The EFI and Wageningen University conducted a sociological study among representatives of forestry and environmental administrations, private owners, NGOs, and recreational associations in 12 European countries. The aim: to examine how forest restoration is understood by different stakeholders across Europe, and how these divergences give rise to conflicts.<\/p>\n
The analysis reveals three forest restoration paradigms: (1) ecological restoration, centred on the return to natural stands or on the restoration of ecosystem functionality; (2) forest cover restoration, aimed at converting abandoned agricultural land; and (3) socio-economic restoration, prioritising multifunctional silviculture, active management, or economic profitability. These paradigms are distributed along a spectrum ranging from a biodiversity conservation orientation to a bioeconomy orientation.<\/p>\n
Four types of interest and value conflicts are identified: biodiversity conservation versus timber production, restoration versus hunting culture, restoration versus recreational uses and the cultural value of forests, and restoration versus other land uses. These conflicts are amplified when the underlying values of opposing paradigms clash within a given socio-ecological context.<\/p>\n
The authors stress the importance, prior to any implementation of restoration projects, of mapping stakeholder representations in order to anticipate conflicts and design inclusive decision-making processes. These findings are particularly relevant in the context of the recent European Nature Restoration Law.<\/p>","protected":false},"featured_media":46566,"template":"","acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n