V. 81 N. 2s (2026): Atti della Conferenza Foreste vetuste e antichi alberi: un tesoro di natura, vita e cultura. Firenze 1 ottobre 2025 / Vallombrosa 2-3 ottobre 2025
Reviews

Foreste vetuste e alberi antichi: i diversi valori intrinseci, strumentali e relazionali a supporto della protezione e del ripristino delle foreste

Lorenzo Ciccarese
Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA), via Vitaliano Brancati 48 - 00144 Roma, Italia.

Pubblicato 2026-10-06

Parole chiave

  • foreste vetuste,
  • alberi antichi,
  • valori relazionali della natura,
  • benchmark per la conservazione,
  • ; governance della biodiversità,
  • ripristino ecologico
  • ...Più
    Meno

Come citare

Ciccarese, L. (2026). Foreste vetuste e alberi antichi: i diversi valori intrinseci, strumentali e relazionali a supporto della protezione e del ripristino delle foreste. L’Italia Forestale E Montana, 81(2s), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.36253/ifm-1231

Abstract

The paper examines the biodiversity crisis as a systemic global risk, highlighting how accelerating species extinction and habitat loss are closely linked to climate change, pollution, and land-use transformation. Although more than half of global GDP depends on nature, economic and policy frameworks still prioritize instrumental values, neglecting intrinsic and relational ones. A paradigm shift is therefore needed to integrate ecological, economic, cultural, and social dimensions in decision-making. In this context, old-growth forests and ancient trees are presented as emblematic ecosystems: reservoirs of biodiversity and long-term carbon storage, but also places of identity, memory, and spirituality. Examples from Europe and other regions show how symbolic and cultural values have historically supported their conservation. The paper proposes an expanded definition of old-growth forests that, alongside ecological criteria (integrity, continuity, structural complexity), explicitly recognizes relational and cultural values, as conceptualized by IPBES. Old-growth forests also function as ecological reference systems, providing benchmarks and indicators for protection, restoration, and sustainable forest management, particularly within the framework of the EU Nature Restoration Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 and National Restoration Plans. Establishing connected networks of reserves, buffer zones, and ecological corridors is essential to ensure long-term resilience and functionality. Their conservation thus becomes a strategic pillar for implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and advancing integrated biodiversity governance.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. Balvanera, P., Baptiste, B., Christie, M., Pascual, U., & González-Jiménez, D. (2023). The IPBES methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature: Factsheet. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10361930
  2. Barredo, J. I., Brailescu, C., Teller, A., Sabatini, F. M., Mauri, A., & Janoušková, K. (2021). Mapping and assessment of primary and old-growth forests in Europe (EUR 30661 EN). Publications Office of the European Union.
  3. Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(6), 1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113
  4. Ciccarese, L. (2026). Attuazione della Nature Restoration Law e sistemi agricoli e forestali in Italia: il National Restoration Plan e gli indicatori ecologici. L’Italia Forestale e Montana, 81(1s), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.36253/ifm-1267
  5. Ciccarese, L., & Rastelli, V. (2025). La sfida ambiziosa del ripristino della natura. Ecoscienza, (1), 6-13. https://www.arpae.it/it/ecoscienza/numeri-ecoscienza/anno-2025/numero-1-anno-2025/rinaturazione/la_sfida_abiziosa_del_ripristino_della_natura_es_2025_1-pdf_view/@@display-file/file/La_sfida_abiziosa_del_ripristino_della_natura_Es_2025_1.pdf
  6. Ciccarese, L., Rastelli, V., Iovino, F., & Piovesan, G. (2025). Il Regolamento dell’Unione europea per il Ripristino della Natura: considerazioni per la sua attuazione nel settore forestale. L’Italia Forestale e Montana, 80(3), 135-159. https://dx.doi.org/10.36253/ifm-1182
  7. De Laurentis, D., & Piovesan, G. (2023). Le Foreste vetuste. In D. De Laurentis & G. Papitto (A cura di), Foreste d’Italia. Arma dei Carabinieri.
  8. de Pater, C., Verschuuren, B., Greil, S., & Wals, A. (2024). Exploring spiritual values in forest management practices in the Netherlands. Trees, Forests and People, 16, 100522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100522
  9. Himes, A., Muraca, B., & Bennett, N. J. (2023). Relational values in biodiversity governance. Conservation Biology, 37(1), e14018.
  10. IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secretariat.
  11. IPBES. (2022). Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, & D. González-Jiménez, Eds.). IPBES Secretariat.
  12. IPBES. (2024). Thematic assessment report on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and the determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity (K. O’Brien, L. Garibaldi, & A. Agrawal, Eds.). IPBES Secretariat.
  13. IPBES. (2026). Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment report on the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. IPBES Secretariat.
  14. Lenzi, D., Balvanera, P., Arias-Arévalo, P., Almagro-Garcia, S., Arroyo-Robles, G., & Muraca, B. (2023). Justice, sustainability, and the diverse values of nature: why they matter for biodiversity conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 64, 101353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101353
  15. Muraca, B. (2011). The map of moral significance: A new axiological matrix for environmental ethics. Environmental Values, 20(3), 375-396. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327111X13077055166063
  16. Muraca, B. (2016). Relational values: A Whiteheadian alternative for environmental philosophy and global environmental justice. Balkan Journal of Philosophy, 8(1), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.5840/bjp2016813
  17. Nocentini, S. (2013). Boschi vetusti in Italia: collegamenti con la pianificazione e la gestione forestale in aree da lungo tempo antropizzate. L’Italia Forestale e Montana, 65(5), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.4129/ifm.2010.5.06
  18. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Anderson, C. B., Christie, M., González-Jiménez, D., Hunt, A., ... & Vatn, A. (2023). Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature, 620, 813-823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9
  19. United Nations Environment Programme. (2022). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. https://www.unep.org/resources/kunming-montreal-global-biodiversity-framework
  20. United Nations Environment Programme. (2025). Global Environment Outlook 7 Executive Summary: A future we choose – Why investing in Earth now can lead to a trillion-dollar benefit for all. https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-7
  21. Unione Europea. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R1991
  22. World Economic Forum. (2023). Nature risk rising. World Economic Forum.