🌳 The EU Forest Strategy 2030 introduced guidelines for Closer-to-Nature Forest Management (CNF), which aims to promote biodiversity-friendly practices and adaptive forestry. These guidelines, while sharing some common elements with the concept of sustainable forest management defined in 1993, differ considerably in their objectives, structure, specificity and application. Voluntary forest certification schemes (VFCS) such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) play an important role in promoting sustainable forest management in the EU and often go beyond the minimum legal requirements applicable in individual countries. Ekoskog, a Swedish non-profit organisation, is another certification scheme focused on ecologically sustainable forestry without clear-cutting.

A recent evaluation of the national FSC and PEFC standards in eight EU Member States and the Ekoskog standard assessed their suitability and gaps in the implementation of the CNF guidelines. The evaluation showed that existing VFCS show significant differences in accordance with the different objectives and instruments of the CNFAlthough the international FSC and PEFC standards set out basic requirements, the level of detail and specific objectives in national standards vary considerably. The Ekoskog standard generally covers most of the key elements of CNF management.

In the area increasing structural complexity The FSC and PEFC standards have shown considerable alignment with the CNF guidelines. For example, the FSC standards in Germany, Poland, Romania and Slovenia explicitly address the maintenance and promotion of diverse mosaics of species, sizes and ages. Similarly, the PEFC standards in Italy, Poland, Romania and Slovenia also show strong alignment, in particular by promoting mixed stands and diverse forest structures. The Italian PEFC standard even sets a specific target that more than 50% of the total forest area should be ecologically adapted forest types. The Ekoskog standard integrates requirements for structural complexity by preserving original ecosystems and protecting key habitats. However, a common gap is often insufficient attention to actively increasing complexity compared to maintaining existing diversity.

Regarding supporting the natural dynamics of the forest, FSC standards in Germany, Poland and Romania show strong compliance. The Swedish FSC and PEFC standards require the allocation of at least a minimum area (e.g. 5 % for FSC) for natural processes. However, many FSC standards, including those in Slovakia and Sweden, lack specific guidance to support light interventions or management approaches that actively support natural dynamics. The French FSC standard focuses on protection rather than active support of natural processes.

In the area support for natural tree regeneration most of the countries assessed (e.g. France, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) show only partial support. A significant weakness of many FSC standards is the lack of guidance for artificial regeneration when natural regeneration is not successful, and the absence of quantitative targets for determining the effectiveness of natural regeneration. Many PEFC standards link regeneration to the economic viability of wood production.

Ensuring considerate mining interventions is another area with gaps. PEFC standards often lack specific criteria for harvesting methods and focus more on maintaining the productive capacity of the forest. The lack of specific provisions for the identification and maintenance of habitat trees is also a common gap. Ekoskog applies the strictest standards, limiting harvesting to individual trunks or small groups with a maximum area size of 0.2 ha. The Slovenian FSC standard requires a comprehensive assessment of several stand indicators to determine appropriate harvesting levels.

Regarding minimizing other management interventions, FSC standards in several countries (Germany, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia) strongly correlate with CNF guidelines in limiting the use of fertilizers to exceptional circumstances. PEFC standards generally show less stringent restrictions. Common gaps in FSC standards are the lack of explicit restrictions on liming and greater flexibility in the use of pesticides in some countries. Ekoskog has detailed criteria for minimizing the impact of forest roads and off-road driving.

Optimizing deadwood retention shows mixed results, with a minority of standards fully supporting this CNF tool. Many standards do not clearly state that deadwood removal should be a last resort. The Ekoskog standard sets a minimum limit of 20 m³/ha of standing and lying deadwood, which is a higher target than, for example, the Slovak PEFC standard (min. 10 m³/ha).

In the area area allocation there is considerable variability. The FSC standards in France (10 % network of protected areas) and Romania (selection criteria for old-growth forests and high nature value habitats) show good examples. The Swedish FSC and PEFC standards require the designation of at least 5 % of productive forest. Ekoskog requires the designation of at least 10 % of productive forest, with priority given to areas of high nature value. A common shortcoming in both schemes is the lack of guidance on the interconnection of designated areas and specific criteria for the selection of microhabitats/veteran trees.

Regarding scale-specific approach, there are significant gaps. At the level of individual trees and groups of trees, FSC and PEFC standards show only limited alignment in most countries. The Romanian FSC standard is an exception, requiring an environmental assessment at the level of individual trees. The Swedish and Slovak PEFC standards include indicators for “habitat trees”. Ekoskog protects habitat trees with a minimum threshold of 20 pcs/ha. At the stand level, PEFC standards generally show a high level of support, while FSC standards are mixed. PEFC standards are consistent in incorporating stand-level planning and management objectives. At the country level, both FSC and PEFC standards show significant support, often through environmental assessments or landscape analyses.

Tool management of ungulate species on natural carrying capacity shows significant gaps across all national standards assessed. Explicit requirements for specific protective barriers or fencing are lacking (with the exception of the German PEFC standard). The concept of ungulate management on the “natural carrying capacity” of the forest has also typically not been clearly defined or operationalised in the assessed standards. Many standards focus on monitoring and assessing damage, but often without specific guidelines for maintaining natural carrying capacity. The Ekoskog standard does not contain any provisions on ungulate management.

Overall, the results suggest that although existing VFCSs have the potential to support CNF implementation, further improvements are neededto ensure that CNF practices are sufficiently promoted. Given the varied application of CNF principles across current schemes, there is a potential for resistance to significant change.

One option is establish a new EU standard for the certification of CNF-harmonized certification schemesThis could set clear EU standards for what constitutes CNF-harmonised certification, while also building on the established infrastructure and recognition of existing schemes, notably FSC and PEFC. Schemes such as Ekoskog could gain wider recognition through this EU-level recognition.

Another potential approach is development of a tiered certification scheme for forestry closer to nature. Similar to other tiered schemes (e.g. EU Energy Label, EU Nutri-Score), this would allow consumers to more easily compare how well a product complies with the CNF principles, while also motivating forest managers to gradually improve their practices. The assessment could be based on measurable, quantified indicators. There are scientific indices that attempt to quantify management intensity or naturalness of stands, which could serve as a basis. However, the development of such a scheme would require further research, consultation with stakeholders and the establishment of criteria, measurement methods and scales. Challenges include the variability of forest types in the EU, the initial costs for managers and the potential risk of confusion for consumers due to the multitude of environmental labels.

Despite the challenges, the introduction of a truly CNF-aligned certification scheme offers significant long-term benefits for the health and resilience of forest ecosystems across the EU. Spring

Key terms

• Closer-to-Nature Forestry (CNF): An approach to forestry that seeks to mimic natural forest processes and structures to enhance biodiversity, resilience, and ecological functions while still enabling the sustainable use of forest resources.
• Voluntary Forest Certification Schemes (VFCS): Market-based instruments to support sustainable forestry through the assessment of forestry practices against predefined standards, criteria and indicators.
• PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification): The world's largest forest certification system, approving national forest certification systems based on international standards and benchmarks.
• FSC (Forest Stewardship Council): Another major international forest certification system that provides standards for environmentally, socially and economically responsible forestry.
• Eco-forest: A Swedish forest certification system that focuses on ecological aspects and prohibits clear-cutting except in exceptional cases.
• Graded Certification Schemes: Systems that provide consumers with a more detailed view of the quality or performance of a product, distinguishing it based on how well the product performs or what level of standards are followed in production, rather than simply indicating that minimum standards have been met.
• Naturalness Index (Naturalness Index / Hemeroby): A quantitative measure that assesses the level of human impact on a forest ecosystem, with higher scores indicating greater naturalness.
• Silvicultural Management Intensity Index (SMI): An indicator that combines characteristics such as tree species composition, stand age, and above-ground biomass of living and dead wood to provide a quantitative measure of the intensity of plantation management.
• Deadwood: Dead trees, parts of trees or lying wood that play an important role in supporting biodiversity and ecological processes in the forest.
• Trees with high ecological value (Heritage Trees / Habitat Trees): Old trees with high ecological value, such as those with nesting cavities or those that may acquire such value.
• Riparian and Wetland Protection Zones: Areas around watercourses and wetlands that are protected to maintain water quality and support associated biodiversity.
• Non-native species: Species that are not native to the area and may have a negative impact on native ecosystems.