In the forest, minds part ways

There is laughter, sometimes anger, whenever the name Peter Wohlleben is uttered at forestry conferences in Germany. Yet, Wohlleben continues to exert a decisive influence on the public debate about forests even many years after his first major book success, The Hidden Life of Trees (2015). Taking this discrepancy as a point of departure, this essay first examines the two most common criticisms of Wohlleben’s work: the lack of evidence for many of his statements, and his use of anthropomorphic language. Ultimately, however, the debate leads to a much bigger question: should we manage the forest according to the principle “We make the forest”, or should we “let the forest be by itself”? This dichotomy existed long before Wohlleben, and originates in a historically constructed distinction between protecting and utilising forests which, in practice, has become ever more obsolete in recent decades. The current debate reinforces this distinction once again, making it more difficult to find a common path in the future.