3 ms·

Mhm… The findings are probably just as good as the data… I got a little suspicious when it claimed that 93% of forests in Europe are natural forests, because as

Mhm… The findings are probably just as good as the data… I got a little suspicious when it claimed that 93% of forests in Europe are natural forests, because as far as I know, e.g. Germany has (almost) no natural forest. See also the history of Forests in Central Europe [0]. In any case, looking at the report [1] they include Russia in Europe. Fair enough, Europe without Russia: Only 70% natural forests. Which still seems high to me, given that Europeans exploited our forests so much. The main report distinguishes between: natural forests (no definition), plantations (think rows and columns) and 'other planted' which can look like a natural forest when matured. I quickly checked the country data for Germany [2]. They report 50% natural forests and 50% other planted. Which is just bollocks. Large parts of forests in Germany are planted and mono culture. Only 6% of forests in Germany are protected (which doesn't mean much, because you can still do forestry!?) and only 0.6% of Forests are off-limits. I might write an enquiry as to why 50/50 was reported. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_forest_in_Central_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_forest_in_Centr... [1]: https://www.fao.org/3/ca9825en/ca9825en.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ca9825en/ca9825en.pdf [2]: https://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/fra-2020/country-reports/en/ https://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/fra-2020/cou...

mrjangles 5y ago
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? I just quickly checked the Wikipedia links and it says 29% of German forests are government owned. 19% corporate owned and 50% private owned. Assuming nowhere near every single person that owns private property with a forest on it is busy chopping it down, it is safe to assume these figures would be at least close to accurate.
- piceas 5y ago
  The following document helps a bit. I could believe that 15% of forests in Germany (regardless of ownership and access) are "very semi-natural". I'm not so convinced that the next 21% of "semi-natural" forests just means that they haven't been logged or actively managed for a generation or so. The document has some stats on ownership. The Forests in Germany Selected Results of the Third National Forest Inventory https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/ForestsInGermany-BWI.pdf https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/For... page 22 "By nature, Germany is beech country and if left to nature, today’s forest area would be made up of 75 % beech forests and 17 % oak forests. Where beech forests would naturally grow, today only 21 % beech forests stand;" "15 % of the forests have a very semi-natural composition and another 21 % a semi-natural composition of tree species"
therealdrag0 5y ago
Are you sure you’re not mixing up natural and old growth?
- lettergram 5y ago
  Was just about to mention that. In Roman times much of Germania was forest. I suspect the wood was utilized in the following centuries, but by the 1850s or so much of the old growth was utilized and the need for large wooden ships was subsiding. I suspect from there onward we saw an increasing utilization of iron, coal and steel. Many woods grew back. Sure not hundred plus year old trees, but 80-100 year old trees can still make a forest
  - nine_k 5y ago
    I'd say that the difference is whether the trees grew naturally from seeds, or were planted.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  What's the meaning of natural if not old growth?
  - therealdrag0 5y ago
    I’m not sure tbh. Maybe there’s “official” usages I’m unaware off. I am just guessing based on the words themselves. IMO a forest that wasn’t planted or cultivated is natural even if it’s not old for example.
- leipert 5y ago
  Are we sure that the countries reporting aren't mixing it up? The Netherlands and UK report 10% natural regenerating forests, Ireland 13%, Germany 50%, France 85%, Czechia 5%, Poland 21%. (Rough percentages). To me this seems weird and looks like there are different definitions as to what "natural regenerating" means. And I think you are right, that I might mix up natural (untouched) and "natural regenerating". But that's beside the point, I merely am trying to call out that the data seems to be inconsistent. Furthermore I think it is weird to throw untouched rain forest/boreal forests into the same category as forests that have been planted like 200 years ago. In Germany a lot of those have been mono-culture pine trees which are now plagued by bark beetles.
funcDropShadow 5y ago
It is certainly true that it is hard to find any forest in Germany which is as untouched as untouched rain forest in South America. But somehow Germany manages now for centuries to use the forest for business and to retain a more or less constant amount of forest at the same time. I am not saying Germany couldn't do better, certainly it could. But I see the forest usage in Germany as quite good. Around the city where I live, the forest is owned by something like a trust fund to the benefit of the citizen of the city. That exists since the 14th century in or another form. This forest is certainly not untouched but its owners are interested in its long-term development.

mrjangles 5y ago

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? I just quickly checked the Wikipedia links and it says 29% of German forests are government owned. 19% corporate owned and 50% private owned. Assuming nowhere near every single person that owns private property with a forest on it is busy chopping it down, it is safe to assume these figures would be at least close to accurate.

piceas 5y ago
The following document helps a bit. I could believe that 15% of forests in Germany (regardless of ownership and access) are "very semi-natural". I'm not so convinced that the next 21% of "semi-natural" forests just means that they haven't been logged or actively managed for a generation or so. The document has some stats on ownership. The Forests in Germany Selected Results of the Third National Forest Inventory https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/ForestsInGermany-BWI.pdf https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/For... page 22 "By nature, Germany is beech country and if left to nature, today’s forest area would be made up of 75 % beech forests and 17 % oak forests. Where beech forests would naturally grow, today only 21 % beech forests stand;" "15 % of the forests have a very semi-natural composition and another 21 % a semi-natural composition of tree species"

therealdrag0 5y ago

Are you sure you’re not mixing up natural and old growth?

lettergram 5y ago
Was just about to mention that. In Roman times much of Germania was forest. I suspect the wood was utilized in the following centuries, but by the 1850s or so much of the old growth was utilized and the need for large wooden ships was subsiding. I suspect from there onward we saw an increasing utilization of iron, coal and steel. Many woods grew back. Sure not hundred plus year old trees, but 80-100 year old trees can still make a forest
- nine_k 5y ago
  I'd say that the difference is whether the trees grew naturally from seeds, or were planted.
guerrilla 5y ago
What's the meaning of natural if not old growth?
- therealdrag0 5y ago
  I’m not sure tbh. Maybe there’s “official” usages I’m unaware off. I am just guessing based on the words themselves. IMO a forest that wasn’t planted or cultivated is natural even if it’s not old for example.
leipert 5y ago
Are we sure that the countries reporting aren't mixing it up? The Netherlands and UK report 10% natural regenerating forests, Ireland 13%, Germany 50%, France 85%, Czechia 5%, Poland 21%. (Rough percentages). To me this seems weird and looks like there are different definitions as to what "natural regenerating" means. And I think you are right, that I might mix up natural (untouched) and "natural regenerating". But that's beside the point, I merely am trying to call out that the data seems to be inconsistent. Furthermore I think it is weird to throw untouched rain forest/boreal forests into the same category as forests that have been planted like 200 years ago. In Germany a lot of those have been mono-culture pine trees which are now plagued by bark beetles.

funcDropShadow 5y ago

It is certainly true that it is hard to find any forest in Germany which is as untouched as untouched rain forest in South America. But somehow Germany manages now for centuries to use the forest for business and to retain a more or less constant amount of forest at the same time. I am not saying Germany couldn't do better, certainly it could. But I see the forest usage in Germany as quite good. Around the city where I live, the forest is owned by something like a trust fund to the benefit of the citizen of the city. That exists since the 14th century in or another form. This forest is certainly not untouched but its owners are interested in its long-term development.