When carrying out work in nature reserves, these must be carried out within the framework of the Nature Conservation Act. A code of conduct has been drawn up to make this practically possible. If work is carried out within the guidelines of this code of conduct, then the framework remains within it. In December 2024, the administrative court ruled on an appeal against the approval decision of the then Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (now Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature) with regard to the “Code of Conduct for Species Protection in Forest Management 2022” (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:9180). The court annulled the Minister's approval decision, meaning that the code of conduct is no longer in force. The claimant's consideration was that logging, where space is created in the forest to enable regeneration (regeneration logging), is bad for nature. This was already limited to a maximum of half a hectare. Now that the code of conduct is in the closet, the execution of work, including necessary forest regeneration, is being delayed.
Two interests are at stake here, namely that of nature conservationists and that of the forest owner. Forest owners usually practice a form of multifunctional forest management. The term 'multifunctional' indicates that it concerns a form of management to fulfil multiple functions. These are, in short: nature, recreation and timber production. This is about optimisation and not maximisation. Multifunctional forest management will always involve realising the best possible mix of functions, so that nature benefits, people can relax in the forest and economic objectives can be achieved. The latter is necessary because the provinces do subsidise management, but do not cover all costs (and certainly not the investment required to rejuvenate the forest). With multifunctional management, the forest will therefore not fulfil the maximum opportunities for recreation, or the realisation of maximum timber yields and therefore the maximum fulfilment of nature objectives. Multifunctional, sustainable forest management is about making choices and optimisation.
In the Netherlands, in most cases, forest management is based on principles of nature-based forest management. This includes, for example, using natural regeneration and omitting chemical pesticides. I call it (analogous to agriculture) a form of organic forestry.
On the other hand, when it comes to nature, people are not inclined to choose optimization, but maximization. This means that conservationists, from their militant attitude for nature, fight against that which harms nature.
In 2017, the Forestry Act (including the Flora & Fauna Act) was incorporated into the Nature Conservation Act. With this merger, timber production and harvesting of timber is still possible. Of course, perception has changed somewhat. If you call a policy domain “nature conservation”, it is not surprising that what falls within the domain is treated as nature. Although I doubt whether this was the intention when the law was created, perception does clash with timber production.
I therefore consider this a weaving error. Not so much because I find nature and biodiversity unimportant within the forest. But I do think that this puts timber production in a corner. Many people think that timber is only harvested for profit. Others destroy timber harvesting and timber production to the point of destroying nature. And that is unjustified, because timber production simply fits within multifunctional organic forestry. Within that form of forest management, there is also room for nature. In many cases, production forests cannot be distinguished from natural forests and in terms of biodiversity, production forests are often no less than natural forests. It seems that production forests and natural forests, if we look at biodiversity, are complementary to each other.
In addition, production forests are needed because we need wood for a sustainable society without fossil and infinitely available mineral resources. We need wood now and in the future for the raw materials transition, for example for sustainable housing.
That is why I advocate placing the legal frameworks for forests outside the law of nature, whereby timber production is also a business activity that should not be fought, but should be stimulated. That seems logical to me, because we do not include organic farming in the Nature Conservation Act either. Sustainable, multifunctional forest management contributes to what society considers important, beautiful varied forests, biodiversity, space for recreation and timber production. If we continue to regard forests as nature only, timber harvesting in the Netherlands will no longer be possible before 2040 and we will be completely dependent on foreign countries for timber supplies.
About the author
Henk Wanningen
Forestry Commission
Henk Wanningen has a forest and nature management background and works at Staatsbosbeheer on high-quality use of green raw materials from the green environment. He works closely with land management organizations and with companies that realize innovations and development, aiming to ensure that the use of these bio-raw materials through sustainable applications leads to a high climate impact. This includes timber construction, insulation materials, bio-based materials, green chemistry and renewable energy.
