ANNEX VI
GROUP WORK RESULTS

Working Group 1: Forest and Change Processes

Introduction

Our group considered options for harmonizing definitions of forests in relation to other land classes which have been developed under three distinct processes:

• FRA defines data on trees in the following categories: forest (including forest plantations), other wooded land, other land with trees outside forest.

• UNFCCC/KP is concerned mainly with measuring carbon and carbon stock changes and defines all areas within the defined parameters as forest.

• CBD is concerned primarily with biodiversity issues and appears to follow the FRA definition of forest with the exception that temporarily unstocked areas are not explicitly included. (See section 4.1.3).

Each has different purposes and as a consequence each has defined forests differently.

• All definitions include threshold parameters covering minimum area, minimum height, and crown cover.

• In the case of the UNFCCC/KP each of the threshold parameters has a range of optional values within which parties must choose a specific value; the other two specify the same fixed values.

• In addition the FRA specifies a minimum strip (stand) width and defines a maximum period for which a forest may remain temporarily unstocked.

The FRA and CBD definitions of forest include a predominant land use component. Lands where non forestry uses predominate are not classified as forest even where tree cover exceeds the threshold values of the other parameters. The UNFCCC/KP does not make this distinction.

See Figure.

There is a need to clarify the clause in FRA definition below:

"Predominantly forestry" within the FRA refers to forests that are used for purposes of production, protection, multiple use or conservation (i.e. forest in national parks, nature reserves and other protected areas), as well as forest stands on agricultural lands (that is, windbreaks and shelterbelts of trees with a width of more than 20m), and rubberwood plantations and cork oak stands. It excludes stands of trees established explicitly for agricultural production and agroforestry systems.)

Working Group 2: Change Processes Within Forest

LOGBOOK 1 - First Session 9/11/02

Introductory comments

• Objectives

• Options for harmonizing forest-related definitions are recommended

• Etc per handout

Agree

• Use Draft Analytical Paper as starting point - do not reinvent the wheel

• Also have Gyde Lund's papers as reference - newly compiled

• #3 - OK - Assess applicability

• #4 - Recommend...look at later

• Prefer to stay together as single group rather than subgroup

How to approach our task

• Find relevant terms in document

• Start with a hierarchy

• See Buchwald paper: Denmark example Appendix 1

- is a continuum - borders hard to determine - overlaps evident

- are political obligations attached to words already - do not create new problems

- obligations: Rio to European

- natural (primary and plantation)

Notes/Questions/Comments

- is degradation a topic here? Yes, due to various reasons

- envision three dimensional framework with management, naturalness and degradation as axes

- second working group may already be discussing this

- managed versus unmanaged - ideas regarding decision making, planning measures, managing for what (i.e. for watershed, biodiversity, forest products, area management, planning)

- legal aspect: in some areas need legal status to define a managed area

- if no approved plan, then is "unmanaged"

- do not invent new terms!

Begin: Term by Term

Discuss the management terms first: Natural Forest, Undisturbed Forest, Primary Forest, Old Growth Forest, Secondary Forest, Semi-Natural Forest, Degraded Forest, Forest Plantation

I. NATURAL FOREST - SEMI-NATURAL FOREST - PLANTATION CONTINUUM

1. Natural Forest: page 30, 39, 40

Discussion Issues

• where the breakpoints are
• whether terms are applied at forest or stand level
• whether species need to be indigenous or not
• whether assisted regeneration is included in natural forest definition, along with "natural" regeneration

Discussion Points

Is it a natural forest if a mid-succession stage is maintained? For example: Is a climax beech forest but maintain the oak? Does this differ from a man-made (plantation) versus natural?

Most general definition: "indigenous trees not planted by man" page 30

• may not know, or be able to determine
• more generally, is used simply to differentiate versus plantation
• but in Europe, where is the boundary
• differentiate between natural, natural planted, semi-natural versus plantation
• can also plant indigenous trees
• does naturalness equal unmanaged?

Need a reason for the definition first

• so far, this repeats prior debates: FAO, WB, Rio looked to the origin
• natural seed fall versus planted
• if planted, is not a natural forest anymore
• plantation associated only with afforestation? i.e. newly forested lands?
• confusions: naturalness, management, degradation

Why is definition of natural needed?

• to distinguish versus plantations
• continuum within natural: e.g. old-growth is highly managed, but still natural
• The is political aspect: natural implies "better"?

Should we keep the idea of semi-natural?

• example European: 200 year old plantations now considered "natural"; has biodiversity, and more natural characteristics
• tropical: plantations distinct - but also have enrichment planting

Native forest versus natural forest: differentiates between native species or not

• Planted forests may now have conservation status and value

Natural: to include indigenous species plus natural processes of regeneration dominate

• Natural regeneration - guided or non-guided - with human-intervention is still natural

Don't lose track of objective

• Recall Appendix 1 (Buchwald) document - point is to distinguish from plantations
• Recall FAO: Indigenous trees, not planted by man - i.e. forests excluding plantations
• Recall use of definition for reporting purposes: Task is to examine the range, and comment on the utility of the term for general international reporting. In terms of data collection, is complicated. Should this definition be used for reporting?

­ plantations connote wood production, little biodiversity
­ needed in climate context
­ huge range in natural forest: only need more specificity for CBD

2. Forest Plantation

Discussion Issues

• Plantations are a subset of planted forests

• What management objectives are included in plantation definitions: Just for wood products, or for other products (e.g. oil palm), or also for environmental services (wind breaks, soil stabilization etc.)

• How to categorize more mature plantations - Do we need the term "semi-natural" for plantations that take on more natural characteristics over time

Discussion Points

• Try discussion from the other direction: Definition of "plantation" - page 30

o FAO
o ITTO
o UNEP

• Continue to think in terms of three dimensions

o Naturalness
o Management
o Degradation

Notes/Questions/Comments

- Distinguish between planted forests versus plantations

- Plantation: connotes structure (e.g. even aged, even spacing, 1 - 2 species per FAO);

- is a subset of planted forests

- "Management intent": should it be included?

- is plantation just for wood production? Or also for watershed protection?

- is it worth reporting? Hard to determine

- plantations may have several good functions: e.g. planting for land stabilization vs. sliding, downstream community protection; could be introduced species

- similarly: plantations for dune stabilization;

- But: primary intent is not wood production, so would not fall under FAO

- Better: leave management intent as a subset of plantation

- "Secondary Forest" concept needed? (in UNEP definition)

- but this definition is different from how used elsewhere

- little value added

- Suggest: CBD adopt FAO definition

- and FAO add ITTO concept

- ITTO broader, shorter, more open to interpretation

- would be useful to have distinction between plantations for "wood production" versus other uses; recognizing that is more difficult to report

- FRA has gaps

- FAO includes afforestation and reforestation, which are loaded terms - but aren't all plantations either afforestation or reforestation anyway?

3. Semi-Natural Forest

Notes/Questions/Comments

- "Semi-natural" - is included again in FAO

- Do we really need to retain this term?

- Natural: indigenous, natural processes of regeneration, even if with human intervention

- Forget about semi-natural

- But: old plantations take on characteristics of natural over time, so need to keep the intermediate category. For example France: keeps 40 yrs as definition of plantation, after that is considered "semi-natural"

- Problem: the term semi-natural becomes a catchall - only Great Britain and France use it consistently. Problematic when used globally

- FRA: uses semi-natural within natural - but only sometimes....need another word?

- Age class system of categorizing is diminishing

- Clearcutting is phasing out in Europe, so don't get age class system anymore

- Boreal systems: is natural regeneration through fire - so clearcutting would mimic the fire process

- Keep semi-natural to imply human intervention?

Hierarchy Options

• Natural
• Semi-natural
• Plantation

Or

• Natural
• Untouched
• Semi-natural
• Plantation

Or

• Planted - ITTO
• Natural - FAO and FRA

- Discussion: Re: "secondary forest" concept (according to CBD)? - probably not at this point; can leave out here and it reads the same way

- *So, leave out word "secondary" in CBD? Stay with the FAO plantation

- Enrichment?

- "Natural" still retains natural regeneration at core

Recommendation

• Add to FAO: natural forests are (dominated by) naturally regenerated forests (largely or solely/uniquely composed?) of indigenous (define?) trees. (Still needs work)

• leave out "secondary" concept in CBD; Stay with the FAO plantation definition

(But: this is yet another definition)

- Land use aspects: If clearcut for agriculture, versus for wood production, and the forest comes back naturally, is it a "natural secondary forest"?

- secondary forest is clearly a natural forest

Conclusion

• Do need natural versus planted distinction:
• Reason: CBD needs it
• For KP: Is it still a question. The risk is replacement of natural stands with fast growing plantations
• But need to revisit under discussion of managed versus natural

Page 39- 41 - Primary, Undisturbed, Old Growth, Secondary, Degraded Primary

See: Figure 3 Blaser paper- largely appropriate structure

But - need separate evaluation of fire adapted systems. Fire not always a negative impact. Definitions need to address issue of forest condition when the natural fire regime is suppressed. Fuel build-up, excess stems per acre lead to "unnatural" conditions

Return to page 39:

1. Old Growth:

- where is it used in international conventions? Is it useful to CBD? No requirement to report at this time
- has political implications
- has biodiversity connotations
- is a specific successional state; other successional states also have value
- is it included within Primary?
- is it needed as specific class if only calls out certain characteristics, and alone does not sustain the ecosystem
- is it needed as a subset?
- there are some very good definitions that exist

2. "Primary versus Secondary"

- What about "Managed Primary"? (no)

- if primary = undisturbed by man, then there's not much of it

See: ITTO definitions - Blaser Table 1 as relevant to tropical forests

If we have a definition of "primary" forest, do we need a separate definition for "natural" forest?

- time dimension of 60 years?
- FRA page 39 "natural undisturbed by man" is equivalent for primary and old growth?
- Traditional lifestyles
- Don't need distinction between undisturbed and primary

Summary

• undisturbed and primary - don't need distinction
• primary forest is a subset of natural forests
• primary can be any age if disturbed by natural processes, i.e. not affected by human intervention
• old growth - is a subset of primary forest

Homework

• still need primary versus secondary discussion
• old growth as a subset?
• forest condition: do we need degradation?
• look at pg. 40-41
• management, degradation and naturalness as dimensions
• then tackle managed versus non-managed
• review Erik's table

Use three dimensions to assess these definitions: naturalness, management, and degradation

1. Natural, semi-natural and plantation terms

- Natural versus planted forests
- Preferred definitions of each:
- FRA: for "natural forests" with some modifications (bring text)

Planted forest definitions of ITTO

These are largely compatible

2. Still need the concept of ¨semi-natural" forest

- Concept of naturalness is related to regeneration

- Within planted forests: allow for semi-natural versus more intensively managed plantation

3. Dealt with primary, undisturbed - essentially equivalent

4. Old growth: See as subset of primary but needs more thinking as to what level to consider - in some counties is important and should not be lost, even if hard to apply

Summary

• undisturbed and primary - don't need distinction
• primary forest is a subset of natural forests
• primary can be any age if disturbed by natural processes, i.e. not affected by human intervention
• old growth - is a subset of primary forest

LOGBOOK 2 - September 12, 2002

1. Review proposed Framework - structure for management terms starting with natural versus planted

2. Review: Definitions related to degraded forests versus secondary - page 41

Discussion Issues

• What is the relationship between degradation and secondary forests

• Important concept in defining degradation involves resilience and elastic capacity to return to prior conditions. However, as noted by other Working Groups, resilience is operationally very difficult to measure

Discussion Points

• ITTO: degraded primary versus secondary forest (secondary = new succession)
• CBD: old forest etc - not that different
• Q: is secondary always related to some form of degradation?
• depends on forest type: heavy logging may not end up in degradation, but others could be - at least within reasonable time
• depends on definition of degradation: in soil type? In biodiversity? For example in Europe forests have been simplified
• look at work in prior meetings re degradation: pages 19 - 23 - do not revisit - related to provision of services
• ITTO: distinguishes between sustainable versus non sustainable, and relates to stand conditions and functions
• figure A: Useful construction (p. 41)
• Split FRA along lines of the ITTO definition
• Need box within FRA reflecting sustainable mgmt

Notes/Questions/Comments

- Box 4.5 (p. 19): CBD suggests if regeneration after large natural fire - is not degraded; versus forest that has been logged
- Also not valid: p 40 CBD "Secondary forest logged and recovered naturally or artificially"
- Secondary forest more used in tropical context
- Suggest: CBD use existing definitions elsewhere for Secondary, not invent new one
- semi-natural concept may be more useful
- Example of cleared for agriculture, abandoned, then forest recovered = Secondary
- And: Existing forest, logged, then regenerates to same type = Case A

Existing, logged, then regenerates to different type = Case B

- CBD developed the definition to relate to biodiversity, but could be substituted for a better definition
- Q: In ITTO Secondary definition: Woody vegetation "re-growing"on land... - Implies natural, not artificial. Would be a "planted" forest
- Aerial seeding with native seeds = still is Natural Forest in Australia - but is grey zone?
- Q: Can "regrowing" be enhanced by human activities
- is distinction bet management versus restoration of degraded forest
- in Secondary, do intervene - example balsa: work towards goal of maintaining it - but do not plant. - Use natural regeneration capacity of the vegetation

Recommend

• that CBD use the ITTO Secondary definition. But instead of "re-growing", substitute "regenerated naturally" - to read:

"Secondary forest = woody vegetation regenerated naturally on land that was totally (or at least 90%) cleared of its original forest vegetation< BR > - why not delete "totally"

Primary + secondary = natural

Versus Managed

- Not sure how UNEP 2001 fits with p. 54 January definition: did it change? Different generations of 2001 work?
- e.g. logged versus widely disturbed
- Q: does secondary forest derive only from primary forest? What about former plantation moving to secondary? Is there a time dimension?
- A: no, derives from any type of forest
- Secondary is predominantly used and appropriate in tropical context; time not important. Species composition is key.
- "regrowth forests" used in boreal
- Secondary tends to be even aged

See ITTO: Table 1: Major differences between the three major categories of degraded and secondary forests

• Use degraded primary and secondary columns
• Place into our framework in the natural forest column
• Still need to deal with managed column
• But secondary can also be managed
• Q: is age a factor?
• A key factor in secondary is species composition? But not as relevant as how it was established
• Differentiate with primary: example tropical dominated by wildfire and regenerated in native species
• ITTO primary versus secondary: Are not consistent with other conventions which use human disturbance as determinant - How far does primary extend?
• FRA: reports on forest destroyed per year - but what about regrowth? So, used concept of Secondary

3. Visit terms related to MANAGED FORESTS vs. UNMANAGED: p. 23 in Draft Analytical Framework

See: Table 4.3 of parameters (this topic more developed in draft analytical framework than others)

• First: be clear what you're managing for: wood products, biodiversity, watershed protection, soil stabilization, managing the "forest"
• Suggest: We're talking about managing the "forest"

Box 4.6: Different viewpoints:

• Don't see major inconsistencies bet. FAO, ITTO,UNFCC, IPCC - vary only by depth of detail

o ITTO - OK
o FAO: adds other wooded land
o ITTO: adds changes in species composition

• On forest management question: are we talking about management for wood? Or mgmt of forest land to provide a range of goods and services - e.g. a range of biodiversity functions

o ITTO: doesn't address management of planted forest
o IPCC: more process oriented, not status
o Differentiate bet Sustainable versus Unsustainable management

- ITTO: Implies some degree of degradation and spp change "have resulted in changes to forest structure and spp composition": but could retain the same spp composition and still be managed

- Need a time dimension: clearcut and no followup - is that "management"
FAO - no reference to sustainability; ITTO does

-What about Management Planning: Is this management? Or, just focus on forest management that produces products? Eg National parks not "managed for products"- but do have a management Plan designating uses and activities (e.g. recreation, fire protection)

Response: There are 2 schools - we won't answer this issue here

ITTO takes Primary first, then defines Mgmt of other services like wildlife -

If Primary vs. Managed: always have change in structure

e.g. Chilean forests: are mapped, have the information to start management, but haven't started yet.

- For what purpose are we classifying? To focus on the fact of a decision being made with some objective? Or the physical alteration itself?

- In carbon context: Definition related to establishing a credit. UNFCC definition is meant to be neutral (?)

ITTO - focuses only on natural forest mgmt

- Forest Management versus Managed Forests

- also possible subcategory: "Forest available for wood supply" = area used for timber production

- Public wants to know this

- Managed forest is land subject to forest management as described in UNFCCC

- If UNFCC is chosen, then foresters will still need their terms for forest operations and mgmt planning. Can do forest operations without a systematic, adopted plan.

- Propose: similar to existing framework approach: divide into management with vs. without a plan, and where logging can take place

- Legality an aspect: for loan, certification, incentives - need to have a legally approved plan first to qualify.

- In German: the word Management doesn't exist - relationship to "Administration" term; French and Spanish too: e.g. gestion vs. manejo. FAO allows for formal versus informal plan

- Carbon credit context: Only when improvement in carbon? (No baseline in 1^st commitment period). All managed forests can be considered for carbon credit, but need an improvement. If consider parks with no logging, can still result in increase in carbon stock - so broad definition of mgmt is acceptable

- In attempt to harmonize and simplify: If UNFCCC is good definition, then can do away with the others. Still need to consider whether sustainability dimension is included.

- Still need to define "unmanaged" and "protected areas"; also good idea, "area availability for wood supply" - and for recreation, wildlife.... at a second and third level

- Reporting: protected areas were reported separately

- Possible dimensions in terms of framework: Unmanaged versus Mgmt - then subdivisions within management. Still have the 2 schools: with a plan, with or without planting, etc Secondary can be managed or unmanaged; protected area management; carbon mgmt; adoption of formal versus informal plan (legality aspect); tropics versus non-tropics; is extensive fuelwood extraction management;

- Unmanaged? Free-range, communal forest (=unmanaged or managed?) vs. forest protected by law.

- Include dimension of Formal versus informal planning - traditional community/family plan versus formally adopted, administrative plan - what counts? Eg France: 42%formal plan versus 70%informal plan. But "informal plan" casts a big net

4. Consider now: UNMANAGED term

- Do we need a definition of unmanaged? It makes no sense. There is nothing left that is "unmanaged" - decisions are made for almost all areas of globe -

- Area with no management = only remote areas of boreal Russia or Canada left

- Adding term "sustainable" just adds a "straight jacket" - can never agree on a definition

- Obligations for this term come from context of carbon: There were attempts to define categories of management, but was abandoned, and this was final compromise. One of countries wanting an Unmanaged term was related to problem of fires - didn't want to be responsible for that impact

- Is it possible to change UNFCCC to deal with sustainable term? How and when to assess sustainability?

Challenge: formulating and formalizing relationships across categories

-e.g. is all planted forest managed?

5. Still struggling with "Managed Forests"

Proposal: Are all planted forests Managed Forests?

Review ITTO graphic Figure 3 re Formation of Forest types

- Management refers to some series of activities

- Is timber extraction a managed forest? May be unsustainable or not

Issue: UNFCCC concepts

- supposed to be a neutral objective

- Good Practice Guidance needs to show how to implement in practice

- Countries will need to determine individually if practices are sustainable in their own terms

- Here we could ID issues left for resolution

Options:

- Should Notion of Sustainability be incorporated into Management definition?

Nested concept

Scheme 1

-Managed versus Unmanaged = Intervention versus Non intervention

Managed with plan vs. without plan

Managed only for wood versus other environmental services

-Sustainable versus non-sustainable

Another scheme:

Intervention (= Management?) = Suite of Practices?

Unplanned, uncontrolled versus Planned, Controlled

But is there such a thing as an "unplanned intervention" - since have made a decision with forethought

e.g.: community fruit taking in forests; cork oak in Portugal - traditional

Still the fundamental issue of the Planning dimension - does taking a decision mean it is managed?; and, do you need to have a person as a manager?

Kyoto context:

"Forest land management is parallel to crop land management is parallel to grazing land management"

But: there is issue that "Forest Land" (as a legal designation) is not necessarily = "Forested Land" (relating to tree cover) -

So, we abandoned this path

Back to Options, pg. 24

-can management include non-intervention or not

Still stuck on fundamental issue

Keenan Scheme: See easel graphic "Proposal 1"

Buchwald Scheme: See easel graphic "Proposal 2"

How does FAO FRA deal with issue of "Management"?

Peter Holmgren's comments:

- "Managed or not" is no longer a very useful concept:

- Essentially, all forests now left in world have had some sort of a management decision made about them

More useful construct: What is the management objective?

-then, What kind of plan is it, esp. in terms of wood production? Formal versus informal plan; approved or not approved by some authority; written by RPF vs. small landowner plan in his head; - varies by locality. Existence of plan is critical

-then, FRA wants to use the Criteria to subdivide:

e.g. How much is managed for protective functions, production functions, and social functions

And what is the trend over time?

And is it sustainably managed or not?

Illegal logging then is "management" - but not good management; not consistent

Consider Reporting feasibility:

-Make use of 50-80 years of existing data

Proposal: Recommend a new definition for the FRA that is reasonably consistent with UNFCCC (Keenan suggestion)

Proposal:

Forest management is the process of evaluating options, deciding, and implementing practices for {stewardship and <-- in Kyoto} use of forest aimed at fulfilling {relevant - in Kyoto} ecological, economic and social functions of the forest.

For example, this can include production of wood and non-wood forest products, biodiversity conservation, soil conservation or watershed protection.

{ Management can be controlled and undertaken in accordance with an agreed code of practice or certification process, or uncontrolled where the continued flow of goods and services may not be sustained.}

Options

- eliminate second paragraph

- or expand to include more exhaustive list

- Insert: "the process for evaluating options",

- FRA: includes unsustainable management

- UNFCCC: does not include " "

- Message: Management is controlled or uncontrolled

- Watershed protection versus protective?

- {} - include or not

- Is it possible to determine if management is sustainable or not when doing reporting?

- Add in "goods and services"

- Montreal, Pan European, ITTO versions.... FAO didn't have one

Another Proposal: ITTO version - Relevant to Tropical Forests

Definition of Managed Forests

- Managed Forests: Land subject to forest management (UNFCCC 2001)

- Forest management is the process of considering options, deciding and implementing practices for stewardship and multiple use of forest aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological, economic and social functions of the forest.

- Forest Management:

Forest management is the process of managing forest to achieve one or more clearly specified objectives with regard to the production of a continuous flow of desired forest goods and services.

We need to harmonize our own proposals: basic goal is to define the Area of management

Summary Comments:

- We still disagree on the issue of whether or not "Managed versus Unmanaged" is a useful concept

- Peter's approach: Managed or not is no longer a very useful concept:

- Essentially, all forests now left in world have had some sort of a management decision made about them

- But the concept of "Managed vs. Unmanaged" is ingrained and has strong defenders

- Need 3 classes

1) Unmanaged, undisturbed by man

2) Sustainably managed - monitoring component may be important

3) Disturbed by humans, but cannot say if is sustainably managed or not

- Need the concept of Planning Actions

- The existence of planned intentions characterizes a Managed forest

- Plan can be either a written and registered document - or in a landowners head (FRA says formal or informal plan)

- Planned actions must be "legal" to be considered as management

Issues raised by Other Workgroups

1. Plantations-Plantations are forests - yes or no

2. Degraded Forest

- Degraded forests don't exist - yes or no - since elastic capacity of forest ecosystem has been altered cannot restore original condition/regenerate to

- Term of "degradation" denotes process, but is not very useful for forest, they are a continuum (undisturbed, modified etc)

ITTO Box B pg. 40: Degraded primary forest refers to a specific situation with reference

- Replacement of endemic species is an indicator of degradation

RECOMMENDATIONS re: MANAGED vs. UNMANAGED FORESTS

1. Managed Forests are lands subject to forest management. Globally, nearly all forests have been subject to some form of human decision-making with regard to their management.

2. We generally support this definition which is slightly modified from UNFCCC (2001):

"Forest management is the process of planning and implementing practices for stewardship and use of the forest aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological, economic and social functions of the forest.

(Add from ITTO): For example, this can include production of wood and non-wood forest products, biodiversity conservation, soil conservation or watershed protection."

-Also include? Does this clarify?:

"Planning involves identifying goals and objectives, evaluating options, and deciding etc...

"Management can be sustainable or unsustainable. Ideally, all forests should be managed sustainably. Management can be controlled and undertaken in accordance with an agreed code of practice or certification process, or uncontrolled where the continued flow of goods and services may not be sustained."

3. The word Sustainable should be added to the UNFCCC definition of Forest Management if UNFCC does not change their definition to conform to Recommendation #2

4. FRA should develop a typology for Management Objectives as a basis for reporting on the status of areas under different kinds of forest management

5. FRA should consider adopting Recommendation #2 definition

ANNEX 1

Box 1: Categories of Forests in the Tropics²⁸

Table 1: Major differences between the three major categories of degraded and secondary forests

ANNEX 2

RELATED DEFINITIONS FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND PROCESSES

Primary forest

Old-growth forest

Degraded (primary) forest

Secondary forest

Degraded forest land

Forest degradation

Deforestation

Reforestation

Afforestation

Forest improvement

Working Group 4: Forest Classification and the International Process

There is a great variety of forests worldwide. To study, assess or manage them many classifications have been, or continue to be developed. They depend on the objectives and geographic levels (from global to local) of the study/assessment/management of forests and on the tools being used (e.g. remote sensing).

With regard to the ongoing international processes two main issues related to forest classification are identified:

1. do these processes need differentiated definitions (incl. thresholds) of the core terms (forests, afforestation, reforestation, deforestation, degradation) per forest class (yes (Y) or no (N) in the third column of the matrix below); and,

2. do these processes need forest classification systems for their implementation (yes (Y) or no (N) in the forth column of the matrix below).

It is recognised that for the sake of reporting consistency among countries and over time, and to facilitate data compilation, there should be one global definition for each core term (with the possible exception of degradation; see also footnote 3), but countries are/should be free to report on more disaggregated levels. It is also recognised that different processes may need, in addition to the global definition, qualifiers to describe aspects specific to their objectives. In choosing classification systems and definitions the feasibility for countries to collect and analyse the data required should be taken into account.

Re. 1: the third column of the matrix shows there is no need for differentiation of the definitions of the core terms by forest class for the various processes, with the possible exception of the term degradation (see footnote 3 in the matrix).

Re. 2: currently some of the international processes use forest classification systems in their work. In the forth column it is indicated that there is scope for all processes to use forest classifications. Conclusions and recommendations on the general use of forest classifications by the international processes (as distinct from the specific use for differentiation of definitions) are:

4. All processes to use as a first order classification the FAO global ecological zoning, which is based on a higher hierarchical level on domains (tropical, subtropical, temperate, boreal, polar).

5. A further breakdown in forest types may be desirable for some of the processes but is not necessary for others.

6. A possible additional level or classification could be based on forest function: production, protection, ecology, social, historic, spiritual.

Matrix

^a For instance: the minimum crown cover for tropical rainforest is X% and for boreal coniferous forest Y%.

Two additional more specific recommendations were identified.

a) Currently in the FRA areas that are "temporarily unstocked" (for whatever reason) are included in the area statistics for different land categories. However, such areas can be significant. Therefore, ideally such figures should be provided separately; and,

b) Original country data and definitions provided in national reporting should be used in synthesis reports and data sources should be available to illustrate where the processed data come from.

Follow-up steps

• Request the UNFF, FAO, CCD, CBD, and FCCC to jointly explore the possibility of adopting one common first order forest classification system as the basis for reporting.

• In doing so, contributions could be made by CPF members and other international/regional organisations and/or bodies such as IUFRO, IPCC, etc.

• Feed the outcome of this harmonization process into the various processes, not just by circulating the brief but by organising session in the margins of e.g. negotiation sessions.

• Requests Parties to the international processes through their own appropriate communication channels to ensure good coordination at the national level between stakeholders of all the international processes.

• Request the secretariat of the harmonization process to be involved in the work of the various processes on the issue of degradation to ensure appropriate consideration of the concerns expressed in the meeting.

• Request all Parties to the FCCC, through the secretariat of the FCCC, to invite comments on the drafts of the Good Practice Guidance and Inventory Guidelines, due December 2002 and spring 2003, of representatives of the other international processes to ensure that this document does not preclude or impair the harmonization process.

Suggestions to the organizers in preparing their report

• Terms used in the report of the meeting should be clearly referenced, explained, described, defined (provide glossary).

• Have a separate short and concise summary brief in addition to the proceedings of the meeting.

• Circulate reports extensively amongst workshop participant before finalizing them.

Working Group 5: Forest Definitions - Special needs and requirements of countries with low forest cover and unique types of forest (LFCCs)³⁸

• General forest definitions agreed upon as applicable to all countries and types of forest will also apply to LFCCs. For example, FAO definitions applied in FRA would apply equally to LFCCs

• Trees outside forests (TOF) play a large and significant role in LFCCs. Therefore special attention should be given to the inclusion of TOF in national forest assessments in LFCCs. Failing to do so would give a wrong picture of the importance of woody vegetation in terms of energy, biological diversity, carbon sequestration, contribution to sustainable livelihoods, etc.

• The classification (labelling) of a country as a low forest cover country may have political implications that cannot be foreseen at the moment. For example, if a country is labelled as a LFCC would this lead to restrictions for the international marketing of forest products including non-timber forest products (NWFPs), would it increase chances of receiving financial and/or technical assistance, would it increase/reduce opportunities for support from the GEF, the World Bank, The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, etc.

• Until further clarification is gained on the above and as a "working definition" LFCCs have generally accepted that if forest cover - as defined by FRA2000 - is less than 10% of the country's territory, then the country can be considered a LFCC.

• Forest classifications according to Ecological Domain, Ecological Zones, and Forest Types are valid also for LFCCs. However, because in many cases there will be very little forest left to actually manage, it is essential to introduce a further dimension, i.e. Process. The "process" classification would describe the reasons for the present situation, and could include the following: desertification (due to human impact or climate change); urbanization; overuse (overgrazing, overcutting, etc.); regeneration; migration; etc.

• There is a need to consider fragile ecosystems (arid lands, mountains) in LFCCs as well as unique types of forests.

• The working group considers that there is a need for further work on forest definitions in relation to LFCCs both in the context of follow-up to the Second Expert Meeting and in the context of the Tehran Process.

²⁸ The terms used in these Guidelines are based on ITTO forest categories (see also Appendix 8).

²⁹ Forests that are used by indigenous and local communities with traditional lifestyles consistent with the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity are included in this category (Convention on Biological Diversity).

³⁰ For instance, within one forest domain various carbon content values could/should be available for the different forest vegetation structures within that domain.

³¹ As far as the CCD is concerned no systematic reporting on land degradation seems to be contemplated at this stage; only general guidelines on information collection, analysis and exchange are provided in article 16.

³² In the analytical framework document it is stated that the CBD uses definition of ecosystem but that this is hard to apply as basis for forest classification.

³³ No clear view whether a definition for degradation would call for differentiation of this definition per forest class.

³⁴ Definitions are set for the first commitment period (2008-2012) when or if the Kyoto Protocol comes into force. This question is answered with possible future commitment periods in mind.

³⁵ Country reporting is voluntary and the process of monitoring, assessment and reporting is not clearly defined yet.

³⁶ Yes, when using C&I.

³⁷ IUFRO has no reporting obligation but has a mandate to harmonise research terminology using concept-oriented approach.

³⁸ With reference to the Tehran Process and the Tehran Declaration, Tehran, October 1999.