HISTORICAL ROOTS AND THE EVOLVING SCIENCE OF FOREST MANAGEMENT UNDER A SYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVE

20 In recent history, both a growing awareness of how scientific and societal uncertainty impacts management 21 decisions and of the intrinsic value of nature have suggested new approaches to forest management, with a 22 growing debate in forest science over the need for a paradigmatic shift from the classic conventional 23 worldview, based on determinism, predictability and output-oriented management, towards a worldview which 24 has roots in complex adaptive systems theory and is consistent with a nature-based ethics. A conceptual 25 framework under this context is provided by systemic silviculture. In this discussion paper we analyze how 26 this approach can be linked to three fundamental moments of the history of forestry and forest science: the 27 Dauerwald theory, Gurnaud’s control method, and the origins of environmental ethics. Relationships with the recent history of forest management science and current research perspectives are also highlighted.

Furthermore, silvicultural studies have rarely been based on theories and have relied mostly on empirical 90 analysis (Puettmann et al. 2009). The outcome of this type of research is the limited possibility of 91 generalization. Nevertheless, foresters have usually adopted research results (e.g. yield tables or the optimal 92 diameter distribution for uneven aged stands) as a dependable representation of forest reality and have managed 93 forests to match "scientifically sound" forest models.

94
More than two centuries after the birth of Forestry as a science, silvicultural systems, practices and approaches 95 currently applied are mostly still based on the same paradigm (Puettmann et al. 2009). Systemic management involves the overcoming of top-down centralized decision-making models and the 118 diversification of silvicultural treatments (Nocentini et al. 2017). By considering human action as part of the 119 system, it recognizes the needs of society without forcing on the forest a predefined structure and composition 120 aimed at specific products or services. Wood production is not the aim, but the consequence of management 121 carried out in the interest of the forest. This means helping the forest maintain its natural processes and the

174
(1825-1898). It has many points in common with the Dauerwald but, unlike the latter, at the basis of the 175 method there was not the enunciation of an innovative vision of the forest, such as the organicistic concept, 176 but a series of operating principles to make productive management more efficient. To be put into practice, the 177 criteria enunciated by Gurnaud required a different way of conceiving forest management.

178
Gurnaud rebelled against the idea that the silvicultural system and even more the rotation, defined a priori, 179 could be considered indicators of stand development and, therefore, of the treatment to be carried out. Instead,

216
Systemic silviculture is in historical continuity with the Dauerwald and the Control method. However, it also 217 goes beyond them (Table 1) not only because it can use scientific knowledge that has emerged only in the last 218 century, but also because it reflects the shift in the nature/humankind relationship, which has been determined 219 by the numerous environmental crises and events occurred in the last decades, overall framed under the term 220 "global change". processes (Rolston 1988). Soulé (1985) asserted that biotic diversity had intrinsic value, and according to 248 Ehrenfled (1988) value is an intrinsic part of diversity. As Callicott (1997) clearly stated, the practical aspect 249 of recognizing the intrinsic value of something is not to make it inviolable but to shift the burden of proof, the 250 onus of justification, onto those whose actions would adversely affect it.

251
More recently, the question of the intrinsic value of non-human entities has involved a growing number of Ethic" has never been really adopted as the ethical foundation of forestry.

266
The   324 Table 2 shows a comparison between systemic forestry, conventional forestry and "nature-based" approaches;       Table 2 and text for references) in relation to the degree of respect for the self-organization of the forest and the instrumental (utilitarian) or intrinsic value attributed to the forest. CF = Conventional Forestry; CM = Control Method; CCF = Continuous Cover Forestry; CNF = Close-to-Nature Forestry; NDB = Natural Disturbance-Based management; DW = Dauerwald system; SYS = Systemic silviculture; VRH = Variable Retention Harvesting. 202x148mm (300 x 300 DPI)