Search

Forests are subject to a huge variety of often competing socio-economic demands and environmental change. This paper assesses the related conflicts that occur along what we label to be a "Global Forest Environmental Frontier". Assessing 11 contributions to a special issue on the same topic, it summarizes the main contents of these papers and concludes with an assessment of major trends. The contributions to the special issue take both a regional and topic-related approach, assessing forest environmental conflicts on all five forested continents and investigating issues such as forest biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation and mitigation, environmental justice and equity, development, and forest management and conservation discourses. Taken together, they provide an overview on the multiple facets of the Global Forest Environmental Frontier, but also identify some shared patterns and trajectories, which are outlined at the end of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of forest management on biodiversity is difficult to scrutinize along gradients of management. A step towards analyzing the impact of forest management on biodiversity is comparisons between managed and primary forests. The standardized typology of tree-related microhabitats (TreMs) is a multi-taxon indicator used to quantify forest biodiversity. We aim to analyze the influence of environmental factors on the occurrence of groups of TreMs by comparing primary and managed forests. We collected data for the managed forests in the Black Forest (Germany) and for the primary forests in the Western (Slovakia) and Southern Carpathians (Romania). To model the richness and the different groups of TreMs per tree, we used generalized linear mixed models with diameter at breast height (DBH), altitude, slope and aspect as predictors for European beech (Fagus sylvatica (L.)), Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.)) and silver fir (Abies alba (Mill.)) in primary and managed temperate mountain forests. We found congruent results for overall richness and the vast majority of TreM groups. Trees in primary forests hosted a greater richness of all and specific types of TreMs than individuals in managed forests. The main drivers of TreMs are DBH and altitude, while slope and aspect play a minor role. We recommend forest and nature conservation managers to focus: 1) on the conservation of remaining primary forests and 2) approaches of biodiversity-oriented forest management on the selection of high-quality habitat trees that already provide a high number of TreMs in managed forests based on the comparison with primary forests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With 20% of the world's forests, Russia has global potential in bioeconomy development, biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. However, unsustainable forest management based on 'wood mining' reduces this potential. Based on document analysis, participant observations and interviews, this article shows how non-state actors—environmental NGOs and forest companies—address forest resource depletion and primary forest loss in Russia. We analyse two key interrelated forest discourses driven by non-state actors in Russia: (1) intensive forest management in secondary forests as a pathway towards sustained yield and primary forest conservation; (2) intact forest landscapes as a priority in primary forest conservation. We illustrate how these discourses have been integrated into policy debates, institutions and practices and discuss their relation to relevant global discourses. The article concludes that despite successful cases in conserving intact forest landscapes, there is still a frontier between sustainable forest management discourses and forestry practice in Russia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The natural range of variation of ecosystems provides reference conditions for sustainable management and biodiversity conservation. We review how the understanding of natural reference conditions of boreal forests in northern Europe has changed from earlier perceptions of even-aged dynamics driven by stand-replacing disturbances towards current understanding highlighting the role of non-stand-replacing disturbances and the resultant complex forest dynamics and structures. We show how earlier views and conceptual models of forest disturbance dynamics, including the influential ASIO model, provide estimates of reference conditions that are outside the natural range of variation. Based on a research synthesis, we present a revised forest reference model incorporating the observed complexity of ecosystem dynamics and the prevalence of old forests. Finally, we outline a management model and demonstrate its use in forest ecosystem management and show how regional conservation area needs can be estimated. We conclude that attaining favourable conservation status in northern Europe's boreal forests requires increasing emphasis on ecosystem management and conservation for old forest characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Functional zoning has been suggested as a way to balance the needs of a viable forest industry with those of healthy ecosystems. Under this system, part of the forest is set aside for protected areas, counterbalanced by intensive and extensive management of the rest of the forest. Studies indicate this may provide adequate timber while minimizing road construction and favoring the development of large mature and old stands. However, it is unclear how the spatial arrangement of intensive management areas may affect the success of this zoning. Should these areas be agglomerated or dispersed throughout the forest landscape? Should managers prioritize (a) proximity to existing roads, (b) distance from protected areas, or (c) site-specific productivity? We use a spatially explicit landscape simulation model to examine the effects of different spatial scenarios on landscape structure, connectivity for native forest wildlife, stand diversity, harvest volume, and road construction: (1) random placement of intensive management areas, and (2-8) all possible combinations of rules (a)-(c). Results favor the agglomeration of intensive management areas. For most wildlife species, connectivity was the highest when intensive management was far from the protected areas. This scenario also resulted in relatively high harvest volumes. Maximizing distance of intensive management areas from protected areas may therefore be the best way to maximize the benefits of intensive management areas while minimizing their potentially negative effects on forest structure and biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]