Can “Closer-to-Nature” Forest Management Sustain Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in an Uncertain Future? Lessons from Central Europe

Abstract Purpose of Review Forests produce timber, mitigate climate change and provide important habitats; yet their capacity to provide these services under rapid global change is uncertain. “Closer-to-nature” forest management (CNFM) has been proposed by the EU Forest Strategy as a way to reconcile competing demands on forests while enhancing their resilience, but experiences with its implementation remain limited. We synthesized expert knowledge about CNFM in Central Europe, a region with a history of diverse forest management practices that has recently experienced severe impacts of climate change. We used a two-stage Delphi approach (including a questionnaire and a workshop) with experts in forest ecology and management to find a consensus about the effects of specific CNFM tools, and to identify knowledge gaps, barriers, and good practice examples of CNFM. Recent Findings A wider implementation of CNFM is likely to benefit biodiversity and ecosystem services under climate change, with only one clear trade-off identified between setting areas aside and wood production. However, limited empirical evidence exists for many of the expected effects. Substantial obstacles hinder the implementation of CNFM, including administrative constraints, social barriers, and gaps in knowledge and education. Nonetheless, we identified numerous successful cases of CNFM implementation from local to national scales in Central Europe. Summary CNFM is viewed as a potent strategy to navigate future social and ecological uncertainties, including large-scale disturbances. However, the implementation of CNFM should be adapted to the local context and ensure landscape-scale heterogeneity. Existing good practices could serve as examples for mainstreaming CNFM in Central Europe and beyond.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Current Forestry Reports
Published
2026-01-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-025-00264-6
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Forest Management and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
36.62
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Can “Closer-to-Nature” Forest Management Sustain Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in an Uncertain Future? Lessons from Central Europe

Emanuele Lingua, Judit Lecina‐Diaz, Mária Potterf, Kirsten Krüger et al.
1 citations
Current Forestry Reports
Forest Management and Policy
36.62
article

Can “Closer-to-Nature” Forest Management Sustain Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in an Uncertain Future? Lessons from Central Europe

Emanuele Lingua, Judit Lecina‐Diaz, Mária Potterf, Kirsten Krüger, Marcus Lindner, Tomáš Hlásny, Jürgen Bauhus, Nicolò Anselmetto, Thomas A. Nagel, Ana Stritih, Donato Morresi, Christian Schattenberg, Thom Dominik, Jernej Stritih, Andrej Bončina, Christian Ammer, Johannes Mohr, Eva Knific, Katarina Mulec, Rupert Seidl, Matteo Garbarino, Daan Welling, Davide Marangon
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Purpose of Review Forests produce timber, mitigate climate change and provide important habitats; yet their capacity to provide these services under rapid global change is uncertain. “Closer-to-nature” forest management (CNFM) has been proposed by the EU Forest Strategy as a way to reconcile competing demands on forests while enhancing their resilience, but experiences with its implementation remain limited. We synthesized expert knowledge about CNFM in Central Europe, a region with a history of diverse forest management practices that has recently experienced severe impacts of climate change. We used a two-stage Delphi approach (including a questionnaire and a workshop) with experts in forest ecology and management to find a consensus about the effects of specific CNFM tools, and to identify knowledge gaps, barriers, and good practice examples of CNFM. Recent Findings A wider implementation of CNFM is likely to benefit biodiversity and ecosystem services under climate change, with only one clear trade-off identified between setting areas aside and wood production. However, limited empirical evidence exists for many of the expected effects. Substantial obstacles hinder the implementation of CNFM, including administrative constraints, social barriers, and gaps in knowledge and education. Nonetheless, we identified numerous successful cases of CNFM implementation from local to national scales in Central Europe. Summary CNFM is viewed as a potent strategy to navigate future social and ecological uncertainties, including large-scale disturbances. However, the implementation of CNFM should be adapted to the local context and ensure landscape-scale heterogeneity. Existing good practices could serve as examples for mainstreaming CNFM in Central Europe and beyond.

Current Forestry ReportsVol. 12(1)
University of Padua (IT), University of Ljubljana (SI), University of Freiburg (DE), Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CZ), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE), Institute for Sustainable Development (ET), European Forest Institute (DE), Schön Klinik Berchtesgadener Land (DE), University of Turin (IT), Technical University of Munich (DE), Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Forest Management and Policy
36.62
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.