Forest Resilience - Transformit

Forest Dialogue 2026: Biodiversity as a key to resilient forests

Gesche Schifferdecker on 15 September, 2026

by Gesche Schifferdecker (EFI)

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.

Integrate poster (Andreas Schuck & Gesche Schifferdecker) — Integrate Network poster (Andreas Schuck & Gesche Schifferdecker)

TRANSFORMIT poster (Andreas Schuck & Gesche Schifferdecker) — Integrate Network poster (Andreas Schuck & Gesche Schifferdecker)

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.

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.

What a nice resilient forest game, developed and presented by Ting Tang (ETH Zürich)

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.

El Periódico: “Europe turns Moianès into a laboratory for how tree removal can help curb large wildfires”

Rahel Könen on 28 August, 2026

We are pleased to share a recently published article by El Periódico on our TRANSFORMIT Living Lab in Moianès, Catalonia: a landscape where forest management must respond simultaneously to drought, rising temperatures, biodiversity loss, and the risk of large wildfires.

Across 30,000 hectares, our local partners are testing different approaches to managing dead trees and forest biomass: removing some wood, retaining large logs as shelter and food for species, or applying intermediate solutions. The aim is not simply to “cut down trees”, but to learn – through evidence on the ground – which practices can create more diverse, resilient forests that are easier to manage in the face of extreme fires.

*Teresa Baiges and Mercè Vilardos during TRANSFORMIT’s media field trip in the Moianès Living Lab*

The article also reflects something that is central to our project: transformation does not just happen through forest processes, it happens through active collaboration and dialogue. Teresa Baiges, from the Centre de la Propietat Forestal of the Catalan Government, highlights the need to integrate biodiversity and climate-adaptative approaches into forest management. Mercè Vilardosa, a forestry technician for the region, works with landowners and links local needs to potential solutions. Other voices, including Pilar Clapers from the environmental group El Fanal, Josep Maria Espelta, a researcher at CREAF, Asier Larrañaga from the GRAF unit of the Catalan Fire and Rescue Service, and forest owner Antoni Masferrer demonstrate why collaboration among science, public authorities, landowners, civil society and emergency services is vital for creating climate-resilient forest futures.

The Moianès Living Lab and case study is relevant as it shows that integrative forest management requires place-based and adaptive decisions: retaining trees with high ecological value, reducing fuel continuity, and evaluating outcomes over the long term. Managed areas may not necessarily stop a fire, but they can reduce its intensity and give firefighting teams more opportunities to intervene safely.

What complex questions must we address to support Mediterranean forests in adapting to a changing climate?

Read the full article by El Periódico in Spanish here: “Europa convierte el Moianès en un laboratorio sobre cómo talar árboles para frenar grandes incendios”

Surveying the House Where Many Live: Recap of the Very First “IBP Train-the-Trainers” Workshop

Rahel Könen on 22 July, 2026

Written by Silvester Boonen, European Forest Institute

In April 15^th and 16^th 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.

For more knowledge and guidance on how to apply the IBP, visit: https://www.cnpf.fr/ibp-index-biodiversity-potential

Webinar Recording Out Now! – From Indicators to Action: Bridging Science, Policy and Practice in Forest Restoration and Integrative Forest Management

Rahel Könen on 1 July, 2026

“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!

Wegscheid’s Living Lab: where woodpeckers and forest managers find their place

Katharina Freund on 3 December, 2025

High up in the Styrian hills of Austria, where spruce crowns shimmer like scales in shifting light, a quiet transformation is underway. It began with a growing realization: forests can be managed and alive at the same time.

How it all began: A forest rethinks its future

The Austrian Federal Forests had long recognized their responsibility as caretakers of some of the country’s most precious natural areas. This commitment continuous today, extending not only to the management of protected areas but also to the integration of conservation ideas and guidelines into the management of commercially used forest across the country. Gradually, approximately half of the forest districts have now been equipped with an Ecological Landscape Management concept, ensuring that biodiversity is increasingly woven into everyday forest operations.

The Ecological Landscape Management isn’t just an add-on. It became a new way of thinking: forest plans now include not only economic but also ecological data, every decade-long operational plan accounts for habitats, and every stand is seen through the dual lens of use and nature conservation.

This same shift lies at the heart of TRANSFORMIT’s mission of Integrated Forest Management.

And so, when a Living Lab was to be established in Austria, the choice felt obvious: the 8,155-hectare forest district of Wegscheid. A region where the four pillars of Ecological Landscape Management, namely conservation and renaturation, habitat connectivity, process protection, and a conservation areas register are already invented.

The TRANSFORMIT Living Lab would focus on one of these pillars: creating a net of habitat stepping stones through the forest for specific umbrella-species.

A defining moment: When crisis becomes catalyst

If there is a single snapshot that captures the spirit of Wegscheid, it may be the moment local foresters walked through stands devastated by bark beetles. Spruce – when planted decades ago outside its natural range – often had fallen victim to increasing temperatures, drought, storms, and pests. The landscape partly looked raw, wounded. Yet instead of discouragement, something else took root: determination.

Foresters, researchers, and partners understood that this painful transformation was also an opportunity. As bark beetle outbreaks now slowly decline, conversations in Wegscheid have shifted. How can forests be rebuilt to withstand climate change? How can biodiversity become the foundation of resilience?

In that moment, the spirit of the Living Lab crystallized: experimenting boldly, learning continuously, and working together for forests that can face an uncertain future.

The heart of the Living Lab

Imagine a woodpecker. A black woodpecker perhaps, or a three-toed one, flying across a patchwork of forest stands. Not every piece of forest is equally suitable as a habitat for the bird. Some are young, some uniform, some still healing from storms or bark beetle attacks. What this bird needs is a network of stepping stones: pockets rich in habitat trees, deadwood, shelter, and food.

In 2022, foresters in Wegscheid began mapping exactly that. Around 512 hectares were selected as habitat connectivity stepping stones: old stands, naturally regenerating patches, areas rich in deadwood and microhabitats. Across these areas, management was redesigned:

No clear-cuts
Multi-stage interventions instead of single harvests
Habitat trees retained
Deadwood deliberately left to decay
Forest edges shaped in gentle, irregular forms
Regeneration encouraged with ecologically valuable tree species

The goal? To ensure that woodpeckers, and with them countless other species, find suitable habitats and can move safely and thrive across the forest landscape via these “stepping stones”.

From science to practice

As part of TRANSFORMIT, three Marteloscope training sites were created. These sites give stakeholders a hands-on way to experience forest decision-making:

A mature stepping-stone stand, rich in habitats for woodpeckers
A naturally regenerated, yet unmanaged stand full of tree diversity
A young spruce stand, marked by heavy bark peeling damage; an honest reflection of the challenges the region faces

Visitors stepping into these Marteloscopes literally walk into the questions the Living Lab is trying to answer.

Working in the Wegscheid Living Lab is many things at once

Working in the Wegscheid Living Lab is an experience shaped by contrasts. On the one hand, it is deeply experimental: new methods are tested directly in real forest stands, where every decision has visible consequences. At the same time, it is fundamentally community-driven, bringing together foresters, scientists, and local stakeholders who learn from each other and share responsibility for the landscape they shape. The work can be challenging, especially in an environment marked by extreme weather events, past calamities, and the legacy of outdated stand structures. Yet it is also profoundly inspiring. Every habitat tree that remains standing, every piece of deadwood deliberately left to decay, and every young, diverse stand growing toward maturity symbolizes a step toward greater resilience. Above all, the Living Lab is a place where hope meets pragmatism. A space where vision and hands-on action come together.

What changes do we expect?

Within the TRANSFORMIT framework, the Wegscheid Living Lab examines how effectively the concept of habitat-connectivity stepping stones can be implemented under real-world conditions. It explores where challenges emerge during this process, how these ecologically valuable areas can be secured and maintained over the long term, and how integrated forest management can move from theory into daily practice. The findings from Wegscheid are intended to do more than support local decision-making; they will contribute to a broader mission. By generating evidence-based insights and practical principles, the Living Lab helps pave the way for scaling up Integrated Forest Management across Europe and supports the ambitious goals embedded in current EU forest and biodiversity policies.

TRANSFORMIT aims to support the goals of the EU Green Deal, the Biodiversity Strategy, and the EU Forest Strategy 2030. The lessons from Wegscheid (on connectivity, resilience, and the integration of conservation into forest use) will help shape these European ambitions.

Because in the end, the story of Wegscheid is not just a local one. It is part of a much larger narrative: learning how forests can adapt, recover, and thrive, while still providing the resources and services society depends on.

And in a quiet corner of Styria, the forest is beginning to show how IFM can foster biodiversity at the same time – a small but promising step.

Transforming Forests into Futures along 17 Key Indicators

Katharina Freund on 2 December, 2025

Article by Dr. Stefanie Linser (BOKU)

Across Europe, forests are expected to do more than ever: protect wildlife, cope with climate change, provide many benefits to people, and stay healthy in a rapidly changing environment. Meeting all these demands means working with the natural complexity of forests rather than trying to simplify it.

In the TRANSFORMIT project, Integrative Forest Management (IFM) is understood as a way of managing forests that brings together biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation, while still allowing forests to provide a wide range of ecosystem services. IFM takes inspiration from natural forest structures and processes and is applied at different scales – from individual trees to whole landscapes. It also uses a mix of management levels, including places that are intentionally left unmanaged, to help forests function well and remain resilient.

Turning this vision into practice, however, demands something essential: a way to measure progress, monitor outcomes, and report results consistently across regions and policy levels. This is where the TRANSFORMIT project’s 17 indicators come in.

A management approach built for a changing world

IFM moves beyond single-objective forestry. It recognises forests as dynamic systems whose resilience depends on forest’s diversity (e.g. mix of tree, shrub, and wildlife species), structural complexity (e.g. layered canopies and fallen logs that create varied habitats), and natural processes (e.g. decay, nutrient recycling, and natural regeneration after disturbance). By weaving together ecological and social perspectives, IFM aims to balance the provision of wood and non-wood products with biodiversity conservation, carbon storage, water regulation, and climate adaptation.

Yet even a well-defined concept must be made operational. Without measurable indicators, IFM risks remaining an ambition rather than shaping real decision-making.

*Forest visit as part of stakeholder co-creation workshop in Zagreb, spring 2025*

From 80 candidates to 17 key indicators: A collaborative journey

Developing the indicator system began with a broad exploration of around 80 potential indicators identified through international frameworks, earlier projects, and existing certification schemes. But selecting the right ones required local knowledge and hands-on experience.

Across seven Living Labs, stakeholders – from forest managers to policymakers, researchers, conservationists, and community representatives – worked together in iterative workshops. They debated feasibility, relevance, trade-offs, regional differences and thresholds. Through this multi-stage, co-creative process, the long list steadily refined into a focused set of 17 meaningful, measurable, and usable indicators. These indicators reflect not just scientific priorities, but the day-to-day realities of forest management across Europe.

*Stakeholder excursion with LL experts in Zagreb, spring 2025*

Indicators designed for practice and policy

Each IFM indicator we finally agreed upon is supported by a detailed factsheet explaining its rationale, characteristics, and relevance. The factsheets outline measurement units at stand and national levels, point to data sources, identify targets and thresholds, and highlight potential trade-offs or regional considerations.

This ensures the indicators are not just theoretically robust but rather operational tools that forestry professionals can use in practice.

The system also stands out for its integration and scalability. Together, the indicators address ecosystem services, biodiversity, resilience, and climate adaptation while aligning directly with major policy frameworks including the EU Green Deal, the EU Biodiversity Strategy, and the New EU Forest Strategy 2030. This alignment strengthens dialogue between practitioners on the ground and policymakers, shaping Europe’s environmental agenda.

Looking ahead: Indicators for the future

The role of the indicators does not end with monitoring. In the next phase of TRANSFORMIT, they will feed into Decision Support Tools, modelling approaches, and interactive digital twins of forests. This means the indicators will become more than descriptive. They allow managers to explore scenarios, weigh decisions, and plan for climate and biodiversity challenges, and help to further bridge the gap between understanding the present and shaping a resilient future.

Why the co-creation process matters

The strength of this indicator system lies not only in its technical design but in how it was created. By embedding stakeholder participation throughout and grounding the work in seven real-world Living Labs across Europe, the indicators reflect practical constraints, local priorities, and diverse ecological conditions.

*Stakeholder workshop with LLs in Zagreb, spring 2025*

This approach builds trust, relevance, and ownership, which are key ingredients for successful implementation across regions and management intensities.

The backbone of Integrative Forest Management

These 17 indicators form a shared foundation for understanding whether IFM measures are achieving their aims. They offer transparency, support evidence-based decision making, and provide a common reference for both local action and European-level reporting. Most importantly, they offer a reliable way to connect policy ambitions with on-the-ground practice. They form the backbone of Integrative Forest Management: Measurable. Meaningful. Mission-driven.

And they help ensure that the forests supporting our societies today remain resilient, diverse, and full of biodiversity for generations to come.

If you’d like to explore the indicators in detail, our website hosts all 17 factsheets in an accessible, practical format.

Roots of resilience: Insights from the Integrate Network World Café in Dublin

Daria Kononenko on 4 November, 2025

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.”

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.

Waldlabor – A forest laboratory for experimental research, discovery and education

Daria Kononenko on 29 August, 2025

How can we better communicate forest management issues to the public? How can we reconnect forests and people in times of increased alienation? These two questions lie at the heart of Switzerland’s first outdoor Forest Lab called “Waldlabor” – a place for forest research and experiential learning.

It’s a misty Tuesday afternoon in June at the ETH Hönggerberg Campus in Zurich. Participants of our Swiss Integrate Network workshop have geared up in waterproof clothes and are ready for a few more hours of outdoor fun at the so-called “Waldlabor” – a unique forest area on the outskirts of the city. Diverse learning sessions at this 150-hectare mixed broadleaved forest already lie behind us, and we await in anticipation the second round of educational activities.

Zurich’s “Waldlabor”, or Forest Lab, functions as an innovative demonstration and research site – a prototype for public engagement and science communication that we get to experience as part of a full-day programme at the Integrate Network workshop. Together with Martin Brüllhardt, managing director of the Forest Lab, we walk towards one of the entrances of the forest area. He explains that the initiative to bring this project to life originated with WaldZürich, a local association of forest owners.

“There was a need to create a space where forest owners could communicate about managed forests and forest ecosystem services. A place that could offer more exchange between the public, practice, and research”, explains Martin Brüllhardt.

The vision was to create an open classroom, a place for exploration, recreation and research – where visitors can come to, be immersed in the forest, and learn about different types of forest management practices, including historical, current and future ones.

“The Waldlabor is designed as an open research and communication forest – anybody that wants to contribute or tackle a research question is invited to do so”, mentions the managing director.

In 2019, after a year of envisioning and planning, six entities – including ETH Zurich, the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Green City Zurich, the Office of Landscape and Nature of the Canton of Zurich, and the Association of Zurich Foresters – came together to launch the Waldlabor association. As an initiative, it’s unique in that it is the first real-life laboratory for immersive education and experiential forest research in all of Switzerland.

Open to diverse kinds of research questions, Martin Brüllhardt explains that one aspect the initiative is investing into is the overall designability of landscapes and forests. Asking, how can we better shape forests? And how can we create and showcase respective forest ecosystem services?

The Waldlabor’s five main themes as featured on Fig. 2 in chapter ‘Box C 10 Waldlabor Zürich – the Zürich Forest Lab’ (pp.380-383) of the book How to balance forestry and biodiversity conservation – A view across Europe (2020).

“The idea is to become better at communicating about these issues with real-life examples, both visible to the public as well as other forest managers and owners”, says the managing director of the initiative.

As we visit the forest site, it becomes clear that the Forest Lab hosts many kinds of research projects. Some focus on gaining new insights on climate change and biodiversity, while others explore integrative approaches related to managing habitat trees or deadwood islands.

Trying to connect different disciplines, one project currently aims to analyse a huge dataset to better understand how forest ecosystems interact and function. This is called “ecological macroscoping” – a way to study the complexity of ecological systems and the diverse factors that interrelate to shape its whole.

Other projects are of more educational nature and integrate different teaching pedagogies. One example here is a project showcasing species diversity within a collection of mid-European woody species. Other on-the-ground activities highlight the diversity of management schemes and their impact on forests.

“We have this idea to become a kind of dynamic museum of different forest structures as a result of different interventions,” explains Martin Brüllhardt.

*Martin Brüllhardt (left) on an interactive excursion through the “Waldlabor”. Credits: Rahel Könen*

In general, the idea is to continuously increase the number of projects hosted at the forest plot and remain open to new ideas from forest managers, researchers and the public.

With the support of volunteers, the Forest Lab also offers guided tours to both experts and lay audiences. An interactive map is accessible in the Waldlabor-App and makes it easy for visitors to explore the forest area on their own.

Towards the end of the tour, Martin Brüllhardt notes that, as a forest plot that connects both forest production and protection, they only ever cut the amount that annually can also regrow. As such, they hope to ensure and showcase the sustainability of wood production.

*Diverse learning activities that took place at the Waldlabor Zurich as part of our Integrate Network workshop in Switzerland. Credits: Rahel Könen*

Visiting Zurich’s Forest Lab was part of a larger Integrate Network workshop, organized by the Federal Office for the Environment FOEN, ETH Zürich and the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL. Read more about the workshop here.

Educational and social functions of forests

Daria Kononenko on 27 August, 2025

In the Woziwoda Forest District, northern Poland, forests are managed not only for timber but also as living classrooms. The district combines ecological, social, and protective functions, with a strong focus on education – offering vocational training, outdoor activities, and unique programmes like forest tree beekeeping. This case highlights how multifunctional forests can connect people to nature, biodiversity, and cultural traditions while ensuring sustainable management.

Timber use and ecosystem services, Poland

Case study from How to Balance Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation

Authors for this case study are Stefan Konczal and Agata Konczal.

Access the book here!

What a forest’s past can teach us

Louisa Bouri-Saouter on 20 August, 2025

The Langau forest, situated at 1,050 meters above sea level in southern Lower Austria, evolved through centuries of varied human use and forest management. One of its most recent management approaches was the close-to-nature one. How was this approach applied in a mountainous region known for its challenging conditions, where continuous forestry can be particularly difficult, and where soils have been degraded by centuries of previous land use? What did 20 years of close-to-nature forest management look like in the Langau forest?