When knowledge travels, collaboration grows

24 September 2026 | Našice, Croatia

What happens when a new approach to understanding forest biodiversity moves from the training room into the forest itself? In Našice, Croatia, participants from forestry and nature conservation came together to find out.

On 24 September, the first national Integrative Biodiversity Potential (IBP) workshop in Croatia brought together 19 experts from different organisations and backgrounds. The workshop was organised by the Croatian Forest Research Institute and Unique Forests Ltd., which represents the Croatian Satellite Demonstration Area (SDA) in TRANSFORMIT.

The workshop built directly on the IBP train-the-trainer event in Binzen, Germany, where five Croatian trainers had learned how to introduce the methodology to colleagues and stakeholders at national and local level. Now, it was time to put that knowledge into practice.

Learning to see the forest differently

The day began at the premises of Unique Forests Ltd., where participants were introduced to TRANSFORMIT and the IBP methodology. Martina Kičić from the Croatian Forest Research Institute explained the different factors used to assess the biodiversity potential of a forest.

But the real learning started when the group left the meeting room and headed into a nearby forest.

Together with trainers Martina Kičić and Karmen Vugdelija, participants worked through the IBP factors in the field, discussing what to look for and how different features of the forest contribute to its biodiversity potential. They then had the opportunity to carry out their own assessments on two selected plots.

This hands-on approach sparked lively discussions throughout the day. Participants brought perspectives from forest management, protected area management and nature conservation, creating an opportunity to explore how the methodology could be useful across different parts of the forest sector.

From a workshop to future cooperation

The workshop brought together representatives of Croatian Forests Ltd., Unique Forests Ltd., the Public Institution for the Management of Protected Areas and Other Protected Natural Values in the City of Zagreb, and the Public Institution Nature Park Žumberak–Samoborsko gorje, alongside experts from the Croatian Forest Research Institute.

This mix of perspectives was one of the workshop’s strengths. Rather than simply introducing a new assessment method, the day created space for participants to exchange experiences, ask questions and consider how IBP could be applied in the Croatian context.

It also highlighted the wider value of the TRANSFORMIT network. The collaboration between the Croatian Forest Research Institute and Unique Forests Ltd. grew through TRANSFORMIT activities and provided the foundation for bringing the IBP methodology to a wider group of Croatian stakeholders.

From training trainers to assessing forests together, the first national IBP workshop marks an important step towards making biodiversity a more integrative part of forest management in Croatia.

What does a “healthy” forest look like? Journalists invited to investigate

What if a forest that looks dead is actually the beginning of something new?

On 1 October 2026, we invite journalists to travel to Czechia to investigate how Europe’s forests are changing — and to question some of the assumptions we have about what a healthy forest should look like.
Across Central Europe, forests are being transformed by bark beetle outbreaks, powerful windstorms and prolonged drought. The result can be dramatic: vast areas of damaged or dead trees that appear, at first glance, to be landscapes of destruction.

But the story may be more complicated.

Some disturbed forests are becoming the starting point for new ecosystems. And as climate change alters forests across Europe, researchers and forest managers are reconsidering a fundamental question: Should we intervene — or let nature take its course?

Get into the forest
As part of a study trip at the SDA Velká Bíteš site in Czechia, participants will walk through forests affected by bark beetle outbreaks and see first-hand how different management approaches are shaping the landscape.
Some areas have been clear-cut, while others have been left to regenerate naturally. The trip brings journalists directly into conversation with researchers, forest managers and local stakeholders, offering opportunities to ask questions, challenge assumptions and develop potential stories.

Topics will include:
• What actually happens to a forest after a major disturbance?
• Are bark beetle outbreaks always a sign of forest degradation?
• What can naturally regenerating forests tell us about the future?
• How is climate change changing the way European forests are managed?
• How can journalists explain environmental change when there is no simple story or single solution?


A reporting opportunity — not just a study visit
The aim is not to present one definitive answer about how forests should be managed. Instead, the study trip offers an opportunity to encounter competing perspectives, examine the evidence and hear directly from people dealing with these changes on the ground. Journalists will have access to experts, potential interviewees, first-hand reporting experience and story ideas at the intersection of climate change, science and society.
The event is organised by the European Forest Institute (EFI) in collaboration with the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CZU) and local partners as part of the EFI-coordinated TRANSFORMIT project.
Travel funding is available to support participation, including for freelance journalists — we only need a short email why you are interested. Reach out to gesche.schifferdecker[AT]efi.int for more information.

Valuing Diversity: What does biodiversity conservation mean for the financial performance of production forests?

How does integrating biodiversity conservation into forests managed for wood production affect their financial performance?

A new study from the TRANSFORMIT project examines this question through a systematic review of the available evidence, exploring where conservation measures create financial trade-offs, where they can generate synergies, and how much the results depend on the way costs and benefits are assessed. 

The review has screened a total of 5,305 publications, resulting in the selection of 53 most relevant studies across 15 countries, covering 814 conservation scenarios and a wide range of measures, including longer rotation periods, deadwood retention, habitat and veteran trees, reduced fragmentation, continuous-cover forestry and greater tree species diversity. 

What does the evidence show?

What does the evidence show? 

Across the studies reviewed, integrating biodiversity conservation into wood-production forests was associated with a slight average reduction in financial performance compared with business-as-usual management. However, the picture is far from uniform. The financial effects varied considerably depending on the conservation measure, forest biome, regeneration system and the assumptions used in the financial models. 

Importantly, the review shows that what is included in the financial assessment can substantially change the results. When biodiversity benefits were considered, conservation scenarios were on average 19.7% more financially favourable than business as usual. When such benefits were not included, they were on average 22.2% less favourable. 

These benefits can take different forms, including the insurance value associated with more biodiverse and hence resilient forests, improved timber quality or quantity, reduced operational costs and additional income options e.g. through payments for ecosystem services. Such benefits were however only (partially) included in about half of the existing financial assessments. 

Trade-offs and potential synergies

The findings also highlight that the financial implications cannot be separated from the specific conservation approach. Some measures, such as deadwood promotion and habitat or veteran tree retention, were frequently associated with financial costs, particularly where they were modelled primarily through reduced timber production or additional management costs without consideration of potential benefits. 

Other approaches showed potential for financial synergies under certain conditions. For example, continuous-cover forestry and increased tree species diversity were associated with more favourable financial outcomes in some analyses but not in all. 

The review also points to important differences between forest contexts. Conservation measures were associated with more positive financial outcomes in tropical forests, while average effects were more negative in temperate and boreal forests. Similarly, results differed between naturally and artificially regenerating forests, with reduced profitability in former and increased profitability in the latter. 

The role of uncertainty

A key message of the review is that financial assessments of biodiversity conservation are strongly shaped by assumptions. All of the included studies relied on modelling, and only around half applied sensitivity analyses to explore uncertainty. 

Factors such as discount rates, timber prices, costs, forest growth and disturbances can however substantially influence the results. Climate-related disturbances were explicitly considered in only four of the 53 studies, despite their potential to change the financial implications of different management strategies drastically. 

The authors therefore call for more transparent assumptions, broader consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem-service benefits, and more empirical, long-term evidence to complement model-based assessments. 

Why this matters for integrated forest management

The study is part of TRANSFORMIT, which explores how forests can be managed to strengthen biodiversity, ecosystem services and resilience while maintaining their capacity to provide wood and other benefits. 

The review provides an important evidence base for this work. It shows that biodiversity conservation and wood production cannot simply be understood as opposing objectives: the financial implications depend on the conservation measure, forest context and which costs and benefits are taken into account. 

Understanding both trade-offs and  synergies is essential for developing more integrated approaches to forest management, as well as policy instruments that support both the use of synergies and the mitigation of trade-offs. 

Read the full paper: Schimetka, L.R., Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., Konczal, A.A. et al. Valuing Diversity: A Systematic Review of the Financial Impacts of Biodiversity Conservation in Forests Managed Primarily for Wood Production. Curr. For. Rep. 12, 27 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-026-00288-6

Forest Dialogue 2026: Biodiversity as a key to resilient forests 

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.

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
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.

What a nice resilient forest game, developed and presented by Ting Tang
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”

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”

New Article on Integrative Forest Management Indicators Published in Irish Practitioner’s Magazine

Key Indicators for Integrative Forest Management (IFM) developed within TRANSFORMIT project

A new article featuring TRANSFORMIT has been published in Forestry & Energy, Ireland’s practitioner magazine for the forestry and energy sectors. Authored by Stefanie Linser (Senior Researcher, BOKU University, Vienna) and Gesche Schifferdecker (Communications Manager, European Forest Institute), the article explores how Integrative Forest Management can help forests meet multiple, often competing demands.

The article also highlights one of TRANSFORMIT’s key outputs: a set of 17 scalable indicators, developed through a bottom-up, participatory process, to help translate the principles of integrative, multifunctional forest management into practice. These indicators give forest managers a practical way to monitor forest conditions, assess management effectiveness, and apply IFM principles across different scales. You can check here for the factsheets of the 17 indicators.

📖 Read the full article in Forestry & Energy here!

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

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.

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

“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!

Webinar: Marteloscopes as tools for Integrative Forest Management

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

Europe’s forest future on the ground: building resilient landscapes in Catalonia’s forests 

by Gesche Schifferdecker (EFI), with editorial input from Teresa Baiges Zapater (CPF) and Rahel Könen (EFI)

What does it take to manage a forest in a world of increasing drought, wildfire risk, and uncertainty? Who decides what forests should provide – timber, biodiversity, climate protection, or recreation? How can so many different expectations be reconciled on the same piece of land? And what is the role of private forest owners in this complex environment? 

These were some of the questions that framed our workshop on 7 May in the Moianès region of Catalonia, where we brought together journalists, researchers, forest owners, policy experts, conservationists, and practitioners. The event was organized by the European Forest Institute and the Forest Ownership Centre of Catalonia as part of the TRANSFORMIT project. 

Crucially, this was not a conventional workshop. The Catalan region of Moianès is one of TRANSFORMIT project’s Living Labs – a landscape where different actors come together to test, observe, and co-develop new approaches to forest management in real time. Instead of staying in a conference room, we spent the day moving through the sites of the Living Lab: walking through forests, visiting farms and vineyards, and stopping in small villages – and speaking directly with the people who are dealing with these questions in practice. 

Group discussion at first field stop at La Noguera Farm near Castellterçol

The setting could not have been more relevant. In Catalonia, forests are everywhere. They stretch from the Mediterranean coast to the Pyrenees, covering nearly two thirds of the region. Yet despite this abundance, there is a striking paradox: only 1/3 of these forests are managed, often economically unprofitable, increasingly vulnerable to drought and wildfire, and frequently at the center of debate over what forests are actually most important for. 

What emerged over the course of the day was not a single solution to Europe’s forest challenges, but something perhaps more important: a shared willingness in the Living Lab to experiment, collaborate, and rethink old divisions between conservation and production. 

Integrative Forest Management – a more holistic approach? 

The morning began in Caldes with discussions around a term that would accompany us throughout the day: Integrative Forest Management (IFM). Unlike approaches that focus only on timber production or only on strict protection, IFM attempts to work across scales and interests. It recognizes forests as ecosystems that must simultaneously provide biodiversity, climate resilience, livelihoods, recreation, clean water, and raw materials. Compared to other areas in Europe, in the Mediterranean, forest management is already fulfilling many of the IFM criteria, then, what can IFM bring? What needs to be transformed?

Gesche Schifferdecker (EFI) introducing journalists to the vision behind Integrative Forest Management

One participant described IFM as a “landscape perspective” rather than a single management technique, using a broad understanding of landscape that also includes the people who live within it. Some areas may be actively managed, while others are left untouched. The key idea is flexibility: adapting management to local ecological and social conditions while trying to balance environmental, economic, and social objectives with the objectives of forest owners. 

As the day unfolded, it became increasingly clear that small private forest owners – despite their diverse backgrounds and perspectives – are true stewards of forests. At the same time, the conversations showed that forestry is no longer discussed solely among foresters. Throughout the TRANSFORMIT project, partners have been working closely with forest owners, practitioners, policymakers, and conservation groups through workshops, trainings, webinars, and of course other Living Labs across Europe. The emphasis is on learning together rather than prescribing solutions from above.

That collaborative spirit felt particularly important in Catalonia, where forests are highly fragmented in terms of ownership, explained Teresa Baiges Zapater from the Forest Ownership Centre – Forestry administration of Catalonia (CPF). Around 78% of forests are privately owned, often by families with relatively small properties. Many owners inherited their land rather than actively choosing forestry as a profession, and forest management plans remain voluntary.  

Teresa Baiges Zapater (CPF) and Mercè Vildardosa (CPF)

As we learned from the Forest Ownership Centre, Catalonia’s forests are also surprisingly young. Large areas of agricultural land were abandoned over the past century, allowing forests to regenerate naturally. While this reforestation has increased tree cover, it has also created dense, relatively uniform forests that are increasingly vulnerable to drought and wildfire. 

Climate change and disturbances: changing realities for forest owners 

The challenge is intensified by climate change. The years between 2012 and 2023 were described as the driest period in 200 years. During our first field stop at La Noguera Farm near Castellterçol, researcher Josep Maria Espelta from the Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications (CREAF) explained that drought has already affected around 100,000 hectares of forest – an area comparable to the amount burned by fire in Catalonia since the 1980s. 

Standing among Scots pine forests, the consequences became tangible. Many trees were weakened or dead, competing for increasingly scarce water. As Josep Maria Espelta emphasized, drought is now becoming as important a disturbance as wildfire in Mediterranean forests. 

This changing reality is forcing forest owners and managers to rethink old assumptions. One particularly interesting discussion focused on deadwood. Traditionally, removing dead trees has often been seen as necessary to reduce fire risk. Yet deadwood is also critical habitat for countless species and for forest resilience. 

The Living Lab in Moianès is experimenting with different approaches: some plots have all deadwood removed, others retain 20%, while in some areas all deadwood remains, explained Eva Gabriel de Franscisco (CPF). Researchers are monitoring how biodiversity responds under these different scenarios, both at the forest stand and at the landscape scale. Rather than promoting one universal answer, the Living Lab approach allows stakeholders to test trade-offs together and adapt based on evidence and the local context. 

How the Living Lab fosters collaboration 

What made these discussions especially compelling was hearing not only from scientists, but also from local conservationists and forest owners. 

Pilar Clapers, a passionate birdwatcher and member of the local NGO El Fanal, spoke about why she joined the Living Lab. For her, collaboration between ecologists, forest owners, and managers is essential in a time of biodiversity decline. One story she shared stayed with many of us: after identifying a rare oak species for the region in the area where salvage logging was taken place, forest owner Antoni Masferrer agreed that these trees would remain untouched, even if their wood is valuable as firewood. A small decision perhaps, but one that symbolized the trust slowly being built between groups that are often portrayed as opponents.  

Antoni Masferrer himself offered a perspective grounded in practicality and responsibility. His motivation for managing forests, he explained, is to leave them in a better condition for future generations while reducing fire risk and earning at least some modest income. At one point he compared forest management to going to the hairdresser: maintenance matters. 

But his comments also revealed the economic fragility behind many privately owned forests. Timber prices remain low, much of the wood is used for pallets or pellets, and qualified labor is difficult to find and afford. Many forest owners are aging, while younger generations often have little interest in taking over management responsibilities. 

“Forest owners don’t want to leave the forest as a burden,” he said. 

And who should pay for this? 

After lunch, discussions turned toward one of the central questions underlying the entire workshop: if society wants healthy, resilient, biodiverse forests, who should pay for them? 

Catalonia’s Climate Credit System offers one possible answer. Presented by Teresa Baiges (CPF), the scheme aims to finance integrative forest management through payments for ecosystem services. 

Unlike many carbon credit systems, the goal is not simply to maximize tree planting or carbon storage. Instead, the system focuses on maintaining healthy forests that are better adapted to climate change and less vulnerable to disturbances such as wildfire and drought. 

One innovative aspect is that particularly forest owner associations – rather than individual owners – can apply. This encourages collaboration at landscape scale, which is crucial for addressing wildfire risk, and services related to water and ecological connectivity. 

The credits are sold to both public and private actors, including companies interested in strengthening their environmental commitments or complying with emerging sustainability regulations. Because projects are local, buyers can visit the forests they support, creating a stronger connection between financing bodies and landscapes impacted by their sponsorship. 

Importantly, the money is provided upfront rather than after management actions are completed, helping overcome one of the major barriers many forest owners face. 

New landowners shaping transformation 

In the afternoon, the focus shifted toward another transformation taking place in Catalonia’s forests: the changing profile of forest owners themselves. 

One of the most inspiring conversations came from Dones de Bosc, the first association of female forest owners in Spain. Founded only in 2025, the network has already grown rapidly. 

left to right (top row): Eva Gabriel (CPF), Pau Santeugini Ochoa de Aspuru (CPF), Jordi Tarradas (Boscat), Gesche Schifferdecker (EFI), Josep Maria Espelta (CREAF), Agatha Allain (Journalist), Solveig Andresen (Dones de Bosc); left to right (bottom row): Teresa Baiges Zapater (CPF), Linda Osusky (Journalist), Rahel Könen (EFI), Natalie Donback (Journalist)

One of its members, Solveig Andresen, explained that although many women own forests, they remain underrepresented in traditional forestry structures. The association aims not only to increase visibility and leadership, but also to create a supportive community for shared learning and collaboration. 

During earlier training sessions organized by the Forest Ownership Centre, around 100 women attended workshops on developing forest management plans – a sign that interest and engagement are growing quickly. Several participants assumed that women may be more likely to approach forest ownership from perspectives centered around care, sustainability, and long-term stewardship rather than extractive models and principles. 

At the same stop, Jordi Tarradas from the Federation of Forest Owners’ Associations Boscat highlighted the importance of local collaboration more broadly. For many small forest owners, individual management is economically impossible. Associations allow them to share knowledge, coordinate fire prevention efforts, and strengthen their political voice. 

Third stop discussing various forest owners’ perspectives at Carlos Cortés’ land

New forest owner Carlos Cortés, who only recently bought a forest area of 120hectares, indicated that he is looking into different funding sources, and that he is grateful for the guidance of the Associations. His passion for his property became clear when he said: “I have heard a call from the land and that’s why I have bought it”. His primary goal is to increase the resilience of the forest and to maintain it for future generations, similar to the other forest owners who have joined our trip. 

Managing land for production and fire prevention 

Throughout the day, wildfire remained a recurring theme. In Mediterranean landscapes, fire prevention cannot rely only on what happens inside forests. It also depends on agriculture, grazing, and maintaining mosaic landscapes that slow the spread of fire. 

Our final stop at St. Miquel d’Oló Farm brought these ideas together beautifully. Surrounded by vineyards, pasture, and woodland, participants discussed how agricultural and forestry practices can reinforce each other. 

Final stop at St. Miquel d’Oló Farm, discussing the importance of mosaic landscapes for fire management

Asier Larrañaga, sub-inspector of the forest fire brigade and fire analyst, presented new approaches to landscape-level fire prevention, emphasizing the importance of collaboration between forestry and agriculture. Grazing, vineyards, and strategically managed forest areas can all contribute to more fire-resilient landscapes. 

Winegrower Oriol Garriga offered a deeply personal perspective. When he and his family bought the property in 2013, they restored the house and planted vineyards using ecological farming methods. Yet fire risk remains his biggest concern. 

For Oriol Garriga, maintaining people on the land is essential – not only for local economies, but also for socio-ecological resilience. Landscapes become vulnerable when they are abandoned. Producing and consuming local products, he argued, is part of sustaining both communities and ecosystems. 

Oriol Garriga sharing the story behind his farm and why socio-ecological resilience matters

As the day ended and participants gathered overlooking the landscape, one thing became increasingly clear: the future of Mediterranean forests will not be shaped by forestry alone. It will depend on cooperation between scientists, forest owners, conservationists, farmers, businesses, policymakers, and local communities. 

The Moianès Living Lab does not offer simple answers. Instead, it creates space for experimentation, dialogue, and shared learning in a time when climate change is rapidly reshaping what forests need – and what society expects from them.