The intensification of forest biomass harvesting for biofuel production in Germany has sparked significant conflicts among stakeholders reliant on forest ecosystem services (FES). Research conducted by Gino Garcia, Carsten Mann, and Tobias Cremer from Eberswalde University highlights biodiversity conservation, recreational access, and resource allocation as key areas of contention. These conflicts call for participatory forest management, market-based instruments, and harmonized policies to mitigate trade-offs. This study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMDV) and Brandenburg's Ministry of Science, Research and Culture.

Germany’s forests, covering 11.4 million hectares (32% of the national territory), are critical for climate regulation, biodiversity, and economic contributions. They store approximately 2.6 billion tons of carbon, adding an estimated 1 ton per hectare annually, and support 39,000 forestry jobs, contributing €1.2 billion to the economy. The broader wood industry employs 135,000 individuals and generates €8.25 billion in gross value. Forests also provide cultural and recreational benefits, with 70% of the population visiting annually and generating a collective recreational value of €1.9 billion.

However, forest degradation has intensified, with only 21% of trees showing no crown thinning, and increased mortality among trees older than 60 years. Climate change exacerbates this, with drought, pests (notably bark beetles, responsible for 81.4% of felling), and forest fires posing persistent threats.

The proposed use of forest biomass for biofuel production as part of Germany’s bioeconomy strategy has added to existing resource conflicts. Key disputes include:

• Wood use vs. biodiversity: Increased biomass demand threatens forest biodiversity by reducing deadwood and old-growth trees.
• New products vs. established uses: Biofuel production competes with industries producing wood panels, paper, and engineered wood products.
• Biomass use vs. recreation: Expanded harvesting reduces recreational forest areas and affects landscape aesthetics.

The research involved 12 expert interviews, two workshops, and three focus group discussions. The majority of participants opposed increasing forest biomass harvesting for biofuel production, citing concerns about its ecological and economic impacts.

To address these challenges, the study proposed three core strategies:

1. Participatory processes: Establishing local forest committees to mediate stakeholder interests and ensure inclusive decision-making.
2. Market-based instruments: Compensatory schemes for cultural and regulatory FES to provide alternative income for forest owners.
3. Policy harmonization: Aligning forest management and bioeconomy policies to clarify trade-offs and promote sustainable resource allocation.

The workshops revealed that stakeholders prioritize conflicting needs differently, with conservationists emphasizing biodiversity protection, industry representatives focusing on resource efficiency, and cultural FES advocates seeking improved access and aesthetic preservation.

While biofuels offer potential climate benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels, stakeholders demanded further evidence to quantify these benefits. Transparent trade-off decisions and strengthened participatory governance are crucial for balancing FES provision and minimizing conflict.

The study concludes that forest biomass harvesting for biofuels must be contextualized within broader FES demands. Expanded stakeholder engagement, diversified management strategies, and robust conflict resolution mechanisms are essential to sustain Germany’s forests amidst growing bioeconomic pressures.