It is an eternal cycle: The oxygen that plants “exhale” forms the basis of life for all animal organisms. The CO₂ in the air breathed by animals is simultaneously the “oxygen” of plants. With this, plants can produce vital sugar molecules through photosynthesis, which nourish them.

The statement “The forest is the lungs of the Earth” illustrates the importance of forests for life on Earth.

This balance is threatened by climate change. Many tree species cannot keep pace with rapid change through genetic adaptation. Furthermore, forest fires and pest infestations additionally exacerbate the global situation.

With the help of research, observation, action, and policy, we should do everything possible to preserve our basis of life—the forest—and restore it to health. Plants must be enabled to draw upon a rich and variable gene pool in order to develop varieties and species that are well adapted to the changing climate.

This question increasingly gives rise to a partly ideologically driven, controversial discussion of commercial forest versus ecological forest and which of the two forms is the right one with regard to climate change.

The publication of a study by ETH Zurich in the journal Science, for example, demonstrates that “afforestation of forests is the most effective measure against climate change” (Bastin JF, Finegold Y, Garcia C, Mollicone D, Rezende M, Routh D, Zohner CM, Crowther TW: The global tree restoration potential, Science, 5 July 2019, doi: 10.1126/science.aax0848).

In this sense, all stakeholders must work together: forest owners, nature conservation organizations, science, authorities, and policy.

Forestry is, by definition, managed forest and contributes significantly to maintaining the climate with all its components in balanced proportions while still safeguarding the interests of forest owners.