare and exchange knowledge in their work.
A lively panel discussion will then dive into key questions:
How can scientific, practical, indigenous, and policy knowledge be made more accessible and actionable?
How can we bridge these different knowledge systems to strengthen biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest management in a changing climate?
Participants are warmly invited to join the conversation before and during the event via this Padlet board – submit your questions, share your experiences, and help shape the discussion.
The webinar will also spotlight where to find reliable and tailored knowledge on forest management and biodiversity under climate change, including an introduction to the newly launched Forest Knowledge Gateway.
The panel session, moderated by Jo O’Hara, aims to strengthen knowledge exchange networks and inspire more inclusive, effective collaboration across forest-related communities.
In early October, the Integrate Network representatives gathered in Dublin, Ireland, for their annual meeting – a few autumn days brought together forest owners, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners from across Europe. They came with a shared mission: to learn from each other’s successes and challenges in Integrative Forest Management (IFM) practices.
Among the many productive sessions and exchanges, one captured the collaborative spirit of the gathering – an interactive World Café. This participatory method invites people to rotate between small discussion tables, sharing perspectives and building on one another’s ideas as they go. It turns a meeting into a living dialogue, where every voice adds a piece to the bigger picture.
We had five tables, three questions, and one goal: to reflect together on why IFM is needed, what barriers stand in the way of its wider adoption, and how collaboration can help drive progress.
Why – The roots of resilience
When the first question was asked – Why do we apply integrative forest management? – the answer came as a series of insights that rooted back to one word: resilience.
Participants spoke of forests that must endure uncertainty – storms, pests, changing climates, and shifting societal expectations. To strengthen resilience, they agreed, is to ensure that forests can provide multiple goods and services – timber, biodiversity, recreation, clean water – without losing their vitality.
One participant captured it simply: “It’s about balancing production with diversity and all the other ecosystem services society depends on.” Another added that IFM is “a means of compromise” – between societal interests, biodiversity conservation, and the needs of forest owners.
Stories emerged from practice too. A forest owner had started planting oak, “just to do something different,” his peers recounted. This small spark of curiosity became a symbol of innovation – a forest that is more diverse and resilient. It showed how change often begins quietly, with one decision that ripples outward.
And as others noted, IFM is also an act of education: “It’s not just on paper. Everybody can see how it looks outside in the forest.”
Credits: Rahel KönenCredits: Rahel Könen
What – Between vision and reality
As the conversation turned to practice, the tone grew more grounded. Implementing IFM, the groups agreed, is demanding, held back by limited training, a shortage of skilled contractors, and insufficient financial incentives. The forestry systems in many countries are still “set up for big machines,” which makes closer-to-nature approaches harder to apply. Some raised issues like deer pressure, fragmented ownership, or the need to better adapt IFM to regional contexts where conditions and traditions differ.
“Integrative forest management is more complex to manage,” as the conversation went. “There are more things you have to take into account – and for that reason it’s more costly.”
Yet behind each challenge lies persistence. In smaller forests where hiring a professional was unaffordable, owners learned by doing, guided by peer exchange and shared experience. Participants also discussed the importance of valuing the benefits of IFM – not just timber, but carbon, water, biodiversity, and the social value of healthy forests.
How – Growing together
The final question – How can we collaborate better? – explored the potential of working side by side to support a widespread adoption of IFM.
Forest demonstrations and peer learning were seen as powerful catalysts for change. “If one forest owner plants differently, a neighbour might follow. It takes one person to break the ice,” as one reflection captured.
The conversation grew into a reflection on networks – the need for “champions” who inspire others, and for meetings that bring people together not just professionally, but as a community. Collaboration, participants noted, requires translation – not just between countries and professions, but also for society. “Foresters talk to each other in the same language,” one participant observed. “But society needs to understand us too so that we can show improvements and gain acceptance.”
Inclusion was another key theme: being mindful of local customs, power dynamics, and the ways policies align across EU and national levels. The discussion closed with a clear takeaway: investing in collaboration and education today builds resilience and understanding for tomorrow, avoiding the higher costs of restoration later.
A living conversation
The World Café in Dublin ended with a sense of shared direction. “Why Integrative Forest Management?” one participant reflected aloud. “Because we can. Because it’s possible – and our skills keep growing. We can do it, and that’s exactly why we do it.”
This message lingered in the room long after the discussions ended – as an affirmation of what unites the Integrate Network: the belief that forests, like communities, grow stronger through diversity, dialogue, and care.
And in that shared space – between the forest and the meeting room, between policy and practice – something continued to grow: understanding, trust, and the quiet confidence that IFM remains a living practice, strengthened by dialogue, tested by challenges, and carried forward together.
