The Evolution of Continuous Cover Forestry
Review of the history, advantages and disadvantages of continuous cover forestry
Traditional gathering of miners and foresters in Hungary
Source: Országos Erdészeti Egyesület, https://www.oee.hu/hirek/egyesuleti-hirek/eger_bke_10
About 1800 is when we can point or put the beginnings of large scale plantation forestry, due to the development of industrial mining. Forestry and mining are usually appeared hand in hand in the past. Many forestry colleges were linked to mining educational institutes, and the two professions often share same traditions throughout Europe.
A lot less than 100 years later there was the first movement for mixed forests and Continuous Cover Forestry (CCF), which was strong especially in the latter part of the 19th century. It was then replaced in the 20th century via a trend towards more production, mainly as a consequence of the devastating effects of the two world wars. It is only recently that CCF has taken an upswing as we realise about sustainability of forestry production, climate change and certification debate.
CCF has vaguely followed sinuous curves peaking at about 100 years ago, then dropping and right now it is on the rise again for good reasons because of climate change, pests and diseases so boosting the resilience of our forests is now one of the most important targets in forestry.
This is the official history of CCF, there is another history behind that linking to the traditional selection forests, single tree selection. This method is mainly known from the Alps, the Black Forest, also from Slovenia to France, Germany, Switzerland and Austria mainly in the Alpine or in the continental mountain regions where traditional selection systems have been historically applied. They originate from much further in time, from medieval times so they have a very different background. They have been developed by small farm holdings by the farmer. These farmers had a few hectares of woodland which they mainly managed in the winter when there was not much work to do on the fields. They used the forest as a kind of financial backup; it provided all kinds of supplies such as fencing materials, firewood, timber for building. If they needed to build a new barn or they needed cash they would go and fell a few big trees and sell them. By that kind of “cherry picking” where they were really selectively taking the trees, they needed to make it very much selective. According to many professionals of today single tree selection is hailed as the only true CCF systems because obviously they led to an uneven aged and diverse stand structure. It is true, single tree selection is one aspect of CCF but it is by no means the only one. These selection systems are originally not designed by foresters, but by farmers from the past. All the other CCF methods have been created on the designer board of so to say industrial foresters.
Pros and Cons of CCF
CCF is more sustainable and diverse and is more stable if managed correctly, in terms of wind damage, pests and diseases, climate change. CCF can have economic benefits and so may be able to accommodate target diameter harvesting, with being able to cut trees and sell it as a premium product. In a clearfell system it is much more challenging to produce something exceptional.
In CCF it is more likely to have a balanced cash flow. In clearfell it is high investment at the beginning, high return at the end of rotation. In CCF, depending on the method or techniques used, it is a lot more balanced. Such as in a single tree selection system the cash flow may be at a lower level but is continuous over the entire time. The growing capital is maintained at all times, there is lower risk with all kinds of hazards to trees, biotic or abiotic. There is greater flexibility because more than one produce is grown at the time.
Source: Emiel De Lombaerde: Managing overstorey and understorey vegetation for natural regeneration across environmental contexts; https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-representation-of-forests-regenerated-following-different-silvicultural_fig1_342305679
It is clear CCF is more challenging than clearfell and restock as higher levels of expertise and skills are needed. This applies to all levels so from the forester to the operator. Directional felling is of paramount importance in CCF. It is also more labour intensive, a CCFscenario needs a lot more supervision. It is also not equally suitable for all species, countries, regions. For some tree species, CCF is very easy to apply but with others it is actually rather complicated and not that straight forward.
Transforming from a clearfell and restock scenario to CCF may also meet more challenges. The volume and the timber quality may suffer a temporary drop but not a permanent one.
With the longer rotations and bigger tree size usually timber quality should go up again in a CCF scenario, but harvesting volume may drop for some time and there may be limited options if tree or stand stability are not perfect at the transformation phase.