forest practice - Transformit

Forest Dialogue 2026: Biodiversity as a key to resilient forests

Gesche Schifferdecker on 15 September, 2026

How can biodiversity increase the adaptation capacity and resilience of forests that are also managed for wood production? At WaldDialog – Forest Dialogue – Dialogue Forestier 2026, this question brought together forest scientists, practitioners, policymakers, forest owners, communicators and administrators from Switzerland, Germany, France and beyond. On 10 September 2026, we all gathered at the University of Basel to explore what this means for forests facing increasingly uncertain conditions.

The event, organised by the TriNational ForestLab, SwissForestLab, the Conference of Cantonal Foresters (KOK) and the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU), created a space for something our forests – and we as well – increasingly need: dialogue across disciplines, institutions and borders.

I felt that the urgency of this question was made tangible from the very beginning. As Arthur Gessler (WSL/ETH) emphasized, 2026 marks a turning point. Extreme heat and drought are increasingly visible in forests, with trees such as beech already showing severe stress early in the growing season. Across the Basel region, monitoring indicates that rainfall has been reduced in almost every month, leaving forests under considerable pressure, Gessler emphasized.

A strong argument for diversity

A recurring theme throughout the presentations was that diverse forests are better equipped to cope with climate change and uncertainty. Research presented by Hervé Jactel (INRAE) showed that mixed forests tend to be more resilient to drought, fire and wind disturbance than monocultures. They can also be more productive: mixtures of coniferous and broadleaved species can benefit from complementary traits such as different rooting depths and patterns of water use. However, a specific mixture of broadleaved and conifer species is needed for both forest resilience and productivity, and that mixture needs to be identified. Still, the results are promising, highlighting the potential of diversity to strengthen forests in a changing climate.

Diversity, however, is about more than simply planting several tree species. Genetic diversity within species can provide the basis for adaptation to changing conditions, as Jörg Kleinschmit (FVA) highlighted. The choice of tree species — and potentially the use of assisted migration — therefore needs to be considered alongside the genetic resources available to forests.

At the same time, biodiversity conservation cannot be reduced to tree diversity. Frank Krumm and Martin Gossner (both WSL) highlighted the importance of habitat trees, microhabitats and deadwood. Microhabitats are small, specialised structures such as tree cavities, cracks, loose bark or dead branches that provide food, shelter or breeding sites for many species. Many of these valuable structures are found in or develop from deadwood, making it an important element of forest biodiversity. Around a quarter of forest species are closely dependent on it, while many more benefit from it. Natural forest reserves therefore remain an essential component of biodiversity conservation, particularly for species requiring specialised deadwood structures, Gossner emphasized.

Potential of biodiversity in managed forests

But managed forests also offer opportunities, and this event mainly aimed at exploring these. Instead of viewing biodiversity conservation and forest management as separate worlds, foresters can actively create microhabitats and make use of structures generated by natural disturbances. This is where the concept of “close-to-nature forestry” becomes particularly relevant: working with natural processes rather than against them, while maintaining the multifunctionality of forests.

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

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

The practical examples presented during the afternoon demonstrated that these ideas are already being put into practice. Case studies from Switzerland included a presentation by our Living Lab partner Amt für Wald beider Basel, Switzerland, represented by the coordinator of the Living Lab Ueli Meier. Examples from Baden-Württemberg (Germany) and Alsace (France) showed how natural regeneration, species diversification, habitat trees and the retention of surviving trees after disturbances can gradually transform forest composition. In Baden AG, for example, the proportion of broadleaved trees increased substantially over 25 years, supported by a strong focus on natural regeneration.

The discussions also made clear that there are no simple or one-fits-all solutions. Increasing deadwood can create safety challenges for forest workers. Changing tree species can involve economic and ecological uncertainties. Continuous-cover forestry offers structural and species diversity but also faces questions around economic risks and social acceptance. And local conditions matter enormously.

From local conditions to European approaches

This is precisely why this cross-border dimension of Forest Dialogue was so valuable. Drought, heat, pests, biodiversity loss and changing societal expectations do not stop at national borders. Forests may be managed locally, but the challenges they face are European.

The direction of European policy reflects this reality. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Nature Restoration Law place increasing emphasis on restoring ecosystems, improving biodiversity and strengthening resilience. Yet this does not mean that Europe needs one standardised model of forest management. Instead, European objectives must be translated into approaches that work under different ecological, economic and social conditions.

For me, one of the strongest messages from Forest Dialogue was therefore the importance of knowledge transfer as a three-way process. Science needs to inform practice, but researchers also need to learn from the experience of those working in forests every day. The role of policy makers is to provide the interface between science and practice: translating evidence and practical experience into effective policy, while also ensuring that the realities and lessons from the field feed back into policy development. In this way, policy can become not simply an end point for knowledge, but a bridge that connects research, practice and decision-making. Projects such as TRANSFORMIT and FORWARDS as well as an established collaboration like the European Network Integrate (all presented there by my colleagues and me in sessions, via posters and talks) demonstrate different ways of connecting research, policy, and practice. TRANSFORMIT, for example, brings these communities together through Living Labs, stakeholder engagement and the development of practical, evidence-based guidance for Integrative Forest Management. FORWARDS connects scientific monitoring, modelling and data with the needs of forest managers and policy makers, with its ForestWard Observatory designed to support decisions on climate resilience and forest adaptation. The European Network Integrate provides a longer-term interface between the three, combining scientific evidence with demonstration sites, practical experience and policy exchange across countries.

The Forest Knowledge Gateway offers a practical platform to bring these different strands of knowledge together. It makes scientific findings, practical experience, tools and other resources easier to discover and access, helping users find relevant knowledge for the challenges they face in their own forests. In this way, the Gateway can help bridge the gap between knowledge being produced and knowledge being used.

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

Ultimately, knowledge only becomes valuable when it helps someone to make a better decision in the forest – this is why I also very much enjoyed the presentations by forestry practitioners, who shared what answers they need from research and thus made the exchange more fruitful.

That is what made the Forest Dialogue 2026 particularly encouraging. Despite different perspectives and some smaller controversies, there was a shared recognition that biodiversity, climate adaptation and forest management must be considered together. Bringing different perspectives into the conversation is essential to understand the challenges from all sides, identify solutions that work in practice, and build the trust needed to put them into action. Dialogue and meaningful stakeholder engagement are therefore not just a way of exchanging knowledge – they are part of the process of finding a way forward for resilient forests.

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

Rahel Könen on 28 August, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shanqing Gao on 21 August, 2026

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

Rahel Könen on 22 July, 2026

Written by Silvester Boonen, European Forest Institute

In April 15^th and 16^th 2026, 30 forest practitioners, forest owners, researchers, trainers, and students from 12 European countries gathered in southwest Germany for two intensive days dedicated to one deceptively simple question: How can we better understand the biodiversity potential of forests – in a way that supports real management decisions?

The answer, or at least part of it, was the Index of Biodiversity Potential (IBP), a field-based diagnostic tool that has steadily gained recognition across Europe over the last 15 years. Hosted through the Integrate Network and supported by the HE TRANSFORMIT project, the workshop combined classroom presentations and discussions, insights into the scientific background of the IBP, and extensive field training exercises to prepare future trainers to bring the IBP into their own forestry contexts and institutions.

From the classroom to the forest floor

On the first day, we were welcomed at the town hall of Binzen by Andreas Schuck (EFI) and Frank Krumm (WSL), introducing IBP experts Laurent Larrieu (INRAE, CNPF) and Pauline Marty (CNPF) as our field trainers. Little did we know that the next two days were about to be filled with a tandem of new learnings about the IBP, its theoretical background and a lot of practical knowledge on how to apply the tool in the field.

So, what is the IBP? For starters, rather than directly measuring species richness, the IBP evaluates the so-called hosting capacity, habitats and structural features that support biodiversity at the stand level. Pauline explained that the IBP is used as a diagnostic tool, based on ten factors, seven relating to forest management and three to context. These range from deadwood and vertical forest structure to ancient forest continuity and tree-related microhabitats (TreMs). Each factor is scored from 0 to 5, allowing a maximum of 50. The workshop quickly revealed how much ecological research hides behind this easy-to-apply tool. Pauline explained that the IBP is designed to work fast, ideally within 20 to 30 minutes per stand. She then proceeded to go through each IBP factor and why it matters. Let’s take, for instance, the factor for flower-rich open areas: For this factor, the percentage of flower-rich open areas is recorded in comparison to the surveyed area’s size of the stand. As many species not only rely on deadwood, but also the occurrence of flowers, or both, this factor is highly relevant. Some hoverflies species that need deadwood for their larvae and use the nectar from the flowers in the adult stage.

The IBP, a brief overview of the scientific background

Following the introduction of the 10 factors by Pauline, Laurent took over and gave insights into the science behind the IBP. What appears in the field as a quick and practical scoring tool is, in fact, rooted in two decades of ecological research and development. Laurent reflected on the beginnings of the so-called “Paleo-IBP” around 2004, when he and his colleague Pierre Gonin first explored the idea of creating a rapid biodiversity assessment method for forest managers during their routine work. The first version focused on only five factors – large snags, large logs, very large trees and trees bearing “defects”, large nests, and aquatic habitats. This work eventually led to the landmark 2008 publication introducing the IBP as a “quick and easy method” that did not require taxonomic expertise. Laurent explained how the following years saw continuously refining and validating of the tool. Research explored whether the factors complemented each other, how sensitive the scores were to different forest types and management intensities, and how certain ecological components – especially tree-related microhabitats, deadwood, and forest continuity –could be better understood scientifically. Further, the IBP was adapted to different biogeographic regions (e.g. temperate Europe and the Mediterranean Basin). This process is still ongoing as new regions plan to apply the IBP. Despite all this scientific depth, Laurent stressed that the strength of the IBP remains its practicality: a fast, accessible field tool!

“TreMs are way nicer!”

After all this, it was time to head to the field! We drove to a local communal forest, which Frank introduced to us. The stands consist mainly of high-quality oak with an understory of hornbeam. “They serve the needs of the community as a financial reserve, for example, to renovate a school”, Frank explained.

It was then time to investigate the diverse IBP factors hands-on! Spring was in full swing as the trees had their fresh green leaves, and the ground was covered with spring flora. To start off, Pauline introduced the five layers of the factor, also called ‘vertical structure’ (e.g. 1.5-7 m being the third layer). Here, a layer counts when you can observe a 20% occupancy of leaves in that layer. Important to note is that spring flowers on the forest floor would not be counted as an area for flower-rich open areas, as this factor looks at flowering plants linked to gap dynamics, open areas, and forest edges.

Laurent advised to ‘eliminate’ individual factors as quickly as possible. This means that once the threshold of a factor is reached (e.g. 5 different tree genera), one can neglect that factor, as the maximum score of 5 points is reached. This speeds up the process of filling out the survey and allows forest practitioners to concentrate on the factors which are more difficult to record.

Laurent also noted that an “IBP is a score for today, but one should keep in mind that forests are dynamic and scores can change over time!”

We stopped at a large oak tree. Laurent turns to the group and says: “So, flowers are nice, deadwood is nice, but TreMs are way nicer! I wish TreMs could be higher than 5 in the score, but my colleague Pierre said no, all the factors need to capped at 5”. Everyone laughed! Laurent showed us why he likes this tree, pointing at the loose bark. “This is a bark shelter. It’s loose hanging bark that can serve as a shelter along the trunk with an opening at the bottom; an important feature, e.g. for bats or birds. We then took a look inside and, “voilà”, we could see a nest! Pauline then presented us with a special case, where we saw a combination of both a deadwood log and a snag. While the tree broke down, the lower stem (snag) was still attached to the upper stem that became a log. Such a tree can thus be counted as both lying and standing deadwood.

When we walked further, we came across an atypical kind of pond, a skidding trail, with an aquatic habitat that hosts different species. While this sounds great for biodiversity, skidding trails are caused by harvesting machinery, thus damaging the soil of the forest. This is one of the main reasons why, according to the IBP framework, it is not counted as an ‘aquatic habitat’ and therefore not recorded within the survey. This was the final stop before wrapping up our walk, now having a much better understanding of each IBP factor and ready to soon put the knowledge into practice the next day.

As a final stop we partook in a guided tour through Frank’s farm in Binzen, learned about the local wine culture, and got a small taste of the wine and liquor he makes from his own grapes and cultivated fruit trees.

Walking a plotline

On the second day, we headed out to the Kandern Community Forest, which is part of the foothills of the Black Forest. We met at the natural monument “Beheleneiche”, an old oak tree that has an estimated age of more than 300 years. It only died and fell over around a year ago. Its tree trunk remains, as lying deadwood, offering food and habitat for many organisms – a haven for biodiversity!

So, what was waiting for us that day? With the hope of putting our newly acquired knowledge into action and completing an IBP survey, we divided into small groups. Not sure where to start, Pauline and Laurent helped us by introducing diverse inventory approaches, including 3 possible methods: a route in a) concentric circles, b) a star shape or c) parallel lines. Each group got to pick one method, with our group choosing the concentric circle one.

We then started our survey in the Behleneiche marteloscope, named after the monumental oak tree. To save time, we learned to check the factors as much as possible from one location, as some required much more discussion or detailed observations. Native tree genera were an easy exercise: we spotted beech, maple, oak, wild cherry, and pine… check, 5 points! We then marked the broken tree as a snag, but … wait … another participant noticed that the tree was still alive! Still important for the IBP survey, as it may bear microhabitats. We then were able to count some medium-sized logs as lying deadwood. We also used a TreMs field guide and identified a split fork in a wild cherry.

After the inventory of the inner circle we went on to survey the circular route. We paid particular attention to the factor of ‘vertical structure’, while identifying a few very large trees that were checked for additional TreMs. We then wrapped up our survey : 5 points for native tree species, standing deadwood, living trees bearing microhabitats, very large trees, 2 points for large lying deadwood and vertical structure. The factors with no score were flower-rich open areas, forest continuity, aquatic and rocky habitats, as there were simply none present.

We then started to gather at the Behleneiche, to exchange on what we had surveyed. The local forester, Otto-Jesko von Schröder, joined and shared some insights on the Kandern Community Forest and its management. He highlighted the aim of ensuring a large number of different tree species in stands, emphasising those that can best cope with climate change impacts. One important detail we learned from Otto-Jesko was that formerly these sites were used for mining, which means that in the past, parts of these forests were cleared. For the IBP score this means 0 points for forest continuity over time.

Back in the classroom, the final afternoon sessions gave participants the opportunity to reflect on the IBP survey and place them into a broader operational context, learning about special cases (e.g., the uncapped version of the IBP). They also offered a glimpse into the future development of the IBP, including digital tools and applications designed to support field inventories and data collection more efficiently. By the end of the workshop, the IBP no longer felt like a simple scoring system, but rather like a practical framework that truly connects ecological understanding. Quite a few participants already announced that they will initiate training events in their home countries. Thus, it seems, the mission of training “future” trainers was already accomplished in Binzen! In any case, a memorable workshop for all – one that will hopefully continue to bear its fruits in many forests across Europe.

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

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

Rahel Könen on 1 July, 2026

“Indicators should be implementable, measurable, and aligned with other standards so they can ultimately support forest restoration and Integrative Forest Management across Europe,” said Gesche Schifferdecker as she wrapped up the webinar.

Co-organized with the Integrate Network, our webinar “From Indicators to Action – Bridging Science, Policy and Practice in Forest Restoration and Integrative Forest Management” brought together more than 90 participants from research, policy, and practice to explore how forest indicators can help ambitious restoration policies, particularly the EU Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR), to be effectively translated into action on the ground.

After Gergely Zagyvai, Integrate Network Chair 2026, opened the session with a welcome address, Stefanie Linser (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU)) delivered a keynote presentation on the development of Integrative Forest Management indicators within the TRANSFORMIT project.

This was followed by a rich panel discussion, moderated by Gesche Schifferdecker, featuring José I. Barredo (JRC – European Commission), Bernhard Wolfslehner (European Forest Institute), Teresa Baiges Zapater (Centre De La Propietat Forestal), and Stefanie Linser (BOKU). Together, they explored how diverse forest-related indicators can support decision-making across different governance levels, the practical challenges of monitoring and reporting, and ways to bridge the gap between policy ambitions and practical implementation.

The panel ultimately agreed on one objective: we have to support our forests to become more resilient – and this can only be done if scientists, policy makers, practitioners, and communication experts work collaboratively.

Many thanks to our outstanding moderator, speakers and panelists, and to everyone who joined, asked questions, and shared their experiences!

Slovenian and Chinese forest experts strengthen ties through science, innovation and field experience

Katharina Freund on 25 June, 2026

Visit of the Delegation from the Chinese Academy of Forestry (CAF) within Bilateral Cooperation (SFI–CAF) and the TRANSFORMIT Project, 17–18 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 Centre’s 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 15–17 July 2026. The presentation also introduced planned field visits scheduled for 18–20 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 Institute’s 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.

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.

Life in Deadwood

Katharina Freund on 29 April, 2026

Blogpost by Gesche Schifferdecker and Andrea Barzagli

“Today, there is no longer discussion about the general value of deadwood. Now the discussion is only about how, when, and where to preserve it.”

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 “keeping deadwood” actually look like in a forest that is also being managed for people?

That’s the thread running through The Life in Deadwood, the final documentary of the LIFE SPAN project – filmed across two pilot sites, the Cansiglio Forest (Italy) and the Sailershausen University Forest (Germany). Guided by Jörg Müller, professor of conservation biology and forest ecology at the University of Würzburg, the ~20‑minute film follows a quiet, ongoing “competition between humans and saproxylic organisms”.

The term itself invites a closer look: saproxylic – from Greek for “rotting wood”, 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 film’s 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 “infrastructure”: Saproxylic Habitat Sites

LIFE SPAN’s proposal is practical and surprisingly hopeful: create a network of “Saproxylic Habitat Sites” (SHS) inside managed forests – 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 (CNR‑IRET) 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 – 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 “waste” until you realise they are neighborhoods. As Daniel Kraus, manager of the German Sailershausen forest, puts it, the film helps us “develop a better eye”.

The voices inside the forest

Michael Junginger (University of Würzburg) and Umberto Di Salvatore (CREA‑PB) connect SHSs back to day‑to‑day management: what they suggest are not “more protected areas,” but an adaptive system that can change and grow with the forest. And in one scene of the documentary, Ruth Pickert (University of Würzburg) stands in a demonstration site that looks, at first glance, a little chaotic – and says the quiet part out loud: “we can drive change by inviting people in, talking, and creating spaces for discussion”.

My take-away

The Life in Deadwood doesn’t 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 forest’s full life cycle – standing, falling, and returning.

The video is entirely in English, but official Italian and German subtitles can be selected in the YouTube settings.

Project website: www.lifespanproject.eu/en/

Integrative Forest Management indicators in Italian practice magazine

Gesche Schifferdecker on 27 April, 2026

A new contribution in the Italian forestry practice magazine Sheerwood is spotlighting the TRANSFORMIT project’s work as a promising step toward more measurable and integrative forest management. Presented by Silvia Bruschini, the article focuses on the set of 17 key indicators designed by TRANSFORMIT experts to help translate complex ecological processes into practical tools for decision-making.

Indicators play a crucial role in forestry, offering measurable insights into biodiversity, forest resources, and socio-economic benefits. According to the publication, our TRANSFORMIT framework provides both quantitative and qualitative parameters that allow managers to monitor forest conditions, assess the impact of human activities, and guide sustainable practices over time.

Developed through a participatory process, these indicators are scalable from stand to landscape level and aligned with EU policy goals such as the European Green Deal. The article highlights their potential as a valuable reference for forest planning in Italy, offering a shared, science-based foundation for managing increasingly complex forest systems.

Read the article (in Italian) here: Gestione forestale integrata: gli indicatori TRANSFORMIT – Rivistasherwood.it

One framework, many forests: Integrative Forest Management as a shared language for Europe?

Shanqing Gao on 21 April, 2026

by Shanqing Gao & Valentina Vitali

Forests in Europe are at a crossroads. Climate change is reshaping disturbance regimes, biodiversity is declining, and societies are demanding more from forests than ever before: timber, carbon storage, clean water, recreation and habitat for wildlife, all at once. Against this backdrop, forest managers are navigating a crowded landscape of concepts, frameworks and acronyms, each offering a different answer to the same fundamental question: What does it actually mean in practice to manage a forest well – that is, to provide the services societies need while at the same time strengthening the forests’ resilience and preparing them for the future?

A new paper “Perspective: Managing European forests for biodiversity conservation and global change adaptation: An assessment of current management concepts” published in Forest Ecology and Management by Valentina Vitali and colleagues (2026), developed within the TRANSFORMIT project, takes a step back to make sense of this complexity and offers a structured way forward.

Spruce forest affected by bark beetles. Bohemian Paradise, Czech Republic.

What has been missing?

Forest management concepts have multiplied over the past decades. Some of these names you might have heard before: Close-to-Nature Forest Management, Continuous Cover Forestry, Climate-Smart Forestry, Retention Forestry… But as noted in the paper, many of these approaches have remained “largely at the stand scale, even for ecosystem services that inherently depend on landscape-level processes”. Biodiversity elements, such as deadwood, habitat trees and rare species were frequently overlooked. Landscape connectivity was rarely part of the conversation.

Today, the pressures are sharper, and the expectations are higher. EU policies on climate, biodiversity and the bioeconomy pull forests in multiple directions at once. Intensive management can reduce adaptive capacity by simplifying stand structures and shortening rotation lengths. Meanwhile, research consistently shows that structurally diverse, species-rich forests are far better buffered against the more frequent and more severe natural disturbances caused by climate change.

What has been missing is not more concepts but more operational clarity. Many existing frameworks “articulate clear aspirations and guiding principles but lack fully developed, standardized operational guidelines”. Without that clarity, forest management approaches face the risk of remaining theoretical but having limited real-world impact on forests.

What is Integrative Forest Management (IFM)?

IFM is not a new idea. First conceptualized by Daniel Kraus and Frank Krumm in 2013 and further developed since, it has long been understood as a holistic approach that aims to integrate nature conservation and adaptation to global change into sustainable forest management. Within TRANSFORMIT, we refined and operationalized it into a working definition:

“Integrative Forest Management aims at integrating biodiversity conservation and global change adaptation into forest management for the sustainable provision of multiple ecosystem services. It is guided by natural and diverse forest structures, compositions, and dynamics to support ecosystem functioning and resilience. Its management practices consistently consider the tree, stand, and landscape scale and employ different silvicultural intensities, including intentionally unmanaged forest patches.”

In short, IFM is not a prescription for what a forest must look like. It is a framework that can be adapted to local ecological realities, management traditions and governance contexts, while keeping biodiversity and resilience at the center.

In practical terms, this definition is structured around 8 guiding principles:

	Principle	What it means in practice
1	Retention of habitat trees, special habitats, and deadwood	Actively identifying, mapping, and retaining old trees, deadwood, and valuable habitats, not just what regulation requires, but beyond it
2	Promoting site-adapted native tree species	Prioritising native species suited to local conditions, while allowing climate-adapted non-native species in minority shares
3	Promoting natural tree regeneration	Favouring natural regeneration where possible, monitoring herbivore pressure, and protecting pioneer species in the landscape
4	Partial harvest and structural heterogeneity	Favouring selection harvesting over clear felling to maintain complex, uneven-aged stand structures
5	Promoting tree species variation and genetic diversity	Actively managing for diverse species mixtures aiming for a minimum of three tree species per stand and diverse provenances
6	Avoidance of intensive management operations	Limiting agrochemical use, constraining machine traffic to fixed extraction networks, retaining deadwood after salvage logging, and protecting watercourses
7	Supporting landscape heterogeneity and functioning	Planning explicitly for habitat connectivity, protection of rare habitats, and linkages between forested and non-forested areas at the landscape scale
8	Managing factors that hinder ecosystem functioning	Actively controlling invasive species and integrating natural disturbance processes, such as fire, storms, pest outbreaks, into management planning to build resilience

How do existing concepts measure up?

With this framework established, the paper undertakes a structured comparison of eight widely used European forest management concepts: Continuous Cover Forestry (CCF), Close-to-Nature Forest Management (CNFM), ProSilva, the Stepping Stone Concept (SSC), Retention Forestry (RF), TRIAD, Climate-Smart Forestry (CSF), and Closer-to-Nature Forest Management (CerNFM).

*Figure 1: Overview of IFM-related concepts investigated. Each cell presents the concept’s abbreviation and a brief description. (Vitali et al., 2026)*

As shown in the graph below, all eight concepts show some degree of alignment with IFM principles, at the level of broad principles, most cover at least half. But when assessed against the more specific operational attributes – the how, not just the what – the picture shifts considerably: existing concepts cover less than 40% of IFM’s desired attributes overall.

*Figure 2: Spider-grams showing how each management concept aligns with the principles of IFM. (Vitali et al., 2026)*

It is worth noting that this is not a ranking. Each concept has strengths that reflect its own origins and context. The more productive insight is that these concepts are complementary. IFM, as a common framework, makes that complementarity visible and actionable. As the paper puts it, by using IFM as a benchmark, the study helps “close gaps between high-level management goals and their practical implementation” through “a transparent dialogue between science, practice, and policy”.

To show what IFM implementation can look like over time, the paper includes an illustrative transition pathway for disturbance-prone Norway spruce monocultures affected by drought and bark beetles. It emphasizes that some benefits (e.g., using existing deadwood as habitat) can start immediately, while others (e.g., developing habitat trees or achieving structurally diverse mixed stands) take decades, requiring staged planning across short-, medium-, and long-term horizons (Figure 3).

Figure 3: From spruce monoculture to resilient forest: the timeline shows how Integrative Forest Management (IFM) actions unfold over decades through short-, mid-, and long-term actions that strengthen biodiversity, climate resilience, and ecosystem services.

A common framework for a shared challenge

Integrative Forest Management will not manage the beech forests in central Europe and the boreal pinewoods in Scandinavia with the same approaches. Regional conditions, traditions, ownership structures and governance frameworks all shape what is possible. This context-sensitivity is exactly the key feature of the framework. IFM is, as the paper describes it, “a unifying but non-prescriptive concept that is capable of integrating diverse forest management objectives”.

What it offers, above all, is a shared language: a structured way to have better conversations about forest management across scientific, policy and practitioner communities, and to identify honestly where existing approaches are strong and where the gaps remain.

Within TRANSFORMIT, we are building on this foundation by developing indicators for IFM, testing implementation pathways via 7 Living Labs and over 30 Satellite Demonstration Areas across Europe, and working through networks like the Integrate Network, with its more than 200 demonstration sites across Europe, to connect science and practice in ways that can scale.

The forests of Europe are facing pressures that will not wait. But with clearer thinking about what we are managing them for, and better tools for translating that thinking into action, we can manage them considerably better.

Read more: Valentina Vitali (lead-author), Frank Krumm, Andreea Spinu, Florian Schnabel, Jürgen Bauhus, Agata Konczal, Lorenz Schimetka, Sebastian Schwegmann, Georg Winkel, & Andreas Rigling. (2026). Managing European forests for biodiversity conservation and global change adaptation: An assessment of current management concepts. Forest Ecology and Management, 611, 123698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2026.123698

Diversity in Integrative Forest Management: our Satellite Demonstration Areas

Gesche Schifferdecker on 27 March, 2026

Across Europe, our unique network of TRANSFORMIT Satellite Demonstration Areas (SDAs) is bringing to life the diversity of forests, management traditions, and innovation pathways needed to address climate change. From Mediterranean landscapes to boreal forests and urban green spaces, these selected sites illustrate how locally adapted solutions can contribute to resilient, multifunctional forest systems. The SDAs aim at showcasing several good practice examples of Integrative Forest Management (IFM) across Europe, thus broadening the scope of expertise available and enlarging the IFM Network. These areas are now available on Main – Transformit.

Maps of TRANSFORMIT’s SDAs across Europe.

Close to Nature forest management in action

Several German forest enterprises – including Schütt-Frank and Kalebsberg – demonstrate how close-to-nature forest management can build climate resilience. Their approaches emphasise natural regeneration, soil health, balanced wildlife populations, and stable forest microclimates. Together, they highlight a shift away from rigid management towards adaptive, self-regulating forest systems.

Forests for people: urban and social functions

In highly frequented landscapes such as the Kottenforst (Germany), the Sonian Forest (Belgium), and the City Forest of Baden (Switzerland), forests must balance recreation, biodiversity, and cultural heritage. These SDAs show how integrative management can meet societal expectations while maintaining ecological integrity. Innovative approaches like “ecosponsoring” in Switzerland further demonstrate new forms of collaboration between society and forest stewardship.

Multifunctionality across Europe

Agroforestry. Tree vegetation has established itself in an abandoned plantation with Turmeric (Curcuma
longa) – Abbey St Bathans UK-Scotland Dobie family, Scotland.

From Scotland’s Abbey St Bathans to Slovenia’s Pahernik Forest and Norway’s Vestland region, forests are managed to deliver multiple ecosystem services. While timber production remains important, these SDAs also support biodiversity, cultural values, and education. In Poland’s Woziwoda Forest District, this balance is captured through the principle of “nature protection through moderate and rational use.”

Mediterranean innovation and adaptation

Our Southern Europe’s demonstration areas highlight innovation under climate pressure. In Spain, forests such as Vall d’en Bas and Ribera Salada explore how to combine biodiversity conservation with high-quality wood production, while others integrate fire as a natural and necessary management component. In Italy and France, sites like Val di Susa, Pratomagno, and Hèches focus on multifunctional forestry – balancing production, protection, and long-term ecosystem resilience in the face of climate change and biodiversity loss.

Forests for research and education

Training/Education at Punkaharju Research Park, Finland.

Some demonstration areas serve as centres for research and education, such as the Punkaharju Research Park in Finland, the University Forest Enterprise in Zvolen, Slovakia, and Universitätsforstamt Sailershausen in Germany. These sites connect science, practice, and society, ensuring that forest management is continuously informed by evidence and innovation.

By connecting these sites, TRANSFORMIT creates a living network of knowledge and practice, demonstrating that there is no single solution to climate and biodiversity-related challenges but many locally grounded pathways that, together, shape a more sustainable future for Europe’s forests.