Global discussions for local solutions – Integrative Forest Management across the world
Article written by Rahel Könen and Louisa Bouri-Saouter
To strengthen international scientific exchange on the topic of Integrative Forest Management, the TRANSFORMIT project recently organized a ‘Global Scoping Workshop’ that brought together 35 participants from Australia and Asia, Europe and Africa, and the Americas. The overall objective was to support the conceptualization, co-creation and writing process around how to consolidate biodiversity conservation and wood production in managed forests across the globe.
The hybrid workshop was hosted by Wageningen University’s Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group with the aim to translate the outcome of the discussions into a co-authored paper that will present the current state of the art, convergences and differences on the topic of Integrative Forest Management (IFM).
Widening the research scope on integrative approaches, practices and drivers
A major aim of the gathering was to clarify the diversity of practices in the field of forest management and biodiversity conservation, as well as how various scholars from across the world conceptualize the main drivers of integrative approaches across the world.
Such international exchange helps expand on research insights from the book chapter ‘Driving factors for integrated forest management in Europe’ in How to balance forestry and biodiversity conservation: A view across Europe (2020), where co-authors Agata Konczal, Jakob Derks (Wageningen University) and Johannes H.C. de Koning (University of Copenhagen) investigated how and why nature conservation is being integrated into forest management practices across different European forest units and enterprises. By mapping current and future social, economic, political, technological and ecological drivers across 9 European case studies they came across various regional differences around what facilitates or hinders the application of IFM.
By opening space for academic exchange between scholars from various regions of the world, the Global Scoping Workshop was an attempt to widen the scope – and as such, introducing more complexity and diverse perspectives into the study of IFM-related drivers.
Interactive discussion sessions on regional and conceptual difference
The workshop day was marked by 3 main interactive sessions and discussions, each centred on regions of the world. The first session focused on Asia & Australia, the second on Europe & Africa, and the third zoomed-in on the Americas. Within each session, the aim was to keep in mind important themes – including the overall concept of biodiversity, of scales (meaning the different levels at which we look at forests, from individual trees to forest stands to entire landscapes), the many different factors that influence biodiversity, the unpredictability of climate effects, the political, economic and social uncertainties, and the important question of which kinds of knowledge and information we should rely on.
The last hour was then dedicated to the mapping of key insights, core concepts and contrasting views, in addition to new research questions and insights that could inform the paper.
Integrating biodiversity into the global conservation agenda
While the term biodiversity is widely used to shape the global conservation agenda, it became obvious that its definitions and concerns vary.
Addressing biodiversity conservation globally involves a wide range of community priorities and ethical considerations. Consequently, Integrative Forest Management practices need to be adapted to local needs and informed by local knowledge. The workshop participants also discussed the relevance of biocultural diversity, a concept that acknowledges the co-evolution and interdependence of biological and cultural diversity, and its integration into conservation efforts.
Defining biodiversity comes with defining the biodiversity of concern to protect. Therefore, the definition of “natural forest” varies. In tropical regions, the goal is to preserve the full spectrum of biodiversity, whereas in the EU, conservation efforts involve trade-offs. The discussion also emphasized the importance of specifying the type of biodiversity to be conserved (e.g., functional, heritage, or evolutionary diversity). This again took place in light of local perspectives, as this choice can determine Integrative Forest Management practices in the field. The importance of the types of biodiversity to target may differ spatially and temporally.
Diverse management approaches are certainly essential to ensure the provision of varied habitats across different biomes and regions worldwide, as overly harmonized conservation and management strategies may pose significant risks to achieving targeted conservation results. This also relates to the challenge of measuring the success of conservation approaches. For example, during the session focused on Asia and Europe, participants highlighted a lack of knowledge about tree biodiversity, from genes to species, which makes monitoring efforts difficult for them. In this context, the group brought attention to the fact that biodiversity should be an important aspect of forestry education – and this way making foresters being biodiversity experts. More generally, participants suggested that we need proxies, or other indirect ways, to measure how using biomass affects biodiversity.
Sustaining biodiversity under biomass utilization
Another major part of the discussion focused on how to maintain the financial viability of forests while integrating biodiversity conservation. If defining biodiversity turned out to be a key challenge, identifying productivity trade-offs was another. Participants agreed on the need for accurate quantification of ecosystem services to support the integration of biodiversity into economic valuation.
The group also addressed the land sparing-land sharing debate in forest management, through the lens of EU, tropical, and Asian approaches. The choice between these approaches depends on context, scale, and governance structures. It also depends on the aspects of biodiversity that are deemed worthy and needed to conserve. While land sparing is more feasible at the state level and beneficial for rare species, land sharing is more practical in fragmented ownership systems and can maintain productive forests with some biodiversity.
However, participants cautioned against a strict binary view. Instead, they suggested a more flexible framework such as a continuum of approaches based on scientific evidence and local conditions. They also emphasized a triad approach combining strict conservation, intensive forestry, and mixed-use areas as an interesting alternative.
The discussion also highlighted a lack of scientific knowledge on what approaches are most effective. Participants concluded that future research should focus on baselines for biodiversity, long-term forest resilience, and integrated solutions that balance conservation and productivity. While policy decisions are often driven by economic and political interests, participants emphasized the importance of evidence-based management.
Concluding reflection on IFM
While the concept of Integrative Forest Management becomes too ambiguous if we try to apply its principles across all forest types and regions, it remains a valuable approach on a global scale. Strengthening the approach would require a greater inclusion of social, cultural, and political dimensions. By actively acknowledging and managing economic, political, and ecological uncertainties, IFM can evolve into a resilient and adaptive framework for sustainable forest management.