Abstract The tension between biodiversity conservation and multipurpose forest management may lead to conflicts. An internationally prominent example is the Bialowieza Forest Massif (BFM), an extensive forest complex with high levels of naturalness. We apply a systematic, multidisciplinary assessment process to review empirical evidence on different dimensions of the BFM conflict. While there is broad consensus that this forest massif is an exceptional place worth conserving and that a way forward is a zonation system combining conservation with management, exactly how this should be done has yet to be agreed upon. Our assessment shows that the key reasons for the BFM controversy go beyond the availability of knowledge on the ecological status of the BFM and include: 1) evidence stemming from different sources, which is often contradictory and prone to different interpretations; 2) knowledge gaps, particularly with regard to socio-economic drivers and beneficiaries as well as uncertainties about future trends; 3) fundamentally different values and priorities among stakeholder groups, resulting in power struggles, and an overall lack of trust. We conclude that evidence-based knowledge alone is insufficient to cope with complex conservation conflicts. While more evidence may help assess the consequences of decisions, the actual management decisions depend on different actors' worldviews, which are rooted in their professional identities and power, and their political and legal realities. This calls for conflict management through a well-organized participatory process organized and supervised by a body deemed legitimate by the groups involved.

中文翻译：

---

在生物多样性保护和可持续森林管理之间——对具有代表性的比亚沃维耶扎森林案例的多学科评估

摘要 生物多样性保护与多用途森林经营之间的紧张关系可能导致冲突。一个国际著名的例子是比亚沃维耶扎森林地块 (BFM)，这是一个具有高度自然性的广阔森林综合体。我们应用系统的、多学科的评估过程来审查关于 BFM 冲突不同维度的经验证据。虽然人们普遍认为这个森林地块是一个值得保护的特殊地方，前进的道路是将保护与管理相结合的分区系统，但究竟应该如何做到这一点仍有待商定。我们的评估表明，BFM 争议的关键原因超出了 BFM 生态状况知识的可用性，包括：1) 来自不同来源的证据，这往往是相互矛盾的，容易产生不同的解释；2) 知识差距，特别是在社会经济驱动因素和受益者以及未来趋势的不确定性方面；3) 利益相关者群体之间根本不同的价值观和优先事项，导致权力斗争和整体缺乏信任。我们得出的结论是，仅凭循证知识不足以应对复杂的保护冲突。虽然更多的证据可能有助于评估决策的后果，但实际的管理决策取决于不同参与者的世界观，这些世界观植根于他们的职业身份和权力，以及他们的政治和法律现实。这要求通过由相关团体认为合法的机构组织和监督的组织良好的参与过程来管理冲突。