Martin Mikoláš1*, Gianluca Piovesan2, Anders Ahlström3, Daniel C. Donato4, Rhiannon Gloor1, Jeňýk Hofmeister1, William S. Keeton5, Bart Muys6, Francesco M. Sabatini7, 1, Miroslav Svoboda1, To b i a s Kuemmerle81Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic. 2Department in Ecological and Biological Sciences, University of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy. 3Dep artment of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 4University of Washington, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, Seattle, WA, USA. 5Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources and GundInstitute of Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 6Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 7Alma Mater Studiorum–University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 8Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.*Corr esponding author. Email: mikolasm@fld.czu.cz

In March, the European Commission suggested guidelines to map and protect old-growth forests by the end of 2029 (7). However, these guidelines are neither binding nor prescriptive. Given current widespread logging of old-growth stands, the EU is on track to fail its 2030 goals.

Pressure on Europe’s biomass-rich oldgrowth forests is high and rising. Timber prices have increased (8). Compensation would encourage forest owners to adopt strict protection, but there are insufficient resources and tools to provide financial incentives (9). Because landowners anticipate that forest protection will increase in the future, and forest monitoring is sparse, they are motivated to log as much as possible before regulation tightens.

To improve protection, the EU should immediately implement a logging moratorium on areas potentially harboring oldgrowth forests, make resources available to detect old-growth forests, require member states to include old-growth protection in their national strategies, and provide equitable financial tools to ensure their effective protection (10). Exemptions from strict conservation could be considered only for stands managed by well-documented practices that support biodiversity. Without bold and swift action, Europe risks irreparable loss to its natural heritage.

Old-growth forests harbor high and unique biodiversity, store vast amounts of carbon, are important for water and nutrient cycling, and constitute a unique element of natural heritage (1). In the European Union, old-growth forest protection is now mandated by the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. However, almost 3 years after the strategy’s adoption, stakeholders and policymakers are still discussing definitions and legislative mechanisms, while old-growth forests continue to decline at alarming rates (2–4).

Many old-growth forests are logged before their identification and protection. In Sweden, for example, unprotected boreal oldgrowth forests have been cut at a rate that could lead to their disappearance within the next 50 years (2). Similarly, Romania harbors up to 738,000 ha of potential old-growth forest, but more than 90% of this area lacks strict protection (5). In Romania and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, logging continues across some of the continent’s few remaining large landscapes dominated by temperate old-growth forests (4). Even protected old-growth forests are often salvage logged after natural disturbances (6).

In March, the European Commission suggested guidelines to map and protect old-growth forests by the end of 2029 (7). However, these guidelines are neither binding nor prescriptive. Given current widespread logging of old-growth stands, the EU is on track to fail its 2030 goals.

Pressure on Europe’s biomass-rich oldgrowth forests is high and rising. Timber prices have increased (8). Compensation would encourage forest owners to adopt strict protection, but there are insufficient resources and tools to provide financial incentives (9). Because landowners anticipate that forest protection will increase in the future, and forest monitoring is sparse, they are motivated to log as much as possible before regulation tightens.

To improve protection, the EU should immediately implement a logging moratorium on areas potentially harboring oldgrowth forests, make resources available to detect old-growth forests, require member states to include old-growth protection in their national strategies, and provide equitable financial tools to ensure their effective protection (10). Exemptions from strict conservation could be considered only for stands managed by well-documented practices that support biodiversity. Without bold and swift action, Europe risks irreparable loss to its natural heritage.

REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. F. Hua et al., Science376, 839 (2022). 2. A. Ahlström, J. G. Canadell, D. B. Metcalfe, Earth. Fut.10, e2022EF003221 (2022). 3. F. M. Sabatini et al., Sci. Data8, 220 (2021). 4. “Illegal logging of Romania’s natural forests increases despite court threat—new report,” Save Paradise Forests (2022 ); https://www.saveparadiseforests.eu/en/illegal-logging-of-romanias-natural-forests-increases-despite-court-threat-new-report/. 5. C. Munteanu et al., Conserv. Biol. 36, e13820 (2022). 6. M. Żmihorski, P. Chylarecki, A. Orczewska, T. Wesołowski, Science361, 238 (2018). 7. “Commission staff working document: Commission guidelines for defining, mapping, monitoring, and strictly protecting EU primary and old-growth forests” (2023); https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2023)62&lang=en. 8. A. Dikins, “Wooden market forecast Q1/2023” (Kronus, 2023); https://www.kronus.eu/wooden-market-forecast-q1-2023/. 9. M. Sotirov, T. Schulz, G. Winkel, in How to Balance Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation—A View across Europe, F. Krumm, A. Schuck, A. Rigling, Eds. (2020), pp. 62–75. 10. N. Selva, P. Chylarecki, B. G. Jonsson, P. L. Ibisch, Science368, 1438 (2020)