Forest Dialogue 2026: Biodiversity as a key to resilient forests
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.
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 – 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.
