Wildlife Protection in Forests: Why 'Leave It Alone' Isn't Enough

Imagine you're a forest manager in the Pacific Northwest. You've just received an alert: a new invasive beetle has been spotted in a neighboring county. You know the drill—if it spreads, it could kill thousands of ash trees within a few years, devastating habitat for countless species. But some members of your community argue that the best thing is to do nothing, to let nature take its course. They say forests have always bounced back. What do you do?

This scenario is more common than you might think. In our work, we've seen that the biggest misconception about wildlife protection in forests is that simply designating a protected area and stepping back is enough. The reality is far more complex. Active, science-based management—including restoration, invasive species control, and even targeted logging in some cases—is often essential to protect the species that depend on forests. We've learned this the hard way, and we're here to bust some myths.

Doesn't protecting forests just mean leaving them alone?

No. While preserving primary forests is critical—they cover at least 1.18 billion hectares, about one-third of the world's forest area (FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025)—many forests are already degraded or fragmented. For them, passive protection is not enough. Restoration is crucial. The Bonn Challenge, for instance, aims to restore 350 million hectares of degraded and deforested land by 2030, and more than 210 million hectares have already been pledged (IUCN Bonn Challenge press release). Restoration often involves planting native species, removing invasives, and reconnecting habitat corridors. That's hard work, not just putting a fence around a stand of trees.

Is it true that Indigenous territories are better for wildlife than parks?

In many cases, yes. Research in the Amazon shows that deforestation is significantly lower in territories occupied and managed by Indigenous peoples than in parks and other protected areas (NASA Earth Observatory: Tropical Deforestation). That's a powerful argument for supporting Indigenous land rights. In practice, this means that when we work on forest conservation, we partner with Indigenous communities, respect their stewardship, and learn from their traditional practices. It's not about imposing our methods; it's about supporting theirs. And it works—not just for carbon, but for the animals that live there.

What's the single biggest threat to forest wildlife right now?

It's a toss-up between habitat loss and climate change, but they're linked. In 2024, tropical primary forest loss reached 6.7 million hectares—an area nearly the size of Panama—and for the first time, fires, not agriculture, were the leading cause, accounting for nearly 50% of that loss (WRI: Global Forest Loss Shatters Records in 2024). That's a wake-up call. When forests burn, wildlife loses habitat and shelter, and the effects ripple through the ecosystem. In 2023, fires in Canada were so severe that they drove a global 24% increase in tree cover loss, even though the rest of the world saw a 4% decrease (WRI Global Forest Review: 2023 tree cover loss). So, when we talk about wildlife protection, we're really talking about reducing fire risk, which means managing fuel loads—sometimes through controlled burns or selective thinning.

Don't all logging operations harm wildlife?

Not necessarily. It depends on how and where it's done. The key is sustainable forest management. More than half of the world's forests—2.13 billion hectares, or 55%—are under long-term management plans (FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025). That's a good start, but we need more. Certification schemes like FSC and PEFC exist to ensure that wood products come from responsibly managed forests. FSC certifies over 160 million hectares, and PEFC covers almost 300 million hectares (FSC UK Facts and Figures; PEFC Facts and Figures). When you buy certified wood, you're supporting forestry that maintains biodiversity, protects water quality, and respects local communities. So, don't swear off all wood—just demand certified products.

Is the EU Deforestation Regulation going to save wildlife?

It's a powerful tool, but it's not a silver bullet. The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) requires companies selling cattle, wood, cocoa, soy, palm oil, coffee, rubber, and derived products in the EU to prove their products are deforestation-free (EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products). That's huge—it could cut at least 32 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. But it focuses on deforestation, not on other threats like climate-induced fires or invasive species. And it only applies to the EU market, so it won't stop deforestation driven by other markets. Still, it's a start. We need similar regulations everywhere, not just in Europe.

Are invasive species really that big of a deal?

Absolutely. Invasive species can decimate native wildlife. A classic example is the emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle from Asia that was first detected in Michigan in 2002 (USDA NISIC: Emerald Ash Borer). Since then, it has killed hundreds of millions of ash trees across North America. Wildlife that depends on ash trees, like certain birds and insects, has suffered. And the beetle spreads fast—ash trees lose most of their canopy within two years of infestation and die within three to four years (USDA NISIC: Emerald Ash Borer). That's why we have to be proactive, monitoring for invasives and acting quickly when we find them. It's not easy, but it's essential.

What about restoration—does it actually work?

Yes, but it requires patience and careful planning. Take mangroves, for example. Between 1996 and 2020, the world lost 5,245 square kilometers of mangroves, a 3.4% decline (Global Mangrove Watch data update). But about 8,183 square kilometers of mangroves are considered restorable (Global Mangrove Watch data update). Restoring them not only brings back habitat for fish and birds but also stores carbon—1.27 gigatonnes of CO2 if we restored all losses since 1996 (Global Mangrove Watch data update). The Great Green Wall in Africa aims to restore 100 million hectares of degraded land, which would sequester 250 million tonnes of carbon and create 10 million green jobs (UNCCD Great Green Wall Initiative). These are big numbers, but they're achievable with sustained effort.

Quick tip: When you hear about a new forest conservation project, ask whether it includes active restoration and invasive species control. If it doesn't, it's probably not going to be effective for wildlife.

Bottom line

If we're serious about protecting forest wildlife, we need to move beyond the outdated idea that leaving forests alone is the best policy. Instead, we should embrace active, science-based management that includes restoration, invasive species control, and sustainable use. In our view, the single best move is to support and implement restoration projects that are designed with wildlife in mind—like the Bonn Challenge or the Great Green Wall. These initiatives don't just plant trees; they rebuild ecosystems, and that's what wildlife needs to survive.

Sources

• FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025 - https://www.un-redd.org/post/global-deforestation-slows-forests-remain-under-pressure-fao-report-shows
• IUCN Bonn Challenge press release - https://iucn.org/press-release/202511/germany-and-iucn-celebrate-15-years-bonn-challenge-worlds-largest-restoration
• NASA Earth Observatory: Tropical Deforestation - https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Deforestation
• WRI: Global Forest Loss Shatters Records in 2024 - https://www.wri.org/news/release-global-forest-loss-shatters-records-2024-fueled-massive-fires
• WRI Global Forest Review: 2023 tree cover loss - https://gfr.wri.org/global-tree-cover-loss-data-2023
• FSC UK Facts and Figures - https://uk.fsc.org/what-is-fsc/facts-and-figures