Abstract

The prevailing definitions of “forest” often blur the lines between natural and production-oriented tree-dominant ecosystems, categorizing both under the same umbrella term. This includes a continuum ranging from old growth, biodiverse systems labeled as “natural” forests, and highly managed homogenous tree crops referred to as “plantation” forests. However, these two types of systems differ significantly in many ways, including their contributions to people which have been less prominent in scientific research and social discourse. Here, we argue that using the term “forest” interchangeably for both natural and plantation tree-dominant systems promotes a misleading narrative that obscures the negative impacts of plantation “forests” while diminishing the value of natural forests. This misrepresentation can lead to a loss of knowledge regarding native tree species and other flora and fauna found in natural ecosystems. Further, these definitions may encourage or facilitate the replacement of natural forests with tree crops under false environmental pretenses within the context of international sustainability or environmental agreements and certifications, depriving communities of the cultural and experiential benefits of natural forests. To address this issue, we propose an actionable agenda to prevent the negative social externalities of plantations and a socially responsible definition of forests that clearly distinguishes between natural ecosystems (forests) and production-oriented ones (plantations).