Policy Actors

Integrative Forest Management 

Integrative Forest Management (IFM) 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. IFM can be applied in any type of forest to achieve integrated environmental, economic, and social outcomes. 

To operationalise the concept, guiding principles and attributes of Integrative Forest Management have recently been compiled and further developed based on current literature and expert knowledge. 

Related concepts 

We can compare forest management approaches related to Integrative Forest Management according to the above guiding Principles and Attributes. These reviewed forest management concepts were developed in diverse regional, ecological, and historical contexts, thus reflecting varying interpretations of sustainability and biodiversity integration in forestry. While many emerged from practical needs long before Integrative Forest Management was formalised, more or less extensive overlaps in their principles and attributes were found. 

Continuous Cover Forestry is among the oldest forest management concepts and has its roots in central Europe (Turckheim, 2005). It was initially motivated by soil protection and economic stability. It clearly states the avoidance of clear felling, instead maintaining permanent forest cover via selective harvests. Its focus on structural diversity, age-class heterogeneity, and resilience has made it a key precursor to IFM. 

Close-to-Nature Forest Management, as defined by Schütz (1999) and expanded by Bauhus et al., (2013), emphasises working with natural processes to guide forest development, maintain species richness, and promote structural complexity. Rooted in central European silvicultural thinking, this approach avoids artificial interventions, such as clear felling, and instead favours natural regeneration, mixed-species stands, and continuous forest cover. Its core motivation lies in enhancing ecosystem stability and adaptability while still allowing for sustainable timber production. Schütz argued that close-to-nature silviculture is not only compatible with biodiversity goals but can actively support species richness when properly implemented. The definition was further developed over time. Bauhus et al., (2013) describe forests as complex adaptive systems, aiming to enhance their resilience, adaptability, and multifunctionality under global change, emphasizing structural and species diversity, long-term sustainability, site-specific management, and fostering adaptability to environmental uncertainty and disturbance regimes. This concept laid the groundwork for later frameworks such as Closer-to-Nature Forest Management (Larsen et al., 2022), which expanded the scope to include broader landscape-level and climate resilience objectives. 

Pro Silva, formalised in 1989 and documented in its 2012 charter, advocates continuous, close-to nature forest management without clearcuts, aiming to maintain all forest functions over time (Pro Silva, 2012; Schütz, 2011). Rooted in central European silvicultural traditions, it promotes forest resilience, natural regeneration, and multifunctionality. Its motivation was both ecological and economic, to sustain forests without sacrificing productivity. 

The Stepping Stone Concept (Mergner, 2018) promotes habitat continuity via deadwood, habitat trees, and forest reserves acting as “stepping stones” for species. Unlike timber-focused strategies, it emerged primarily from conservation science to enhance genetic exchange across landscapes. Recent adaptations (e.g., Lapin et al., 2024) expand this concept from forest stands to broader ecological networks. 

Retention Forestry (Gustafsson et al., 2012) focuses on biodiversity conservation within managed forests by retaining structural elements like deadwood and old trees during harvesting, mostly focused on boreal forests. It evolved in response to biodiversity concerns in intensively managed forests, emphasising structural continuity across space and time. 

The TRIAD concept (Messier et al., 2009) divides forests into three zones: conservation, ecosystem management, and intensive production. Motivated by the need to reconcile timber harvesting with biodiversity protection, it spatially separates objectives to optimise both ecological and economic functions. It reflects a strategic zoning approach that is popular in North America and is now increasingly relevant in European multifunctional forest landscapes.  

Climate-Smart Forestry (Nabuurs et al., 2017)) emerged recently from climate policy debates. Unlike older approaches, it addresses greenhouse gas mitigation, resilience, and productivity in a climate change context. It promotes carbon sequestration, adaptive silviculture, and efficient use of wood, aligning well with EU Green Deal objectives. 

Finally, Closer-to-Nature Forest Management (EU Forest Strategy 20230, Larsen et al., 2022) was introduced as a unifying umbrella under Sustainable Forest Management, promoting heterogeneity, native species, and resilience. Larsen et al. (2022) discuss this term, building on latest scientific evidence and propose a definition of the concept by a set of seven guiding principles and a framework/checklist for flexible European-wide implementation. The shift from Close-to-Nature to Closer-to-nature Forest Management demonstrates increasing recognition that biodiversity and resilience need clear, scalable strategies beyond the original stand-focused approach to address modern challenges like climate change and ecosystem fragmentation. It integrates more explicit biodiversity and landscape-level objectives, as also proposed by Krumm et al. (2020). The “Closer” distinction signals a step beyond traditional "close to- nature" approaches, aligning with the European Green Deal’s emphasis on ecosystem restoration.