The definition of the word "forest" as it is found in a dictionary ("vast expanse of land covered with trees") is not sufficient to define wooded areas, according to our partner The Conversation.
It does not make it possible to distinguish natural forests from plantations, two environments which do not play the same economic, recreational, emotional and environmental role - in particular from the point of view of the biodiversity hosted.
The analysis of this phenomenon was carried out by Thibault Leroy, biologist, researcher in population genetics and Sophie Gerber, researcher in plant genetics and in plant philosophy.
Emblems of biodiversity, forests have become a symbol of the constant progression of human pressures on ecosystems.
New expectations are emerging within society, contributing to growing tensions between actors in the forestry sector, in particular public and private managers, and the general public.
In recent years, strong positions on the subject of forests clash through the media on divisive subjects - the sanctuary of the forest on the one hand, the importance of a local timber industry on the other, or again, more intensive or more peasant management of forests.
Unfortunately, direct and constructive exchanges remain limited.
Could the debates be facilitated, the discussions open, by taking the time necessary for definitions and contextualizations?
A stere of definitions
Following the Kyoto International Climate Conference in 1997, work was initiated to collect national and international definitions of the word “forest”.
After 25 years of follow-up, over 1600 different definitions have been listed!
Why so many?
Is it that hard to define a forest?
A simple definition such as that in a dictionary - "
vast expanse of land covered with trees
" - is not enough?
No, because you then have to define what a tree is and the minimum density of trees, which is not so trivial!
Certainly, a tree can be defined as a plant of great height, with a trunk and containing wood.
But, again, the practical limits of such a definition explain why there are hundreds of others ...
Pile of “protest” wood in Saint-Augustin-des-Bois (Maine-et-Loire) © Thibault Leroy, CC BY-NC-ND
The risk of planting yourself in the forest
Basically, why are these definitions so important?
One of the problems that arises is that by defining the forest on the basis of its trees alone, it is not possible to distinguish natural forests from plantations.
This is a major point of tension in the current debate: in the world, like a primary forest destroyed by an oil palm plantation;
in mainland France, between deciduous forests and coniferous plantations, for example.
Distinguishing between these two types of environment seems essential as they do not play the same economic, recreational, emotional and environmental role, particularly from the point of view of the biodiversity hosted.
According to IGN, plantations are in the minority in France, and represent around 2 million hectares (against 15 million hectares of unplanted forests).
On a European scale, plantations represent only a small proportion of forests (4%), but which remains important in relation to the natural forest surface, i.e. considered as unaffected by man. (2%), according to the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests.
Forest coverage rate in Europe by country © Heikki Narko / Eurostat / Wikimedia CC BY-SA 4.0
Between natural forest and plantation, the majority of European forests are therefore considered to be semi-natural (94%), a category grouping together various silvicultural management situations.
The share of plantations in the total forest area also depends a lot on the outline of the definitions of the planted forest and the calculation methods.
Global Forest Watch
, for example, provides much higher estimates to the general public based on satellite images of forest cover rather than inventories.
This methodology has the advantage of being generalizable to the whole world, but can produce fairly biased values locally, when planted forest mapping data is not used as a complement, as is the case for France.
A detailed and objective description of planted and non-planted areas, as well as easy access by the general public to raw data, in particular those from forest inventories, would make it possible to better monitor the evolution over time and space of natural forests and plantations and provide objective elements to fuel the debate.
Evolution in the surface of the French forest from the 18th to the 21st century © Didier-CTP / Wikimedia CC BY-SA 4.0
Too much anthropomorphism
The tree is a living being, like us.
But there the parallel ends: the tree is not a human being, it does not have the same senses as us.
The tree does not have a brain, nor does it have nerves or pain-sensing organs.
Trees, on the other hand, have many other fascinating abilities.
Recognizing the full status of non-human life as a living being is fundamental.
This recognition must relate to the tree for its tree life, not for a fantasized life that we would like it to have.
Is the fact that humans decide on the end of a tree's life to use it fundamentally different from this gesture for a lettuce or a carrot?
These questions question in any case, today as in the past, many of us, citizens and poets alike.
Old pine on a chestnut tree in Ygos (Landes) © Photo by Félix Arnaudin, late 19th century - Collection musée d'Aquitaine (via The Conversation)
Let us reread Pierre de Ronsard, who wrote in 1565:
Escoute, Lumberjack (stops the arm a little) / It is not wood that you throw down, / Can't you see the blood which disgusts by force / Nymphs who live under the harsh escor?
Or Louisa Siefert and her verses from 1870:
And yet love triumphs over oblivion;
/ The material that nothing destroys is transformed;
/ The acorn sown yesterday becomes the enormous oak, / A new world emerges from a buried world.
While the question of the quality of our relationships with plants has its place, recognizing the full status of a living being does not necessarily mean abandoning wood as a material.
Deciding to stop cutting trees, in favor of polluting materials such as plastics, would be an absurd decision in view of the current planetary issues.
Certain controversial silvicultural practices, such as clear cutting, with radical landscape consequences, could however be discussed again and possibly better supervised.
The clean cut, a decision of last resort © Laurent Lathuillière / ONF
Green eye
On the other hand, forests are not just populations of trees.
A forest is above all a wide diversity of associated species.
Species that we observe furtively, others that we track, that we track down.
Species that delight us when we meet them, others whose encounter frightens many of us, and then others that we bring home (porcini mushrooms, chestnuts, ticks, etc.).
While meeting deer at the foot of hundred-year-old oaks delights many people, meeting ticks in ferns often inspires them less… There are therefore cognitive biases in the preservation of biodiversity, it is important to be aware of this.
This requires freeing ourselves from our own human perception of the beautiful, the good or the useful.
The defense of the forest cannot therefore be limited to large trees, the same fervor should be engaged, for example, for the preservation of tarantulas and vipers in their ecosystems.
And, of course, let us not forget that our eyes can and only know how to see the emerged face of the diversity of the forest.
Undergrowth of the Clos forest, emblematic site of the national forest of Bercé (Sarthe) © Thibault Leroy, CC BY-NC-ND
Our branches quarrel, our roots kiss
The forest is an open space, at the crossroads of multiple passions, as the German sociologist economist Werner Sombart recalled at the beginning of the 20th century:
There is a forest-for-the-forester, a forest-for-the-hunter, a forest-for-the-botanist, a forest-for-the-walker, a forest-for-the-friend-of- nature, a forest-for-the-wood-picker or the-berry-picker, a fairytale forest where Hansel and Gretel get lost.
Integrating this multitude of different looks and attentions for the same spaces is difficult, but essential.
Without obscuring the very real divisions, let us note that the communities which confront each other passionately have a common denominator, which we find from the hiker to the forest operator, including the hunter or the naturalist: love for the Forest.
Our "FORESTS" dossier
The forest of tomorrow, whatever form it will take, will not be able to take place without a fundamental debate, involving the various people concerned, on the place that our society wants to give to forests and the various means that it takes. gives himself to achieve it.
Planet
Forest: Why the "oak tiger" could permanently modify the appearance of our green spaces
Planet
“Urban forest”: What are its different types and what benefits can be expected?
This analysis was written by Thibault Leroy, biologist, researcher in population genetics at the University of Angers and Sophie Gerber, researcher in plant genetics and in plant philosophy (both at INRAE - National Research Institute for agriculture, food and the environment).
The original article was published on The Conversation website.
Biodiversity
Global warming
Tree
Video
The Conversation
Forest
Planet
0 comment
0 share
Share on Messenger
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Flipboard
Share on Pinterest
Share on Linkedin
Send by Mail
To safeguard
A fault ?
To print