![\"bosque](\"https:\/\/www.cde.ual.es\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/roya-ann-miller-BkTsP32Dfnc-unsplash-scaled.jpg\")
<\/p>\nDespite public opinion and EU policies promoting forest management for multiple ecosystem services, income from sources other than timber production remains limited. This imbalance could persist without specific interventions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Forests provide a variety of ecosystem services, generally divided into three categories:<\/span><\/p>\n Historically, forests in Europe have been valued for their provisioning services, particularly the supply of wood. However, several EU policy instruments emphasise the importance of regulating and cultural services. These include the<\/span>European Green Deal<\/span>, which calls for improved regulating services; the<\/span>Forest Strategy<\/span>, which establishes the importance of climate and biodiversity regulating services; the<\/span>Biodiversity Strategy<\/span>, which also highlights regulating services; and<\/span>Regulation 2024\/2034<\/span>on European environmental economic accounts, which requires Member States to report annually on forest stocks and changes therein. In addition,<\/span>the Nature Credit Roadmap<\/span>(launched in July 2025) seeks to incentivise private investment in actions that protect and preserve nature by rewarding positive actions for nature.<\/span><\/p>\n While these developments reflect a growing concern for the provision of all three types of ecosystem services, EU forests continue to be managed primarily for timber production, and large-scale data collection still focuses on provisioning services. Many European forests are privately owned and managed for profit, and public forests managed for multiple services often aim to generate income. Therefore, the potential to generate income from different ecosystem services is a key factor in determining forest management.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This study, funded through the EU’s Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe programmes via the<\/span>SINCERE<\/span><\/span>,<\/span>NOBEL<\/span><\/span>,<\/span>ForestValue2<\/span><\/span>and<\/span>CLEARINGHOUSE<\/span>projects<\/span>, considers the income and profitability derived from the three types of ecosystem services in forests across the EU.<\/span><\/p>\n The researchers combined surveys and machine learning to assess forest income by ecosystem service group. As a starting point, they conducted an online survey of forest owners and managers, distributed through European forest management associations. Respondents indicated the location of their forest on a map and used a sliding scale (corresponding to a rating from 0 to 1) to estimate, for each type of service:<\/span><\/p>\n The survey process generated 516 useful responses from 27 countries. In addition, the researchers compiled a continental geographic database on forest characteristics, such as rainfall, carbon storage, tree species composition, distance to cities, and<\/span>Natura 2000<\/span>status<\/span>(a network of protected areas spanning all EU member states). They then developed a deep learning computer model that, based on the survey responses, assigned income and profitability scores to all forest areas on the map, extrapolating known forest locations to others based on geographical proximity and similarity of characteristics.<\/span><\/p>\n The results indicate that, across the continent, provisioning services contribute by far the most to forest income. This was observed in more than 80% of respondents, while regulating and cultural services each contributed less than 20% of forest income. In terms of profitability, respondents ranked provisioning services as the most important, followed by regulating services and, lastly, cultural services. However, in terms of the social perception of the importance of these services, the picture was reversed: most forest owners\/managers reported a sudden increase in public demand for cultural and regulatory services and a lower appreciation of provisioning services (e.g., timber, game). This poses a significant challenge for European forestry, the researchers say; in the future, there may be a considerable mismatch between social demand and income from these types of services, and supply may not meet demand.<\/span><\/p>\n The researchers identified two distinct forest management profiles across the continent. One is timber-focused management, with high revenues and profitability from provisioning services, which is common in coniferous forests and in central, northern and north-eastern Europe; and multi-service management, which is common in deciduous forests, where provisioning accounts for a smaller share of income and profitability, in western, southern and south-eastern Europe, closer to cities and within Natura 2000 sites. The results also show that regulatory and cultural services provide a greater share of income and profitability in state-owned forests than in private forests.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n