Adaptation is a key part of restoring Europe\u2019s forests and improving their resilience to climate change-related risks such as pests and wildfires, Bernhard Wolfslehner told EURACTIV in an interview.<\/p>\n
Bernhard Wolfslehner is the head of the governance programme at the European Forest Institute, a group looking at forestry research and supporting policy around forests. He spoke to Kira Taylor about the state of forests in Europe and ongoing policies addressing this.<\/p>\n
INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS:<\/strong><\/p>\n Forests across Europe vary quite dramatically, depending on their makeup and the local geography, but what\u2019s the general state of forests in Europe?<\/strong><\/p>\n There is not a single answer for all of Europe, but let\u2019s start from the assumption that not everything is a catastrophe. I think this is very important because this is what is currently conveyed in the media \u2013 that the whole forest in Europe is dying, which is not the case.\u00a0 What is the case is that the calamities that we have make it into the news, while all the other parts are not visible anymore.<\/p>\n Forests are not, in principle, in a bad state. This is also conveyed by officials. We have no metrics for assessing whether they\u2019re in a good or a bad state, but we have indicators to interpret complex situations.<\/p>\n What is the case is that the forest area is still increasing, the biomass is still increasing, so there are no signs of overharvesting across Europe, although there might be individual cases.<\/p>\n On the other hand, what is also true is that forests are under increasing pressure. The main driver, of course, is climate change<\/a>. We have quite a lot of calamities and incidents across Europe.<\/p>\n We start from the south with increasing forest fires<\/a>, but they\u2019re not bound to the south anymore. They reach up into Scandinavia, so this is one of the big issues. And then in 2018 and 2019, we had a big drought and bark beetle calamities, in particular, in central Europe.<\/p>\n Although forest biomass is growing, green campaigners argue that the diversity of those forests and other biodiversity<\/a> indicators are not doing so well. Is that something you would agree with?<\/strong><\/p>\n I wouldn\u2019t fully agree with that. Biodiversity<\/a> indicators are not showing a decline.<\/p>\n I think we\u2019re at the crossroad where forest management<\/a> needs to be much more diverse than it used to be. Of course, the impacts of such change you cannot measure<\/a> right now. But in principle, I think biodiversity<\/a> is an issue about how to measure and monitor it and that\u2019s super difficult. There are broad talks on this at the moment.<\/p>\n What we also have to understand is that we\u2019re living in a 90% cultural landscape<\/a>. We\u2019re not living in a natural landscape. After the Second World War, when Europe was widely deforested<\/a>, all these monocultures were planted because we needed the resource.<\/p>\n Now, 80 years later, this is the heritage we have. So it\u2019s not a mistake of the last five years, but it was brought up in a certain system with a certain objective. That\u2019s why I say now when we see, for example, these monocultures don\u2019t work anymore, we have the opportunity to change.<\/p>\n When it comes to the risks that are posed to forests, is the main one climate change or are there other risks<\/a> as well?<\/strong><\/p>\n Climate change<\/a> is the major risk. It\u2019s not predictable. You can go through the scenarios, but what this means for a forest on a local<\/a> level, we don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n We\u2019re currently working in the context of the Forest Europe process on a mechanism to support risk<\/a> prevention on a political level. This is important but needs to feed into practices and requires diversification of management<\/a> strategies.<\/p>\n Climate change<\/a> is a major driver, but this also relates to a lot of different factors across the forest value chain. You cannot change a system overnight and it\u2019s not only the ecosystem<\/a>, but also the economic systems.<\/p>\n For example, if you have forest-based industries that have been developed<\/a> over the past decades on a certain type of wood, you cannot say \u2018okay, now from now on, we\u2019re changing\u2019. So most important is that these axes work together and develop common strategies on how to adapt to climate change<\/a>.<\/p>\n Do you see increasing pressure on forests for wood products<\/a> and bio-based products? Or do you feel like it\u2019s going to be a continuation of how much we use at the moment?<\/strong><\/p>\n In principle, the assumption that we\u2019ll need fewer forest resources, for me, is naive. On the one hand, we have the bioeconomy, which plays an important role in a carbon<\/a> neutral society by 2050 and the replacement of fossil and other non-renewable materials.<\/p>\n On the other hand, there are policies that aim towards setting aside forests from active management<\/a>. The inherent trade-offs between these concepts need to be addressed and solved.<\/p>\n I assume that we will need more resources. The question is where do we get the resource from? And if we reduce in Europe while the demand increases, we will get it from somewhere else. Outsourcing our problems to other parts of the world will not solve the overall problem.<\/p>\n How do you think laws such as the EU Nature Restoration Law and the Land<\/a> Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Regulation (LULUCF) sit alongside forest production?<\/strong><\/p>\n The restoration<\/a> law per se is a valid concept. We\u2019re also currently running a very big project<\/a> on restoration, called SUPERB, exploring how this concept can work on a large scale across Europe.<\/p>\n What\u2019s important is that the idea of adaptation is not forgotten in restoration. To just think of restoring<\/a> something to how it used to be does not mean it\u2019s fit for the future.<\/p>\n The other issue is that all new policies should be looked at in a combined way. Because otherwise, we are back at fragmentation. With the development of so many different forest-related policies in a short time, it is important to keep them consistent and compatible with the existing ones.<\/p>\n A second component is the international responsibility. Restoration is not only an EU topic but has to go hand in hand with cooperation with developing countries because there is a really big need for restoring forests<\/a> and forest resources.<\/p>\n Where do you think the funding should come from for restoration<\/a> projects?<\/strong><\/p>\n The funding issue is big. Restoration<\/a> is not cheap and, if it is to be sustainable, it\u2019s even more expensive. You can plant quite a lot of trees<\/a> but half of these could be gone after 6, 7, or 8 years. It has to be sustainable, so it\u2019s not a one-time investment to plant trees<\/a>.<\/p>\n There are funding programmes<\/a> available from the European Commission, but of course, it can always be debated whether this is sufficient. Institutions like the European Investment Bank will also contribute to larger-scale projects. And the third pillar is private funding, including also public-private partnerships because there are many companies looking for carbon neutrality.<\/p>\n You mentioned the international aspect earlier, what do you think the EU\u2019s responsibility is when it comes to protecting<\/a> forests and forest management on the international stage?<\/strong><\/p>\n One thing the EU has already done is adopt the EU zero deforestation regulation. The idea is to stop importing products that can be related to forest loss<\/a>. I think this is the main instrument for forest commodities that has an impact on international trade.<\/p>\n The other thing is development projects, we have this already with REDD+<\/a> to stop deforestation. These kind of activities are often supported by individual European countries, not only at the EU level but also at country level. This will also be valid for the future and for restoration<\/a> projects.<\/p>\n How can countries and businesses, anyone who\u2019s investing in this type of restoration, ensure that foresters and the people who own the land<\/a> have a voice in this?<\/strong><\/p>\n As with all political processes, one should avoid top-down solutions. Currently, there is a trend for superspeed and this normally leads to less stakeholder involvement. I see a danger in that.<\/p>\n\n