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:
- Low timber trade to countries with high trade
- Ratio of open forest to closed forest
- Ratio of coppice forest to high forest
- Ratio of areas with short trees to areas with tall
trees
- The ratio of forest (or forest and other wooded
lands (FOWL)) to total land area
- Areas where lack of forest cover is damaging ecological
process
- The ratio of forest or FOWL to original
forestland
- The ratio of forest or FOWL per capita
- 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:
- Having least 25 percent of the total land area
forested.
- 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".
- Using FAO's definition of forest, a low forest cover
country is one that has less than 7 % of its land area forested
- 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 |
|
| |