Must the Whole Tree Be Felled?

When oud is extracted from a tree that bears it, a pivotal question is raised: does that require felling the whole tree, or can the resin-bearing parts suffice? In this article we address whether the whole tree must be felled: when extraction can be done without bringing it down, when otherwise is resorted to, and why this question lies at the very core of the issue of responsible gathering and the sustainability of the wild trees.

Not necessarily

The direct answer: not necessarily. For in many cases the resin-bearing parts can be extracted without bringing down the whole tree, especially when the injury is localized in a particular trunk or branch. For oud does not fill the tree, but rather concentrates around the sites of injury, and so felling it entirely is not an inevitable condition for reaching it in every case.

And contenting oneself with the resin-bearing parts serves two aims: it preserves the tree or what remains of it, and it preserves a source of livelihood that may return later. And this selective approach is the gentler on the forest, and it is the one we encourage in our sourcing, even if determining whether it is possible in a particular case returns to the harvester who inspects the tree up close.

When do the parts suffice?

The possibility of contenting oneself with the parts depends on the state of the tree and the injury. For when the resin is concentrated in a spot that can be reached and taken without demolishing the tree, partial extraction is a logical choice. As for when the injury is deep or spread in spots hard to reach except by bringing the tree down, the matter may differ. And we are reserved here about issuing a decisive rule, because every tree is a different case estimated by the one who inspects it.

And the general principle remains that the norm is to take what is necessary and leave what is not, not to fell trees indiscriminately. For the difference between an approach that takes the resin-bearing and leaves what is other than it, and another that fells the tree on a mere possibility, is an essential difference in environmental effect, which we detail in the following axis.

Destructive felling and its history

In contrast to selective extraction, the history of oud has known more destructive practices: felling trees indiscriminately in search of oud, even if none is found in them. And this depletion of the wild trees exhausted their habitats in many regions, and was one of the most important things that pushed the industry toward managed cultivation as a more sustainable alternative, as we addressed in the shift from wild to cultivated oud.

And we recall that all species of Aquilaria and Gyrinops are listed within Appendix II of the CITES convention, an appendix that regulates their international trade to preserve their sustainability rather than banning it, which we detailed in the history of CITES and oud. And this regulation is a background that makes responsible gathering not merely an ethical choice, but a condition for the continuation of the source.

A question at the core of sustainability

The question "must the whole tree be felled?" is not a technical detail, but is in its essence a sustainability question. For answering it with selection where possible means a more lasting forest and longer-lived trees, and answering it with excessive felling means a depletion that threatens the source itself. And so we place this question at the heart of our talk about the ethics of sourcing.

And the gathering thread remains that the norm is gentleness with the tree as far as the situation allows: taking the resin-bearing without an unnecessary demolition. And the difference between selective gathering and destructive felling is the subject of the axis immediately following in this guide, where we detail the two approaches and their effect.