Variable retention harvesting: conceptual analysis according to different environmental ethics and forest valuation

Leonardo Galetto,Carolina Torres,Guillermo J Martínez Pastur

doi:10.1186/s13717-019-0195-3

Abstract

BackgroundConceptual clarity is important to attain precise communication of scientific knowledge and to implement appropriate technological and policy actions. Many concepts referring to forest management are widely used by decision-makers, regardless of their complexity. Although the scientific and methodological issues of forestry practices are frequently discussed in the literature, their normative dimensions are rarely treated. Thus, linguistic uncertainty increases when different environmentally ethical perspectives and ways of valuing forests are considered. The objective was to compare different conceptualizations on the silvicultural systems suggested for forest management and the implications they have for conservation. We have conceptually contrasted high-intensity forestry practices with variable retention harvesting, considering different environmentally ethical perspectives and forest valuation alternatives.ResultsClear boundaries between clear-cutting, selective logging, and variable retention harvesting can be evidenced when different ethical points of view and alternatives in the human-nature relationships are considered. We have found a variety of definitions of variable retention harvesting that can be analyzed under different ethical positions. Sharply contrasting views on variable retention harvesting can be evidenced if nature is considered to be purely at human’s service or if it is conceptualized as humans co-inhabiting with nature. The latter position implies that the maintenance of ecological, evolutionary, and historical processes supported by unmanaged forest stands is a crucial step for forest management proposals based on variable retention harvesting.ConclusionsForestry practices that are focused on forest yields and that misinterpret functional uncertainty of forest functioning would be risky. Moreover, forestry with variable retention harvesting could imply good yields with reasonable conservation management in some contexts, while it could be unacceptable in other socio-ecological contexts. The improvement of conceptual clarity on the different meanings of variable retention harvesting and the development of indicators for forest management based on the variations of this concept can reduce controversies.

Highlights

Conceptual clarity is important to attain precise communication of scientific knowledge and to implement appropriate technological and policy actions
We have acknowledged that the sustainable forest management (SFM) concept has different meanings (Gamborg & Larsen, 2003; Shifley, 2006; Batavia & Nelson, 2016); we follow the ideas put forward by Foster et al (2010), who said that it fundamentally involves those practices that imply perpetuating ecological, economic, and social forest assets, so as to secure livelihood for present and future generations
variable retention harvesting (VRH) is thought as a practice that should ideally follow the habitat requirements of the local biota and the natural disturbance regime of the forested landscape (Lindenmayer & Franklin, 2002; Gustafsson et al, 2012; Johnson et al, 2014; Soler et al, 2015, 2016)

Summary

Introduction

Conceptual clarity is important to attain precise communication of scientific knowledge and to implement appropriate technological and policy actions. We have acknowledged that the sustainable forest management (SFM) concept has different meanings (Gamborg & Larsen, 2003; Shifley, 2006; Batavia & Nelson, 2016); we follow the ideas put forward by Foster et al (2010), who said that it fundamentally involves those practices that imply perpetuating ecological, economic, and social forest assets, so as to secure livelihood for present and future generations. This concept assumes that those practices related to ecologically SFM will not lead to the decline of forest species or to the alteration of ecological processes (Lindenmayer, 2007; Lindenmayer et al, 2012). VRH is thought as a practice that should ideally follow the habitat requirements of the local biota and the natural disturbance regime of the forested landscape (Lindenmayer & Franklin, 2002; Gustafsson et al, 2012; Johnson et al, 2014; Soler et al, 2015, 2016)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion