“How Much State Does the Forest Need?”
Funding, regulation, and personal responsibility – these were the focal points of the lively discussions at this year’s Forest Controversies Forum 2025, held on 21 November at the University of Bayreuth. For the seventh consecutive time, around 100 stakeholders and interested parties from forestry, ecology, and research gathered at the conference centre of the Oberfranken Student Services. Through lectures, open Q&A sessions, and a panel discussion, the event offered plenty of space for exchange on the central question: “How much state does the forest need?”
Right at the start of the event, there was lively interaction among the participants during a brief introductory round.
The Forest Controversies Forum is organised annually by the Campus Academy for Continuing Education, the Bayreuth Centre for Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), and the Ecological-Botanical Garden of the University of Bayreuth. This year’s discussions focused on the role of state funding for forests, the appropriateness of subsidies for forest owners and society, and the responsibilities of the state, society, business, and forest owners. As always, a wide range of perspectives met in vibrant debates.
The Forest Between State, Society, and Economy
After a welcome address by Dr Lena Muffler-Weigel, Director of the Ecological-Botanical Garden, Leonie Gass (EASI Lab, University of Bayreuth) introduced the theme of the event. Referring to the simultaneously held World Climate Conference in Brazil, she emphasised the current challenge of preserving and restructuring our forests so that they can withstand future climatic conditions.
Leonie Gass (EASI Lab, University of Bayreuth) introduced the lecture session of the event.
The lecture series began with Dr Andy Selter, research associate at the Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy at the University of Freiburg. “The forest is one of the most politicised ecosystems,” the forestry scientist asserted at the start of his talk. After all, forests in Germany serve as habitats, workplaces, sources of raw materials, places of recreation, and much more. Given the multitude of stakeholders with interests in forests, the number of differing viewpoints and narratives surrounding them is equally high.
The state’s task, therefore, must be to preserve forest functions, ensure fair access, and at the same time protect the rights of forest owners. This requires finding an appropriate mix of instruments – information, economics, planning, and regulation – empowering forest owners and engaging with small-scale owners on an equal footing. The state thus plays a central role in safeguarding forests. Selter argued that the question should not be “How much state does the forest need?” but rather “What kind of state does the forest need?”
Financing Forest Transformation – Subsidies or Investments?
Which instruments are already in use and how effective they are was presented by Justus Bork, Deputy Head of the Forestry Funding and Advisory Division at the Bavarian State Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Tourism. The declared aim of the Bavarian Forestry Administration is to make Bavaria’s forests climate-resilient through active measures and to ensure they can permanently fulfil their diverse functions for forest owners and society. Bork highlighted numerous funding initiatives designed to support forest owners in this task, such as the Forest Conversion Offensive 2030 and the Silvicultural Funding Programme (WALDFÖPR), “the heart of Bavarian forest funding.”
After each lecture, the plenary had the opportunity to ask the speakers follow-up questions and share comments.
Central to the discussion was, on the one hand, the importance of advising and training forest owners, and on the other, financial support for reforestation, practical cultivation trials, natural regeneration, and other measures designed to create incentives for active forest transformation. What sparked disagreement among the audience were the forestry administration’s digitalisation initiatives. While some criticised that small-scale forest owners often struggle with online application processes, others highlighted the benefits of digitalisation and the extensive support provided by the Bavarian Forestry Administration overall.
Dr Benjamin Kowalski, Head of Science and co-founder of the Future Forest Initiative (FFI), offered a different view on financing forest transformation. The Future Forest Initiative sees itself as a bridge-builder between forestry, start-ups, and investors, aiming to test and advance forestry innovations. According to Kowalski, “the private sector […] is the necessary partner forestry needs to make this happen” and to create new room for manoeuvre. In times of an accelerating climate crisis, the goal must be to achieve impact quickly and on a large scale. At the same time, we need to embrace more nature-based approaches to find resilient solutions. “Working with nature is cost-effective and represents the necessary mindset shift,” Kowalski stressed. He sees the main problem with public forest funding in its focus on quantity rather than quality, which creates barriers for new players and start-ups. Using examples of innovative start-up projects from the Future Forest Initiative, he illustrated how these can serve as lighthouse projects for the industry.
The Question of Responsibility
Dr Ralf Straußberger, Forest and Hunting Officer at BUND Naturschutz, sparked lively debate with his talk on “Bavaria’s Forests Between Personal Responsibility and State Action.” Using five case studies, he demonstrated the complex tension surrounding responsibilities for the forest. Among other points, he criticised the lack of consistent climate protection measures by the state to mitigate the impacts on forests. This is already devastating for forest owners and society – since 2017, 900,000 hectares of forest have been lost. Straußberger also highlighted Bavaria’s long-standing browsing problem, which forest owners cannot solve on their own. Here, he sees the state as responsible for mediating between forest owners and hunting interests.
In principle, Straußberger welcomed state subsidies for reforestation and forest restructuring, but emphasised that intensive training and advice are equally important. Poor silvicultural decisions often stem from knowledge gaps: “Relying solely on personal responsibility and compensating for damage and problems […] with subsidies is the wrong approach.” Furthermore, a minimum level of legal requirements and rules – such as a ban on clear-cutting – is essential to secure the future of Bavaria’s forests. Some audience members reacted negatively to Straußberger’s perspective, feeling that he underestimated forest owners’ ability to act responsibly.
The concluding lecture was delivered by Daniel Kraus, Head of the University Forest Office in Sailershausen (University of Würzburg). At the outset, he emphasised that, in times of government austerity, he did not wish to argue that forest owners should be left empty-handed, but as a taxpayer he saw problems with the current funding system. There is a prevailing sense of mistrust from the state towards forest owners, reflected in strict controls and limited freedom of action. Yet, according to Kraus, these very freedoms have the potential to generate pragmatic solutions. The prerequisite, however, is to define a target state for the forest and to reward outcomes rather than mere measures. Instead of focusing on the number of plants, factors such as the actual resilience and adaptability of the forest and the preservation of near-natural habitats should be incentivised. In response to questions from the audience, Kraus agreed that victims of acute forest dieback depend on measure-based funding – in such cases, outcome-based funding would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, he maintained that outcome-based funding should take centre stage in the future to bring about real change in the forest.
Kraus reiterated this position during the subsequent panel discussion, moderated by Alana Steinbauer (BayCEER) and Julius Fischer (Ecological-Botanical Garden). The state must provide funding, but also demand more in return. Broad agreement – both on the panel and among the audience – was reached regarding the training and advisory services offered by the Bavarian Forestry Administration. Regardless of financial support, the extensive free advisory services were seen as a valuable resource for forest owners.
The panel discussion concluded the day’s programme and provided even more opportunities for exchange between the moderation team, the speakers, and the audience.
However, FFI co-founder Dr Benjamin Kowalski and private forest owner Olaf Legeler called for a better balance between state and private advisory services. There was also consensus on the issue of browsing pressure as the main obstacle to forest regeneration. From the perspective of forest owners, more pressure must be exerted on the hunting authorities. “The state is responsible,” said Dr Ralf Straußberger, “when unlawful conditions are persistently documented.”
What Kind of State Does the Forest Need?
Following a day of lively exchange and stimulating insights, Saturday featured an excursion to the Bayreuth region led by Dr Andreas von Heßberg and Dr Gregor Aas. In the morning, representatives of the Office for Food, Agriculture and Forestry Bayreuth-Münchberg demonstrated, on the land of a private forest owner, the practical implementation of state funding measures for forest conversion, cultivation trials, and natural regeneration. In the afternoon, an innovative forest owner presented measures for forest restructuring through sponsorship and the purchase of eco-points, thus without any support from the state forestry administration.
The conclusion of Forest Controversies 2025: Bavaria’s forests are in crisis, and overcoming this challenge requires financial resources, extensive expertise, and innovative ideas in the areas of forest conversion, biodiversity, and natural regeneration. State funding and advisory services already play an important role in supporting forest owners in these tasks, but other steering mechanisms – such as those from the private sector and the start-up scene – can pave the way for new innovations and create greater scope for action. At the same time, a multitude of different interests must be navigated, including those of forest owners, hunting, society, and nature conservation. The state’s role must be, on the one hand, to enable responsible action by the forestry sector based on trust, and on the other, to act as a mediating authority ensuring the reconciliation of diverse demands on the forest, so that forests and their vital functions can be preserved for the future.