Selective Gathering Versus Destructive Felling

Not every extraction of oud is the same in its effect on the forest. There are two opposing approaches: selective gathering, which takes what has borne resin and leaves what is other than it, and destructive felling, which fells trees indiscriminately in search of oud even if none is found. In this article we compare the two approaches and their effect, and show why this difference lies at the very core of the sustainability of oud and the responsibility of its sourcing.

Two approaches, not one

When we speak of extracting oud from the wild, we do not speak of a single method, but of a spectrum ranging between two ends. At one end is careful selective gathering, and at the other is unjust destructive felling. And the difference between them is not in the wording, but in the effect they leave on the forest and on the future of the source itself.

And this distinction is what led us, from the beginning of this guide, to call those who carry out the craft "harvesters and gatherers" and nothing else: because the naming reflects the approach, and the approach reflects the effect. For one who "gathers" with selection is other than one who "fells" indiscriminately.

Selective gathering: the gentler on the forest

Selective gathering rests on a simple principle: taking what has borne resin, and leaving what has not. For when the injury is localized, the resin-bearing part is taken and the tree, or what remains of it, is left, as we detailed in the axis must the whole tree be felled?. And this approach preserves the forest, keeps trees that may produce later, and safeguards the harvesters' source of livelihood over the long term.

And selective gathering is not a slogan, but a practice that requires experience and patience: that the harvester read the tree, take from it in measure, and leave what there is no need to take. And it is closer to a responsible craft than to a hasty harvest, and this is what we encourage in our relationship with the network of harvesters.

Destructive felling: a depletion that threatens the source

At the opposite end stands destructive felling: bringing down trees indiscriminately in the hope of finding oud, even if that leads to felling trees with no oud in them. And this practice exhausted the wild trees in many regions throughout history, and it is one of the most important things that pushed the industry toward managed cultivation, as we addressed in the shift from wild to cultivated oud.

And the danger of destructive felling is that it depletes the source itself: for the more trees are brought down without distinction, the fewer the remaining trees that may bear oud in the future. And so the species of Aquilaria and Gyrinops were listed within Appendix II of the CITES convention, which regulates their trade to preserve their sustainability, as we detailed in the history of CITES and oud.

Why does the difference matter to us?

This difference matters to us because it connects directly to our responsibility in sourcing. For we encourage responsible selective gathering in our dealing with the harvesters, and we see in the sustainability of the source a shared interest: for the forest, for the local communities, and for whoever appreciates authentic oud. And we are reserved here about claiming perfection; for we are suppliers who describe an approach we commit to and encourage, not a body that polices every tree in the forest.

And the gathering thread remains that the future of wild oud is contingent on which of the two approaches prevails. For selective gathering keeps the source and makes it renewable as much as possible, while destructive felling consumes it. And this is what makes the ethics of sourcing — with which we conclude this guide — a natural extension of this difference, not a subject separate from it.