Our recent research raises an important and challenging question: Are our well-intentioned management interventions like thinning in high conservation value forests truly serving nature, or are they inadvertently accelerating the degradation of these critical ecosystems?

These interventions are part of what has been termed Active Management and they include thinning, post-disturbance salvage logging, prescribed burning, and road construction. They are often proposed as solutions to contemporary challenges like wildfire and bark beetle outbreaks (in North America and parts of Europe). However, they can also lead to unintended and long-lasting negative environmental consequences.

Our analysis shows that Active Management practices can disrupt these natural cycles. For instance, thinning operations may remove key elements of forest structure like understorey trees. They also may increase the risk of high-severity wildfire. Similarly, the construction of roads and firebreaks fragment landscapes, paving the way for invasive species, and increasing the risk of human-caused ignitions (i.e. arson). The evidence is particularly compelling in case studies from south-eastern Australia and western North America, where well-meaning Active Management interventions have led to significant habitat degradation, altered fire regimes, and elevated carbon emissions.

Forests subjected to repeated Active Management interventions can become simplified and homogenised, and lack the complexity and resilience of naturally regenerated forests. This not only compromises biodiversity — affecting species like the Critically Endangered Leadbeater’s Possum — but also diminishes the capacity of forests to sequester carbon effectively, undermining their role in climate mitigation.

There is also a broader political dimension to this issue. Many policy decisions that favour Active Management are driven by a desire for quick fixes in the face of climate change and increasing wildfire risks. Yet, these approaches tend to overlook long-term ecological dynamics and the wealth of knowledge embedded in natural and Indigenous land-management practices. It is a reminder that the allure of intervention through Active Management must be balanced by a deep understanding of natural processes and historical baselines.

The science calls for a cautious and measured approach to forest and biodiversity management. We must prioritise long-term, empirical studies to truly evaluate the impact of Active Management practices on forest structure, biodiversity, and carbon dynamics. More importantly, forest managers and policymakers need to consider alternatives that maintain or even enhance natural heterogeneity. Preserving large, intact areas of HCVF should be central to our conservation strategies – not only to protect critical habitat but also to ensure the maintenance of key ecological processes that are fundamental to how ecosystems function.

Extensive studies have demonstrated that HCVF — those forests rich in biodiversity, ancient trees, and complex ecological structures — play a vital role in maintaining ecological integrity and serving as natural solutions to the problem of climate change. HCVF are not merely collections of trees; they are dynamic systems where natural disturbances such as wildfire initiate regeneration processes and promote a mosaic of habitats on which many species rely.

The call to action is clear: we need to reframe our approach to forest stewardship. Rather than defaulting to heavy-handed Active Management interventions, we should invest in research that deepens our understanding of natural disturbance regimes and supports adaptive management strategies that work with, rather than against, nature. This is important to support ecosystems that are more resilient in the face of climate change and less prone to the unintended consequences of inappropriate management interventions.

In the end, nature’s own processes are both intricate and robust. Our role should be to safeguard these processes and to learn from them, rather than impose rigid, human-designed Active Management approaches that may ultimately do more harm than good. We should embrace a future of smarter, science-based stewardship of forests that maintains their complexity and resilience.