âThis is a fully automated machine translation. The quality and accuracy of machine translation can vary from one text to another and between different language pairs. TRANSFORMIT website admins do not guarantee the accuracy of the translation and accept no liability for possible errors. Please refer to the original text in its original English version if there is any doubt. Some content (such as images, videos, files, HTML links and acronyms) may not be translated or may be inaccurate due to the technical limitations of the system.â
What happens when a new approach to understanding forest biodiversity moves from the training room into the forest itself? In NaĆĄice, 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 KiÄiÄ 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 KiÄiÄ 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 ĆœumberakâSamoborsko gorje, alongside experts from the Croatian Forest Research Institute.
This mix of perspectives was one of the workshopâs 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.
For people living next to the Polish forests of Tuchola, the forest is part of everyday life. It is a place for walking, recreation and connecting with nature â but it also provides shade, reduces noise and wind, and contributes to the quality of the local environment. With a bypass planned near one residential neighbourhood, these functions have become even more important to local residents.
In March 2026, residents approached the Tuchola Forest District with a clear request: they wanted the forest directly adjacent to their homes to be recognised as a âsocial forestâ and managed in a way that would preserve its recreational and protective functions. In particular, they asked for partial cutting instead of clear-cutting.
The request came at a time when the Tuchola Forest District was establishing a Local Cooperation Team to strengthen dialogue between those involved in, managing and using the surrounding forests. The Team brings together a diverse group of stakeholders: representatives from government administration and local authorities, the State Forests, national and landscape parks, primary and secondary schools, post-secondary and forestry education institutions, a university of life sciences, and civil society.
This broad group creates a space where different perspectives and types of knowledge can meet â from professional forest management and nature conservation to education, local government and the everyday experience of people living next to the forest.
From dialogue to practical solutions
At the Teamâs first meeting on 11 March 2026, participants agreed that informing the public about planned operations, consulting local communities and jointly exploring solutions can help build trust and address the different expectations placed on forests.
The residentsâ request was subsequently discussed at the Teamâs meeting on 23 March. Together, participants identified forest areas that were particularly important to local residents and discussed possible management approaches. One outcome was a recommendation to reclassify around 10 hectares of forest immediately adjacent to residential areas from commercial timber stands to forests serving a social function â so-called âsocial forestsâ.
The dialogue then moved from the meeting room into the forest itself
During an on-site meeting in May, residents whose properties border the forest met with representatives of the Tuchola Forest District to discuss the planned operations. The participants looked at the area together and discussed the differences between clear-cutting and partial cutting. The Forest District had already decided to replace clear-cutting with partial cutting in the relevant area, while also explaining the safety requirements that meant mature trees within approximately 15 metres of private properties would still need to be removed.
The planned bypass added another layer of complexity. While trees in the southern part of the area will need to be removed because of the road construction, the remaining forest can continue to play an important protective role for nearby residents. The discussion therefore focused not only on which trees would be removed, but also on how the forest could continue to provide social and protective functions afterwards.
Together, the participants agreed on a set of practical principles for future management. These include:
maintaining a 15-metre safety strip along residential boundaries, with the possibility of reducing it to 10 metres in specific cases;Â
protecting seedlings and undergrowth during forestry operations;Â
using existing trails for timber extraction;Â
carrying out partial cutting in a way that maintains the forestâs protective function against noise from the planned bypass;Â
creating an ecotone zone along residential plots, with residents involved in selecting and planting suitable species;Â
avoiding harvesting, extraction and soil preparation during designated quiet hours; andÂ
applying the same principles to subsequent management operations, subject to their inclusion in the forest management plan for the coming decade.Â
Integrating different perspectives on the forest
The experience in Tuchola shows how stakeholder dialogue can translate different perspectives into practical forest management solutions. Residents bring their everyday experience of the forest and its importance for their quality of life. Forest managers contribute knowledge about silviculture, safety and sustainable management, while local authorities, protected-area managers, educational institutions and civil society bring additional perspectives on the wider social and environmental role of the forest.
The process does not remove the trade-offs between different forest functions. Instead, it provides a space to discuss them openly and explore how ecological, social and economic objectives can be considered together.
For TRANSFORMIT, this is an important part of Integrative Forest Management in practice: bringing different stakeholders into the process, combining different forms of knowledge and working together to adapt forest management to changing local needs and conditions.
The Tuchola experience also highlights the value of building dialogue before decisions are made â creating opportunities for stakeholders not only to respond to forest management, but to help shape solutions for the future.
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 Europeâs forests are changing â 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 â or let nature take its course?
VelkĂĄ BĂteĆĄ site Bark beetle damage in VelkĂĄ BĂteĆĄ site
Get into the forest As part of a study trip at the SDA VelkĂĄ BĂteĆĄ 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: âą What actually happens to a forest after a major disturbance? âą Are bark beetle outbreaks always a sign of forest degradation? âą What can naturally regenerating forests tell us about the future? âą How is climate change changing the way European forests are managed? âą How can journalists explain environmental change when there is no simple story or single solution?
A reporting opportunity â 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 â we only need a short email why you are interested. Reach out to gesche.schifferdecker[AT]efi.int for more information.
How can biodiversity increase the adaptation capacity and resilience of forests that are also managed for wood production? At WaldDialog â Forest Dialogue â 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 â and we as well â 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.
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 â and potentially the use of assisted migration â 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 âclose-to-nature forestryâ 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 fĂŒr Wald beider Basel, Switzerland, represented by the coordinator of the Living Lab Ueli Meier. Examples from Baden-WĂŒrttemberg (Germany) and Alsace (France) showed how natural regeneration, species diversification, habitat trees and the retention of surviving trees after disturbances can gradually transform forest composition. In Baden AG, for example, the proportion of broadleaved trees increased substantially over 25 years, supported by a strong focus on natural regeneration.
The discussions also made clear that there are no simple or one-fits-all solutions. Increasing deadwood can create safety challenges for forest workers. Changing tree species can involve economic and ecological uncertainties. Continuous-cover forestry offers structural and species diversity but also faces questions around economic risks and social acceptance. And local conditions matter enormously.
From local conditions to European approaches
This is precisely why this cross-border dimension of Forest Dialogue was so valuable. Drought, heat, pests, biodiversity loss and changing societal expectations do not stop at national borders. Forests may be managed locally, but the challenges they face are European.
The direction of European policy reflects this reality. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Nature Restoration Law place increasing emphasis on restoring ecosystems, improving biodiversity and strengthening resilience. Yet this does not mean that Europe needs one standardised model of forest management. Instead, European objectives must be translated into approaches that work under different ecological, economic and social conditions.
FORWARDS presentation by Barbara Mihok
For me, one of the strongest messages from Forest Dialogue was therefore the importance of knowledge transfer as a three-way process. Science needs to inform practice, but researchers also need to learn from the experience of those working in forests every day. The role of policy makers is to provide the interface between science and practice: translating evidence and practical experience into effective policy, while also ensuring that the realities and lessons from the field feed back into policy development. In this way, policy can become not simply an end point for knowledge, but a bridge that connects research, practice and decision-making. Projects such as TRANSFORMIT and FORWARDS as well as an established collaboration like the European Network Integrate (all presented there by my colleagues and me in sessions, via posters and talks) demonstrate different ways of connecting research, policy, and practice. TRANSFORMIT, for example, brings these communities together through Living Labs, stakeholder engagement and the development of practical, evidence-based guidance for Integrative Forest Management. FORWARDS connects scientific monitoring, modelling and data with the needs of forest managers and policy makers, with its ForestWard Observatory designed to support decisions on climate resilience and forest adaptation. The European Network Integrate provides a longer-term interface between the three, combining scientific evidence with demonstration sites, practical experience and policy exchange across countries.
The Forest Knowledge Gateway offers a practical platform to bring these different strands of knowledge together. It makes scientific findings, practical experience, tools and other resources easier to discover and access, helping users find relevant knowledge for the challenges they face in their own forests. In this way, the Gateway can help bridge the gap between knowledge being produced and knowledge being used.
Ultimately, knowledge only becomes valuable when it helps someone to make a better decision in the forest â 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 â they are part of the process of finding a way forward for resilient forests.
We are pleased to share a recently published article by El PeriĂłdico on our TRANSFORMIT Living Lab in MoianĂšs, 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 âcut down treesâ, but to learn â through evidence on the ground â which practices can create more diverse, resilient forests that are easier to manage in the face of extreme fires.
Teresa Baiges and MercĂš Vilardos during TRANSFORMIT’s media field trip in the MoianĂšs 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. MercÚ 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 MoianĂšs 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 supportMediterranean forests in adapting to a changing climate?
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.
đ Read the full article in Forestry & Energy here!
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 â 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. Letâs 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 âPaleo-IBPâ 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 â large snags, large logs, very large trees and trees bearing âdefectsâ, large nests, and aquatic habitats. This work eventually led to the landmark 2008 publication introducing the IBP as a âquick and easy methodâ 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 â especially tree-related microhabitats, deadwood, and forest continuity âcould 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!
âTreMs are way nicer!â
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. âThey serve the needs of the community as a financial reserve, for example, to renovate a schoolâ, 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 âvertical structureâ (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 âeliminateâ 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 âIBP is a score for today, but one should keep in mind that forests are dynamic and scores can change over time!â
We stopped at a large oak tree. Laurent turns to the group and says: âSo, 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 5â. Everyone laughed! Laurent showed us why he likes this tree, pointing at the loose bark. âThis 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, âvoilĂ â, 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 âaquatic habitatâ 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 Frankâs 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 âBeheleneicheâ, 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 â 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 âvertical structureâ, 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 âfutureâ trainers was already accomplished in Binzen! In any case, a memorable workshop for all â one that will hopefully continue to bear its fruits in many forests across Europe.
“Indicators should be implementable, measurable, and aligned with other standards so they can ultimately support forest restoration and Integrative Forest Management across Europe,” said Gesche Schifferdecker as she wrapped up the webinar.
Co-organized with the Integrate Network, our webinar âFrom Indicators to Action – Bridging Science, Policy and Practice in Forest Restoration and Integrative Forest Managementâ 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.
The panel ultimately agreed on one objective: we have to support our forests to become more resilient â 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!
Visit of the Delegation from the Chinese Academy of Forestry (CAF) within Bilateral Cooperation (SFIâCAF) and the TRANSFORMIT Project, 17â18 April 2026
Meeting room at the Slovenian Forestry Institute, CAF delegation
On Friday, 17 April 2026, the Slovenian Forestry Institute (SFI) welcomed a delegation from the Chinese Academy of Forestry (CAF) for a two-day programme dedicated to strengthening bilateral cooperation and advancing joint activities within the TRANSFORMIT project.
The visit began at the Slovenian Forestry Institute with welcome addresses by representatives of SFI, CAF and the Slovenia Forest Service, setting the stage for discussions on future scientific and professional collaboration between the institutions. Participants were introduced to the activities and research areas of SFI and exchanged views on opportunities for expanding cooperation in forestry research and practice.
Tour of the Centreâs laboratory facilities at the Slovenian Forestry Institute
The indoor programme continued with expert presentations covering sustainable forest management, forest restoration under changing environmental conditions, forest monitoring, and the bioeconomic dimensions of forestry. Particular attention was devoted to the TRANSFORMIT project and to the exchange of knowledge and experience between Slovenian and Chinese partners.
An important highlight of the meeting was the presentation by Prof. Zheng Yongqi on the upcoming International Workshop on Integrated Forest Management and Biodiversity Conservation (IFM), which will take place in Beijing from 15â17 July 2026. The presentation also introduced planned field visits scheduled for 18â20 July 2026 to either the Bawangling National Nature Reserve in Hainan Province or the Liangshui Experimental Forest Farm in Heilongjiang Province.
The delegation also visited the newly established Centre for Forest Seed Management, Nursery Production and Forest Protection at the Slovenian Forestry Institute. There, participants gained insight into the Instituteâs research and professional activities related to forest reproductive material, nursery production and forest health.
The programme moved outdoors on Saturday, 18 April 2026, when SFI and the Slovenia Forest Service jointly organised a field day in the Gorenjska region.
At the IM forest monitoring plot at Brdo pri Kranju
The first stop was the intensive forest monitoring plot (IM, ICP Forests Level II) at the Brdo estate, where participants were introduced to the methodologies used for monitoring forest condition in Slovenia as part of the international ICP Forests programme.
From Brdo, the delegation continued to Pokljuka and the Mrzli Studenec site near the Slovenia Forest Service facilities. Here, participants were presented with the forest management plan for the area and took part in practical exercises using a marteloscope. The visit offered valuable insight into modern approaches to forest management planning and decision-making in practice.
Practical work with the marteloscope at the Mrzli Studenec site on Pokljuka
The field excursion then turned to one of the most pressing challenges facing European forests today: recovering from natural disturbances. Participants visited forest stands damaged by the severe windstorm that had struck the area earlier in March, discussing restoration measures and strategies for increasing forest resilience to natural disturbances and the impacts of climate change.
View of the peat bog
The programme concluded with a visit to the Goreljek peat bog in Triglav National Park. Participants explored the unique characteristics of this raised bog, considered one of the southernmost peat bogs of its kind in Europe. Presentations highlighted the processes of peat formation following the last glaciation, the ecological importance of peat mosses, and the exceptional conservation value of these sensitive wetland habitats.
The Goreljek peat bog area on Pokljuka
The two-day meeting once again demonstrated the importance of international cooperation in addressing shared challenges related to climate change, forest protection and the sustainable management of natural resources. By combining scientific expertise, practical experience and field-based learning, the visit further strengthened the partnership between Slovenian and Chinese forestry institutions and laid foundations for future collaboration.
Blogpost by Gesche Schifferdecker and Andrea Barzagli
âToday, there is no longer discussion about the general value of deadwood. Now the discussion is only about how, when, and where to preserve it.â
I heard that line like a door closing on an old argument. And then, just as quickly, another door opened onto the real question: what does âkeeping deadwoodâ actually look like in a forest that is also being managed for people?
Thatâs the thread running through The Life in Deadwood, the final documentary of the LIFE SPAN project â filmed across two pilot sites, the Cansiglio Forest (Italy) and the Sailershausen University Forest (Germany). Guided by Jörg MĂŒller, professor of conservation biology and forest ecology at the University of WĂŒrzburg, the ~20âminute film follows a quiet, ongoing âcompetition between humans and saproxylic organismsâ.
The term itself invites a closer look: saproxylic â from Greek for ârotting woodâ, describes species that live in, on, or from dead and dying trees. Not just visitors, but dependents. Beetle larvae tunneling through softening trunks, fungi dissolving lignin into soil, birds carving nesting cavities into wood already in transition. With that in mind, the filmâs central tension sharpens: how do we manage forests without erasing the home of the species that rely on decay itself?
A different kind of forest âinfrastructureâ: Saproxylic Habitat Sites
LIFE SPANâs proposal is practical and surprisingly hopeful: create a network of âSaproxylic Habitat Sitesâ (SHS) inside managed forests â small areas of senescence where the forest is allowed to look older, messier, and more complete. Think large trees kept standing, deadwood left in different forms, and patches of open space that let light spill onto the forest floor. As project coordinator Bruno De Cinti (CNRâIRET) explains in the documentary, a network matters: when SHSs are connected across the landscape, saproxylic species can move, disperse, and persist. In other words, conservation stops being a single fenced-off point and becomes a living system woven into everyday forestry.
One of the most memorable moments is not a statistic or a map, but a shift in attention. The documentary becomes a kind of training for the senses â an invitation to notice what classical silviculture often overlooked (or actively removed): microhabitats, veteran trees, broken tops, cavities, and the fallen trunks that look like âwasteâ until you realise they are neighborhoods. As Daniel Kraus, manager of the German Sailershausen forest, puts it, the film helps us âdevelop a better eyeâ.
The voices inside the forest
Michael Junginger (University of WĂŒrzburg) and Umberto Di Salvatore (CREAâPB) connect SHSs back to dayâtoâday management: what they suggest are not âmore protected areas,â but an adaptive system that can change and grow with the forest. And in one scene of the documentary, Ruth Pickert (University of WĂŒrzburg) stands in a demonstration site that looks, at first glance, a little chaotic â and says the quiet part out loud: âwe can drive change by inviting people in, talking, and creating spaces for discussionâ.
My take-away
The Life in Deadwood doesnât romanticise decay; it simply restores it to its rightful place in the forest story. Deadwood is shelter, food, and corridor. It is continuity. And if the debate has shifted from whether to keep it to how to keep it, LIFE SPAN offers a grounded answer: build networks of habitat, learn to see microhabitats, and let managed forests carry more of the forestâs full life cycle â standing, falling, and returning.
The video is entirely in English, but official Italian and German subtitles can be selected in the YouTube settings.
