Nature-based solutions for fire-resilient European forests

Policy context

Forest management in Europe is essential. It helps to preserve biodiversity, support the provision of all forest-related ecosystem services (for example, timber production) and it also mitigates climate change and degradation of biodiverse habitats (Lier et al., 2022). The need for actions that increase the resilience of forests to climate change is recognised in the European Green Deal and the EU’s forest strategy for 2030. More resilient forests can contribute to achieving the EU’s climate commitments and the objectives of the Land Use, Land-use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation, thus strengthening synergies between climate mitigation, adaptation and environmental protection. Although they have not yet been systematically assessed, Nature-based Solutions (NbS) (EC, 2015) are encouraged by EU policies, which include the EU adaptation strategy and the Nature Restoration Regulation. Actions encouraged through these policies can provide a multitude of benefits, including the reduction of risk and better protection from natural hazards and disasters.

The increasing risk of wildfires in European forests

Climate change and shifts in land use are changing the conditions under which wildfires occur; their potential extent and severity are increasing. Higher temperatures, prolonged droughts and increased fuel loads caused by the accumulation of combustible material in forests, are helping to create more days each year subject to a high risk of wildfires. Land use and management practices such as large-scale land abandonment and monoculture forestry exacerbate the increased risk from natural causes. Fire-prone areas like the Mediterranean now face extreme, prolonged fire seasons, while regions such as north-west Europe, previously less affected, now also experience more frequent and intense wildfires (Galizia, 2021). Furthermore, fires are now often occurring out of their regular season.

Changing conditions (temperature, drought, heavier rains and increasing storminess) also make forests more vulnerable to insect disturbances and diseases, which affect over 10,000km² annually (Forzieri et al., 2023). Since 2018, due to the prolonged number and severity of drought events experienced in central Europe, forest tree health has deteriorated, leading to severe bark beetle infestation and increased tree mortality (EEA, 2023). The resulting dead trees are more flammable and are at greater risk of catching fire during the first years after dying (Hartmann et al., 2022). However, this risk is temporary. Once fallen trees decay, fire risk declines, partly because large lying deadwood in the higher stages of decay absorbs and holds water and so poses no higher threat, potentially even lowering fire risk (Larjavaara et al., 2023). Deadwood is also an important carbon store and a habitat for biodiversity (Bauhus et al., 2018).

Fire plays a natural role in the Earth’s ecosystems (Rodrigo-Comino et al., 2024). It aids regeneration, controls pests and cycles nutrients. Some species have adapted to fire or even need fire events to reproduce. Small fires can actually reduce the risk of large-scale fires by burning through accumulated fuel in forests (Ascoli et al., 2023). However, large and/or uncontrolled fire events can cause serious direct and indirect impacts: production loss, economic damages, habitat loss and the loss of lives. Fire-damaged ecosystems are also more prone to secondary disasters, such as soil erosion, water runoff, floods, ecological droughts and pest outbreaks.

Wildfire risk is a product of the possibility of fire occurrence and the potential impacts of the fire on people and the environment (for further framing see Oom et al., 2022). Therefore, fire risk depends not just on where a fire may occur, but also on how society manages the possibility of a fire happening and how to respond. Management is key to risk mitigation. Figure 1 shows the interaction between the three main elements determining fire occurrence: conditions, fuel and ignition.

Figure 1. Elements determining fire occurrence, intensity and spread

In general, a Mediterranean climate is conducive to fires, because prolonged droughts, elevated temperatures and low humidity during summer are typical. Because of climate change, these conditions are becoming more common and are also experienced further north in Europe (Fernandez-Anez et al., 2021). Fire needs a continuous source of fuel to keep burning and landscape configuration is therefore important for fire management. Fire breaks can be designed specifically for this, but agricultural land can, under specific conditions, also form a barrier that helps to reduce the risk of fire spread. Land abandonment in southern Europe is one reason for the increased fire risk in this region. Diverse and deciduous forests are less prone to fire, while monoculture practices, especially coniferous tree plantations, are more flammable. There is also a high risk of outbreaks from pests in monoculture forests, which can lead to trees dying, sometimes in large numbers. The resulting deadwood can become extremely flammable. Transitioning monoculture plantations and forests into mixed species stands can make them more resilient to current and future climate conditions, provided this is done in accordance with the requirements of local habitats.

The majority of fires are sparked by human activity (Oom et al., 2022). The wildland-urban interface (WUI), i.e. the zone where human settlements are in or near areas of fire-prone wildland vegetation, covered about 7.4% of Europe in 2020 (Bar-Massada et al., 2023). Increased tourism and urban sprawl increase the wildland-urban interface (WUI), where the risk of fires and their impacts are heightened.

Nature-based solutions for mitigating wildfire risks and impacts

Most EU fire management strategies traditionally focused on emergency responses and fire suppression. The primary objective was to reduce burned areas rather than address fire prevention or post-fire recovery. This focus on the acute response can lead to homogeneous landscapes with high fuel loads that actually increase the risk of wildfires in the long term (Oliveras Menor et al., 2025). Fire management will be increasingly ineffective in the future if it prioritises emergency response over risk reduction or recovery (Fernandez-Anez et al., 2021; Oliveras Menor et al., 2025; Tedim et al., 2016). NbS can play a key role in transitioning from fire suppression to longer-term risk reduction and restoration as an integral part of forest management strategies that are fit for future climate conditions (FAO, 2006; UNDRR, 2020).

NbS are not yet fully mainstreamed in forest management practices and policy making, limiting their funding and deployment at scale (Smeenk et al., 2024). However, they are gaining momentum, with research on NbS for fire management having increased from just a few publications per year around a decade ago to approximately 40 per year in 2021-2023 (Keesstra et al., 2024). The increased use of NbS in forests calls for the standardisation of implementation and monitoring practices, and stronger integration of NbS in regional and national adaptation and forest management plans.

NbS can support both fire risk management and post-fire restoration. Close-to-nature forest management can greatly reduce wildfire risk by reducing the fuel load in a forest, for example through grazing, agroforestry, deadwood management and prescribed fires (related to fuel management, see Figure 1). Close-to-nature forestry also aims to have diverse species, age and forest structure, which makes the forest more resilient and less fire prone. Post-fire management requires comprehensive forest restoration that includes natural or assisted natural regeneration, reforestation with diversified species, soil rehabilitation and hydrological rehabilitation. The diversification of landscape and of tree species can also increase forest resilience to other climate change threats, including pest outbreaks. Table 1 gives examples of NbS in forests focusing on fire management. These include promoting species diversity, assisting natural regeneration and expanding protected areas; these approaches help enable forests to adapt to climate change while maintaining ecological and economic functions. The selection of specific measures should consider future proofing, for example by prioritising native tree species that are also suitable for the expected future local climatic conditions.

Table 1. Examples of NbS for fire-resilient landscapes

Effective implementation of NbS across different European forest ecosystems

Selection of the most suitable NbS for adaptive fire management necessitates a thorough understanding of the site-specific biophysical, socio-economic and governance conditions and contexts.

Europe can be divided into five ecoregional clusters (van Hattum et al., 2023). Each of these regions experiences different conditions and types of fire risks, meaning that the most effective NbS to apply may differ notably between regions. Figure 2 shows key challenges facing each region, alongside suitable NbS that align with these regional characteristics and constraints. The analysis is based on a literature review and the analysis of case studies. Five of these case studies are provided in the Annex; two examples are highlighted below (Boxes 1 and 2).

Figure 2. Distribution of different forest ecosystems and NbS applied, based on review of literature and case studies

Box 1. Occhito Lake, southern Italy: a community of practice for sustainable forest management

Due to climate change and rural land abandonment, forests that surround the Occhito Lake in southern Italy are increasingly exposed to wildfire. A forestry management plan was set up alongside a formalised forest agreement that aimed to facilitate implementation of the plan by combining public and private funding. The forest agreement is a public-private forest management model which entities that manage and operate in the Occhito area can join voluntarily. The agreement adopts a nature-based approach to preserve and enhance the resilience of forest ecosystems, consolidate slopes and prevent fire risks and pest outbreaks. In addition, it also stimulates the circular economy and revival of local communities. Use of prescribed/controlled fires was tested in a pilot area. The full-scale applicability in the region has been discussed and brought to the attention of local and regional administrations to fill in the existing legislation gap.

Image 1. View of Occhito Lake, southern Italy.

Tahamina Khanam

Sources: Climate-ADAPT case study; PABLO project.

Box 2. North Karelia, south-east Finland: introducing mixed species to reduce tree death and fire risk

In North Karelia, Finland, the main NbS used is the diversification of tree species. Increasing summer temperatures cause large scale tree mortality in single-species forests due to bark beetle outbreaks and increasing fire risk caused by the build-up of highly flammable dead biomass in the first years after trees die. NbS addressing this risk include reforestation with native and diverse species, including broadleaf species to increase biodiversity soil health and nutrient cycling (Key et al., 2022). These practices help regional forests attract more tourists and leisure visitors. They also sustain forest industries, which play an important role in forest management implementation along with the governmental forest entities that actively promote this style of sustainable forest governance and provide guidance to landowners.

Image 2. Managed forest in North Karelia, Finland.

Tahamina Khanam

Source: North Karelia Living Lab case study.

Success and limiting factors for implementing and upscaling NbS

Public institutions, private owners, conservation groups and industry often have differing priorities when managing forests (e.g. wood production versus biodiversity conservation; forest cover versus other land uses; recreation versus strict nature conservation). Conservation objectives in Natura 2000 sites need to consider future climate-driven changes in the distribution of tree species (Reichmuth et al., 2025). For example, NbS that reduce forest fuel in the short term to mitigate overall, longer term wildfire risk may be seen to conflict with carbon storage objectives (Herbert et al., 2022). In rewilding cases, the increased presence of ungulate animals could cause concerns about overgrazing. Grounding NbS in local knowledge and traditional close-to-nature practices, such as grazing and agroforestry (Prats et al., 2022), can help align adaptation with sustainable development objectives. Local communities must also be actively involved in NbS implementation, particularly for solutions that involve visible landscape changes, such as prescribed burns.

Forest management approaches are determined by forest owners’ decisions and by national and regional policy frameworks. About 55% of forests are privately owned across EEA member countries, with large variations in the proportion of forest habitats in public and private ownership (UNECE, 2020). Public owners of large, forested areas (state, or subnational authorities) mainly follow unified nationally defined goals for forest management, typically resulting in forests with higher biodiversity than found in comparable private forests (Mölder et al., 2021). Local public forest owners tend to respond to the needs of local communities for multifunctional forests (UNECE, 2020). Most private forests in Europe are small scale and family owned. These owners often have more constrained economic and technical knowledge resources, but they do have an increasing awareness of conservation goals (Tiebel et al., 2024; Weiss et al., 2019; Weiss et al., 2021; Pulla et al., 2013). Fragmented and small-scale ownership is to some extent associated with absentee ownership and land abandonment, which can increase forest vulnerability to fires and pests. Well-managed forest owner associations or cooperatives (Hrib et al., 2024; Thorning, 2024), networks among practitioners (Tiebel et al., 2024) or among actors along the timber value chain (Zafra-Calvo et al., 2024) could be entry points for disseminating the necessary knowledge and changing management practices.

Implementing NbS strategies such as mixed forests and efforts to increase biodiversity inevitably involves some economic and financial trade-offs; good management requires significant initial investment and extends turn-over time of investments in forest management. This is something that many small forest owners cannot afford, so NbS are less attractive to commercial investors. Market constraints are also important: in forests managed for timber production, selective harvesting increases costs. New markets for non-timber products or ecosystem services provided by forests, including alternative carbon markets, are underdeveloped. Improved knowledge and awareness of the long-term benefits of forest management for resilience are needed, alongside specific incentives to support the transition, in particular in the case of reforestation after fire. The role of insurance in recognising the value of forest fire resilience is still untapped (Martinez et al., 2021).

NbS implementation requires long-term strategies with aligned objectives that translate into coherent governance frameworks, including certification schemes and regulations regarding forest management planning and monitoring. Existing regulations should be supported both by efficient law enforcement and by easier access to support programmes for landowners and forest managers. Integrating NbS impact assessments into consistent forest monitoring frameworks could help scale these solutions and support evidence-based policy and funding decisions.

Reducing risks from wildfires requires a multipronged approach that must incorporate efforts to increase awareness about the risks of wildfires and encourage preparedness by emergency services, authorities and local communities. In Portugal, the Safe Villages Programme (SVSP) aims to involve local communities in awareness-raising campaigns against risky behaviour, encourage self-protection measures, create refuges and conduct evacuation drills. A comprehensive benefit-cost analysis was conducted to understand the potential benefits of the programme and support the prioritisation of areas for implementation.