DEFINITION OF LOW FOREST COVER (LFC)

 Developed by UNEP and IUFRO

Coordinated by:

H. Gyde Lund

Forest Information Services

6238 Settlers Trail Place

Gainesville, VA 20155-1374 USA

Voice: +1-703-743-1755, Fax: +1-703-743-1756

Email: gyde@comcast.net

URL: http://home.comcast.net/~gyde/index.html

Abstract: The Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) identified countries of Low Forest Cover (LFC) as being of special concern. Unfortunately, a definition of LFC was not available. It called on UNEP, as lead agency for this programme element, to expedite the development of a definition of low forest cover as contained in IPF's proposals for action. Following a subsequent request by UNEP, the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO) requested that its members undertake a short-term study to develop a definition of LFC. Definitions of "forest", thresholds and data availability are additional concerns This paper covers some of the problems involved with developing a definition and offers four different options. An eigenvalue analysis indicates that the classifications of countries based upon a combination of variables (area of Forest and Other Wooded Lands, Original Forest Land, and Population) is a good first attempt. Intent of actions and data availability will dictate what definitions and thresholds to use.

Keywords: Forest, Low Forest Cover, Original Forest, Forest and Other Wooded Lands

Cite as: Lund, H. Gyde. 1999. Definition of Low Forest Cover (LFC). Report prepared for IUFRO. Manassas, VA. Forest Information Services. 22 p.  Online at http://home.comcast.net/~gyde/LFCreport.html  

INTRODUCTION

The Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) recognized that there are both developed and developing countries with low forest cover. Low forest cover can arise as a result of natural ecological conditions, as well as of human activities and the situation is constantly changing. Some countries are actively expanding their forest cover, while others are approaching qualification for entry into the low forest category.

The restricted area of forests in countries with low forest cover results in reduced capacity for the production of timber and for the provision of goods and services, including the protection of watersheds, the supply of fuelwood, the maintenance of biological diversity and endemic species, and recreation and amenity. Moreover, many of the forest types in those countries are distinctive or even rare, and require national protective measures and international support, while the proportion included in nationally designated protected areas is often below average.

The International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding signed with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for the development of a workable and precise definition of low forest cover in agreement with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The definition was scheduled to be ready for IFF III in Geneva in May 1999 and would be introduced by UNEP as an IUFRO contribution. The definition would be applicable to all countries and suitable for use in the forest resource assessment in the year 2000.

The IUFRO Secretariat asked Research Group 4.02 "Forest Resource Inventory and Monitoring" to take on the job and prepare a report entitled "Countries with Low Forest Cover" containing: a workable and precise definition of the term low forest cover, applicable to all countries and suited for use in the forest resources assessment in the year 2000; a list of countries with low forest cover, based on the definition, option/ways for improving the productivity, conservation and monitoring of countries with low forest cover, taking into account the social and cultural dimensions. The deadline for the report was November 30, 1998.

IUFRO's SilvaVoc project and Working Party 6.03.02 "Trends in Forest Terminology" provided assistance by compiling information on existing definitions and by setting up a short-term discussion to provide additional "food for thought" between 4 Nov 1998 - Dec 1998 (See http://www.NRCan.gc.ca/hypermail/lfc/)

On 27 Nov 1998, IUFRO 4.02 developed a "strawman" document and placed it on the web. IUFRO 4.02 announced the draft report's availability to various forestry lists and invited comments and suggestions for change.

Based upon the comments received, IUFRO 4.02 revised the document and sent the final on to IUFRO HQ on 6 Dec. 98.

IUFRO HQ forwarded the draft to UNEP. Dr. Bai-Mass Taal, modified the draft and sent the revision out for additional review in July 1999. Reviewers included L. S. Botero, Coordinator FODA; Reidar Persson, CGIAR; and IFF Secretariat Tage Michaelson.

The UNEP draft was also discussed at the International Meeting of Experts on Special Needs and Requirements of Developing Countries with Low Forest Cover and Unique Types held 4-8 October 1999 in Tehran, Iran. The Iran meeting resulted in a Tehran Declaration (Anon. 1999) which asked for further work on the definitions. The UNEP draft was revised, presented, and discussed at a Side Event meeting during IFF 4 in New York City 2 February 2000. This paper includes all recommendations to date.

GENERAL FINDINGS

Based upon the information we can only make some general observations at this time. We need more information as to why we are producing the definition.  It seems that the purpose of having and applying the definition is to allow someone (policy and decision-makers where ever) to take action when forest cover is deemed to be 'low' for a country.  The action could be internal to the country (remedial action to prevent further loss, action to extend forests, actions to address consequential problems of an environmental and or social nature), or they could be taken external to a country such as pressure to limit access to trade in forest products (exports) such as consumer pressure to limit sales or purchases of products from LFC countries, etc.

1. Definitions: We can identify one or more definitions of what LFC could be and how to calculate and report it, and how to qualify it. However, understanding the purpose of the definition is important, because the technical / scientific expertise which can be brought to bear, can be used to produce many definitions which may serve some purposes better than others  Producing a definition of LFC, which seems to have at its core, the need/ wish to take action to change how forests are used, will be even more difficult.  Once a country is labeled as an LFC, it may be delighted because it may be an additional lever with which to obtain greatly needed resources, or it may be offended because it sees itself being controlled unduly by the nasty world outside.

Definitions suggested during the review process included:

  1. Low timber trade to countries with high trade
  2. Ratio of open forest to closed forest
  3. Ratio of coppice forest to high forest
  4. Ratio of areas with short trees to areas with tall trees
  5. The ratio of forest (or forest and other wooded lands (FOWL)) to total land area
  6. Areas where lack of forest cover is damaging ecological process
  7. The ratio of forest or FOWL to original forestland
  8. The ratio of forest or FOWL per capita
  9. Forestland to high number of people having hardships in these areas

Option 1 focuses on economics and not necessarily ecological needs of countries. Options 1-5 strive to make all countries equal. Ecologically not all countries can have the same amount and types of forestland. Cyprus cannot have the same size trees as California and Qatar cannot have the same amount of forestland as Finland.

Options 6 and 7 are very similar. They are based upon what may be ecologically possible. Data are easiest to come by for option 7.

Options 8 and 9 are also similar based upon needs of the local people - this is also an indication of the amount of pressure that may be place on any remaining or soon to be established forest lands. Data for option 8 are more easily obtained and less subjective than those for option 9.

Basically options 7 and 8 or a combination of the two are most feasible and most likely to address the concerns of the IFF.

Those options in bold (Nos. 5,7, and 8) are discussed in detail in this report. Each presents a different picture and requires different information.

2. Thresholds: Thresholds are the numbers for determining whether a country qualifies as a LFC or not. Thresholds generally have a predefined set of conditions. These conditions occurred before the threshold, but not after, based on given variable(s). You may use a threshold only under these conditions and only when these variable(s) are present to show that conditions have changed after the threshold.

There are two ways of specifying a threshold. One is based on an arbitrary percent of countries falling below a certain line and the other is based upon some "scientific" gateway. The maps and tables in this report illustrate how different definitions and thresholds affect what is considered LFC. All data are from Appendix 1. Note, we did not have data for Antarctica, Greenland, Oman and Western Sahara.

Arbitrary percent - Thresholds for determining whether a country qualifies as a LFC may be based upon an arbitrary percent. For example the bottom 25 % of countries having the lowest ratio of forest to original forest cover (figure 1) or the bottom 25% of countries having the least amount of forestland or FOWL per capita (figure 2). The 46 countries in white (figure 1) have less than 19% of their original forest cover left.

 

 

 

The 76 countries in white, figure 2, have less than 0.3 percent of FOWL per capita. The breakdowns can be modified - i.e. the bottom 10%, 33%, etc. using MS Excel.

 

Scientific thresholds - Conservation groups recommend that at least 10% of a nation's forestland be protected. Therefore countries having less than 10% of original forestland left may be considered as LFC from an ecological perspective. Figure 3 shows the 30 countries (shaded) having 10% or less original forestland remaining.

 

 

As with the definitions, we need to get much greater clarification of just what the LFC figures are expected to be used for so that our efforts to set a threshold can be informed, rather than totally arbitrary; and can be focused on the kinds of outcomes that are desired.

Data availability: FAO has good harmonized estimates of forestland and forest and other wooded lands (FOWL). They also have good estimates of total land area and population per country. These data are currently being updated for the Global Forest Resource Assessment 2000 (FRA 2000). The World Conservation and Monitoring Centre and the World Resources Institute have estimates of "original" forest going back to 8000 years ago broken down on a country by country basis. The definition used for "original" forest differs from what FAO uses for its Global Forest Resources Assessment and, of course, no one knows for sure what was forested 8000 years ago. In spite of these shortcomings, the aforementioned forest data sets are the only ones we have on a country by country basis for the entire globe. A first cut at a global data set is given in Appendix 1. We either must rely on these global databases or, as one contributor suggested, we ask each country for to provide new data both on the current situation and on it's past.

The political difficulty is, of course, to get countries to find the resources to put into the data collection exercises initially. Even conducting reliable population censuses is difficult for many of them despite the very long history of attempts at doing it. Given the time frame specified by IUFRO, solicitation of data on a country by country basis is not a viable option.

AN ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLE DEFINITIONS

1. Ratio of forest cover to total land area - Forest area/land area- is a measure of environmental scarcity of forests. It is usable in policy-making on the forest's impact on timber-production, national balances on yield and cuttings, different environmental qualities, etc. It reflects the importance of the forest in the landscape. The automatic inference of LFC is that if there is "low" forest cover it is in relation to the total land base. The advantage of the Forest area/land area ratio is that the data are readily available from the FAO.

1.1 Thresholds: Options suggested include:

  1. Having least 25 percent of the total land area forested.
  1. If the purpose were to document the amount of land area occupied by forests it would be appropriate to compare the percentage of forest in a country to the global average and categorize it as "low" or "high".
  2. Using FAO's definition of forest, a low forest cover country is one that has less than 7 % of its land area forested
  3. Using an arbitrary figure of 10 percent

1.2. Examples: Table 1 shows a listing of countries having less than 10 percent forest and other wooded lands (FOWL). See Appendix 1 for definitions and data. Table 2 shows a similar listing but only for forestland. Note that most of the countries shown are arid and the definition and delineation of forestland becomes more difficult. For this reason, it may be preferable to consider FOWL instead of forestland.

Table 1- Listing of Countries having less than 10 percent Forest and Other Wooded Land (FOWL)

Country

FOWL/

Total Area

%

Malta

0.00

Egypt

0.03

Kuwait

0.28

Saudi Arabia

0.42

Iraq

0.44

Libya Arab Jamahiriya

0.48

United Arab Emirates

0.72

Lesotho

0.76

Iceland

1.47

Algeria

1.66

Jordan

1.95

Syrian Arab Republic

2.63

Eritrea

2.79

Tajikistan

2.92

Yemen

3.64

Tunisia

3.66

Kyrgyzstan

3.81

Kazakhstan

3.93

Afghanistan

4.01

Pakistan

4.06

Mauritania

4.42

Haiti

5.04

Uruguay

5.34

Israel

6.01

Singapore

6.56

Iran

6.99

Turkmenistan

7.99

Morocco

8.08

Niger

8.24

Swaziland

8.49

Ireland

8.58

Netherlands Antilles

8.75

Mongolia

8.77

Seychelles

8.89

Netherlands

9.99

 

 

 

 

Table 2 - Countries having less than 10% Forest Land/Total Area

Country

Forest Land/

Total Area

%

Barbados

0.00

Cayman Islands

0.00

French Polynesia

0.00

Malta

0.00

Netherlands Antilles

0.00

Yemen

0.02

Egypt

0.03

Saudi Arabia

0.10

Iraq

0.19

Lesotho

0.20

Libya Arab Jamahiriya

0.23

Kuwait

0.28

Iceland

0.34

Jordan

0.51

Mauritania

0.54

United Arab Emirates

0.72

Haiti

0.76

Algeria

0.78

Iran

0.94

Djibouti

0.95

Tajikistan

1.13

Syrian Arab Republic

1.19

Somalia

1.20

Niger

2.02

Afghanistan

2.14

Kenya

2.27

Pakistan

2.27

Eritrea

2.79

Saint Helena

3.23

Tunisia

3.57

Kyrgyzstan

3.81

Kazakhstan

3.93

Comoros

4.04

Uruguay

4.66

Israel

4.95

El Salvador

5.07

Lebanon

5.08

Australia

5.35

Morocco

5.39

Mauritius

5.91

Mongolia

6.00

Singapore

6.56

South Africa

6.96

Bangladesh

7.76

Turkmenistan

7.99

St. Lucia

8.20

Swaziland

8.49

Ireland

8.58

Chad

8.76

Seychelles

8.89

Mali

9.49

Rep. of Moldova

9.76

Gambia

9.80

Netherlands

9.99

1.3 Implications: The implication by this definition is very limited. All we can say is that the countries have low forest cover. A disadvantage is that comparison might be misleading, because not all land is potential forestland. A low forest cover, by this definition, is not a reduced capacity, but only a low capacity. For example, a country occupying mostly grassland will never have much forest. Australia (see Appendix 1) has a low % forest cover, compared with Malaysia, but so what? The different climatic conditions that cause huge deserts in Australia are the clear cause.

2. Ratio of current forest area per capita - Forest area/capita is a measure or proxy of physical supply available to match the human demand for forest goods and services. The ratio gives you an idea of pressure; e.g. when there are lots of people there will most likely be little forest and vice versa. High populations do tend to make higher demands on forest resources and exert greater pressures on them. It is usable in policy-making on afforestation for recreational and leisure activities in a highly populated country like Denmark.

Demographic considerations must be factored into any process aimed at determining priorities for natural resource management. Population is only one of the factors-albeit a significant one-driving natural resource depletion and degradation. The more important and much more positive message is that programs that improve human well-being such as family planning and education also have the enormous "side-benefit" of helping to slow population growth, thereby reducing its effect not only on forest loss and degradation but also on water quality, agricultural demand, soil erosion, climate change, species loss, and a host of other environmental/ecosystem issues.

 

2.1 Thresholds: Suggested options include:

1) Using FAO's less than .07 ha of forest per person.

2) UNEP divided the countries of the world into four groups based upon per capita forest area in 1990. 25 percent of the world's countries had less than .0l07 ha of forest cover per capita.  Rounding this up to 0.1 ha is a benchmark as "critical minimum value … to supply all domestic (wood) needs" and as an indicator of forest resource scarcity. Use the 0.1 ha as the lower limit of modest to high levels of per capita forested land in each country. Below this figure, countries are considered to have forest cover and therefore a scarcity of forest resources.

3) Using a threshold base on the average amount of forest and other wooded lands needed to support one human being. Lund and Iremonger (1998) calculated a crude estimate of the minimum FOWL/capita to be 0.73 ha.

2.2 Example: Table 3 shows the countries having less than 0.73 ha of FOWL per capita.

Table 3 - Countries having less than 0.73 ha of Forest and Other Wooded Land/Capita

Country

FOWL/

Capita

Malta

0.000

Egypt

0.001

Singapore

0.001

Kuwait

0.003

Iraq

0.009

Lesotho

0.011

Bangladesh

0.012

Haiti

0.017

Barbados

0.019

Israel

0.021

Pakistan

0.021

Netherlands

0.022

United Arab Emirates

0.025

Jordan

0.027

Syrian Arab Republic

0.032

Netherlands Antilles

0.033

Mauritius

0.039

United Kingdom

0.042

Lebanon

0.045

Saudi Arabia

0.045

Seychelles

0.053

Tunisia

0.061

Comoros

0.062

Belgium

0.066

Tajikistan

0.068

Eritrea

0.079

Rep. of Moldova

0.081

India

0.084

Puerto Rico

0.088

Armenia

0.094

Denmark

0.102

St. Vincent & Grenadines

0.107

Yemen

0.114

Grenada

0.118

Afghanistan

0.122

Azerbaijan

0.129

China

0.129

Reunion

0.130

Algeria

0.131

Germany

0.131

Korea, Rep.

0.136

Rwanda

0.143

El Salvador

0.148

Swaziland

0.153

Kyrgyzstan

0.157

Libya Arab Jamahiriya

0.158

Ireland

0.161

Yugoslavia

0.164

Switzerland

0.169

Iran

0.174

Hungary

0.179

Martinique

0.183

Trinidad and Tobago

0.184

Philippines

0.187

Ukraine

0.187

Italy

0.189

Dominican Republic

0.192

Cayman Islands

0.194

Japan

0.196

Burundi

0.204

Guadeloupe

0.210

Morocco

0.210

Luxembourg

0.211

Sri Lanka

0.217

Liechtenstein

0.219

St. Lucia

0.227

Poland

0.231

Gambia

0.233

Thailand

0.248

British Virgin Islands

0.250

Nepal

0.252

Czech Republic

0.256

Jamaica

0.257

Uruguay

0.284

France

0.290

Cuba

0.293

Romania

0.297

Vietnam

0.303

Korea, DPR

0.316

Turkey

0.321

Albania

0.336

Portugal

0.351

Malawi

0.360

Cyprus

0.363

Monserrat

0.364

Slovakia

0.378

Uzbekistan

0.387

Antigua and Barbuda

0.388

Costa Rica

0.408

Macedonia

0.449

Bulgaria

0.468

Croatia

0.470

Iceland

0.471

Austria

0.482

French Polynesia

0.507

Slovenia

0.540

Lithuania

0.555

Kenya

0.580

Georgia

0.591

Greece

0.614

St. Kitts and Nevis

0.615

Nigeria

0.617

Bahamas

0.628

Kazakhstan

0.644

Spain

0.656

Indonesia

0.703

Dominica

0.704

Ethiopia

0.704

 

 

Figure 4 shows the 106 countries (shaded) having less than 0.73 FOWL per capita.

 

2.3 Implications: The implication is that countries that have below the threshold either need to increase their forest land to meet their needs or import forest products. This criteria alone does not tell us if a country has the land suitable for expanding their forest base.

Some countries, like Canada and Russia (see Appendix 1), have huge forest areas and relatively low populations, but this does not make their forests' products and services, or especially their rare forested ecosystems, free from threats of over-exploitation or poor practices. So, the stated purpose appears not to be addressed by this indicator.

A main argument advanced for using population is as an indirect comparison of forest area with consumption of wood products, with the implication that Low Forest Cover countries would be long-term large net importers, and that this  would be an undesirable state to remain in. But this ignores differences in per capita consumption of wood products - if a country consumes less wood, then it requires less forest to meet these needs.  This also ignores consumption of non-wood forest products - fuelwood etc. It also does not take account of the gains from international trade -   there is nothing wrong with a country specializing in, for example, agriculture and trading with another specializing in timber.

3. Ratio of current forest area to historic or potential forest area - This is a measure of land capability to grow forest or forest resources forgone as it were. The latter can be measured using potential vegetation maps. If the measure is to get at helping to identify countries that could increase their forest cover, those that haven't had much historically probably never will. Options include forests prior to:

  1. Human influence (extending back to the beginnings of agriculture, even hunting and gathering nomadic tribes in some areas).
  1. Set the date at around the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, when trade channels opened up, and the mechanization of new ways to process resources allowed for improved and efficient harvesting. This information could be obtained for various countries.
  1. Pre-Industry. Pre-Mechanization. For each country, the date will be different, and should be. The date will depend on when the timber industry really established itself (assuming it is present in the country), or the agricultural industry (again, assuming it is present), or whatever human influence first took a toll on the resource we know as "forests", however defined by that country.
  1. Each country should determine and report on its current area of forest, noting how it defined it.  Using the FAO definition would be advantageous, but would not be essential. Each country should report on the area of forest against some specified historical time line.  1750 could be the guideline, but for countries with capacity to determine earlier dates where forest cover has been impacted greatly by humans compared to the ecological potential for trees to grow, then earlier dates should be encouraged. For others, later dates may be suitable or all that is practical. Each country should then report on whether the loss of forest cover, if any, is causing or is suspected of causing environmental or social problems: soil erosion, degradation of water quality or supply, loss of forest products such as fire wood, timber, non-wood products.  Each should indicate whether corrective action is in place, wanted, possible or not needed, wanted etc.  This action/report allows each country to indicate whether they consider themselves  for be an LFC for the purposes of the definition.
  1. A final possibility "forward looking" of changes to forest cover. If we set a benchmark with our definitions as on/about the year 2000 (which the TBFRA and the Global Forest Resource Assessment are trying to do) we can then look out in the future instead of concentrating attention on what has happened in the past centuries. Realistically speaking the best that can be done at present for all countries is to present the situation now; derive some arbitrary measures of what is meant by low forest cover; then monitor/repeat the exercise in 10,20, ..., 100 years time to quantify what is changing.  We would have to hold the definitions constant for a reasonable period of time - such as has been agreed in the FAO definitions for the year 2000 assessment. Measures based on history are always going to be subject to a raft of reasons for wanting to use different dates.  If we set the benchmark now so that we look ahead we avoid this potentially political problem.

Other definitions could be written to distinguish how much of the forest is officially protected vs. the amount of forest that exists, but is not protected and may therefore be subject to change.

The "historical vs. actual forest cover" is a useful indicator if the main purpose of the exercise is to show what portion of a country's "original" forest resource base remains today. The further back in time one goes to define "historical" cover, the closer the indicator comes to being a measure of "potential" cover (i.e., that amount of forest cover that would exist in the absence of human activity, given the ecological/climatic characteristics of the region.).

3.1 Thresholds: For specifying a thresholds here are a couple of options:

  1. Use island biogeography could provide one perspective from a biodiversity standpoint. Lose XX and you lose YY percent of your species. (what is it...90% forest loss means eventual loss of 50% of forest-associated species?) Finally, these cutoffs and distinctions should be made by forest types as well as by country.
  1. Apply an arbitrary threshold. For example, low forest cover would apply only where the people had disrupted say more than 80% of whatever amount of forest the country started with millennia ago. The view that ~80% could still convert back to forests might be theoretically possible if the population, developed areas and agriculture were all removed, but it would seem better to express the point in terms of original cover.
  2. Some countries will have low acreages but the maximum possible in forest. To bulk them as low-forest seems less reasonable, unless it is done just for quantitative purposes. If a country has less than 10% of its potential forest then it seems appropriate to call it a 'low forest country'. Keep it simple would suggest a pure quantitative approach (% of all land, 5% seems a number that would truly suggest a minimum role of forestry and forests for the country)

It is not the absolute forest cover, or the absolute proportion lost of forests that are most important, but whether what was lost is causing problems. If only 25% is 'gone' and it comes mostly from steep land in water catchments, then it can be very serious for land managers.  If forest loss is 70% and comes from flat land now under stable agriculture and the country wants agriculture, not forestry, should anyone seriously complain?  Some countries are small and occupy only part of one or a few biozones whereas other countries are vast and cover many biomes.  These differences are often reflected in how countries respond to land use changes.  10K ha of forest lost in one country could be devastating, but scarcely noticeable in another.  Absolute levels of loss by country are not necessarily useful.  Remember that country boundaries have only a little to do with how variation in the natural world is distributed.

3.2 Example: Table 4 is an example listing of countries with less than 10 percent of their original forest land remaining. Data are extracted from Appendix 1.

 

 

Table 4 - Listing of Countries having less than 10 percent of their Original Forest remaining

Country

Forest/

Original Forest

%

Barbados

0.00

Cayman Islands

0.00

French Polynesia

0.00

Malta

0.00

Netherlands Antilles

0.00

Yemen

0.07

Lesotho

0.27

Haiti

0.77

Iceland

0.81

Mauritania

3.18

Egypt

3.34

Jordan

3.90

Israel

4.22

Somalia

4.64

Saudi Arabia

4.68

Pakistan

4.87

Eritrea

4.97

Algeria

5.04

El Salvador

5.08

Comoros

5.59

Syrian Arab Republic

6.20

Tunisia

6.50

Lebanon

6.54

Singapore

6.67

Bangladesh

7.40

Niger

7.62

St. Lucia

8.20

Swaziland

8.43

Gambia

8.56

Kenya

9.50

Ireland

9.69

3.3 Implications: The implication is obvious. In theory, countries that previously had forest area have the possibility to become reforested. This could lead to donor assistance for reforestation projects.

An obvious disadvantage is that the historic or "natural" land capability may be highly speculative in degraded areas and countries with a long history of human influence. In addition, the ratio actual/potential  may be too controversial with all the moral baggage about what the forest area "should" be.

A problem with relying solely on "past vs. present" comparisons is that the longer the timeframe becomes, the more difficult it is to distinguish historical forest loss from contemporary loss. Egypt and El Salvador, for example, have both experienced severe deforestation, but at very different points in time. If part of our purpose were to identify those countries where current forest pressure (for lack of a better term) is greatest, how would this ratio provide that information? The goal should be to use past data to help us identify current priorities so that we can have a positive impact on the future of forests.

4. Combinations: A first filter could distinguish between countries that have large potential and limited potential for increasing their cover through re/afforestation. A second (per capita forest cover) could identify those countries where the forest resource base is under the greatest strain from current demographic pressure (and thus are a high priority for development assistance either in the form of forestry/natural resource management and/or family planning & general education & development aid).

Using a per capita indicator (in combination with other variable like income, climate, etc.) would be big step forward in highlighting those countries/regions where population programs could play a major role in the long-term success of sustainable forestry initiatives. It would also draw attention to the enormous pressure of agricultural production on forests in high population areas and help poke some holes in the "it's all about logging" argument.

We considered a use of all three approaches on a 3-dimensional plot and discuss the implications of different directions of movement within that space. For example, a country which has little forest as % land area AND as %original has more options for adding to forest resources, while one that has a small amount of forest as % land area, which is nearly as much as it ever was has fewer options, but possibly still more than if in the same position on those two axes it also had a very low forest per capita.

4.1 Thresholds: A threshold should based on regional forest conditions (ecoregions perhaps?) while adjusting the threshold further to take into account the country's population (this second threshold option should allow some equity between countries by incorporating concerns over differing populations) to determine if a country should be classified as low forest cover. Any compromise requires a "weighting" of the factors and it is not always easy to get international agreement on what these should be because inevitably political considerations arise. Whatever is finally decided upon is quite clearly spelt out in any reports, etc., which are produced.  International comparisons are difficult beasts at the best of times and forestry ones are even more difficult to make sense of because of the considerable variances which exist in "original forest cover" and the histories of human settlement, population densities, etc. It is not the numbers (however derived) that really matter.  We will find "clusters of countries" with the numerical values around about the same levels with, possibly, nothing much between the clusters, rather than a continuum in the values.  Reporting this internationally needs to draw attention to a whole range of differences in history, climate, soils, etc.  It will be the differences that are important as these will illustrate the complexities of trying to capture simply what is meant by "low forest cover" in a global context.

4.2 Example: As an example of a combination, we did a sort of Appendix 1 using the following sequence - first, all countries having less than 10 % FOWL cover. This gives us an indication of countries with LFC based on FOWL cover only. Next we sorted these countries to see which had less than 10 percent of their remaining forestland. Finally we sorted those remaining countries that had less than 0.73 FOWL per capita. This gave us an indication of where forest resources are scarce due to land conversion and where demand would be high. The countries we found included Algeria, Egypt, Eritrea, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Lesotho, Malta, Netherlands Antilles, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Yemen.

A combination of thresholds may be used. Figure 5 shows the 26 countries (shaded) having both less than 10% of the original forestland left and less than 0.73 FOWL/capita.

4.3 Implications: A combination definition, such as the one illustrated above, provides the kind of information one needs to know where lands can be reforested as well as where the high demands for forest goods and services may be (see Appendix 2).

Using a single indicator is attractive because it is relatively simple and easy to explain. However, using a single indicator—whatever it may be—often leaves out crucial considerations. Admittedly, forest cover per capita is an example of this problem, as it does not capture the difference between the suitability of different regions for supporting large areas of forest cover (e.g., Iceland vs. Indonesia. "Low forest cover" concept should incorporate two or more indicators. For example, one could use the "historic vs. current" or "potential vs. actual" forest cover ratio to separate countries based on how much of their forest resource base has been preserved or at least reclaimed. (A key benefit of this ratio is that it avoids the pitfalls of using "forest as a % of land area" that have already been discussed in relation to Australia and Namibia.) However, this ratio alone does not adequately identify countries in which current demands on forests are greatest. Thus, using the per capita indicator in combination with the "potential to actual" ratio would help further determine where population dynamics are exerting pressure on the forest resource base.

The usefulness of a two or three tiered system (that includes population as one of the indicators) is that it allows one to make two levels of distinctions between forest cover in different countries—the first "cut" based on the amount of historical forest loss, and the final cut based on the relative pressure being placed on the forest resource today.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

  1. A couple reviewers suggested that we need to not only look at national totals and averages in identifying countries with LFC, but we also have to consider large LFC areas within countries. This certainly would increase the number of countries that could be eligible for funding assistance. Figure 6 shows tree cover density for the contiguous United States. The gray areas are areas with less than 10% tree cover. Those in the eastern U.S. were once forested and would come back as forest if left alone. Those in Great Plains and intermountain regions could only be afforested with special effort.

 

 

The point is that all countries have some areas of Low Forest Cover. Some due to land conversion, others due to ecological and environmental factors. Even though the US does not qualify as a LFC country by the above definitions, it does have vast areas, larger than many countries of the world, which would qualify as having LFC.

  1. A second point raise was to separate those LFC countries into two categories - those that are island nations and those that are dry regions. This certainly could be done

KEY ISSUES

In order to determine what definition to use and thresholds to use, there are some key issues that the IFF needs to address.

  1. What is the purpose of identifying LFC countries - increase forest area or tree covered area, decrease population and consumption, equalize available resources among nations? If the goals are economic or environmental (carbon sequestration, soil and water protection) then the establishment of plantation forests may suffice. If the goal is ecological, then natural regeneration through site protection may be the appropriate course.
  2. Definition of forestland - National definitions of forestland vary considerably (Lund 2000). What may be considered forestland by one nation, may not be so considered by another. National definitions take on one or all of the following forms - an administrative unit, a descriptor of land use, a descriptor of land cover, or a combination. The difference between land use and land cover is that under a land use definition, a piece of land with out trees (such as a clearcut) may be called forestland. Under land cover this would not. Similarly under a land use definition, an area can be covered with trees and not considered forestland such as an olive grove. Under a land cover definition, agricultural plantations may be considered forestland.

Here we are speaking of forest cover - so we can rule out administrative units and land use. But are we concerned about all tree cover - which would include permanent crop plantations (oil palm, rubber trees, nut and fruit trees, etc) as will as trees off forest, bamboo stands, and "traditional" forestland.

A good working land cover definition would include thresholds specifying a minimum size area, minimum percent cover minimum tree height, and minimum strip width as well as exclusions. Again national definitions of forest cover vary and very few countries have specified thresholds. Figure 7, for example, shows tree height thresholds used in national definitions of forestland. Note that Kenya has a minimum tree height of 2 meters and Sudan of 10 meters. Assuming all other things being equal, Kenya would have more forestland than Sudan because Kenya would include lands with shorter trees. By raising the threshold, a country could claim less forestland.

 

 

For these reasons, some type of international definition of is desired. This has problems, however, as nations may not have data on hand to re-compute their forestland area to the international definition. Using figure 7 as an example, a reasonable international threshold for tree heights may be 5 m. This is the standard used for the UN/ECE/FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment 2000 (FRA 2000) shown in black. Since countries like Sudan use a taller minimum tree height in classifying their forestland, they may not have data on hand to re-compute area based on a lower threshold. The lands with shorter trees may not have been considered forestland and therefore may not have been included in Sudan's national inventories.

Figure 8 shows similar national thresholds for minimum percent tree cover. Threshold crown cover varies from 1 percent for Iran to 80 percent for Zimbabwe. FRA 2000 is 10 percent. All things being equal, countries with larger thresholds will appear to have less forestland than those with smaller thresholds. As with tree heights, converting national estimates to an international standard may prove difficult for those countries that have thresholds greater than the international standard.

 

Finally, in shifting to an international standard, some countries may appear to lose forestland while others will appear to gain when compared to national estimates.

  1. This brings up the third problem of data availability. Where will the data come from once the LFC definition is established? Will it come from national statistics, international sources?
  2. Finally, who will do the monitoring to ensure legitimate changes are being made?

DISCUSSION

We need answers to the following questions:

The use of the term "forest" here could mean forestland (however defined) or tree covered lands (treeland) depending on the objectives of IFF. Forestland could include or exclude agricultural plantations depending on how forestland is defined. Treelands, on the other hand, would include all lands with trees on them meeting minimum threshold requirements regardless of land use. A Forestland approach would be desirable if the concern is primarily ecological. A treeland approach is useful for economic and environmental objectives. Treeland area estimates can be obtained from remote sensing. Forestland estimates may require ground truth as well.

Intuitively, as a minimum, IFF should use the ratio of current "forest" to original forest cover. A list of countries having the lowest ratio could be generated. This list could be prioritized by sorting on those countries which have the least forest/capita.

A population-based ratio is an informative indicator for development agencies to use in making resource allocation determinations. The dominant historical relationship between people and forests has been that as the former advances the latter retreats. If, as the saying goes, the past is prologue, then population dynamics will remain a key factor—though certainly not the only factor—demanding consideration by all parties interested in achieving "sustainable" resource management.

Basing a working definition of LFC on combinations of indicators is attractive in that is possibly allows for a "richer" interpretation of the difficulties to emerge in the political discussion which IFF will have. Dennis' work with the thresholds suggested in the paper (Appendix 2) has perhaps brought in a few other countries but again, with the exception of Netherlands, they are generally the countries we would have expected to see. Using slightly higher thresholds to bring in a couple of "developed" countries may help the process. More work could obviously be done on this.

We need to keep in mind that the nature of the raw data may be inaccurate and so a ratio of inaccurate figures would be even worse. It is important to quote all three pieces of information pertaining to the nation or region in question, i.e. total forest and land areas, and total population, but add to those, further data on the date to which these figures refer and some indication of the precision and accuracy of these estimates together with annual or periodic rates of change in forest and land areas and population. If nothing else this will force analysts to review the quality of the information they are quite content to convert into ratios. Any composite index should reflect the nominal error levels and allow sensitivities to guide categorization. Emphasize getting good basic data on areas and populations before trying to derive simplistic indices.

Data availability and source are also considerations. The LFC definition has to be based upon data that are available or are easily obtainable. If IFF wants within country breakdowns, data must be also spatially registered. This means that maps - vegetation cover, demographics must be available for each country.

The data used in Appendix 1 of this report came from FAO, UNECE, WCMC and WRI. The forest and FOWL estimates are based upon land use. The UN data are obtained from a variety of sources harmonized to a common definition and point in time. They are not spatially registered. The estimates include areas that may be currently devoid of trees but are expected to be reforested in the future. They may include rubber plantations and exclude other types of tree crops.

Current forestland or treeland cover estimates can be improved by using remote sensing and one data source. NASA and the University of Maryland (UM) have created such a database for the globe. See http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu. It is our understanding that the developers are working towards refining the mapping. Country estimates of treeland may be obtained by superimposing national boundaries on the NASA/UM map.

The Original Forest estimates are based upon ecological maps depicting what areas may have been forested 8000 years ago. While, no one knows for sure what the forest cover was 8000 years ago, this is the only global database we have available and it is spatially registered (see http://www.wri.org/ffi/maps/ ). It can also be used as a caveat for "original treeland."

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Determine what it is that IFF wants to happen if funds are given to countries of LFC - expand forest cover or expand tree cover. This will help to determine what lands to include and what "forest" definition to use.
  2. Determine what thresholds to use for determining if countries are in or out. The thresholds may be arbitrary based upon funds available or "scientifically" based.
  3. Determine who will monitor if objectives are being met and how the monitoring will be done. The monitoring aspect can also have a bearing on the definition decided upon in recommendation 1. It is easier to monitor "tree" cover than it is to monitor "forest" cover.
  4. As to LFC areas within country, all countries have such land. Consider leaving funding of restoring such areas up to the individual countries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the following people for their input to this paper:

Ananin, Nick

Barton, James P

Beckett, Doug

Botero, L.S.

Bradley, Roger

Bryant, Dirk

Cihlar, Josef

Delaney, Jeff

Dennis, John

Dennis, Judith

Ellis, Liz

Gardner-Outlaw, Tom

Gillam, Simon

Glen, William

Gonzalez, Patricio

Hnatiuk, Roger

Jensen, J

Joshi, Mahendra

Kapos, Val

Korotkov, Alexander

Lamers, Sjef

Magnussen, Steen

Marten, K.D.

Mehmood, Sayeed

Melnyk, Mary

Michaelson, Tage

Mize, Carl W.

Niemann, Tom

Norton, Douglas

Null, Bill

Palo, Matti

Persson, Reidar

Plum, Peter Monk

Prins, Christopher

Prüller, Renate

Sampson, N.

Schmitz, Friedrich

Schmutzenhofer, Heinrich

Steffenson, John

Taal, Bai-Mass

Vanclay, Jerry

Whyte, Graham

Wong, Nelson

As well as the participants from the International Meeting of Experts on Special Needs and Requirements of Developing Countries with Low Forest Cover and Unique Types held 4-8 October 1999 in Tehran, Iran. Countries participating included: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Yemen. Lastly thanks are given to the participants from the Side Event at the IFF4 meeting in New York City, 2 February 2000.

A special thanks to:

REFERENCES

Anon. 1999. Proceeding: The International Meeting on Special Needs and Requirements of Developing Countries with Low Forest Cover and Unique Types of Forests. Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran. 4-8 October 1999. 190 p.

DRAFT - THE NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF COUNTRIES WITH LOW FOREST COVER Prepared for United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Intergovernmental Panel on Forests by WCMC (Val Kapos valk@wcmc.org.uk)

E/CN.17/IPF/1996/18 9 August 1996 COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, Third Session. 8-20 September 1996, IMPLEMENTATION OF UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS RELATED TO FORESTS AT THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL, INCLUDING AN EXAMINATION OF SECTORAL AND CROSS-SECTORAL LINKAGES. Programme element I.5: Needs and requirements of countrieswith low forest cover. Report of the Secretary-General (Tom Gardner-Outlaw <tgo@popact.org).

INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIP ON FORESTS: Implementation of IPF Proposals for Action by the TFF INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON FORESTS (ITFF) June 1997 (Tom Gardner-Outlaw <tgo@popact.org).

Iremonger, Susan. 1998. Report to accompany maps and statistics for the World Commission for Forests and Sustainable Development. Cambridge, UK: World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 5 p.

Lund, H. Gyde. 1998. A Comparison of Multipurpose Resource Inventories (MRIs) Throughout the World. Working Paper 14. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute. 46 p.

Lund, H. Gyde. 2000. Definitions of forest, afforestation, deforestation and reforestation. Unpublished report. http://home.comcast.net/~gyde/DEFpaper.html Gainesville, VA: Forest Information Services. Misc. pagination.

Lund, H. Gyde; Iremonger, Susan. 1998. Omissions, commissions, and decisions - the need for integrated resource assessments.In: Proceedings First International Conference on Geospatial Information in Agriculture and Forestry. Decision Support, Technology, and Applications. 1-3 June 1998. Lake Buena Vista, FL.  Ann Arbor, MI: ERIM International, Inc. Volume I: 182-189.

WCMC. 1998. Source documentation for the Original Forest Cover map compiled for the WCFSD. Cambridge, UK: World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 11 p.

UN-ECE/FAO. 1997. UN-ECE/FAO Temperate and Boreal Forest Resources Assessment 2000 - Terms and Definitions. GE. 97-22231. Geneva. 13 p.

  

APPENDIX 1 - BASIC DATA FOR LOW FOREST COVER ANALYSIS

Included in this Appendix is a matrix using the best available global data on land area, Forest and Other Wooded Lands and Original forest area where:

Forest Land - Land with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 percent and area of more than 0.5 ha. The trees should be able to reach a minimum height of 5 m at maturity in situ. May consist either of closed forest formations where trees of various storeys and undergrowth cover a high portion of the ground; or of open forest formations with a continuous vegetation cover in which tree cover exceeds 10 percent. Young natural stands and all plantations established for forestry purposes which have yet to reach a crown density of 10 percent or tree height of 5 m are included under forest, as are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest. Includes: Forest nurseries and seed orchards that constitute an integral part of the forest; forest roads, cleared tracts, firebreaks, and other small open areas within the forest; forest in national parks, nature reserves and other protected areas such as those of special environmental, scientific, historical, cultural, or spiritual interest; windbreaks and shetlterbelts of trees with an area of more than 0.5 ha and a width of more than 20 m. Rubberwood plantations and cork oak stands are included. Excludes: Land predominantly used for agricultural practices (UN-ECE/FAO 1997).

Other Wooded Land - Land either with a tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of 5-10 percent of trees able to reach a height of 5 m at maturity in situ; or a crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 percent of trees not able to reach a height of 5 m at maturity in situ (e.g. dwarf or stunted trees) and shrub or bush cover. Excludes: Areas having the tree, shrub or bush cover specified above but of less than 0.5 ha and width of 20 m, which are classed under "other land"; Land predominately used for agricultural practices (UN-ECE 1997).

 Original Forest Land - That estimated to have covered the planet about 8,000 years ago, before large-scale disturbance by modern society began. (http://www.wri.org/ffi/lff-eng/)

The reader is cautioned in using this information. The table should not be used beyond an example until its contents are verified by the primary sources and data providers. In particular the Original Forest estimates and the Forest Land estimates for Kuwait, Mauritius, Saint Helena, Suriname, Turkmenistan, and Uruguay need to be verified in addition to the population estimates for Macedonia. Also not listed are countries that have been void of forests for some time including Oman, Qatar, etc.

Country

Population

(1000)

Total Area

(1000 ha)

FOWL

(1000 ha)

Forestland

(1000 ha)

FOWL/

Total Area

%

Forest Land/

Total Area

%

FOWL/

Capita

Original Forest

(1000 ha)

Forest/

Original Forest

%

Afghanistan

21354

65209

2614

1398

4.01

2.14

0.122

2679

52.18

Albania

3119

2729

1048

1030

38.40

37.74

0.336

2863

35.98

Algeria

30081

238174

3945

1861

1.66

0.78

0.131

36943

5.04

Angola

12092

124670

77198

22200

61.92

17.81

6.384

105994

20.94

Antigua and Barbuda

67

44

26

9

59.09

20.45

0.388

27

33.33

Argentina

36123

273669

50936

33942

18.61

12.40

1.410

109707

30.94

Armenia

3536

2820

334

334

11.84

11.84

0.094

1209

27.63

Australia

18520

764444

145613

40908

19.05

5.35

7.862

231470

17.67

Austria

8140

8254

3924

3840

47.54

46.52

0.482

7928

48.44

Azerbaijan

7669

8660

990

990

11.43

11.43

0.129

2981

33.21

Bahamas

296

1001

186

158

18.58

15.78

0.628

1363

11.59

Bangladesh

124774

13017

1472

1010

11.31

7.76

0.012

13648

7.40

Barbados

268

43

5

0

11.63

0.00

0.019

14

0.00

Belarus

10315

20700

8936

7865

43.17

38.00

0.866

19930

39.46

Belgium

10141

3025

672

646

22.21

21.36

0.066

2904

22.25

Belize

230

2280

2117

1962

92.85

86.05

9.204

2240

87.59

Benin

5781

11262

11497

4625

102.09

41.07

1.989

11591

39.90

Bhutan

2004

4700

3168

2756

67.40

58.64

1.581

3204

86.02

Bolivia

7957

108438

57977

48310

53.47

44.55

7.286

76979

62.76

Bosnia and Herzeovina

3675

5100

2710

2710

53.14

53.14

0.737

5173

52.39

Botswana

1570

56673

26561

13917

46.87

24.56

16.918

30404

45.77

Brazil

165851

845651

671921

551139

79.46

65.17

4.051

764739

72.07

British Virgin Islands

20

15

5

4

33.33

26.67

0.250

12

33.33

Brunei Darussalam

315

527

458

434

86.91

82.35

1.454

594

73.06

Bulgaria

8336

11019

3903

3590

35.42

32.58

0.468

10776

33.31

Burkina Faso

11305

27380

13813

4271

50.45

15.60

1.222

4436

96.28

Burundi

6457

2565

1314

317

51.23

12.36

0.204

1571

20.18

Cambodia

10716

17652

13724

9830

77.75

55.69

1.281

17713

55.50

Cameroon

14305

46540

35905

19598

77.15

42.11

2.510

46771

41.90

Canada

30563

915912

453300

244571

49.49

26.70

14.832

639148

38.27

Cayman Islands

36

26

7

0

26.92

0.00

0.194

28

0.00

Central African Republic

3485

62298

46754

29300

75.05

47.03

13.416

62287

47.04

Chad

7270

125920

32450

11025

25.77

8.76

4.464

52916

20.83

Chile

14824

74880

16583

7892

22.15

10.54

1.119

34727

22.73

China (including Taiwan)

1255698

932641

162029

133323

17.37

14.30

0.129

571664

23.32

Colombia

40803

103870

63231

52988

60.88

51.01

1.550

105629

50.16

Comoros

658

223

41

9

18.39

4.04

0.062

161

5.59

Congo

2785

34150

25285

19537

74.04

57.21

9.079

34304

56.95

Costa Rica

3841

5106

1569

1248

30.73

24.44

0.408

5125

24.35

Croatia

4481

5598

2105

1775

37.60

31.71

0.470

5526

32.12

Cuba

11116

10982

3262

1842

29.70

16.77

0.293

10969

16.79

Cyprus

771

924

280

140

30.30

15.15

0.363

1017

13.77

Czech Republic

10282

7735

2630

2630

34.00

34.00

0.256

7860

33.46

Côte d'Ivoire

14292

31800

18952

5469

59.60

17.20

1.326

31992

17.09

Dem. Republic of the Congo (Zaire)

49139

226760

166076

109245

73.24

48.18

3.380

227911

47.93

Denmark

5270

4253

538

445

12.65

10.46

0.102

4342

10.25

Djibouti

623

2318

1320

22

56.95

0.95

2.119

81

27.16

Dominica

71

75

50

46

66.67

61.33

0.704

61

75.41

Dominican Republic

8232

4838

1582

1582

32.70

32.70

0.192

4826

32.78

Ecuador

12175

27684

15576

11137

56.26

40.23

1.279

22222

50.12

Egypt

65978

99545

34

34

0.03

0.03

0.001

1018

3.34

El Salvador

6032

2072

890

105

42.95

5.07

0.148

2066

5.08

Equatorial Guinea

431

2805

2719

1781

96.93

63.49

6.309

2535

70.26

Eritrea

3577

10100

282

282

2.79

2.79

0.079

5677

4.97

Estonia

1429

4227

2011

2011

47.58

47.58

1.407

4249

47.33

Ethiopia

59649

100000

41991

13579

41.99

13.58

0.704

56950

23.84

Fiji

796

1827

859

835

47.02

45.70

1.079

2345

35.61

Finland

5154

30462

22605

21720

74.21

71.30

4.386

30546

71.11

France

58683

54325

16989

15156

31.27

27.90

0.290

53785

28.18

French Guyana

167

8815

8318

7990

94.36

90.64

49.808

8370

95.46

French Polynesia

227

366

115

0

31.42

0.00

0.507

18

0.00

Gabon

1167

25767

19966

17859

77.49

69.31

17.109

26511

67.36

Gambia

1229

1000

286

98

28.60

9.80

0.233

1145

8.56

Georgia

5059

6970

2988

2988

42.87

42.87

0.591

5344

55.91

Germany

82133

34934

10740

10740

30.74

30.74

0.131

34961

30.72

Ghana

19162

23002

18013

9022

78.31

39.22

0.940

23957

37.66

Greece

10600

12926

6513

3359

50.39

25.99

0.614

13253

25.35

Grenada

93

34

11

4

32.35

11.76

0.118

31

12.90

Guadeloupe

443

169

93

80

55.03

47.34

0.210

117

68.38

Guatemala

10801

10843

9465

3841

87.29

35.42

0.876

10777

35.64

Guinea

7337

24586

17484

6367

71.11

25.90

2.383

24562

25.92

Guinea-Bissau

1161

2812

2309

2309

82.11

82.11

1.989

3455

66.83

Guyana

850

19685

18755

18577

95.28

94.37

22.065

20058

92.62

Haiti

7952

2756

139

21

5.04

0.76

0.017

2711

0.77

Honduras

6147

11189

6054

4115

54.11

36.78

0.985

11351

36.25

Hungary

10116

9213

1811

1811

19.66

19.66

0.179

6985

25.93

Iceland

276

8844

130

30

1.47

0.34

0.471

3686

0.81

India

982223

297319

82648

65005

27.80

21.86

0.084

236396

27.50

Indonesia

206338

181157

145108

109791

80.10

60.61

0.703

189631

57.90

Iran

65758

163600

11437

1544

6.99

0.94

0.174

3221

47.94

Iraq

21800

43737

192

83

0.44

0.19

0.009

376

22.07

Ireland

3681

6890

591

591

8.58

8.58

0.161

6097

9.69

Israel

5984