The Evolution of Forest Restoration in Europe

We are amid a historical momentum encouraging forest restoration, yet the translation of ambitious targets into reality is hindered by poor documentation and understanding of the success and failure of past restoration efforts. This review aims to evaluate the ecological, social, political and economic characteristics of forest restoration across Europe, their development over time and key lessons learned to guide future restoration initiatives. The analysis is based on the synthesis of expert assessments from 18 European countries. The results showed that three main forest restoration periods with distinct characteristics could be distinguished: 1) a protection-focused period (<1940), 2) a production-focused period (1940-1989), and 3) a multifunctionality-focused period (>1990). Some of the first restoration initiatives aimed to address the catastrophic natural disturbances (e.g., flooding, avalanches, drifting sands) that ensued centuries of forest degradation and deforestation in several countries. Many countries embarked on both passive (e.g., forest grazing bans) and active (e.g., large-scale plantation campaigns) restoration initiatives to safeguard the protective function of forests. In other countries, the main trigger were not natural disasters, but the economic disruptions related to timber demand (for the growing mining industry) not meeting supply. Fast-growing pioneer species (namely Pinus sp.) tended to be the species of choice during the first period, and initiatives were mostly promoted and funded by the State. This period saw moderate to good success in the achievement of goals such as erosion control, timber production and job creation. The ecological recovery, however, was mostly marginal as the established forests were mostly even-aged plantations managed with short-rotation clearcut systems and little consideration for biodiversity or ecosystem functioning. The main obstacles during this first period were conflicting goals and local opposition (with farmers mostly), limited knowledge (species of choice, provenances, etc.) and lack of available public land. This first period was disrupted by a period of wars (namely World War I and II) and political instability, which greatly influenced the type and intensity of forest restoration. The geopolitical turmoil led to both further forest degradation and deforestation, but also to an increase in timber demand due to the need to reconstruct Europe. Hence, most countries entered a period in which the focus was mainly on increasing the wood biomass productivity in existing and recently established forests. In many cases, this was achieved by intensively managing even-aged, monospecific stands (mostly conifers – spruce and pines – but also hybrid poplars) with little consideration for biodiversity and ecosystem services other than timber production (although in some countries the protective function remained the highest priority). This challenges the current definition of forest restoration, but because reflecting on this period is crucial to understand the problems that European forests and forest restoration face these days, we have included these initiatives in the report. The nationalization of forests in several countries, the centralized management and solid funding mechanisms during this period greatly contributed to efficiency in several countries, and forest cover and productivity increased considerably. However, much of this socioeconomic success came with an ecological price as structurally and compositionally poor plantations replaced habitats of ecological value (e.g., mixed beech-conifer stands, species-rich meadows and riparian forests, biodiverse pastures and heathlands, wet forests). However, note that there are also ecologically successful examples described in this period. This type of forest management increasingly showed its shortcomings in the form of increased vulnerability to disturbances such as forest dieback related to acid rain, droughts, bark beetle outbreaks, or massive windthrows between the 1970s and 90s. In parallel, society started to demand a greater recreational use of forests and had growing environmental concerns, and timber prices showed downward trends. All of these drivers converged and were picked up in strong policies in the 90s (even earlier in some countries) that sought multifunctionality by balancing protective, economic, ecological and recreational forest functions. This period is characterized by a shift in the focus of restoration from forest quantity to quality, as well as by the diversification of many restoration aspects (e.g., sources of degradation, restoration goals and activities, species used, sources of funding). Biodiversity conservation took center stage in most of the initiatives discussed in the narratives, following both segregative (e.g., designation of protected areas) and integrative (e.g., close-to-nature forest management) approaches, and EU policies and funding became pivotal to incorporate this restoration goal. Indicators such as the amount of deadwood or the proportion of deciduous species and mixed stands showed positive trends. However, multiple obstacles remain, with the most common ones being insufficient funding, conflicting land-use goals (agriculture vs. forest, timber production vs. conservation) in the form of inconsistent cross-sectoral policies, ownership fragmentation, browsing and climate change. Finally, we synthesize all the knowledge shared in the 18 narratives into 10 main lessons learned. In short, changes in forest restoration over the last two centuries have been driven by a combination of environmental (e.g., catastrophic consequences following natural disasters have triggered change), political (e.g., wars, forest nationalization and management centralization have strongly influenced the type, amount and/or efficiency of restoration), legal (e.g., strict and ambitious national and international policies have vehiculated change), social (e.g., rural abandonment and changes in societal values have enabled or demanded change) and economic (e.g., new funding mechanisms or market fluctuations have enabled or driven change) events. Conflicting goals among stakeholders but especially among policy sectors as well as short-term thinking seem to be long-standing obstacles to successful forest restoration. Therefore, we conclude by noting that multifunctional, multisectoral, holistic, long-term landscape thinking that is aware of the interconnectedness and dynamism of the system may be the only way to ensure that the many challenges that humanity faces are simultaneously addressed.