The forest is much more than just trees – what can a more nature-friendly forest management offer us?
Forests not only provide timber but also play a role in climate regulation, water retention, and the preservation of biodiversity. Meanwhile, in Hungary, even the ecological values of old, diverse, and even protected forests are often overshadowed by the considerations of timber production. Réka Aszalós, a forest ecologist and researcher at the HUN-REN Ecological Research Center, presents the reality of domestic forest management practices in her overview article, as well as the necessary shifts needed for forests to fulfill their diverse functions in the long term.
Author: Réka Aszalós, forest ecologist, researcher at the HUN-REN Ecological Research Center
Images: Photographs by Tamás Frank
Amid the accelerating climate change, the drastic decline of biodiversity (biodiversity crisis), and the increasingly frequent forest damages, the question has become unavoidable: is the current forest management practice truly suitable for maintaining well-functioning, natural, species-rich forests in the long term?
I pose this question as a forest ecologist. As a professional who has worked alongside foresters and forest managers for decades, I am familiar with the achievements, questions, and problems of the forestry profession from multiple perspectives. Many of the solutions presented in this article also come from within the forestry profession – relying on these, I would like to argue for the ecological viability of forests. In addition, in the era of climate change and the biodiversity crisis, the traditional management logic can no longer be sustained without change, thus a shift in vision is necessary.
Today, we should interpret forests as carrying multiple functions simultaneously. Not merely as areas that provide timber, but as complex ecosystems that play a role in climate regulation, flood protection, water purification, soil formation and protection, air quality improvement, recreation, maintaining our mental well-being, and last but not least, preserving biodiversity. An ecosystem service-based approach may seem idealistic, yet it provides an essential compass: it shows what kind of forests we would like to see in a few decades – and what management decisions will lead us there.
The vast majority of Hungary’s forest area (approximately 2 million hectares) is classified with forest planning and stand-level categorization and is managed according to a defined mode of operation. In this system, there would be ample room for strengthening the resilience of forests and their role in biodiversity preservation.
CUTS, CUTS EVERYWHERE…
When we see several hectares of completely or almost completely cut areas in forests in photos or satellite images, we can be almost certain that we are observing the traces of logging management.
The essence of clear-cut forestry is that the forest stand is harvested at the end of the rotation period, typically over a larger area at once during final felling, followed by forest regeneration, which usually involves one or two tree species. As a result, even-aged stands composed of a few tree species and relatively homogeneous structures are created. In public discourse and civil conflicts, the sharpest debates often revolve around final felling practices, as we have seen in recent years—primarily due to the extensive clear-cut areas. This is particularly true when the forest is cut down in a single step. These final felling practices, or cuts—although they can vary—are generally referred to as clear-cutting in common language.
From an ecological perspective, however, the greatest problem is not the existence of clear-cut forestry itself, but rather its prevalence, dominance, and the size of the clear-cut areas. In Hungary, the overwhelming majority of forests, 90%, are managed through clear-cutting. Even nearly 50% of the strictly protected areas fall under this classification! Consequently, in many landscapes, a mosaic of clear-cut areas, young forests, and middle-aged stands alternates, while the proportion of old, structurally diverse, multi-species forests remains low.
The problem is further exacerbated when final felling occurs over large areas simultaneously, and when the biodiversity protection tools that could mitigate the ecological impacts of these interventions are not utilized (see later). In such cases, clear-cut forestry contributes not only to the degradation and impoverishment of habitats but also—due to structural and species poverty—to the increased vulnerability of stands to climate change, biotic and abiotic damages, and pests. It is particularly unacceptable that intensive clear-cut forestry is taking place in the core areas of several national parks, where nature conservation considerations should dominate.
At the same time, there is an opportunity within clear-cut management to preserve important elements of natural forests, and extending the regeneration period, applying smaller clear-cut areas, and the mosaic nature of interventions within the framework of selective logging can already represent a transition towards the continuous forest cover maintained by the permanent forest management system.
LIFE BEYOND CLEAR-CUTTING – let’s switch to a more sustainable management mode!
However, clear-cut forestry is not the only possible method for managing forests. There are other types of management systems that—similar to clear-cutting—can define the structure of the forest, its age class relations, and consequently the richness of its biodiversity for decades.
So let’s explore what additional options we have alongside clear-cut management!
PERMANENT FOREST (selective) management – an underutilized alternative
The continuous forest cover provided by the continuous forest management mode contrasts with the clear-cutting method: timber production occurs through the selective felling of individual trees or smaller groups of trees, on a small spatial scale – extended both spatially and temporally, in multiple stages – thus avoiding the creation of classic clear-cut areas. As a result, the structure of the forest is more diverse, with multiple age classes, various tree species, and several microhabitats present simultaneously, which is ecologically closer to the natural functioning of European deciduous forests. Nevertheless, the proportion of forests managed under continuous forest management in Hungary currently stands at only 2%. This proportion is gradually increasing, for example, in the areas managed by Pilisi Parkerdő Zrt., Bakonyerdő Zrt., and Mecsekerdő Zrt. (There is also a so-called transitional management mode between clear-cutting and continuous forest management, which is not detailed here, and its proportion is 3%.)
It is important to emphasize that continuous forest management is not applicable with success in every site and for every tree species composition (see Pro Silva recommendations, https://www.prosilva.hu/). However, where conditions allow, such as in the more lush forests of our hilly and mountainous regions, a significant increase in the proportion of continuous forest management could greatly contribute to enhancing the structural and species diversity of forests and ensuring their long-term resilience. This is particularly true for tree stands sensitive to climate change – including domestic beech forests – which should be managed either under continuous forest management or in a mode that does not serve timber production. Additionally, it must be emphasized that biodiversity protection can only be achieved if the increase does not occur through the reclassification of areas not serving timber production (see the next section), and that continuous forest management is implemented in a gentle manner, paying special attention to the preservation of biological diversity.
NON-TIMBER PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT MODE
From an ecological perspective, forest areas where timber production is not the goal play a crucial role, with interventions serving only conservation and forest protection purposes. In Hungary, this is best represented by the non-timber production management mode, but its proportion is also low, totaling 5%, while the average proportion of forests excluded from management in the European Union is 8%. In light of this, this proportion appears particularly low, given that the proportion of protected forests in our country is 24%, and the proportion of Natura 2000 forests (protected under European Union law) is – overlapping with protected forests – 42%.
However, it is precisely these forests not serving timber production that can provide the slow processes – such as the accumulation of large deadwood or the formation of natural structures – that may only appear in limited ways in other management modes. They can maintain this function – and their other protective functions, e.g., soil protection – only if economic timber harvesting does not occur within them. Increasing the proportion of such classified forest areas could significantly enhance the biological diversity of a landscape. This is particularly needed for older forest fragments, such as those over 150 years old, which unfortunately are disappearing quite rapidly from the domestic landscape (see: László Gálhidy: Sanctuary Forests, https://szentelyerdo.wwf.hu/), and for unique habitats like the lowland forest-steppe forests, which have already been destroyed over 90% of their original extent.
Additionally, it is important that forests where timber production is not viable due to extreme site conditions or threatens soil integrity also receive this classification.
This writing does not focus on the topic, but it is necessary to mention the overpopulated large game population, which, through trampling, seed collection, and browsing, hinders the natural regeneration processes of the forest, impoverishes the vegetation, or completely eliminates the herbaceous layer, negatively affecting the composition of tree species. In the long term, the excessive game population can lead to the destruction of non-timber producing, soil-protective forests, as its effects (trampling, browsing, rooting) cause soil erosion and completely prevent the renewal of the protective forest trees. Furthermore, significant (generally costly and labor-intensive) obstacles are posed to the introduction of continuous cover forestry by hindering the natural renewal of trees from seeds and the extensive stripping of the trunks of promising young saplings.
CONSERVATION AREAS, NATURAL FOREST STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
From a conservation perspective, one of the most important questions is how much space the forest manager allows for the functioning of natural forest dynamics during forest management, which shapes the characteristic structural elements of natural forests. The presence of old, large tree individuals, the diversity of microhabitats on trees (such as hollows), standing and lying deadwood, species richness, as well as a varied age and size distribution are all elements that are fundamental in natural forests but are often missing or present only in small quantities in managed forests. Therefore, it is important that there are large areas exempt from management in a forested landscape. These may include larger blocks of forest sections that do not serve timber production, as previously mentioned, but also forest reserves, as well as wilderness areas that are even larger than a thousand hectares, such as the Csarna Valley in the Börzsöny.
In managed forests (regardless of management mode), it is necessary to designate so-called conservation areas on 5-10% of a given forest section. In these areas, natural forest dynamics can be realized, but at the same time, targeted protection of ecologically sensitive areas – such as wetlands, watercourses, rock outcrops, shallow-soiled or diverse forest structure areas, caves – can also be ensured. The abandonment of timber production in these small patches (~0.05-2 ha) allows for the preservation of microhabitats that are of outstanding significance for forest biodiversity. The designation of conservation areas aligns with the so-called stepping stone theory (Ulrich Mergner: Trittsteinkonzept), which states that small but well-placed habitat patches play a key role in the ecological connectivity of the managed landscape.
Similarly, leaving and maintaining natural forest structural elements in managed forest areas significantly increases the biodiversity of the respective forest. Examples include old, large trees and tree matuzalems, whose protection needs to be strengthened, such as designating and protecting them as habitat trees. Additionally, leaving both standing and fallen deadwood is very important. At least half of the organisms living in the forest—plants, fungi, and animals—are linked to deadwood at some stage of their life cycle, or even entirely. In the absence of deadwood, not only do certain species disappear, but forest food webs and decomposition processes also become simplified. Increasing the amount of deadwood is a fundamental requirement for the ecological stability of forests. This retention approach aligns with the globally recognized forestry practice known as retention forestry.
SIX POINTS OF ECOLOGICAL FORESTRY
The most important findings can be summarized in the following six-point “forest ecological manifesto”:
1. Increasing the proportion of modes that support continuous forest cover
To improve the structural and species diversity of forests, as well as their resilience, it is essential to reduce the dominance of clear-cutting practices and increase the proportion of continuous cover and non-timber production modes.
2. Significantly reducing clear-cutting practices in protected and national park areas
In conservation-designated areas, the primary goal of forest management should be to maintain ecological processes, which is incompatible with large-scale, intensive clear-cutting practices.
3. Widespread application of protective areas in economic forests
The establishment of a system of protective areas, small but well-distributed habitat patches, improves landscape-scale connectivity for forest organisms.
4. Designating habitat trees and leaving deadwood should be standard practice
Ensuring the presence of old trees, tree groups, and both standing and fallen deadwood is a fundamental condition for maintaining forest biodiversity, and therefore, their retention should be reinforced in all management modes.
5. Immediate protection of our old forests
Truly old (according to the old perspective, “overstocked” clear-cut forests) and naturally complex forest stands are irreplaceable from an ecological standpoint, and their preservation cannot be postponed. Economic timber harvesting must be ceased in these stands (“sanctuary forests”)!
6. Protection of our globally unique forest types ex lege (by virtue of their mere existence)
Rare and endangered habitats, such as lowland forest-steppe forests, require automatic legal protection due to their international and national significance, regardless of their current management classification. Their classification into non-timber production modes is justified as a matter of priority.
