Global Forest Resources - Member States Portal

The designations employed and the presentation of material in thisinformation product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoeveron the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, cityor area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers,whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these havebeen endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similarnature that are not mentioned.ISBN 978-92-5-106654-6All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination ofmaterial in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorizedfree of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercialpurposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications forpermission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and allqueries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail tocopyright@fao.org or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch,Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO,Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.© FAO 2010

iiiContentsAcknowledgementsForewordAcronyms and abbreviationsExecutive summaryxxixiixiiiChapter 1. Introduction 1The reporting framework 2The scope of FRA 2010 3The process 5The outputs 8Chapter 2. Extent of forest resources 9Overview 9Key findings 10Key conclusions 11Forest area and forest area change 11Forest characteristics 23Selected forest types and species groups 27Growing stock 35Biomass 41Carbon stock 44Chapter 3. Forest biological diversity 49Overview 49Key findings 50Key conclusions 51Area of primary forests 52Forest area designated for conservation of biological diversity 56Area of forest in protected areas 59Tree species composition 62Chapter 4. Forest health and vitality 65Overview 65Key findings 66Key conclusions 67Insects and diseases 67Forest fires 74Other disturbances 80Chapter 5. Productive functions of forest resources 85Overview 85Key findings 85Key conclusions 86Areas designated for productive functions 87Planted forests 90

ivAfforestation and reforestation 95Removals of wood products 100Removals of non-wood forest products 103Chapter 6. Protective functions of forest resources 109Overview 109Key findings 109Key conclusions 109Forest area designated for protective purposes 110Chapter 7. Socio-economic functions of forest resources 119Overview 119Key findings 119Key conclusions 121Ownership and management rights 121Public expenditure and revenue collection 127Value of wood and non-wood forest product removals 136Employment 143Area of forest designated for social services 146Chapter 8. Legal, policy and institutional framework 149Overview 149Key findings 149Key conclusions 150Policy and legal framework 150Institutional framework 154Education and research 158Chapter 9. Progress towards sustainable forest management 163Introduction 163Status of forest management 163Progress towards sustainable forest management 168Chapter 10. Conclusions 187Scope and coverage of FRA 2010 187The FRA 2010 process 189Progress towards sustainable forest management 191Next steps 193Bibliography 195Annexes 199Annex 1: Contributors 199Annex 2: Terms and definitions used in FRA 2010 209Annex 3: Global tables 217Annex 4: FRA 2010 working papers 327Annex 5: FRA 2010 meetings and workshops 331Annex 6: Earlier global assessments 333

vTables1.1 FRA 2010 reporting tables and links to the thematic elements of sustainableforest management 41.2 Key statistics for regions and subregions used in FRA 2010 62.1 Distribution of forests by region and subregion, 2010 132.2 High forest cover countries, 2010 142.3 Forest cover by region and subregion, 2010 152.4 Annual change in forest area by region and subregion, 1990–2010 182.5 Ten countries with largest annual net loss of forest area, 1990–2010 212.6 Ten countries with largest annual net gain in forest area, 1990–2010 212.7 Comparison of forest area estimates in FRA 2010 and FRA 2005 222.8 Trends in area of mangroves by region and subregion, 1990–2010 302.9 Trends in area of bamboo by country and region, 1990–2010 312.10 Trends in area of rubber plantations by country and region, 1990–2010 332.11 Growing stock by region and subregion, 2010 352.12 Growing stock of commercial species by region and subregion, 2010 372.13 Trends in growing stock in forest by region and subregion, 1990–2010 382.14 Trends in growing stock composition by region and subregion,1990–2010 392.15 Trends in growing stock of commercial species by region andsubregion, 1990–2010 402.16 Trends in growing stock in other wooded land by region andsubregion, 1990–2010 402.17 Biomass and dead wood stock by region and subregion, 2010 422.18 Biomass conversion and expansion factor, root–shoot ratio anddead–live ratio by region and subregion, 2010 422.19 Trends in total biomass in forests by region and subregion, 1990–2010 432.20 Trends in dead wood stocks by region and subregion, 1990–2010 442.21 Carbon stock in forest by region and subregion, 2010 452.22 Trends in carbon stocks in forest biomass by region and subregion,1990–2010 462.23 Trends in carbon stocks in dead wood and litter combined, by regionand subregion, 1990–2010 472.24 Trends in carbon stocks in forest soil by region and subregion,1990-2010 482.25 Trends in total carbon stocks in forests, 1990–2010 483.1 Area of primary forest by region and subregion, 2010 533.2 Ten countries with the highest percentage of primary forest, 2010 543.3 Trends in area of primary forest by region and subregion, 1990–2010 553.4 Area of forest designated for conservation of biodiversity by regionand subregion, 2010 573.5 Trends in area of forest designated for conservation of biodiversityby region and subregion, 1990–2010 583.6 Area of forest in protected areas by region and subregion, 2010 603.7 Trends in area of forest in protected areas by region and subregion,1990–2010 613.8 Growing stock of the ten most common species as a percentage of totalgrowing stock by region and subregion, 2005 634.1 Average area of forest annually affected by insects by region andsubregion, 2005 70

vi4.2 Average area of forest annually affected by diseases by region andsubregion, 2005 704.3 Trends in area of forest annually affected by insects by region andsubregion, 1990–2005 734.4 Trends in area of forest annually affected by diseases by region,1990–2005 734.5 Ten most prevalent insect pests reported 744.6 Most prevalent pathogens reported 744.7 Average area of forest annually affected by fire by region andsubregion, 2005 754.8 Trends in area of forest annually affected by fire by region andsubregion, 1990–2005 774.9 Most prevalent woody invasive species reported 825.1 Area of forest designated for production by region and subregion,2010 885.2 Trends in area of forest designated for production by region and subregion,1990–2010 895.3 Area of planted forests by region and subregion, 2010 915.4 Use of introduced species in planted forests by region and subregion, 2010 925.5 Trends in area of planted forests by region and subregion, 1990–2010 945.6 Country reporting on afforestation and reforestation by region, 2005 955.7 Afforestation and reforestation by region and subregion, 2005 965.8 Use of introduced species in afforestation and reforestation, 2005 975.9 Trends in afforestation and reforestation by region and subregion,2000 –2005 995.10 Wood removals by region and subregion, 2005 1015.11 Trends in wood removals by region and subregion, 1990–2005 1026.1 Area of forest designated for protection of soil and water, 2010 1116.2 Ten countries with the highest proportion of forest area designatedfor protection of soil and water, 2010 1146.3 Trends in area of forest designated for protection of soil and waterby region and subregion, 1990–2010 1157.1 Forest ownership by region, 2005 1227.2 Forest revenue collection by region, 2005 1287.3 Public expenditure on forestry by region, 2005 1297.4 Sources and uses of public expenditure on forestry by region, 2005 1317.5 Trends in forest revenue collection by region, 2000–2005 1347.6 Trends in public expenditure on forestry by region, 2000–2005 1357.7 Number of countries reporting value of wood removals by region, 2005 1377.8 Total value of wood and NWFP removals by region, 2005 1387.9 Value of NWFP removals by category and region, 2005 1407.10 Countries reporting on value of wood removals by region, 1990,2000 and 2005 1417.11 Trends in value of wood removals by region, 1990–2005 1427.12 Number of people employed in forestry by region, 2005 1457.13 Trends in number of people employed in forestry by region,1990–2005 1457.14 Area of forest designated for social services by region andsubregion, 2010 147

vii8.1 Number of countries with a national forest policy, NFP and nationalforest law by region and subregion, 2008 1528.2 First level of subordination of the head of forestry to minister 1568.3 Human resource levels per unit of forest area 2008 and changesbetween 2000 and 2008 1569.1 Area of permanent forest estate by region and subregion, 2010 1649.2 Trends in area of permanent forest estate by region and subregion,1990–2010 1659.3 Area of forest with a management plan by region and subregion, 2010 1669.4 Trends in area of forest with a management plan by region and subregion,1990–2010 1669.5 Progress towards sustainable forest management at the global level,1990–2010 1719.6 Progress towards sustainable forest management in Africa, 1990–2010 1739.7 Progress towards sustainable forest management in Asia, 1990–2010 1759.8 Progress towards sustainable forest management in Europe, 1990–2010 1779.9 Progress towards sustainable forest management in North andCentral America, 1990–2010 1799.10 Progress towards sustainable forest management in Oceania,1990–2010 1819.11 Progress towards sustainable forest management in South America,1990–2010 1839.12 Progress towards sustainable forest management by subregion,1990–2010 184Figures1.1 Regional and subregional breakdown used in FRA 2010 61.2 FRA 2010 timeline 72.1 The world’s forests 122.2 Ten countries with the largest forest area, 2010 132.3 Forest area as a percentage of total land area by country, 2010 142.4 Forest change dynamics 172.5 Annual change in forest area by region, 1990–2010 182.6 Annual change in forest area, 2005–2010 202.7 The systematic sampling grid 242.8 Example of steps used in processing Landsat data to classified landcover map and resulting land cover change, 1990–2000 252.9 Forest characteristics by region and subregion, 2010 262.10 Trends in forest characteristics by region and subregion, 1990–2010 282.11 Area of mangroves by country, 2010 292.12 Area of bamboo by country, 2010 322.13 Area of rubber plantations by country, 2010 342.14 Growing stock per hectare by country, 2010 362.15 Growing stock composition by subregion, 2010 362.16 Growing stock of commercial species by region, 2010 373.1 Ten countries with the largest area of primary forest, 2010 533.2 Primary forest as a percentage of total forest area by country, 2010 54

viii3.3 Proportion of forest area designated for conservation of biodiversityby country, 2010 583.4 Trends in area of forest designated for conservation of biodiversity byregion, 1990–2010 593.5 Percentage of forest area in protected areas by region, 2010 613.6 Growing stock of the ten most common species as a percentageof total growing stock by country, 2005 634.1 Average area of forest annually affected by insects by country, 2005 714.2 Average area of forest annually affected by diseases by country, 2005 714.3 Average area of forest annually affected by fire by country, 2005 764.4 Number of fires and burnt area in the EU-Mediterranean region 784.5 Number of fires and total burnt area in the non-Mediterranean region 784.6 Average forest fire density and average burned forest fractionin Europe, 1998–2007 795.1 Proportion of forest area designated for production by country, 2010 885.2 Area of planted forest by country, 2010 925.3 Ten countries with greatest annual increase in planted forest area,1990–2010 945.4 Ten countries with largest area of afforestation, 2005 985.5 Ten countries with largest area of reforestation, 2005 985.6 Ten countries with largest volume of wood removals in percent, 2005 1025.7 Information availability – NWFP removals, 2005 1056.1 Proportion of forest area designated for protection of soil andwater by subregion, 2010 1116.2 Ten countries with the largest area of forest designated forprotection of soil and water, 2010 1146.3 Trends in area of forest designated for protection of soil and waterby subregion, 1990–2010 1167.1 Forest ownership by subregion, 2005 1237.2 Private forest ownership by type of forest owner and subregion, 2005 1237.3 Management of public forests by subregion, 2005 1247.4 Trends in public and private ownership of forests by region, 1990–2005 1257.5 Trends in management of public forests by region, 1990–2005 1267.6 Forest revenue collection by country, 2005 1297.7 Public expenditure on forestry by country, 2005 1307.8 Distribution of forest revenue collection at the global level, 2005 1327.9 Distribution of public expenditure on forestry at the global level, 2005 1327.10 Net revenue collection and public expenditure on forestry, 2005 1337.11 Value of industrial roundwood removals, 2005 1397.12 Countries with high values of NWFP removals, 2005 1417.13 Trend in forest area designated for social services by region, 1990–2010 1488.1 Percentage of forest area covered by national forest programmesby region and subregion, 2008 1518.2 Date of endorsement of forest policy statement 1528.3 Date of enactment of forest legislation 1548.4 Ministry with main responsibility for forest policy, 2008 155

ix8.5 Percentage of female staff in public forest institutions by region, 2008 1588.6 Graduation of students in forest-related education, 2008 1598.7 Ratio of university graduates to population and forest area, 2008 1608.8 Percentage of female graduates in forest-related education, 2008 1618.9 Number of Ph.D. researchers in public forest research institutionsper million hectares of forest, 2008 1619.1 Designated functions of the world’s forests, 2010 1639.2 Trends in area of forest with a management plan by region, 1990–2010 1679.3 Variation in proportion of forest area under sustainable forestmanagement by subregion, 2010 16810.1 Information availability for the 17 reporting tables in FRA 2010, in relationto global forest area 189Boxes1.1 The Global Objectives on Forests 42.1 Special study on trees outside forests 162.2 Deforestation and net change in forest area 172.3 The global forest remote sensing survey – better global data on changesin forest extent 243.1 Reporting on the State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources 514.1 Climate change and forest pests 684.2 Trends in forest fires in Europe 786.1 Arid zone forests: preventing and combating desertification 1126.2 Generating momentum on forests and water in Europe 1177.1 FRA 2010 special study on forestry, poverty and livelihoods 1207.2 Problems and issues with the estimation of employment levels in forestry 1448.1 International conventions and agreements related to forests 15310.1 FAO’s support to national forest monitoring and assessment 19010.2 Special study on Small Island Developing States 191

xAcknowledgementsThe FRA 2010 main report represents a major effort of FAO’s Forestry Department,FAO member countries, donors, partners and individual experts. More than 900people have been directly involved in this mammoth task. National correspondentsand their teams provided detailed country reports containing the basic data for theassessment. More than 70 FAO staff members at headquarters and at our regional andsubregional offices, as well as consultants and volunteers, contributed to the review ofreports, preparation of desk studies for countries and areas that did not have a nationalcorrespondent, and analysis and presentation of the results. Several countries andorganizations contributed extra budgetary financial resources or secondments to thecountry reporting process for FRA 2010, including Denmark, Finland, the InternationalTropical Timber Organization, Japan and the United States of America. The UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section in Geneva assisted with the assessment process forseveral European and Central Asian countries. Participants in the expert consultationheld in Kotka, Finland, in 2006 provided initial guidance on FRA 2010, while the FRAadvisory group provided continuous support and advice throughout the process.FAO is grateful for the support of all countries, organizations and experts inside andoutside the organization that have made FRA 2010 possible.Individual contributors to the country reporting process of FRA 2010 are listed inAnnex 1. Green Ink (www.greenink.co.uk) conducted the language editing, translationand layout of the report.

xiForewordInterest in the world’s forests has grown to unprecedented heights, especially with growingawareness of their role in the global carbon cycle. The possibility of mitigating climatechange by reducing carbon emissions caused by deforestation and forest degradation, andby increasing carbon uptake through afforestation and sustainable forest management,highlights the essential role of forests in supporting life on Earth.But forests are more than just carbon. In 2010 we celebrate the International Yearof Biodiversity, and we are reminded that forests represent some of the most diverseecosystems on Earth. In a time of economic crisis, we are also reminded that forestsprovide employment and livelihoods for a large proportion of the population – especiallyin developing countries – and often act as an economic safety net in times of need.FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA), carried out at five-year intervals,provides the data and information needed to support policies, decisions and negotiationsin all matters where forests and forestry play a part.Each successive assessment is more comprehensive than the last. Organized accordingto the seven thematic elements of sustainable forest management, FRA 2010 containsinformation to monitor progress towards international goals and targets – among othersthe Millennium Development Goals, the 2010 Biodiversity Target of the Conventionon Biological Diversity and the four Global Objectives on Forests of the Non-LegallyBinding Instrument on All Types of Forests adopted by the United Nations GeneralAssembly in January 2008. In addition, the statistics on trends in forest carbon stocks willsupport predictions of climate change and development of appropriate mitigation andadaptation measures.FRA 2010 also includes information on variables such as forest health, the contributionof forests to national economies and the legal and institutional framework governing themanagement and use of the world’s forests.Behind the data in this report lies a well-established process of data collection,processing, validation, compilation and analysis. The participation of national expertsfrom virtually all countries and all key international forest-related organizations ensuresthat the best and most recent knowledge is shared and applied, and that feedback reachesnational policy processes. FAO thanks all participants for their vital collaboration.Documentation for FRA 2010 includes 233 country reports, available online (www.fao.org/forestry/fra). Complementing the main report will be a series of special studieson topical issues as well as a global remote sensing survey of changes on forest biomesbetween 1990 and 2005, scheduled for completion in 2011.The results of the present assessment are encouraging in some respects. They showthat the rate of deforestation, while still alarming in many countries, is slowing downat the global level, and that afforestation and natural expansion in some countries andregions have further reduced the net loss of forests. However, most of the losses of foresthappen in countries in the tropical region, while most of the gains take place in temperateand boreal zones. Furthermore, many emerging economies have moved from net loss tonet gain of forest area. These results highlight the key role of economic development inreversing global deforestation.FAO hopes that the information in this report will help broaden discussions on forestsand stimulate action at all levels in the International Year of Forests (2011) and beyond.Eduardo Rojas-BrialesAssistant Director-General, Forestry Department, FAO

xiiAcronyms and abbreviationsCBDConvention on Biological DiversityCOFO Committee on Forestry (FAO)CPFCollaborative Partnership on ForestsFORIS Forestry Information System (FAO)FRAGlobal Forest Resources AssessmentFTEfull time equivalentIFFIntergovernmental Forum on ForestsIPCCIntergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIPFAd Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on ForestsIPPCInternational Plant Protection ConventionISPMInternational Standards for Phytosanitary MeasuresITTO International Tropical Timber OrganizationIUCN International Union for Conservation of NatureLFCC low forest cover countriesMCPFE Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (nowknown as Forest Europe)NFPnational forest programmen.s.not significant, indicating a very small valueNWFP non-wood forest productREDD reduction in emissions from deforestation and forest degradationSIDSsmall island developing statesUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and DevelopmentUNECE United Nations Economic Commission for EuropeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNEP-WCMC UNEP World Conservation Monitoring CentreUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNFF United Nations Forum on ForestsUNSD United Nations Statistics DivisionWRIWorld Resources Institute

xiiiExecutive SummaryFAO, in cooperation with its member countries, has monitored the world’s forests at fiveto ten year intervals since 1946. These global assessments provide valuable informationto policy-makers, to international negotiations, arrangements and organizations relatedto forests and to the general public.The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 (FRA 2010) is the most comprehensiveassessment to date. It examines the current status and recent trends for more than90 variables and all types of forests in 233 countries and areas for four points in time:1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010.FAO worked closely with countries and forest assessment specialists in the designand implementation of FRA 2010. More than 900 contributors were involved, including178 officially nominated national correspondents and their teams.In the main section of this report, results are presented according to the seventhematic elements of sustainable forest management:• extent of forest resources;• forest biological diversity;• forest health and vitality;• productive functions of forest resources;• protective functions of forest resources;• socio-economic functions of forests;• legal, policy and institutional framework.A summary of key findings is presented below, followed by a section that attemptsto answer the question: What does FRA 2010 tell us about progress towards sustainableforest management since 1990 at global and regional scales?KEY FINDINGSForests cover 31 percent of total land areaThe world’s total forest area is just over 4 billion hectares, which corresponds to anaverage of 0.6 ha per capita (Figure 1). The five most forest-rich countries (the RussianFederation, Brazil, Canada, the United States of America and China) account for morethan half of the total forest area. Ten countries or areas have no forest at all and anadditional 54 have forest on less than 10 percent of their total land area (Figure 2).The rate of deforestation shows signs of decreasing, but is still alarmingly highDeforestation – mainly the conversion of tropical forest to agricultural land – showssigns of decreasing in several countries but continues at a high rate in others (Boxes1–3). Around 13 million hectares of forest were converted to other uses or lost throughnatural causes each year in the last decade compared with 16 million hectares per yearin the 1990s. Both Brazil and Indonesia, which had the highest net loss of forest in the1990s, have significantly reduced their rate of loss, while in Australia, severe drought andforest fires have exacerbated the loss of forest since 2000.Large-scale planting of trees is significantly reducing the net loss of forestarea globallyAfforestation and natural expansion of forests in some countries and regions havereduced the net loss of forest area significantly at the global level (Figure 4). The netchange in forest area in the period 2000–2010 is estimated at -5.2 million hectares peryear (an area about the size of Costa Rica), down from -8.3 million hectares per year inthe period 1990–2000.

xivFIGURE 1The world’s forestsForest ( > 10 percent tree cover)Other landWaterNote: Tree cover derived from MODIS VCF* 250 meter pixels for year 2005.* Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Vegetation Continous Fields (Hansen et al. 2010).FIGURE 2Forest area as a percentage of total land area by country, 2010(%)0–1010–3030–5050–7070–100No data

xvBOx 1Deforestation and net change in forest areaFigure 3 is a simplified model illustrating forest change dynamics. It has only two classes:forests and all other land. A reduction in forest area can happen through either of twoprocesses: deforestation and natural disasters. Deforestation, which is by far the mostimportant, implies that forests are cleared by people and the land converted to anotheruse, such as agriculture or infrastructure. Natural disasters may also destroy forests, andwhen the area is incapable of regenerating naturally and no efforts are made to replant,it too converts to other land.An increase in forest area can also happen in two ways: either through afforestation(i.e. planting of trees on land that was not previously forested) or through naturalexpansion of forests (e.g. on abandoned agricultural land, a process which is quitecommon in some European countries).Where part of a forest is cut down but replanted (reforestation) or grows back on itsown within a relatively short period (natural regeneration), there is no change in forestarea.For FRA 2010, countries were asked to provide information on their forest area forfour points in time. This enables the calculation of the net change in forest area overtime. This net change is the sum of all negative changes due to deforestation andnatural disasters and all positive changes due to afforestation and natural expansion offorests.FIGURE 3Forest change dynamicsForestDeforestationNatural disastersAfforestationNatural expansionOther landBOx 2Previous figures underestimated the global deforestation rate for the 1990sFRA 2010, like FRA 2005, did not directly compile data on deforestation rates becausefew countries have this information. In FRA 2005 the global deforestation rate wasestimated from net changes in forest area. Additional information on afforestation andon natural expansion of forest for the past 20 years has now made it possible to also takeinto account deforestation within those countries that have had an overall net gain inforest area. As a result, the revised estimate of the global rate of deforestation and lossfrom natural causes for 1990–2000 (close to 16 million hectares per year) is higher, butmore accurate, than was estimated in FRA 2005 (13 million hectares per year).

xviBOx 3A global remote sensing survey of forests will yield improved informationon changes in the area of major forest types over timeCountries use differing frequencies, classification systems and assessment methods whenmonitoring their forests, making it difficult to obtain consistent data on major foresttypes that span national borders. FAO, in collaboration with countries and key partnerorganizations, is currently undertaking a global remote sensing survey – based on asystematic sampling of some 13 500 sites around the globe – to provide additional andmore consistent information on deforestation, afforestation and natural expansion offorests at regional and biome levels for the period 1990–2005. Results are expected atthe end of 2011.FIGURE 4Annual change in forest area by region, 1990–2010Scale1 million haNet loss1990–20002000–2010(million ha/yr)Net gain1990–20002000–2010Africa Asia EuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth AmericaSouth America and Africa continue to have the largest net loss of forestAt a regional level, South America suffered the largest net loss of forests between2000 and 2010 – about 4.0 million hectares per year – followed by Africa, which lost3.4 million hectares annually (Figure 5). Oceania also reported a net loss of forest (about700 000 ha per year over the period 2000–2010), mainly due to large losses of forests inAustralia, where severe drought and forest fires have exacerbated the loss of forest since2000. The area of forest in North and Central America was estimated as almost the samein 2010 as in 2000. The forest area in Europe continued to expand, although at a slowerrate (700 000 ha per year) than in the 1990s (900 000 ha per year). Asia, which had a netloss of forest of some 600 000 ha annually in the 1990s, reported a net gain of forest ofmore than 2.2 million hectares per year in the period 2000–2010, primarily due to thelarge-scale afforestation reported by China and despite continued high rates of net lossin many countries in South and Southeast Asia.

xviiFIGURE 5Annual change in forest area by country, 2005–2010Net loss> 500250–50050–250(1 000 ha)Small change (gain or loss)< 50Net gain50–250250–500> 500120FIGURE 6Trends in carbon stocks in forest biomass, 1990–201010080(Gt)6040200Africa Asia Europe North Oceaniaand CentralAmerica1990 2000 2010SouthAmericaForests store a vast amount of carbonEstimates made for FRA 2010 show that the world’s forests store 289 gigatonnes (Gt) ofcarbon in their biomass alone. While sustainable management, planting and rehabilitationof forests can conserve or increase forest carbon stocks, deforestation, degradation andpoor forest management reduce them. For the world as a whole, carbon stocks in forestbiomass decreased by an estimated 0.5 Gt annually during the period 2005–2010, mainlybecause of a reduction in the global forest area (Figure 6).

xviiiPrimary forests account for 36 percent of forest area – but have decreased bymore than 40 million hectares since 2000On a global average, more than one-third of all forest is primary forest, i.e. forest ofnative species where there are no clearly visible indications of human activities and theecological processes have not been significantly disturbed (Figure 7). Primary forests,in particular tropical moist forests, include the most species-rich, diverse terrestrialecosystems. The decrease of primary forest area, 0.4 percent annually over a ten-yearperiod, is largely due to reclassification of primary forest to ‘other naturally regeneratedforest’ because of selective logging and other human interventions.The area of planted forest is increasing and now accounts for 7 percent oftotal forest areaForests and trees are planted for many purposes and make up an estimated 7 percentof the total forest area, or 264 million hectares. Between 2000 and 2010, the area ofplanted forest increased by about 5 million hectares per year (Figure 8). Most of thisFIGURE 7Characteristics of the world’s forests, 2010AfricaAsiaEuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth AmericaWorld02040(%)6080100Primary Other naturally regenerated PlantedFIGURE 8Trends in area of planted forests, 1990–2010140120100(million ha)806040200Africa Asia Europe North Oceaniaand CentralAmericaSouthAmerica1990 2000 2010

xixwas established through afforestation (i.e. planting of areas not forested in recent times)particularly in China. Three-quarters of all planted forests consist of native species whileone-quarter comprises introduced species (Figure 9).Twelve percent of the world’s forests are designated for the conservation ofbiological diversityThe area of forest where conservation of biological diversity is designated as the primaryfunction has increased by more than 95 million hectares since 1990, of which the largestpart (46 percent) was designated between 2000 and 2005 (Figure 10). These forests nowaccount for 12 percent of the total forest area or more than 460 million hectares. Mostbut not all of them are located inside protected areas.FIGURE 9Proportion of planted forests consisting of introduced species, 2010AfricaAsiaEuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth America020406080100(%)FIGURE 10Trends in area of forest designated for conservation of biodiversity by region, 1990–2010AfricaAsiaEuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth America010 20 30 40 5060708090 100 110(million ha)1990 2000 2010

xxLegally established protected areas cover an estimated 13 percent of theworld’s forestsNational parks, game reserves, wilderness areas and other legally established protectedareas cover more than 10 percent of the total forest area in most countries and regions(Figure 11). The primary function of these forests may be the conservation of biologicaldiversity, the protection of soil and water resources, or the conservation of culturalheritage. The area of forest within a protected area system has increased by 94 millionhectares since 1990. Two-thirds of this increase has been since 2000.Forest fires are severely underreported at the global levelWhile some forest ecosystems depend on fire for their regeneration, in others forestfires can be devastating and also frequently cause loss of property and human life. Onaverage, 1 percent of all forests were reported to be significantly affected each year byforest fires. However, the area of forest affected by fires was severely underreported, withinformation missing from many countries, especially in Africa. Less than 10 percent ofall forest fires are prescribed burning; the rest are classified as wildfires.Insect pests and diseases, natural disasters and invasive species are causingsevere damage in some countriesOutbreaks of forest insect pests damage some 35 million hectares of forest annually,primarily in the temperate and boreal zone. The mountain pine beetle has devastatedmore than 11 million hectares of forest in Canada and the western United States ofAmerica since the late 1990s – an unprecedented outbreak exacerbated by higher wintertemperatures. Severe storms, blizzards and earthquakes have also damaged large areasof forest since 2000. Woody invasive species are of particular concern in small islanddeveloping states, where they threaten the habitat of endemic species. Informationavailability and quality continues to be poor for most of these disturbances.Thirty percent of the world’s forests are primarily used for production ofwood and non-wood forest productsClose to 1.2 billion hectares of forest are managed primarily for the production ofwood and non-wood forest products. An additional 949 million hectares (24 percent)are designated for multiple use – in most cases including the production of wood andnon-wood forest products. The area designated primarily for productive purposes hasdecreased by more than 50 million hectares since 1990 as forests have been designatedfor other purposes. The area designated for multiple use has increased by 10 millionhectares in the same period.FIGURE 11Percentage of forest area in protected areas by region, 2010AfricaAsiaEuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth America0510152025(%)

xxiWood removals increased between 2000 and 2005, following a fall in the1990sAt the global level, reported wood removals amounted to 3.4 billion cubic metresannually in the period 2003–2007, similar to the volume recorded for 1990 and equivalentto 0.7 percent of the total growing stock (Figure 12). Considering that informally andillegally removed wood, especially woodfuel, is not usually recorded, the actual amountof wood removals is undoubtedly higher. At the global level, woodfuel accounted forabout half of the removed wood.Eight percent of the world’s forests have protection of soil and waterresources as their primary objectiveAround 330 million hectares of forest are designated for soil and water conservation,avalanche control, sand dune stabilization, desertification control or coastal protection.The area of forest designated for protective functions increased by 59 million hectaresbetween 1990 and 2010, primarily because of large-scale planting in China aimed atdesertification control, conservation of soil and water resources and other protectivepurposes.The management of forests for social and cultural functions is increasing, butthe area is difficult to quantifyThe only subregions and regions with fairly good data on the designation of forests forrecreation, tourism, education or conservation of cultural and spiritual heritage are EastAsia and Europe, where provision of such social services was reported as the primarymanagement objective for 3 and 2 percent of the total forest area, respectively. Brazilhas designated more than one-fifth of its forest area for the protection of the cultureand way of life of forest-dependent people. Globally, 4 percent of the world’s forests aredesignated for the provision of social services.FIGURE 12Trends in wood removals, 1990–200580019902000200519902005199020002005700200060020002005(million m 3 )50040030019901990200020052001001990200020050Africa Asia Europe Northand CentralAmericaOceaniaSouthAmericaIndustrial roundwoodWoodfuel

xxiiThe value of wood removals is high, but fluctuatingWood removals valued just over US$100 billion annually in the period 2003–2007,mainly accounted for by industrial roundwood. At the global level the reported valuesshow no change between 1990 and 2000, but an increase of about 5 percent annuallyover the period 2000–2005, suggesting that roundwood prices recovered somewhat sincetheir decline (in real terms) in the decade 1990–2000 (Figure 13). However, they havesince fallen sharply.The value of non-wood forest products remains underestimatedThe reported value of non-wood forest product removals amounted to aboutUS$18.5 billion in 2005. Food products accounted for the greatest share. However,information is still missing from many countries in which non-wood forest products arehighly important, and the true value of subsistence use is rarely captured. As a result,the reported statistics probably cover only a fraction of the true total value of harvestednon-wood forest products.Around 10 million people are employed in forest management andconservation – but many more are directly dependent on forests for theirlivelihoodsReported employment in forest establishment, management and use declined by about10 percent between 1990 and 2005, probably because of gains in labour productivity.Europe, East Asia and North America saw steep declines (15 to 40 percent between 1990and 2005), while in other regions, employment increased somewhat – probably becauseroundwood production has increased faster than gains in labour productivity. Mostcountries reported increased employment in management of protected areas. Giventhat much forestry employment is outside the formal sector, forest work is surely muchmore important for rural livelihoods and national economies than the reported figuressuggest.Governments generally spend more on forestry than they collect in revenueOn average, total forest revenue collection was about US$4.5 per hectare, ranging fromunder US$1 per hectare in Africa to just over US$6 per hectare in Europe (Figure 14).403530FIGURE 13Trends in value of wood removals, 1990–2005(billion US$)2520151050Africa Asia Europe Northand CentralAmericaOceaniaSouthAmerica1990 2000 2005

xxiiiFIGURE 14Forest revenue collection by country, 2005(US$/ha)< 11–55–10> 10No dataPublic expenditure on forestry was about US$7.5 per hectare on average. Averageexpenditure was highest in Asia (over US$20 per hectare). In contrast, the averageexpenditure per hectare was less than US$1 in South America and Oceania (Figure 15).Significant progress has been made in developing forest policies, laws andnational forest programmesOf the 143 countries that have a forest policy statement, 76 countries have issued orupdated their statements since 2000. Of the 156 countries that have a specific forest law,69 countries – primarily in Europe and Africa – reported that their current forest lawhas been enacted or amended since 2005. Close to 75 percent of the world’s forests arecovered by a national forest programme, i.e. a participatory process for the developmentand implementation of forest-related policies and international commitments at thenational level (Figure 16).Staff numbers in public forest institutions are decreasingAround 1.3 million people were reported to work in public forest institutions in 2008,22 percent of whom were female. At the global level, the number of staff has declinedby 1.2 percent annually since 2000. More than 20 000 professionals work in public forestresearch institutions.The number of university students graduating in forestry is increasingMore than 60 000 university students graduate in forestry annually. This equates toabout 1 per 86 000 inhabitants, or around 200 per 10 million hectares of forests. Onethirdof graduating students are female, and this proportion is increasing.

xxivFIGURE 15Public expenditure on forestry by country, 2005(US$/ha)< 11–55–10> 10No dataFIGURE 16Forest area covered by a national forest programme by region, 2008AfricaAsiaEuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth America02040(%)6080100Eighty percent of the world’s forests are publicly owned, but ownership andmanagement of forests by communities, individuals and private companies ison the riseDespite changes in forest ownership and tenure in some regions, most of the world’s forestsremain under public ownership (Figure 17). Differences among regions are considerable.North and Central America, Europe (other than the Russian Federation), South Americaand Oceania have a higher proportion of private ownership than other regions. In someregions, there is an increasing trend toward involving communities, individuals and privatecompanies in the management of publicly owned forests (Figure 18).

xxvFIGURE 17Forest ownership by region, 2005AfricaAsiaEuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth America0Public2040(%)6080100PrivateOtherFIGURE 18Management of public forests by region, 2005AfricaAsiaEuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth America02040(%)6080100Public administrationIndividualsPrivate corporations and institutionsCommunitiesOtherForests are managed for a multitude of uses and valuesForests are increasingly being conserved and managed for multiple uses and values – oftenin combination (Figure 19). Around 949 million hectares, or 24 percent of all forests,are designated for multiple use, i.e. managed for any combination of the production ofgoods, protection of soil and water, conservation of biodiversity and provision of socialservices – or where none of these alone is considered as the predominant function.More than 1.6 billion hectares of forest have a management planThe area of forest covered by a management plan – an important tool for achievingsustainable forest management – is steadily increasing, yet information is only availablefor 80 percent of the total forest area (Figure 20). For the first time, information was alsocollected on the area of forest under sustainable forest management (Box 4).

xxviFIGURE 19Designated functions of forests, 2010(%)Production 30Protection of soil and water 8Conservation of biodiversity 12Social services 4Multiple use 24Other 7Unknown 16FIGURE 20Trends in area of forest with a management plan by region, 1990–2010AfricaAsiaEuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth America02004006008001 000(million ha)1990 2000 2010PROGRESS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENTTo obtain a broad picture of progress towards sustainable forest management, a subsetof indicators was selected for each of the seven thematic elements of sustainableforest management and data on trends were compiled and compared at global, regionaland subregional levels across the seven themes. The results are summarized below andillustrated in Tables 1 and 2. For more information, refer to Chapter 9.

xxviiBOx 4Information is collected on the area of forest under sustainable forestmanagementThe area of forest with a management plan is not necessarily an adequate indicator ofthe area of forest under sustainable forest management. For example, plans may not beeffective, or forests may be conserved and sustainably used without a plan. Therefore,for FRA 2010, countries were asked to provide information on the area of forest undersustainable management using national definitions, criteria and assessment methods,including expert estimates. More than 100 countries, representing 62 percent of the globalforest area, responded. Although data cannot be compared across countries or aggregatedat the global scale, the responses indicate that significant progress has been made over thelast ten years.Progress towards sustainable forest management at the global levelOverall, the situation at the global level has remained relatively stable over thelast 20 years (Table 1). The change in forest area is well below the threshold of0.5 percent per year for a significant change. The largest negative rates (in percentageterms) include the decrease in the area of primary forest over the entire 20-year period;in wood removals and employment in the 1990s; and in human resources in public forestinstitutions during the period 2000–2005. Significant positive trends were reported inthe area of forest designated for the conservation of biological diversity and the area offorest in protected areas (particularly in the last decade), the area of planted forest andthe number of students graduating in forestry. Forests under private ownership and thevalue of wood products showed a positive trend for the period 2000–2005.Progress at regional levelsAfrica. On the whole, progress towards sustainable forest management in Africa hasimproved when comparing the last decade to the 1990s. The net loss of forest areahas slowed down, and the areas of forest designated for the conservation of biologicaldiversity and included in protected areas have increased slightly. The sharp increase inthe area of forest with a management plan over the last ten years is particularly goodnews. The continued, rapid loss of forest area (the second largest of any region duringthis 20-year period) is, however, still a cause for concern as is the loss of primary forests.A summary of information by subregion can be found in Table 2.Asia. Overall the forest area in Asia is about 16 million hectares larger in 2010 thanit was in 1990 as a result of large-scale afforestation efforts during the last 10–15 years,particularly in China. The decrease in area of primary forest is cause for concern, while theincrease in the forest area designated for conservation of biological diversity, the area offorest in protected areas and forests designated for protective functions is commendable.The area affected by fire decreased while that affected by insects increased sharplybetween 1990 and 2000, but then levelled off. Variables representing the legal, policy andinstitutional framework are largely positive or stable and information availability in theregion is generally good. In short, there has been mixed progress over the last 20 yearsat the regional level with large variations between countries and subregions. A summaryof information by subregion can be found in Table 2.Europe. Data availability was generally high for Europe, although results werestrongly influenced by the Russian Federation. The status of forest resources in Europe

xxviiiTABLE 1Progress towards sustainable forest management at the global level, 1990–2010Thematic element FRA 2010 variables DataavailabilityExtent of forestresourcesForest biologicaldiversityForest health andvitalityProductivefunctions of forestresourcesProtectivefunctions of forestresourcesSocio-economicfunctions of forestsLegal, policyand institutionalframeworkAnnual changerate (%)1990–20002000–20101990–2000Annual change2000–2010Area of forest H -0.20 -0.13 -8 323 -5 211 1 000 haGrowing stock of forests H 0.13 0.14 n.s. n.s. m 3 /haForest carbon stock inliving biomassUnitH -0.18 -0.17 -538 -502 milliontonnesArea of primary forest M -0.40 -0.37 -4 666 -4 188 1 000 haArea of forest designated H 1.14 1.92 3 250 6 334 1 000 haprimarily for conservationof biodiversityArea of forest withinprotected areasH 1.09 1.97 3 040 6 384 1 000 haArea of forest affected by M -1.89 -2.15 -345 -338 1 000 hafireArea of forest affected by L -1.88 -0.70 -699 -231 1 000 hainsectsArea of forest designated H -0.18 -0.25 -2 125 -2 911 1 000 haprimarily for productionArea of planted forest H 1.90 2.09 3 688 4 925 1 000 haTotal wood removals H -0.50 1.08 -15 616 33 701 1 000 m 3Area of forest designated H 1.23 0.97 3 127 2 768 1 000 haprimarily for protection ofsoil and waterArea of forest underH 0.75 2.56 3 958 14 718 1 000 haprivate ownershipValue of total woodM -0.32 5.77 -241 4 713 million US$removalsEmployment in primaryM -1.20 -0.11 -126 -10 1 000 FTEproduction of goodsForest area withM 0.51 1.07 6 964 15 716 1 000 hamanagement planHuman resources in public L -1.94 0.07 -23 568 830 total staffforest institutionsNumber of studentsgraduating in forestryL 15.67 8.83 4 384 4 081 number ofstudentsNotes: No forecasting to 2010 was done for areas affected by fire and by insects or for the amount and value of wood removals.For these variables estimates were provided for 1990 (an average of the period 1988–1992), 2000 (average of 1998–2002) and2005 (average of 2003–2007). Data on ownership and employment were requested only for 1990, 2000 and 2005. In all these caseschange rates were calculated for the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2005. Data for human resources in public institutions and thenumber of forestry graduates are from 2000, 2005 and 2008; change rates are calculated for 2000–2005 and 2005–2008.H = High (reporting countries represent 75–100% of total forest area)M = Medium (reporting countries represent 50–74% of total forest area)L = Low (reporting countries represent 25–49% of total forest area)= Positive change (greater than 0.50%)= No major change (between -0.50 and 0.50%)= Negative change (less than -0.50%)– = Insufficient data to determine trendhas essentially been stable over the last 20 years. While the area of forest is expanding,the focus of forest management in Europe has clearly shifted away from productivefunctions towards conservation of biological diversity, protection and multiple uses –a shift already evident at the end of the 1990s. The main negative trends are found inemployment and – when analysing figures excluding the Russian Federation – in humanresources in public forest institutions between 2005 and 2008, as well as in the valueof wood removals in the 1990s. Table 2 shows the trends for Europe including andexcluding the Russian Federation.

xxixNorth and Central America. Progress towards sustainable forest managementwas generally positive in North and Central America as a whole during the period1990–2010, with the notable exception of the significant negative trends noted for thearea of forest affected by fire and by insect pests and the slight decrease in the level ofemployment. There was, however, considerable variation among subregions, as can beseen in Table 2.Oceania. Data availability is largely determined by Australia, since it accounts for78 percent of the forest area in this region. With information missing from Australiafor 1990 for many of these variables it is impossible to assess long-term trends in thisregion for most of the themes. The loss of primary forest and the increase in the net lossof forest area in the region are cause for concern, despite the fact that part of the lossof forest area may be a temporary loss of forest cover due to an extensive drought inAustralia.South America. Overall, progress towards sustainable forest management was mixedin South America. The rate of net forest loss continues to be a cause for concern althoughsignificant progress has been made, particularly in the last five years. The rate of loss ofprimary forest also remains alarmingly high. Nonetheless, there were also positive signsin the increased areas of forest designated for conservation of biological diversity andin protected areas. The decrease in removals of woodfuel may reflect a reduced demandfor this product in the region, but this was partly offset by an increase in removals ofindustrial wood since 2000. The area of planted forests increased and may meet a largerproportion of the demand for wood in the future. The increase in the area of forest witha management plan is also a positive sign.Is there progress towards sustainable forest management?There are many good signs and positive trends at the global level, particularly in thelast ten years, but many negative trends remain at regional, subregional and nationallevels. While the area of planted forest and conservation efforts are on the rise, the areaof primary forests continues to decline at an alarming rate as these forests come underuse or are converted to other uses. As the analyses above illustrate, the answer dependson the suite of indicators selected and the scale at which they are applied. Given this andthe complexity of the question, the answer cannot be definitive.NEXT STEPSMembers of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), regional groups, nongovernmentalorganizations and countries worked together in the design and implementationof FRA 2010. Joint planning for the next global assessment (FRA 2015) will commence in2011 based on an in-depth evaluation of FRA 2010.

xxxTABLE 2Progress towards sustainable forest management by subregion, 1990–2010Themes and variables Africa AsiaEasternandSouthernNorthernWesternandCentralEastR1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2Extent of forest resourcesArea of forest H H H HGrowing stock of forests H H H HForest carbon stock in living biomass H H H HForest biological diversityArea of primary forest H H L HArea of forest designated primarily for conservation of biodiversity H H M HArea of forest within protected areas H – – – L HForest health and vitalityArea of forest affected by fire L – – – – – – HArea of forest affected by insects – – – – – – – – – HProductive functions of forest resourcesArea of forest designated primarily for production H H M HArea of planted forest H H H HTotal wood removals H H H HProtective functions of forest resourcesArea of forest designated primarily for protection of soil and water H H M HSocio-economic functions of forestsArea of forest under private ownership H H H HValue of total wood removals – – – H L HEmployment in primary production of goods L – – – – – – HLegal, policy and institutional frameworkForest area with management plan M – – – L HHuman resources in public forest institutions H H L HNumber of students graduating in forestry M H L HNotes:R1 = Reference period 1: 1990–2000 with a few exceptions, see Notes to Table 1R2 = Reference period 1: 2000–2010 with a few exceptions, see Notes to Table 1H = High (reporting countries represent 75–100% of total forest area)M = Medium (reporting countries represent 50–74% of total forest area)L = Low (reporting countries represent 25–49% of total forest area)= Positive change (greater than 0.50%)= No major change (between -0.50 and 0.50%)= Negative change (less than -0.50%)– = Insufficient data to determine trend

xxxiSouthandSoutheastAsia Europe North and Central America Oceania SouthAmericaWesternandCentralTotalEuropeEurope excl.RussianFederationCaribbeanCentralAmericaNorthAmericaR1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2H H H H H H H H HH H H H H H H – – – HH H H H H H H – – – HH H – – – M M H H H HH H H H M L H – – – HH L H H L – – – H – – – MH L H H M – – – H – – – – – –– – – L H M – – – – – – H – – – – – –H H H H M L H H HH H H H M H H H HH H H H H M H H HH H H H M L H – – – HH H H H M L H – – – HM M – – – H L – – – H – – – ML M H M – – – L L H – – –L L H H L – – – L – – – MM L – – – M – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –L L – – – M L L M – – – H

1Chapter 1IntroductionGlobal forest resources assessments, coordinated by FAO, have been made at fiveto ten year intervals since FAO was established in 1945. 1 The mandate for theseassessments is found in the FAO Constitution, which states that “The Organizationshall collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate information relating to nutrition,food and agriculture. In this Constitution, the term ‘agriculture’ and its derivativesinclude fisheries, marine products, forestry and primary forestry products.” (Article I,Functions of the Organization, paragraph 1) (FAO, 2000).The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 (FRA 2010) was requested by FAOmember countries during the eighteenth session of the FAO Committee on Forestry(COFO) in March 2007 (FAO, 2007a). It is the most comprehensive assessment todate, both in terms of content and contributors. More than 900 people have beeninvolved in the country reporting process alone, including 178 national correspondentsand their teams, an advisory group, international experts, FAO staff, consultants andvolunteers from around the world.The scope and content of the global assessments have evolved over time to respondto changing information needs. The main concern driving the first FAO-led assessmentwas well expressed in the first sentence of its report: “The whole world is sufferingfrom shortages of forest products” (FAO, 1948). Studies of timber supply trendsdominated FRAs through the 1960s. From the 1970s through FRA 1990 environmentaldimensions of forest resources were in focus, in particular the rate of deforestation.FRA 2000 was designed to cover a wider range of forest benefits and functions, butsevere information shortages made reporting on key trends difficult. In addition, usersand the media still appeared to be primarily interested in forest area and area change(Holmgren and Persson, 2002).The reporting framework for FRA 2005 was based on the concept of sustainableforest management, encompassing social, economic and environmental dimensions offorest resources. Further, the FRA 2005 process involved countries to a much higherdegree than previous assessments, leading to a higher response rate and quality controlof information at the national level.FRA 2010 continued this broader, more participatory approach and, for the firsttime, covered the legal, policy and institutional framework guiding forests and theirmanagement and use. Close collaboration with other reporting processes sought toavoid duplication of effort for variables that are reported to several agencies. Forexample, further streamlining of reporting to FAO and to the International TropicalTimber Organization (ITTO) and the Ministerial Conference for the Protection ofForests in Europe (now Forests Europe) was achieved; new variables were included inFRA 2010 to enable the assessment of progress towards the 2010 Biodiversity Target ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and towards the four Global Objectiveson Forests of the Non-legally Binding Instrument on all Types of Forests adopted bythe United Nations General Assembly at its 62 nd Session (UNGA, 2008); and methodsfor reporting on variables related to forest biomass and carbon were harmonized withthe latest specifications and guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate1The reporting years have been as follows: 1946–1948, 1953, 1958, 1963, mid-1970s (regionalassessments), 1980, 1988, 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005.

2Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Change (IPCC, 2006). The proportion of land area under forests, reported to FAOas part of FRA 2010, is also used as one of the indicators of progress in reaching theMillennium Development Goals (United Nations, 2008). Efforts have continued toestablish and maintain globally consistent definitions in the FRA process, in order toensure consistency over time and reduce the overall reporting burden on countries.The present report provides a comprehensive overview of the results of FRA 2010grouped according to seven themes, covering key aspects of sustainable forestmanagement:• Extent of forest resources• Forest biological diversity• Forest health and vitality• Protective functions of forest resources• Productive functions of forest resources• Socio-economic functions of forests• Legal, policy and institutional frameworkIn each chapter, an overview provides an introduction to the theme including a listof the relevant variables included in FRA 2010, key findings and the main conclusions.This is then followed by separate sections for each of the variables, highlighting theavailability of information, current status and trends.In Chapter 9, an attempt is made to synthesize the results and highlight key trendsthat illustrate progress towards sustainable forest management at subregional, regionaland global levels.Chapter 10 offers the main conclusions of the FRA 2010 reporting process and itsresults. This chapter is followed by the bibliography and annexes providing countrystatistics and other background material.More information on the content and structure of the report and on the FRA 2010process is provided below.the reportIng frameworkSustainable forest management and fra 2010The term ‘sustainable forest management’ can be traced to the non-binding ‘ForestPrinciples’ and Chapter 11 of Agenda 21, which were prominent outputs of the UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in June 1992.The guiding objective of the Forest Principles is to contribute to the management,conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests and to provide fortheir multiple and complementary functions and uses. Principle 2b specifically states,“Forest resources and forest lands should be sustainably managed to meet the social,economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations.”The concept of sustainable forest management dates back much further and hascontinued to evolve since 1992 through international forest policy dialogue within theIntergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests(IFF) and the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) – and through a largenumber of country-led and ecoregional initiatives aimed at translating the conceptinto practice. These include the development of criteria and indicators of sustainableforest management supported by international organizations including FAO, theInternational Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) and other members of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests(CPF).Sustainable management of forests and trees is also the strategic objective of theFAO Strategy for Forests and Forestry (FAO, 2010a).Despite, or perhaps because of, the long maturation process of the sustainableforest management concept, it is difficult to explicitly define sustainable forestmanagement. The Non-legally Binding Instrument on all Types of Forests, the most

Introduction 3recent agreement related to forests, lists the following seven thematic elements ofsustainable forest management and suggests that member states should consider theseas a reference framework:1. Extent of forest resources2. Forest biological diversity3. Forest health and vitality4. Productive functions of forest resources5. Protective functions of forest resources6. Socio-economic functions of forests7. Legal, policy and institutional frameworkFRA 2005 covered the first six of these thematic elements. Following an evaluationof FRA 2005, the fifth Expert Meeting on Global Forest Resources Assessments, heldin Kotka, Finland in 2006 (Kotka V), recommended that the FRA process shouldcontinue to use the sustainable forest management concept as a reporting frameworkand that FRA 2010 should cover all seven thematic elements.The participants at this Expert Consultation also recommended that FRA 2010should (FAO 2006a):• employ 1990, 2000 and 2010 as the main reporting years;• provide the forest-related information needed for the assessment of progresstowards the 2010 biodiversity target of the CBD;• use country reports submitted by individual countries as the basis;• include a remote sensing component as a complementary part of FRA 2010. Itshould provide information on the spatial distribution of forests and forest landcover, and land-use change dynamics, such as deforestation, afforestation andnatural expansion of forests, at the biome, regional and global level;• maintain and strengthen the network of national correspondents, includingsupport to regional networks. Collaboration among focal points for variousforest-related reporting processes within countries should be encouraged;• maintain and enhance collaboration with forest-related organizations, e.g.members of the CPF, criteria and indicator processes and the remote sensingcommunity with a view to pooling resources and expertise and reducing thereporting burden on countries;• provide a global platform for reporting on core, quality-controlled informationon forest resources, which can be used by a wide range of international andnational processes and which can contribute to an assessment of progress towardssustainable forest management.At its 18 th session, COFO reviewed the Global Forest Resources Assessment2005 and recognized the considerable progress that had been made in harmonizingnational information in a global synthesis and in using a participatory process. TheCommittee recommended that FAO continue to collaborate with Members, CPFmembers, and regional partners in global forest resources assessments. It also endorsedthe recommendations of the International Expert Consultation on Forest ResourcesAssessments (Kotka V) as a basis for FRA 2010. The Committee further requestedthat FRA 2010 should fully reflect the four Global Objectives on Forests (see Box 1.1).Based on this guidance, the reporting tables for FRA 2010 were developed incollaboration with the FRA advisory group and national correspondents.the SCope of fra 2010fra 2010 reporting tablesSeventeen reporting tables were developed to address the thematic elements ofsustainable forest management (Table 1.1). The tables, including variables anddefinitions, were subject to intensive review by the FRA advisory group and nationalcorrespondents. Detailed specifications of the tables, variables and definitions, as well

4Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Box 1.1the global objectives on forestsglobal objective 1Reverse the loss of forest cover worldwide through sustainable forest management, includingprotection, restoration, afforestation and reforestation, and increase efforts to prevent forestdegradation.global objective 2Enhance forest-based economic, social and environmental benefits, including by improving thelivelihoods of forest-dependent people.global objective 3Increase significantly the area of protected forests worldwide and other areas of sustainably managedforests, as well as the proportion of forest products from sustainably managed forests.global objective 4Reverse the decline in official development assistance for sustainable forest management and mobilizesignificantly increased, new and additional financial resources from all sources for the implementationof sustainable forest management.As part of UNGA resolution 62/419 Member States reaffirmed their commitment to work globally,regionally and nationally to achieve progress towards the achievement of these four objectives by 2015.Source: UNGA, 2008TABlE 1.1fra 2010 reporting tables and links to the thematic elements of sustainable forest managementthematic elementsLegal,policy andinstitutionalframeworkextent forest forest productive protective Socioeconomicof forest biological health and functions functionsresources diversity vitality of forest of forest functionsreporting tableresources resources of forests1. Extent of forest and other wooded land ü ü ü2. Forest ownership and management rights ü ü3. Forest designation and management ü ü ü ü ü4. Forest characteristics ü ü ü ü5. Forest establishment and reforestation ü ü ü6. Growing stock ü ü ü ü7. Biomass stock ü ü ü8. Carbon stock ü ü9. Forest fires ü ü ü ü üü ü ü ü ü10. other disturbances affecting forest healthand vitality11. Wood removals and value of removals ü ü12. Non-wood forest products removals andüüvalue of removals13. Employment ü14. Policy and legal framework ü15. Institutional framework ü16. Education and research ü17. Public revenue collection and expenditure ü

Introduction 5as the guidelines for reporting, are available online in English, French, Spanish, Arabicand Russian (FAO, 2007b,c,d). Countries were asked to provide information for the 17tables for four points in time: 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010 (with the exception of a fewvariables for which forecasting to 2010 was inappropriate).Countries and areas included in fra 2010A total of 233 countries and areas are included in FRA 2010. This is based on the listused by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) (United Nations, 2010a). Fourreporting units included in the UNSD list were excluded from FRA 2010:1. Aaland Islands (included under Finland);2. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China (included under China);3. Macao Special Administrative Region of China (included under China);4. Channel Islands (listed separately as Guernsey and Jersey in FRA 2010).Compared with FRA 2005, four reporting units were excluded from FRA 2010(British Indian Ocean Territory, Channel Islands, Serbia and Montenegro, and SouthGeorgia and the South Sandwich Islands) and eight were added (Guernsey, Jersey,Montenegro, Norfolk Islands, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin (French part), Serbia,and Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands).For each of the 233 countries and areas a country report has been prepared andissued as an FRA 2010 working paper.regions and subregionsReporting for FRA 2010 is broken down into six regions. These regions are the sameas those used in other FAO publications, including FRA 2005, and follow wellestablisheddelineations. However, because of the difference in size of individualcountries, this breakdown means that the results in some regions are dominated byone or a few countries. The Russian Federation is included in Europe and dominatesthose statistics; the Caribbean and Central America are combined with North Americaand tend to be overshadowed by Canada and the United States of America; Brazildominates the regional results from South America, and Australia those from Oceania.A further breakdown was created to provide more detail for three of the regions:Africa, Asia, and North and Central America. Each of these regions is divided intothree subregions, bringing the total number of reporting groups to 12. 2 The subregionaldivisions are somewhat arbitrary, but are intended to represent areas with similarenvironmental and socio-economic conditions. Table 1.2 summarizes key statisticsfor the regions and subregions, and Figure 1.1 provides a graphic illustration of thecountries included in each.the proCeSSFRA 2010 started with the Kotka V Expert Consultation on Global Forest ResourcesAssessments in June 2006 (FAO, 2006a) and so far has taken four years to implement(Figure 1.2). The outputs include the release of the key findings and the 233 reports(March 2010) and the launch of the present report in October 2010. The results of theglobal remote sensing survey and the special studies will be released during 2011.FRA 2010 was coordinated by the Global Forest Assessment and Reporting Teamat FAO headquarters in Rome. Six staff members, including project and administrativestaff, were engaged full time throughout the country reporting process and acted asfocal points for each region in order to facilitate communications between the nationalcorrespondents and FAO.2In some instances, the value for the Russian Federation differs substantially from that for the rest ofEurope. In these cases the results for ‘Europe excluding the Russian Federation’ are shown separatelyfrom results for Europe as a whole in order to highlight the variation in the region.

6Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TABlE 1.2key statistics for regions and subregions used in fra 2010region/subregionnumberofcountriesand areasLand area(millionhectares)total(million)population 2008annualgrowth rate(%)Density(population/km 2 )rural(% of total)Eastern and Southern Africa 23 1 000 368 2.4 37 69Northern Africa 8 941 209 1.7 22 49Western and Central Africa 26 1 033 410 2.6 40 59total africa 57 2 974 987 2.3 33 61East Asia 5 1 158 1 547 0.5 134 53South and Southeast Asia 18 847 2 144 1.4 253 66Western and Central Asia 25 1 086 385 1.8 35 40total asia 48 3 091 4 075 1.1 132 59total europe 50 2 215 732 0.1 33 28Caribbean 27 23 42 0.8 182 34Central America 7 51 41 1.7 80 45North America 5 2 061 454 1.0 22 19total north and Central america 39 2 135 536 1.0 25 23total oceania 25 849 35 1.3 4 30total South america 14 1 746 385 1.2 22 17world 233 13 011 6 751 1.2 52 50FIGURE 1.1regional and subregional breakdown used in fra 2010africaasianorth and Central americaoceaniaNorthern AfricaEast AsiaCaribbeanWestern and Central AfricaSouth and Southeast AsiaCentral AmericaSouth americaEastern and Southern AfricaWestern and Central AsiaNorth Americaeurope

Introduction 7FIGURE 1.2fra 2010 timelineapril 2007–april 2008–June 2006 march 2007 march 2008 march 2008 october 2009 march 2010 october 2010 2011Kotka VExpertConsultation18 thsessionof CoFoFinalizationof tables andnominationof nationalcorrespondentslaunch ofFRA 2010and globaltrainingworkshopWork atregionaland nationallevelsReleaseof keyfindingslaunchof mainreportKotka VIoutcome:Recommendationson scope andprocessoutcome:Request toimplementFRA 2010outcome:Agreedtables andvariables and178 nationalcorrespondentsconfirmedoutcome:Guidelines andspecificationsin fivelanguages forFRA 2010outcome:233 countryreportsoutcome:Key findingsand countryreportspublishedoutcome:Main reportpublishedin sixlanguagesoutcome:FRA 2010evaluationand designof FRA 2015Besides the core staff, a large number of FAO staff, consultants and volunteerswere engaged in various phases of FRA 2010 as specialists within specific subjects,as assistants in the preparation of reports for countries and areas without a nationalcorrespondent and as regional staff in decentralized offices. The United NationsEconomic Commission for Europe/FAO Timber Section (now UNECE/FAOForestry and Timber Section) in Geneva was a key institutional partner, handlingcommunications and support to several countries in Europe and Central Asia.An FRA advisory group provided guidance and support throughout the process.Members of the group represent partner institutions, including ITTO, the MinisterialConference for the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE – now known as ForestEurope), representatives from the secretariats of CBD and UNFCCC, the UNEPWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP–WCMC), the International Unionfor Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the World Resources Institute (WRI), aswell as a range of countries from all regions (See Annex 1 for the full list of members).The advisory group has been instrumental in the development of FRA 2010, as well asfulfilling a valuable oversight and review function.In line with recommendations from Kotka V and COFO 2007, FAO requestedcountries to officially nominate a national correspondent to the FRA 2010 process.The response to this request has been very strong from practically all countries.At present, 178 national correspondents are confirmed. These correspondents, andtheir respective professional networks in the countries, represent a tremendous strengthof the FRA 2010 process, and were responsible for coordinating inputs and preparingcountry reports according to a standard format in English, French or Spanish. Atraining session, attended by 265 forest assessment specialists, including representativesfrom 154 countries and 14 key forest-related organizations, was held in March 2008in Rome, and detailed guidelines, specifications and reporting formats were provided.The reporting format required countries to provide the full reference for originaldata sources and an indication of the reliability of the data for each of these, as wellas definitions of terminology. Separate sections in these reports deal with analysis ofdata, including any assumptions made and the methodologies used for estimations andprojections of data to the four reference years (1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010); calibrationof data to the official land area as held by FAO; and reclassification of data to the classesused in FRA 2010. Comments attached to the tables yield additional information,

8Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010particularly where countries have experienced difficulty in matching national classes tothose used in FRA 2010.Regional focal points at FAO headquarters and its regional and subregional officeswere in regular contact with national correspondents throughout the process. A listof frequently asked questions were provided on the FRA 2010 web site to furtherfacilitate the reporting process.Once received, the draft country reports underwent detailed reviews to ensurecompleteness and correct application of definitions and methodologies – includingthe reclassification of national data into the FRA 2010 classification system. Internalconsistency was checked and a comparison made with information provided forFRA 2005, the FAO/UNECE/ITTO/Eurostat Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire andother published sources of information.A total of ten regional and subregional workshops were held to review the draftreports (see Annex 5 for details). These workshops provided an opportunity to shareexperiences and to address specific questions and issues related to data availabilityand interpretation. The final reports are thus the result of an iterative process and acollaborative effort.The data were then entered into FAO’s Forestry Information System (FORIS)and global tables were generated. Subject specialists at FAO analysed these tables andprepared subregional, regional and global overviews for each topic of the main report.Before publishing the key findings and the global tables, all country reports were sentto the head of forestry in the respective country for final validation.the oUtpUtSIn addition to the present report, other major outputs of FRA 2010 include:• Country reports. A total of 233 detailed reports have been prepared, listing the datasources and original data, and describing the methodologies used for estimation,forecasting and reclassification, as well as any assumptions made. These reportsare available on the FAO Forestry web site (www.fao.org/forestry/fra2010) inEnglish, French or Spanish. Hard copies are available upon request.• An interactive database. All data have been entered into a database and a userinterface has been deployed for easy retrieval of these statistics. Available on theFAO Forestry web site.• Global tables. A set of 40 global tables have been compiled based on theinformation provided by the countries. Twenty of these can be found in Annex 3and the full set is available on the FAO Forestry web site.• Key findings. The key findings of FRA 2010 were released in March 2010 (FAO,2010a). A flyer describing these is available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic,Chinese and Russian on the FAO web site or in hard copy upon request.• A global remote sensing survey. Together with key partner organizations and withthe involvement of remote sensing specialists in around 150 countries, a globalremote sensing survey of forests is being carried out as part of FRA 2010. Resultsare expected at the end of 2011. Box 2.3 in Chapter 2 describes this survey ingreater detail.• Special studies. A number of thematic studies provide complementary informationon specific topics: forest degradation; trees outside forests; forests, poverty andlivelihoods; forest genetic resources; and forests and forestry in small islands. Eachof these studies involves additional specialists and will be published separately.• Working papers. A number of FRA working papers have been prepared as partof the FRA 2010 process. They can be found at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/2560/en/ and are listed in Annex 4.

9Chapter 2Extent of forest resourcesOvErviEwThe extent of forest resources is the first measure of sustainable forest management. Itrelates to the overall goal of maintaining adequate forest resources – of various forest typesand characteristics, including other wooded land and trees outside forests – to supportthe social, economic and environmental objectives related to forests and forestry within acountry or region. The aim of monitoring the extent and characteristics of forest resourcesis to understand and reduce unplanned deforestation, restore and rehabilitate degradedforest landscapes, evaluate the important function of carbon sequestration by forests, otherwooded lands and trees outside forests, and designate forests for different purposes.Information on the extent of forest resources has formed the backbone of all globalforest resources assessments and continued to be a major topic in FRA 2010. Forest areais an easily understood baseline variable, which provides a first indication of the relativeimportance of forests in a country or region. Estimates of change in forest area overtime provide an indication of the demand for land for forestry and other land uses. Theproportion of land area under forests is used as one of the indicators for the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (United Nations, 2008), and information on trends in the area of forestis used to assess progress towards the 2010 Biodiversity Target of the CBD, as well as theGlobal Objectives on Forests contained in the Non-legally Binding Agreement on all Typesof Forests. It is also a common indicator in all the ecoregional processes on criteria andindicators of sustainable forest management.The most commonly quoted statistics from the global forest resources assessmentscontinue to be the global rate of deforestation and the net loss of forest area. However, aswas observed in earlier assessments (FAO, 2001 and FAO, 2006b), the significance of forestarea as a single indicator of forest development has often been overemphasized, particularlyin the public debate, and other aspects of forest resources have featured less prominently.Many other variables must be considered in determining the relevant trends in the extent offorest resources. Growing stock and carbon storage may be considered equally importantparameters, as they indicate whether forests are degraded and to what extent they mitigateclimate change. Further, the net loss of forest area is not in itself sufficient to describe landusedynamics that include both the loss of forests due to deforestation and natural disasters,and gains in forest area from planting or natural expansion. On its own, the area of forestdoes not tell us what kinds of forests we have, how healthy they are, what benefits theymight provide or how well they are managed. Hence, the global forest resources assessmentshave evolved over time and now contain information on a wide variety of aspects related toforests and forestry.For FRA 2010, information was sought on the current status and changes over time(1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010) of the following six variables related to the extent of forestresources:• Area of ‘forest’ and ‘other wooded land’. Countries were also encouraged to provideinformation on ‘other land with tree cover’. 3• Characteristics of forests according to three classes: primary forests, other naturallyregenerated forests and planted forests. For the latter two, countries were also askedto provide data on the area of forest composed of introduced species.3See Annex 2 for definitions.

10Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010• Area of selected forest types: mangroves, bamboo and rubber plantations.• Standing volume of wood, i.e. the total growing stock in forests and other woodedland, and its composition.• Forest biomass.• Carbon stock contained in woody biomass, dead wood, litter and forest soils.In regional and ecoregional criteria and indicator processes, as well as in nationalreports, more detailed classifications of the forest area are often used, for example,according to forest or vegetation type, age structure or diameter distribution classes.Because of the varying conditions and classification systems among countries andregions, it was not feasible to report on such classifications at the global level exceptfor the three selected forest types listed above. However, country reports for FRA 2010contain considerably more detail than is shown in the global tables.In FRA 2000, an independent remote sensing survey was carried out to supplementcountry reporting for the pantropical region. The results constituted an importantingredient in the analysis of global and regional trends, leading for example, to acalibration of reported changes in forest area for Africa. The survey also providedconsiderable insight into processes of land-use change, including the documentationof different patterns of change in tropical regions. The results have been widelyacknowledged and used (e.g. Mayaux et al., 2005). A more ambitious global remotesensing survey is currently being carried out as part of FRA 2010 (see Box 2.3), whichwill complement the information in this report in terms of forest area changes overtime in large biomes, as well as providing more detailed information on land-usechange dynamics at regional and global levels.KEy findingsforests cover 31 percent of total land areaThe world’s total forest area in 2010 is estimated to be just over 4 billion hectares,corresponding to an average of 0.6 ha of forest per capita. However, the area of forestis unevenly distributed. The five most forest-rich countries (the Russian Federation,Brazil, Canada, the United States of America and China) account for more than halfof the total forest area (53 percent), while 64 countries with a combined population of2 billion people have forest on no more than 10 percent of their land area. These includea number of fairly large countries in arid zones, as well as many small island developingstates (SIDS) and dependent territories. Ten of these have no forests at all.The total area of other wooded land is estimated to be at least 1.1 billion hectares,equivalent to 9 percent of the total land area. The total area of other land with treecover was reported to be 79 million hectares, but is undoubtedly much higher asinformation availability was limited.The rate of deforestation shows signs of decreasing, but is still alarmingly highAround 13 million hectares of forest were converted to other uses – largely agriculture –or lost through natural causes each year in the last decade. This compares with a revisedfigure of 16 million hectares per year in the 1990s. Both Brazil and Indonesia, which hadthe highest net loss of forest in the 1990s, have significantly reduced their rate of loss, whilein Australia, severe drought and forest fires have exacerbated the loss of forest since 2000.Afforestation and natural expansion of forests in some countries havesignificantly reduced the net loss of forest area at the global levelThe net change in forest area in the period 2000–2010 is estimated at -5.2 million hectaresper year at the global level (an area about the size of Costa Rica). This is down from-8.3 million hectares per year in the period 1990–2000. This substantial reduction isdue to both a decrease in the deforestation rate and an increase in the area of new forestestablished through planting or seeding and the natural expansion of existing forests.

Extent of forest resources 11More than 90 percent of the total forest area consists of naturallyregenerated forestsPrimary forests – forests of native species in which there are no clearly visible signs ofpast or present human activity – are estimated to occupy 36 percent of the total forestarea. Other naturally regenerated forests make up some 57 percent, while plantedforests account for an estimated 7 percent, of the total forest area.The area of mangroves continues to decline, while the area of bamboo andrubber plantations is increasingThe total area of mangroves is estimated at 15.6 million hectares as of 2010, down from16.1 million hectares in 1990. Nearly half the total mangrove area (47 percent) is foundin five countries: Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, Australia and Mexico.The area of bamboo is difficult to assess, as these species often occur as patcheswithin forests or as clusters outside them. Nevertheless, preliminary findings based oninformation from 33 of the main bamboo-rich countries indicate that the total area isabout 31.5 million hectares.Rubber plantations are found in relatively few countries – primarily in SoutheastAsia and Africa – and cover an estimated 10 million hectares. While the area of rubberincreased rapidly in the 1990s, the rate of increase is now beginning to slow down andis currently decreasing in several countries.in 2010, the estimated total growing stock in the world’s forest amounted toabout 527 billion m 3This corresponds to an average of 131 m 3 per hectare. The highest levels of growingstock per hectare were found in central Europe and some tropical areas. There was asmall decline in total growing stock over the period 1990–2010, but it is unlikely thatthis change is significant in statistical terms.forests contain more carbon than the entire atmosphereThe world’s forests store more than 650 billion tonnes of carbon, 44 percent in thebiomass, 11 percent in dead wood and litter, and 45 percent in the soil. While sustainablemanagement, planting and rehabilitation of forests can conserve or increase forest carbonstocks, deforestation, degradation and poor forest management reduce them. For the worldas a whole, carbon stocks in forest biomass decreased by an estimated 0.5 Gt annuallyduring the period 2005–2010. This was mainly because of a reduction in the global forestarea and occurred despite an increase in growing stock per hectare in some regions.KEy cOnclusiOnsConsiderable progress has been made towards reversing the overall trend of forest arealoss, and several variables related to the extent of forest resources show no significantnegative trends or even a positive trend over time in some countries and regions.Yet deforestation, including uncontrolled conversion of forests to agricultural land,continues at an alarmingly high rate in many countries. Considerable efforts are neededto ensure the overall trend in extent of forest resources is positive or stable in all regions.fOrEsT ArEA And fOrEsT ArEA chAngEintroductionForest area provides the first indication of the relative importance of forests in a countryor region. Estimates of the change in forest area over time provide an indication of thedemand for land for forestry and other uses. Forest area is relatively easy to measureand has been selected as one of 60 indicators for monitoring progress towards theMillennium Development Goals (Goal 7 – Ensuring environmental sustainability), the2010 Biodiversity Target and the Global Objectives on Forests.

12Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Data on the status of and trends in forest area are crucial to decisions about forestand land-use policies and resource allocations, but they need to be combined withinformation on other aspects such as forest health and vitality, and socio-economic andenvironmental functions and values of forests. These aspects are dealt with in otherchapters of this report.statusAll 233 countries and areas reporting for FRA 2010 provided information on theextent of forests. The total forest area in 2010 was estimated to be 4 billion hectares, or31 percent of total land area. This corresponds to an average of 0.6 ha per capita. As canbe seen from Figure 2.1, the area of forest is unevenly distributed. The five most forestrichcountries (the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada, the United States of Americaand China) account for more than half of the total forest area (53 percent), while 64countries, with a combined population of 2 billion people, have forest on no more than10 percent of their land area.The distribution of forests at the subregional level is shown in Table 2.1. Europe(including the Russian Federation) accounts for 25 percent of the world’s total forestarea, followed by South America (21 percent), and North and Central America(17 percent). Information on the area of forest and other wooded land by country canbe found in Table 2 in Annex 3.At the country level, the Russian Federation alone accounts for 20 percent of the totalforest area in the world. Seven countries have more than 100 million hectares of foresteach, and the ten most forest-rich countries (the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada,United States of America, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Australia,Indonesia, Sudan and India) account for 67 percent of total forest area (Figure 2.2). TheFigure 2.1The world’s forestsForest ( > 10 percent tree cover)Other landWaterNote: Tree cover derived from MODiS VCF* 250 meter pixels for year 2005.* Moderate-resolution imaging Spectroradiometer Vegetation Continous Fields (Hansen et al. 2010).

Extent of forest resources 13Table 2.1distribution of forests by region and subregion, 2010region/subregionforest area1 000 ha % of total forest areaeastern and Southern africa 267 517 7Northern africa 78 814 2Western and Central africa 328 088 8Total Africa 674 419 17east asia 254 626 6South and Southeast asia 294 373 7Western and Central asia 43 513 1Total Asia 592 512 15russian Federation 809 090 20europe excl. russian Federation 195 911 5Total Europe 1 005 001 25Caribbean 6 933 0Central america 19 499 0North america 678 961 17Total north and central America 705 393 17Total Oceania 191 384 5Total south America 864 351 21world 4 033 060 100Figure 2.2Ten countries with the largest forest area, 2010(million ha)russian Federation 809brazil 520Canada 310united States of america 304China 207Democratic republic of the Congo 154australia 149indonesia 94Sudan 70india 68Others 1 347remaining 33 percent is spread among 213 countries and areas, while ten countries andareas (the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, the Holy See, Monaco, Nauru, Qatar,Saint Barthélemy, San Marino, Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands, and Tokelau) reportedthat they have no areas that qualify as forests using the FRA 2010 definition.In 50 countries and areas forests cover more than half the total land area (Figure 2.3)and in 12 of these forests occupy more than 75 percent of the total land area. Most ofthese high forest cover countries are small island states or territories, but the list alsoincludes three low-lying coastal states in South America and one country in the CongoBasin (Table 2.2 shows the top ten). At the regional level, South America has the highestpercentage of forest cover, followed by Europe (including the Russian Federation), andNorth and Central America. Asia has the lowest percentage of forest cover (Table 2.3).

14Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Figure 2.3forest area as a percentage of total land area by country, 2010(%)0–10 10–30 30–50 50–70 70–100 No dataTable 2.2high forest cover countries, 2010country/areaforest area1 000 ha % of land areaFrench guiana 8 082 98Suriname 14 758 95Micronesia (Federated States of) 64 92american Samoa 18 89Seychelles 41 88Palau 40 88gabon 22 000 85Pitcairn 4 83Turks and Caicos islands 34 80Solomon islands 2 213 79In 64 countries and areas, forests cover no more than 10 percent of the total landarea. Often referred to as low forest cover countries (LFCCs), these include manySIDS and dependent territories, as well as 16 larger countries with relatively substantialforest areas (more than 1 million hectares each). Three of these (Chad, the IslamicRepublic of Iran and Mongolia) each have more than 10 million hectares of forest.A total of 161 countries and areas reported that they had some land classified as‘other wooded land’ in 2010. However, it was evident from the comments provided inthe country reports that the vast majority of the remaining 72 countries and areas alsohave vegetation that would be categorized as other wooded land using the definitionsemployed for FRA 2010, but currently have no reliable data on the actual extent.The total area of other wooded land is estimated to be at least 1.1 billion hectares –equivalent to 9 percent of the total land area. This category suffered from reclassificationproblems, particularly in dry zones such as those in Australia, Kenya, Mozambique andSudan, where the distinction between forest and other wooded land is not very clear.

Extent of forest resources 15Table 2.3forest cover by region and subregion, 2010region/subregionforest area1 000 ha % of land areaeastern and Southern africa 267 517 27Northern africa 78 814 8Western and Central africa 328 088 32Total Africa 674 419 23east asia 254 626 22South and Southeast asia 294 373 35Western and Central asia 43 513 4Total Asia 592 512 19russian Federation 809 090 49europe excl. russian Federation 195 911 34Total Europe 1 005 001 45Caribbean 6 933 30Central america 19 499 38North america 678 961 33Total north and central America 705 393 33Total Oceania 191 384 23Total south America 864 351 49world 4 033 060 31The ten countries with the largest area of other wooded land (Australia, China, Canada,the Russian Federation, Argentina, Sudan, Ethiopia, Brazil, Botswana and Afghanistan)include six of the ten countries with the largest forest area.Only 85 countries and areas, together accounting for 38 percent of the global forestarea, reported on the current extent of other land with tree cover. This variable aimsto capture those areas in which forest cover criteria are met, but the predominant landuse is agricultural (e.g. orchards and oil palm plantations) or urban (e.g. parks). Thetotal area of other land with tree cover is at least 79 million hectares. This estimate waslimited by a lack of information, and the true extent is undoubtedly much higher.The category ‘other land with tree cover’ includes part of the larger category ‘treesoutside forests’. These trees constitute an important resource in many countries, butone which is difficult to quantify (see Box 2.1).TrendsAll countries and areas provided estimates of forest area for all four reporting years(1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010) with the exception of two dependent territories, SaintBarthélemy and French Polynesia, which did not provide an estimate for 1990. For thepurpose of analysis, the 1990 forest area for these two territories was estimated basedon a linear extrapolation of the figures provided for 2000 and 2005. However, somecountries possessed comprehensive information from only one point in time, whileothers had a number of estimates over time that were incompatible, making trendanalyses difficult.Deforestation, mainly due to conversion of forests to agricultural land, shows signsof decreasing in several countries but continues at an alarmingly high rate in others.Globally around 13 million hectares of forest were converted to other uses or lostthrough natural causes each year in the last decade. This compares with a revised figureof 16 million hectares per year in the 1990s. Both Brazil and Indonesia (which had thehighest net loss of forest in the 1990s) have significantly reduced their rates of loss,while in Australia, severe drought and forest fires have exacerbated the loss of forestsince 2000.

16Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010bOx 2.1special study on trees outside forestsThe latest expert Consultation on the global Forest resources assessment (Kotka V, June 2006),recommended that a special study on trees outside forests should be carried out as part of Fra 2010.The inception workshop for the study was held in rome on 9–10 June 2010. During the workshop,42 experts from 31 institutions in 17 countries defined the objectives, scope and process for developingthe study. The report is expected to be prepared by March 2011.what are trees outside forests?‘Trees outside forests’ refers to trees found on lands that are not categorized as ‘forest’ nor as ‘otherwooded land’. They include trees (isolated, linear and groups or stands of trees and tree systems) foundin rural landscapes (e.g. on farms, in fields, pastures and various forms of horticulture and agroforestrysystems, in hedges, along roads and streams) and in urban settings (e.g. on private or public lands andalong streets).Trees have been part of local land use systems for millennia. The products derived from them,such as food, medicine, cooking fuel, animal fodder and construction materials, are critical forthe subsistence of hundreds of millions of people. Trees in rural landscapes also have protectivefunctions at farm, landscape and global levels. They maintain soil fertility, allow more efficient waterand nutrient resource use, control water erosion, and contribute to microclimate moderation. Theecosystem services they provide at a global level in carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservationare also significant. Trees in human settlements are no less important: in addition to their variousproducts, they provide services, such as microclimate moderation and a ‘green’ environment conduciveto good health.The challenge: towards integration of trees outside forests in development policiesa recent study (Zomer et al., 2009) has shown the importance of trees outside forests at a global scale:almost half of the agricultural land in the world (more than 1 billion hectares) has tree cover of more than10 percent. However, in most countries trees outside forests are still poorly reported in the official statisticsused to support national decision-making and policy. The most basic information – such as location,number, species, spatial organization, biomass, growth and production – is often lacking. Trees outsideforests are thus most often ignored in land-use planning and development policies. One major reason forthis lack of information is the difficulty and cost of assessing trees outside forests at the national scale.For this reason the experts gathered during the inception workshop for this study recommended thatthe report should encourage countries to carry out timely and high quality assessments of trees outsideforests at a national level. The report will include:• a review and comparative analysis of past and current large scale (national and regional) assessmentsof trees outside forests, including the methodology, results and precision, costs and uses of theassessment (including policy implications);• a set of methodological and technical options for national-level assessments of trees outside forests,including an operational typology, enabling reporting to international processes such as Fra andiPCC;• recommendations for improving integration of trees outside forests into the Fra reporting process.The study is intended to support national agencies responsible for forestry, agriculture, environment,and rural and urban development, by providing adapted tools and methods to assess resources of treesoutside forests, as well as their products, uses and economic and environmental functions, at a nationallevel. Through such assessments, local and national decision-makers will be better able to take intoaccount resources of trees outside forests and the services they provide. This support to decision-makersand land-use planners is especially important for developing countries as the contribution of treesoutside forests to people’s livelihoods and national economies is expected to dramatically increase in thecurrent context of climate change, financial crisis and food insecurity.

Extent of forest resources 17At the same time, afforestation and natural expansion of forests in some countriesand regions have significantly reduced the net loss of forest area at the global level(see Box 2.2). The total net change in forest area in the period 1990–2000 is estimatedat -8.3 million hectares per year, which is equivalent to a loss of 0.20 percent of theremaining forest area each year during this period.The total net change in forest area in the period 2000–2010 is estimated at -5.2 millionhectares per year, an area slightly bigger than the size of Costa Rica, or equivalent to aloss of more than 140 km 2 of forest per day. The current annual net loss is 37 percentlower than that in the 1990s, and equals a loss of 0.13 percent of the remaining forestarea each year during this period. This substantial reduction in the rate of forest loss isa result of both a decrease in the deforestation rate and an increase in the area of newforest established through planting or seeding and natural expansion of existing forests.The changes in area of forest by region and subregion are shown in Table 2.4 andFigure 2.5. At a regional level, South America suffered the largest net loss of forestsbetween 2000 and 2010 – about 4.0 million hectares per year – followed by Africa,which lost 3.4 million hectares annually.In South America the net loss of forest decreased in recent years after a peak in theperiod 2000–2005. The average annual net loss of forest was 4.2 million hectares in the1990s, 4.4 million hectares in the period 2000–2005, and has now dropped to an estimated3.6 million hectares per year in the period 2005–2010. The regional figures primarilyreflect the trends in Brazil, which accounts for 60 percent of the forest area in this region.bOx 2.2deforestation and net change in forest areaFigure 2.4 is a simplified model illustrating forest change dynamics. it has only two classes: forests andall other land. a reduction in forest area can happen through either of two processes: deforestationand natural disasters. Deforestation, which is by far the most important, implies that forests arecleared by people and the land converted to another use, such as agriculture or infrastructure. Naturaldisasters may also destroy forests, and when the area is incapable of regenerating naturally and noefforts are made to replant, it too converts to other land.an increase in forest area can also happen in two ways: either through afforestation (i.e. plantingor seeding of trees on land that was not previously forested), or through natural expansion of forests(e.g. on abandoned agricultural land, a process which is quite common in some european countries).Where part of a forest is cut down but replanted (reforestation) or grows back on its own within arelatively short period (natural regeneration) there is no change in forest area.For Fra 2010, countries were asked to provide information on their forest area for four points intime. This permits the calculation of the net change in forest area over time. This net change is thesum of all negative changes due to deforestation and natural disasters and all positive changes due toafforestation and natural expansion of forests.Figure 2.4forest change dynamicsForestDeforestationNatural disastersafforestationNatural expansionOther land

18Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Table 2.4Annual change in forest area by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregion 1990–2000 2000–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %eastern and Southern africa -1 841 -0.62 -1 839 -0.66Northern africa -590 -0.72 -41 -0.05Western and Central africa -1 637 -0.46 -1 535 -0.46Total Africa -4 067 -0.56 -3 414 -0.49east asia 1 762 0.81 2 781 1.16South and Southeast asia -2 428 -0.77 -677 -0.23Western and Central asia 72 0.17 1 31 0.31Total Asia -595 -0.10 2 235 0.39russian Federation 32 n.s. -18 n.s.europe excl. russian Federation 845 0.46 694 0.36Total Europe 877 0.09 676 0.07Caribbean 53 0.87 50 0.75Central america -374 -1.56 -248 -1.19North america 32 n.s. 188 0.03north and central America -289 -0.04 -10 -0.00Total Oceania -41 -0.02 -700 -0.36Total south America -4 213 -0.45 -3 997 -0.45world -8 327 -0.20 -5 211 -0.13Figure 2.5Annual change in forest area by region, 1990–2010scale1 million haNet loss1990–20002000–2010(million ha/yr)Net gain1990–20002000–2010africa asia europeNorth and Central americaOceaniaSouth americaWhile there are signs that the net loss of forests in Africa is decreasing (from4.1 million hectares per year in the 1990s to 3.4 million hectares per year in the lastdecade), few countries have reliable data from comparable assessments over time, sothe resulting trends should be treated with caution. One of the main reasons for thedecreasing net loss overall is a sharp reduction in the net loss reported by Sudan, where

Extent of forest resources 19recent efforts to gather new data on actual changes taking place on an annual basis haveresulted in much lower figures than those estimated for 1990–2000, which were basedon fairly old data. As a result the forest area of Northern Africa is now estimated to berelatively stable, while it is still decreasing in the rest of the continent.Asia, which saw a net loss of some 0.6 million hectares per year in the 1990s, reportedan average net gain of more than 2.2 million hectares per year between 2000 and 2010.This was primarily a result of large-scale afforestation reported by China (where theforest area increased by 2 million hectares per year in the 1990s and by an average of3 million hectares per year since 2000), but was also due to a reduction in the rate ofdeforestation in some countries, including Indonesia.In South and Southeast Asia deforestation continues, but the net loss of 2.4 millionhectares per year reported for the 1990s is now down to an estimated 0.7 million hectaresannually. Indonesia reported a very significant drop in its rate of net loss in the 2000–2005period compared with the 1990s and, although the rate increased again in the last fiveyears, it is still less than half that seen during and shortly after the peak of the large-scaletransmigration programme in the 1980s and early 1990s. This drop is consistent withother recent findings based on the use of remote sensing (Hansen et al., 2009). However,many other countries in South and Southeast Asia continue to report high rates of net lossof forest area. Forest area continues to grow rapidly in East Asia due to the afforestationefforts in China, while in Western and Central Asia the forest area is expanding slightly.In Europe the forest area expanded over the period 2000 to 2010 by just under0.7 million hectares per year, in comparison with slightly less than 0.9 million hectaresper year in the 1990s. The slightly fluctuating trend seen in the Russian Federation isinsignificant in statistical terms given the large forest area, while an apparent increasein forest area in Sweden between 2000 and 2005 is due to a change in assessmentmethodology.In North and Central America as a whole, the forest area was estimated to be almostthe same in 2010 as in 2000. While the forest area continues to decrease in all countriesin Central America except Costa Rica, it is increasing in North America, where thenet loss in Mexico is outweighed by a net gain in the United States of America. TheCaribbean reports a gain in forest area due to afforestation in Cuba and because forestsare expanding onto abandoned agricultural land in some islands.Oceania reported a net loss of about 0.7 million hectares per year over the period2000–2010. The net loss seems to be increasing and is reported to be more than 1 millionhectares per year in the last five years. This is due to large losses of forests in Australia,where severe drought and forest fires have exacerbated the loss of forest since 2000.However, as mentioned in the Country Report from Australia: “It is understood themost likely reason for the detected decline in forest extent is the extended drought acrossmuch of Australia since 2000 which has resulted in a double loss: a decline in forestregrowth along with a decline in tree foliage from water stress (the reduced foliage isdetected by satellites as a loss of forest extent). It is unclear at this stage whether theclimatic-induced reduction is a temporary or permanent loss of forest.” 4For information on changes in forest area by country, see Table 3 in Annex 3 andFigure 2.6.In the Caribbean, Europe, North America and Oceania the majority of countriesshow no significant changes in forest area over the last five years (using +/-0.5 percentannually as the threshold), while in Africa and Central America the majority ofcountries report a significant negative change rate. However, a large number of4While a temporary loss of forest cover should not count as a loss of forest area using the definitionsemployed by the FRA process, the assessment method used in Australia did not allow for adifferentiation between temporary and permanent loss of forest. As a result, the net loss of forest areareported to FRA 2010 may be overestimated.

20Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Figure 2.6Annual change in forest area by country, 2005–2010Net loss> 500250–50050–250Small change (gain or loss)< 50(1 000 ha)Net gain50–250250–500> 500countries in Oceania and the Caribbean reported no change in forest area simplybecause of a lack of data for more than one point in time.The ten countries with the largest net loss per year in the period 1990–2000 hada combined net loss of forest area of 7.9 million hectares per year. In the period2000–2010, this was reduced to 6.0 million hectares per year as a result of reductions inIndonesia, Sudan and Brazil and despite increased net losses in Australia (see Table 2.5).The ten countries with the largest net gain per year in the period 1990–2000 had acombined net gain of forest area of 3.4 million hectares per year due to afforestationefforts and natural expansion of forests. In the period 2000–2010, this increased to4.4 million hectares per year due to the implementation of ambitious afforestationprogrammes in China (Table 2.6).Twenty-eight countries and areas have an estimated net loss of 1 percent or moreof their forest area per year. The five countries with the largest annual net loss for2000–2010 are: Comoros (-9.3 percent); Togo (-5.1 percent); Nigeria (-3.7 percent);Mauritania (-2.7 percent) and Uganda (-2.6 percent). Nineteen countries have anestimated annual net gain of 1 percent or more due to afforestation and naturalexpansion of forests. The five countries with the largest estimated annual positivechange rates for 2000–2010 are: Iceland (5.0 percent); French Polynesia (4.0 percent);Kuwait (2.6 percent); Rwanda (2.4 percent) and Uruguay (2.1 percent). Most, but notall, of the countries with large change rates measured in percentages are low forestcover countries, in which a relatively small change in absolute values results in a largechange in relative or percentage terms.At the global level, the area of other wooded land decreased by about 3.1 millionhectares per year during the decade 1990 to 2000 and by about 1.9 million hectares per

Extent of forest resources 21Table 2.5Ten countries with largest annual net loss of forest area, 1990–2010countryAnnual change1990–2000countryAnnual change2000–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %brazil -2 890 -0.51 brazil -2 642 -0.49indonesia -1 914 -1.75 australia -562 -0.37Sudan -589 -0.80 indonesia -498 -0.51Myanmar -435 -1.17 Nigeria -410 -3.67Nigeria -410 -2.68 united republic of Tanzania -403 -1.13united republic of Tanzania -403 -1.02 Zimbabwe -327 -1.88Mexico -354 -0.52 Democratic republic of the Congo -311 -0.20Zimbabwe -327 -1.58 Myanmar -310 -0.93Democratic republic of the Congo -311 -0.20 bolivia (Plurinational State of) -290 -0.49argentina -293 -0.88 Venezuela (bolivarian republic of) -288 -0.60Total -7 926 -0.71 Total -6 040 -0.53Table 2.6Ten countries with largest annual net gain in forest area, 1990–2010countryAnnual change1990–2000countryAnnual change2000–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %China 1 986 1.20 China 2 986 1.57united States of america 386 0.13 united States of america 383 0.13Spain 317 2.09 india 304 0.46Viet Nam 236 2.28 Viet Nam 207 1.64india 145 0.22 Turkey 119 1.11France 82 0.55 Spain 119 0.68italy 78 0.98 Sweden 81 0.29Chile 57 0.37 italy 78 0.90Finland 57 0.26 Norway 76 0.79Philippines 55 0.80 France 60 0.38Total 3 399 0.55 Total 4 414 0.67year in the last decade (2000–2010). This finding should be treated with caution, however,because many countries still do not have compatible information over time for otherwooded land, and thus one estimate was frequently used as the best available figure forall four reporting years. The data reported for FRA 2010 indicate that the area of otherwooded land is more or less constant in North and Central America, and Oceania.However, the latter is constrained by a lack of consistent trend data for Australia. InEurope it decreased in the period 1990–2000, but remained almost constant in the period2000–2010. The area of other wooded land decreased in both periods in Africa, Asia andSouth America.Data for other land with tree cover were very sparse. Based on the informationprovided by the 74 countries that provided data for all four reporting years, the area ofother land with tree cover has been expanding by an average of slightly more than halfa million hectares annually in the last 20 years.comparison with frA 2005The global forest area reported for FRA 2010 is larger than that reported for FRA 2005for all reporting years (see Table 2.7). The difference is approximately 109 million hectares

22Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010(or 2.8 percent) for the estimates for 2005. This is mainly because Brazil reported anadditional 53 million hectares of forest as a result of the use of higher resolution remotesensing imagery and both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mozambiquereported more than 20 million hectares of additional forest – some of which was nodoubt due to a reclassification of land earlier reported as other wooded land (see below).Indonesia reported an additional 9 million hectares for 2005 because the earlier estimatewas forecasted based on data from 2000 and the annual deforestation rate for the 1990s,while the new estimate utilized updated figures from 2003 and 2006, which show thatthe deforestation rate had declined considerably, especially in the period 2000–2005.Australia, on the other hand, reported 9 million hectares less for 2005 than reported inthe last global assessment. Again, this is due to new information on the actual forest area(from 2008) and revised annual change rates.As in FRA 2005, data on deforestation rates were not directly compiled for FRA 2010because few countries have this information. In FRA 2005 the global deforestation ratewas estimated from net changes in forest area. Additional information on afforestationand natural expansion of forest for the past 20 years collected for FRA 2010 has nowalso made it possible to take into account deforestation and loss from natural causeswithin those countries that have had an overall net gain in forest area – including fourof the five countries with the largest forest area in the world. As a result, the revisedestimate of the global rate of deforestation and loss from natural causes for 1990–2000(close to 16 million hectares per year) is higher, but more accurate, than was estimated inFRA 2005 (13 million hectares). While the deforestation rate for the tropical countriesfor the 1990s did not change significantly as a result of this additional information, theinclusion of countries in the temperate and boreal zone made a significant difference.For FRA 2010, the global area of other wooded land in 2005 is 216 million hectareslower than that reported for the same year for FRA 2005, despite the fact that figuresare now available for Afghanistan, Brazil, Indonesia and the United States of America,adding some 113 million hectares (for 2005). The reason is a substantial downwardrevision of the estimates of other wooded land in Australia (down 286 million hectareswhen comparing the new 2010 figure with the old 2005 figure), Democratic Republicof the Congo (down 72 million hectares), Saudi Arabia (down 33 million hectares),Mozambique (down 26 million hectares), Kenya and Mali (both down 6 millionhectares). This is only partially outweighed by the area in the additional countriesand upward revisions in China (up 17 million hectares), Myanmar and the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania (both up 9 million hectares), the Philippines and Colombia (bothup 5 million hectares).Table 2.7comparison of forest area estimates in frA 2010 and frA 2005regionforest area (1 000 ha)frA 2010 frA 2005 differencesfrA 2010–frA 20051990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005africa 749 238 708 564 691 468 699 361 655 613 635 412 49 877 52 951 56 056asia 576 110 570 164 584 048 574 487 566 562 571 577 1 623 3 602 12 471europe 989 471 998 239 1 001 150 989 320 998 091 1 001 394 151 148 -244North andCentral america708 383 705 497 705 296 710 790 707 514 705 849 -2 407 -2 017 -553Oceania 198 743 198 381 196 745 212 514 208 034 206 254 -13 771 -9 653 -9 509South america 946 454 904 322 882 258 890 818 852 796 831 540 55 636 51 526 50 718world 4 168 398 4 085 168 4 060 964 4 077 291 3 988 610 3 952 025 91 107 96 558 108 939

Extent of forest resources 23conclusionsConsiderable progress has been made towards reversing the overall trend of forest arealoss in recent years. However, most of the net loss of forest still happens in countriesin the tropical region while most of the net gain takes place in the temperate and borealzone and in some emerging economies such as India and Viet Nam.Forest area is an easily understood baseline variable, which provides a first indicationof the relative importance of forests in a country or region. Estimates of change in forestarea over time provide an indication of the demand for land for forestry and other landuses. However, the significance of forest area as a single indicator of forest developmenthas often been overemphasized, particularly in the public debate. On its own, the areaof forest does not tell us what kinds of forests we have, how healthy they are or whatbenefits they might provide. Further, the net loss of forest area is not in itself sufficientto describe land-use dynamics that include both loss of forests due to deforestation andnatural disasters, and gains in forest area from planting or natural expansion.Information on the different components of net change in forest area is still weak inmany countries. To obtain additional and more consistent information on deforestation,afforestation and natural expansion of forests, at regional and biome levels for theperiod 1990–2005, FAO is collaborating with countries and key partner organizationsto undertake a global remote sensing survey based on a systematic sampling of some13 500 sites around the globe. Results are expected at the end of 2011 (see Box 2.3).fOrEsT chArAcTErisTicsintroductionFor FRA 2010 countries were asked to provide information on forest characteristics,in order to determine the kinds of forest that exist in terms of their ‘naturalness’. Thereis a continuum from primary forests with no – or no visible – indications of past orpresent human activity to intensively managed planted forests of introduced species,primarily managed for a single product, often on a relatively short rotation, andfrequently consisting of only one species – in some cases a single clone. Between thesetwo extremes lies a wide range of forests, and there are no clear cut-off points betweenclasses along the continuum.In an attempt to describe this range, countries were asked to characterize theirforests according to three classes for FRA 2010: primary forests, other naturallyregenerated forests and planted forests, and to include information on the proportionof the forest area composed primarily of introduced species.This section provides an overview of the status and trends related to these forestcharacteristics. More detailed information on primary forests can be found in Chapter 3(Biological Diversity), while further analysis of planted forests is provided in Chapter 5(Productive Functions of Forests).statusOf the 233 countries and areas reporting for FRA 2010, 200 reported on thecharacteristics of their forests. Their combined forest area was estimated at 3.8 billionhectares – equivalent to 94 percent of the total forest area of the world. Although a largenumber of countries reported on the characteristics of their forests, many countrieseither did not collect information directly or used a different national classificationsystem. Proxy values have often been used, which makes a detailed analysis of statusand trends difficult. Several countries had, for example, no information on the area ofprimary forests, so they used the current area of forests in national parks and otherprotected areas as a proxy value or provided an expert estimate of the percentageof natural forests that could be considered primary according to the definition usedfor FRA 2010. Thus it may not be possible to directly compare figures for differentcountries, because of differences in interpretation of the classification systems.

24Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010bOx 2.3The global forest remote sensing survey – better global data on changesin forest extentwhy fAO is carrying out a remote sensing survey of the world’s forestsFaO has led remote sensing studies focused on tropical forests for previous Fra reports for 1980, 1990and 2000. This new study, carried out as part of Fra 2010, will be more comprehensive with satelliteimages collected globally and aims to substantially improve our knowledge of changes in tree coverand forest land use over time. The increasing importance of climate change is also driving the pushfor better information because forest and related land use changes are estimated to be responsiblefor approximately 17 percent of human induced carbon emissions (iPCC, 2007). Satellite data enableconsistent information to be collected globally, which can be analysed in the same way for differentpoints in time to derive better estimates of change. remote sensing does not replace the need forgood field data, but combining both provides better results than either method alone.The key outcomes of the Fra 2010 remote Sensing Survey will be:• improved knowledge on land cover and land use changes related to forests, especially deforestation,afforestation and natural expansion of forests;• information on the rate of change between 1990 and 2005 at global, biome and regional levels;• a global framework and method for monitoring forest change;• easy access to satellite imagery through an internet-based data portal;• enhanced capacity in many countries for monitoring, assessing and reporting on forest area andforest area change.A scientific sampling designThe survey uses a sampling grid design with imagery taken at each longitude and latitude intersection(approximately 100 kilometres apart), reduced to two degree spacing above 60 degrees North. SeeFigure 2.7. There are about 13 500 samples, of which about 9 000 are outside deserts and permanentice (antarctica is excluded). each sample site is 10 km by 10 km, giving a total sampling areaequivalent to about 1 percent of the earth’s land surface. This grid is compatible with that used formany national forest assessments including those supported by FaO.Figure 2.7The systematic sampling grid

Extent of forest resources 25Easy access to tools and satellite imagesFaO and its partner organizations have made pre-processed imagery for the 13 689 sample areaseasily available through the internet. (http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/remotesensing/portal).access to free remote sensing data and specialized software will particularly benefit developingcountries with limited forest monitoring data or capacity. authorized national experts can log in anddownload draft labelled polygons for checking and then upload the validated data.improved globally consistent estimates of forest extent and change over timeFor each sample, three landsat images – from around 1990, 2000 and 2005 – have been extracted by theSouth Dakota State university and further processed by FaO or the european Commission Joint researchCentre (JrC) to a consistent standard using an automated image classification process. Draft land coverlabels are then prepared and the changes in land cover over time are highlighted. National expertsvalidate the preliminary results and then help undertake the transformation from land cover classes toland use classes (Figure 2.8).strong technical partnerships and engagement with countriesThe project combines the technical forest and land cover experience in FaO in partnership withexternal agencies with funding support from the european Commission and technical expertise fromtheir Joint research Centre. The results from this work will be reviewed and validated by nationalexperts in about 150 countries. This input makes the results some of the most detailed and widelychecked global statistics on forest cover change from satellite data.South Dakota State university has produced new global tree cover maps using medium resolution(250m) data which are major improvements on the previous 1 km map from Fra 2000. Scientists atFriedrich-Schiller university are testing radar data to ‘see’ through clouds and develop techniques toovercome some gaps in optical satellite data.The results of the survey are planned for release in late 2011. Further information is available at:www.fao.org/forestry/fra/remotesensingsurvey/en.Figure 2.8Example of steps used in processing landsat data to classified land cover mapand resulting land cover change, 1990–20001) satellite data 2) classify and label3) validate, check changesTree coverTree cover mosaicShrubs coverOther land coverburnt coverWaterCloud and shadowNo dataunclassifiedgain in tree coverlossShrubs (young trees?)change

26Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Information was also unavailable for some of the larger countries in the CongoBasin, the second largest expanse of tropical forest, and this should be kept in mindwhen analysing the findings.More than one-third (36 percent) of the total forest area was classified as primaryforest, i.e. forest of native species, in which there are no clearly visible indications ofhuman activity and ecological processes are not significantly disturbed. More than halfof all forests (57 percent) are naturally regenerated and show clearly visible indicationsof human activity. Seven percent were classified as forest established through plantingor seeding (see Figure 2.9).There is great variation in the distribution of primary forests, with limited areasreported from some of the countries of the Caribbean, Europe (excluding the RussianFederation) and the arid zones of Eastern and Southern Africa, Northern Africa, andWestern and Central Asia. The largest expanse of primary forest is found in SouthAmerica (the Amazon). Countries in Central Africa, North and Central America andthe Russian Federation have also classified a relatively high proportion of their forestsas primary (Table 7 in Annex 3).East Asia, Europe and North America reported the greatest area of planted forests,together accounting for about 75 percent of the global planted forest area. In EastAsia planted forests make up 35 percent of the total forest area, and most are foundin China. Africa, the Caribbean, Central America and Oceania all reported relativelysmall areas of planted forests (Table 5.3).A total of 83 countries (accounting for 45 percent of the total forest area) reportedon the proportion of other naturally regenerated forests composed of introducedspecies, while 117 countries (67 percent of total forest area) reported on the proportionof introduced species in planted forests.These countries reported a total area of close to 9 million hectares of naturallyregenerated forests composed primarily of introduced species (i.e. naturalized treeFigure 2.9forest characteristics by region and subregion, 2010eastern and Southern africaNorthern africaWestern and Central africaTotal Africaeast asiaSouth and Southeast asiaWestern and Central asiaTotal Asiaeurope excl. russian FederationTotal EuropeCaribbeanCentral americaNorth americaTotal north and central AmericaTotal OceaniaTotal south Americaworld02040(%)6080100PrimaryOther naturally regeneratedPlanted

Extent of forest resources 27species) and 52 million hectares of planted forests consisting of introduced species.Together, these introduced species account for about 1.5 percent of the global forestarea. Information was too limited to report on trends in introduced species in othernaturally regenerated forests. A more detailed analysis of the use of introduced speciesin planted forests can be found in Chapter 5.TrendsThe trend analysis was based on data from the 183 countries 5 that provided estimatesfor all four reporting years. Together they account for only 67 percent of the globalforest area, so the figures should be treated with caution.As can be seen in Figure 2.10, the areas of primary forest and other naturallyregenerated forests are decreasing, while the area of planted forests is increasing. Thearea of primary forest has decreased by more than 40 million hectares since 2000. Thisdecrease, 0.4 percent per annum over a ten-year period is largely due to reclassificationof primary forest to ‘other naturally regenerated forest’ because of selective loggingand other human interventions during this period.South America accounted for the largest proportion of the loss of primary forest,followed by Africa and Asia. Brazil alone accounted for an annual loss of primaryforest of 2.5 million hectares. The data collected do not permit an analysis of exactlyhow much of this loss is due to deforestation and how much is a result of areas of forestbeing moved into the class of other naturally regenerated forests.The rate of loss of primary forest is stable or decreasing in all regions exceptOceania, where it is increasing (primarily as a result of a higher reported loss fromPapua New Guinea for the period 2005–2010); and in Europe, and North and CentralAmerica which registered a net gain (Refer to Chapter 3 for details).Between 2000 and 2010, the global area of planted forest increased by about5 million hectares per year. Most of this was established through afforestation, i.e.planting of areas not forested in recent times, particularly in China.conclusionsPeople have modified the characteristics and species composition of forests forthousands of years to suit their needs. As a result, close to two-thirds of the world’sforests show clear signs of past interventions of humans.While 36 percent of forests are classified as primary, the area is decreasing by some4 million hectares annually. However, some countries are setting aside parts of theirnatural forests in which no intervention should take place. With time, these areasevolve into forests that meet the definition of primary as used in the FRA process.The area of planted forests is increasing and is likely to meet a larger proportion ofthe demand for wood in the future, thus alleviating the pressure on primary and othernaturally regenerated forests.sElEcTEd fOrEsT TypEs And spEciEs grOupsintroductionCountries frequently classify their forest area according to forest or vegetation type,age structure or diameter distribution classes. Because of the varying conditionsand classification systems among countries and regions, it was not feasible to reporton such classifications at the global level. However, countries were asked to reportseparately on the areas of mangroves, bamboo and rubber plantations for FRA 2010as these species groups are well defined and frequently used in countries where theyexist. This allows for an analysis of trends in forest area excluding bamboo and rubber5Excluding the Russian Federation where an irregular trend in primary forest is the result of a change inthe classification system introduced in 1995.

28Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Figure 2.10Trends in forest characteristics by region and subregion, 1990–2010africaasia199020002010199020002010europe excl.russian Federation199020002010North and Central americaOceaniaSouth america19902000201019902000201019902000201002004006008001 000(million ha)PrimaryOther naturally regeneratedPlantedplantations, which are not defined as forest in all countries, but are included as forestsin the FRA process.MangrovesMangroves are commonly found along sheltered coastlines in the tropics andsubtropics where they fulfil important socio-economic and environmental functions.These include the provision of a large variety of wood and NWFPs; coastal protectionagainst the effects of wind, waves and water currents; conservation of biologicaldiversity; protection of coral reefs, seagrass beds and shipping lanes against siltation;and provision of spawning grounds and nutrients for a variety of fish and shellfish,including many commercial species. High population pressure in coastal areas has,however, led to the conversion of many mangrove areas to other uses includinginfrastructure, aquaculture, rice and salt production (FAO, 2007e).StatusA total of 212 countries reported on this variable, of which 100 countries reportedthat they had no mangroves and 112 reported that they had some areas classifiedas mangroves 6 (see Figure 2.11). This is fewer than the 124 countries and areas withmangroves included in the FRA 2005 Thematic Study on Mangroves (FAO, 2007e),but apart from the Dominican Republic the missing countries and areas all have lessthan 1 000 ha of mangroves each.6Brazil only reported an estimate for 2000 and Palau only for 1990. Due to a lack of other information,these figures have been used for all four reporting years in this analysis.

Extent of forest resources 29Figure 2.11Area of mangroves by country, 2010(1 000 ha)0< 5050–500500–1 000> 1 000No dataTogether, the 112 countries and areas reported a total area of mangroves of15.6 million hectares. The five countries with the largest areas of mangroves (Indonesia,Brazil, Nigeria, Australia and Mexico) together account for some 47 percent of theworld total.Together with the International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, ITTO, UNEP-WCMC, UNESCO – Man and Biosphere, the United Nations University – Institutefor Water Environment and Health and The Nature Conservancy, FAO has recentlypublished a World Atlas of Mangroves containing detailed maps and descriptions ofthe mangroves in all countries and areas where they are known to exist, see www.fao.org/forestry/mangroves/atlas for details.TrendsInformation for 1990 was missing for eight countries (Australia, China, Cuba,Guadeloupe, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Sudan), andtwo countries (Nicaragua and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) did notpresent information for 1990 and 2000. For these countries, the 2000 and 2005 figuresrespectively were used for this analysis. Given the overall negative trend in mangrovearea, this is likely to overestimate the area of mangroves in 1990 and underestimate theloss over time.The results indicate that the global area of mangroves has decreased from around16.1 million hectares in 1990 to 15.6 million hectares in 2010 7 (Table 2.8). However,there are indications that there may have been a change in assessment methodologiesover time in some countries, which means that the estimates from different years arenot completely compatible. Indonesia, for instance, reported a significant increase in7In comparison, FAO (2007e) contained information from 124 countries and areas and estimated thetotal mangrove area to be 16.9, 15.7 and 15.2 million hectares respectively in 1990, 2000 and 2005.

30Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Table 2.8Trends in area of mangroves by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregionArea of mangroves (1 000 ha)1990 2000 2005 2010eastern and Southern africa 991 923 892 861Northern africa 4 4 3 3Western and Central africa 2 419 2 252 2 207 2 163Total Africa 3 414 3 178 3 102 3 027east asia 83 83 83 83South and Southeast asia 5 926 6 361 6 200 6 022Western and Central asia 187 183 183 183Total Asia 6 196 6 627 6 466 6 288Total Europe 0 0 0 0Caribbean 763 762 808 857Central america 481 454 448 443North america 1 172 1 094 1 086 1 086Total north and central America 2 416 2 310 2 342 2 387Total Oceania 1 860 1 841 1 537 1 759Total south America 2 225 2 187 2 175 2 161world 16 110 16 143 15 621 15 622the area of mangroves between 1990 and 2000. Australia reported a similar increaseduring the period 2005 to 2010 after an even bigger decrease from 2000 to 2005. Thereported figures therefore warrant further analysis and the results above should betreated with caution.The five countries with the largest net loss of mangrove area during the period2000–2010 were Indonesia, Australia, Myanmar, Madagascar and Mozambique.BambooBamboo is a major NWFP and wood substitute. It is found in all regions of theworld, both as a component of natural forests and, increasingly, in plantations. Usedfor housing, crafts, pulp, paper, panels, boards, veneer, flooring, roofing, fabrics, oil,gas and charcoal, it also provides a healthy vegetable (the bamboo shoot). Bambooindustries are now thriving in Asia and are quickly spreading across the continents toAfrica and America (FAO, 2007f).StatusWhile 131 countries and areas, representing 60 percent of the world’s forests, respondedto this question, 110 of them reported that they had no bamboo. Only 21 countriesreported that they had bamboo resources 8 . This list includes eight countries and areas(Cuba, El Salvador, Jamaica, Martinique, Mauritius, Senegal, Sudan, and Trinidad andTobago) that were not included in the FRA 2005 Thematic Study on Bamboo (FAO,2007f). Conversely, 11 countries that were included in the FRA 2005 Study did notreport on bamboo for FRA 2010 (Brazil, Ecuador, Lao People’s Democratic Republic,Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Thailand, Uganda and UnitedRepublic of Tanzania). One country (Chile) reported zero for FRA 2010 but some900 ha for the FRA 2005 Study.Together, the 21 countries that did report accounted for a total area of 16.7 millionhectares. To this should be added an estimated 14.8 million hectares from the 12 missing8Indonesia only reported an estimate for 2000. Due to a lack of other information, this figure wasused for 2010 for this analysis.

Extent of forest resources 31countries (based on information in FAO, 2007f), taking the total to some 31.5 millionhectares globally (see Table 2.9 and Figure 2.12). This is lower than the global figurereported in FAO (2007f) (36.8 million hectares) despite the addition of the eight newcountries, and the fact that Sir Lanka has revised its previous estimate upwards by moreTable 2.9Trends in area of bamboo by country and region, 1990–2010country/regionArea of bamboo (1 000 ha)1990 2000 2005 2010ethiopia** 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000Kenya 150 150 150 150Mauritius n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Nigeria* 1 590 1 590 1 590 1 590Senegal 723 691 675 661Sudan** 30 30 30 31uganda* 67 67 67 67united republic of Tanzania* 128 128 128 128Total Africa 3 688 3 656 3 640 3 627bangladesh 90 86 83 186Cambodia 31 31 36 37China 3 856 4 869 5 426 5 712india 5 116 5 232 5 418 5 476indonesia** 1 1 1 1Japan 149 153 155 156lao People’s Democratic republic* 1 612 1 612 1 612 1 612Malaysia* 422 592 677 677Myanmar 963 895 859 859Pakistan* 9 14 20 20Philippines 127 156 172 188republic of Korea 8 6 7 8Sri lanka 1 221 989 742 742Thailand* 261 261 261 261Viet Nam 1 547 1 415 1 475 1 425Total Asia 15 412 16 311 16 943 17 360Total Europe 0 0 0 0Cuba** n.s. n.s. n.s. 2el Salvador n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Jamaica 34 34 34 34Martinique 2 2 2 2Trinidad and Tobago 1 1 1 1Total north and central America 37 37 37 39Papua New guinea* 23 38 45 45Total Oceania 23 38 45 45brazil* 9 300 9 300 9 300 9 300Chile* 900 900 900 900ecuador* 9 9 9 9Peru* 190 190 190 190Total south America 10 399 10 399 10 399 10 399world 29 560 30 442 31 065 31 470Notes:* Data for 1990, 2000 and 2005 from FaO (2007f). Data for 2005 also used for 2010. For countries in Southamerica, the figures for 2000 were also used for 1990.** gaps in data series filled by FaO estimates.n.s. = not significant

32Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Figure 2.12Area of bamboo by country, 20100< 5050–500(1 000 ha)500–1 000> 1 000No dataNote: information for brazil, Chile, ecuador, lao People’s Democratic republic, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New guinea, Peru, Thailand,uganda and united republic of Tanzania is based on FaO, 2007f.than 700 thousand hectares. This is because India revised its estimate downwards bymore than 5 million hectares and Indonesia by 2 million hectares.TrendsInformation was missing for 1990 and 2000 for Cuba, Ethiopia and Sudan. For thesethree countries, the figure for 2005 was used for 1990 and 2000 as well. Indonesia onlyreported an estimate for 2000 and, due to a lack of other information, this figure wasused for all four reporting years.Based only on the 21 countries that reported some bamboo resources for FRA2010, the total area of bamboo has increased by some 1.6 million hectares (or closeto 11 percent) since 1990. By also taking into account data from the FRA 2005 study,the increase was 2 million hectares. However, there is clearly a need for better internalcommunication and more accurate assessments of the area of bamboo in manycountries.rubber plantationsRubber trees (primarily Hevea brasiliensis originating from Brazil) have been plantedin many countries over the past 100 years. Most rubber tree plantations are located inSouth and Southeast Asia and some also exist in tropical West Africa. Many of the earlyplantations are not very productive and the senescent trees are increasingly entering thewood production chain. Thailand in particular has carved out a niche market in toysand handicrafts made from rubber wood.StatusA total of 169 countries, accounting for 84 percent of the total forest area reported on thearea of rubber plantation. Of these, only 19 reported the existence of rubber plantations.

Extent of forest resources 33Annual statistics on the area harvested to produce natural rubber are collected byFAO as part of its agricultural statistics. In the FAOSTAT database, information isavailable for 28 countries. Combining the two sources of information yields a list of32 countries, because four countries reported to FRA 2010 but are not included inFAOSTAT. Table 2.10 and Figure 2.13 show the combined list of countries and theestimated areas. 9 The FAOSTAT figures refer to ‘area harvested’ and are therefore likelyTable 2.10Trends in area of rubber plantations by country and region, 1990–2010country/regionArea of rubber plantations (1 000 ha)1990 2000 2005 2010Cameroon* 39 43 49 52Central african republic* 1 1 1 1Congo* 2 2 2 2Côte d’ivoire 60 84 120 120Democratic republic of the Congo* 41 19 15 15ethiopia** 1 1 1 1gabon 13 13 13 13ghana* 11 17 17 17guinea 1 4 6 6liberia 109 109 109 109Malawi** 2 2 2 2Nigeria* 223 319 339 340Sierra leone 2 2 2 2Zambia 0 n.s. n.s. 1Total Africa 506 615 676 680bangladesh 20 35 35 8brunei Darussalam* 3 3 4 4Cambodia 67 79 74 69China 781 1 058 1 039 1 001india 502 563 597 631indonesia* 1 860 2 441 2 826 2 898Malaysia 1 836 1 431 1 229 1 132Myanmar* 40 54 72 73Philippines** 8 8 8 8Sri lanka 183 157 129 117Thailand 1 908 1 993 2 202 2 591Viet Nam 222 412 460 630Total Asia 7 431 8 234 8 674 9 161Total Europe 0 0 0 0Dominican republic* n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.guatemala* 16 39 50 62Mexico* 10 12 13 14Total north and central America 10 12 13 14Papua New guinea 16 20 22 24Total Oceania 16 20 22 24brazil 64 97 116 174ecuador* 2 4 8 9Total south America 65 100 124 183world 8 027 8 981 9 509 10 062Notes:* Figures obtained from FaOSTaT.** Missing data for two reporting years estimated by FaO.n.s. = not significant9To overcome the problem of erratic harvesting, five year averages were used from the FAOSTATdatabase for 1990, 2000 and 2005, with 2008 used as the best available estimate for 2010.

34Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Figure 2.13Area of rubber plantations by country, 20100< 5050–500(1 000 ha)500–1 000> 1 000No datato result in an underestimate of the total area, as was also evident when comparingthe two sources for countries that had reported to both processes. Nevertheless, thedifference, in most cases, was relatively small.At the global level, it is estimated that at least 10 million hectares of rubberplantations exist. The vast majority of these are located in Southeast Asia (Indonesia,Thailand and Malaysia) and in China.TrendsBased on the information available, the area of rubber plantations has steadily increasedby some 2 million hectares (or 25 percent) since 1990 (see Table 2.10). However, thearea is decreasing in Malaysia and is expected to decrease even further in the future asolder rubber plantations are being converted to other uses.conclusionsAs a follow-up to the thematic studies on mangroves and bamboo undertaken forFRA 2005 and in order to obtain data on rubber plantations, which in some countriesare not classified as forests, countries were asked to report separately on these threedistinct forest types as part of FRA 2010. The results show that the area of mangroves isdecreasing, while the area of bamboo and of rubber plantations is increasing. Althoughthe response rate overall was fairly good, data were missing from some countriesdespite the fact that they had been reported in the FRA 2005 study or supplied toFAO’s statistical database on agriculture (FAOSTAT). Furthermore, analysis of theexisting data on trends suggests that these should be treated with caution, so there isclearly room for improvement in future assessments of the status and trends of theseselected forest types.

Extent of forest resources 35grOwing sTOcKintroductionGrowing stock has formed part of the global forest resources assessments since thefirst report. In addition to providing information on existing wood resources, growingstock estimates form the basis for the estimation of biomass and carbon stocks for mostcountries.Country information on total growing stock and forest area was used to estimategrowing stock per hectare as an indicator of how well or poorly stocked the forests are.For FRA 2010 information was also collected on the proportion of broadleaved andconiferous tree species, and on the growing stock of commercial species.statusIn total, 180 countries and areas, representing 94 percent of the world’s forests,reported the total growing stock in forests for 2010. For the remaining countriesand areas, FAO estimated total growing stock by taking subregional averagesof growing stock per hectare and multiplying these by the forest area for therespective years.In 2010, the estimated total growing stock in the world’s forest amounted to527 billion m 3 . Table 2.11 and Figure 2.14 show that the growing stock per hectare ishighest in the tropical moist forests of South America and Western and Central Africa,but is also high in temperate and boreal forests.The composition of the growing stock, divided into broadleaved and coniferousspecies, was reported by 117 countries, representing 71 percent of the total forestarea and 74 percent of the world’s total growing stock. In 2010, about 39 percentof the total growing stock was coniferous and 61 percent broadleaved species.However, it is likely that in reality the share of broadleaved species is higher, as mostof the countries that have not reported on growing stock distribution are developingcountries with weak information, and in most of these countries coniferous speciesrepresent a very small part of the total growing stock. Coniferous species clearlydominate the growing stock in Europe, and North and Central America, whileTable 2.11growing stock by region and subregion, 2010region/subregion Total growing stock (million m 3 ) growing stock (m 3 /ha)eastern and Southern africa 13 697 51Northern africa 1 346 17Western and Central africa 61 908 189Total Africa 76 951 114east asia 21 337 84South and Southeast asia 29 031 99Western and Central asia 3 316 76Total Asia 53 685 91europe excl. russian Federation 30 529 156Total Europe 112 052 111Caribbean 584 84Central america 2 891 148North america 82 941 122Total north and central America 86 416 123Total Oceania 20 885 109Total south America 177 215 205world 527 203 131

36Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010broadleaved species are predominant in Africa, Oceania and South America (seeFigure 2.15).A total of 112 countries, representing 64 percent of the total forest area and67 percent of the world’s total growing stock, reported on the growing stock ofcommercial species for 2010. The proportion of the total growing stock made up ofcommercial species is presented in Table 2.12.Figure 2.14growing stock per hectare by country, 2010< 5050–100100–150(m 3 /ha)150–200> 200No dataFigure 2.15growing stock composition by subregion, 2010eastern and Southern africaNorthern africaWestern and Central africaeast asiaSouth and Southeast asiaWestern and Central asiaeurope excl. russian FederationeuropeCaribbeanCentral americaNorth americaOceaniaSouth america020406080100(%)Coniferousbroadleaved

Extent of forest resources 37About 61 percent of the world’s total growing stock is made up of commercialspecies. This includes all trees of commercial species, not only those that have reachedcommercial size or those growing on land available for wood supply. While countriesin North America and Europe consider most of the growing stock to be commercial,less than half of the growing stock is considered to comprise commercial species inAfrica, Asia and South America.In absolute terms – and bearing in mind that the figures are based on countriesrepresenting only 67 percent of the world’s total growing stock – the largest stocksof commercial species are found in Europe, South America, and North and CentralAmerica (see Figure 2.16). However, some large forest countries in Africa, Asia andOceania did not provide data on growing stock of commercial species, so the totalsshown are likely to be underestimates.The global total growing stock on other wooded land in 2010 is estimated at about15 billion m 3 or an average of about 13.1 m 3 per hectare. It should be noted howeverTable 2.12:growing stock of commercial species by region and subregion, 2010region/subregiongrowing stock of commercial species (% of total)eastern and Southern africa 16.5Northern africa 71.8Western and Central africa 21.6Total Africa 20.5east asia 32.4South and Southeast asia 28.8Western and Central asia 53.9Total Asia 32.9europe excl. russian Federation 99.3Total Europe 99.8Caribbean 75.0Central america 17.1North america 91.5Total north and central America 89.8Total Oceania 16.5Total south America 36.0world 61.2Figure 2.16growing stock of commercial species by region, 2010africaasiaeuropeNorth and Central americaOceaniaSouth america020406080100120 140(billion m 3 )Commercial speciesNon-commercial species

38Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010that country data on growing stock on other wooded land are generally weak and inmost cases rough estimates were made based on limited inventory data.TrendsIn total, 175 countries and areas, representing 93 percent of the world’s forests,reported a complete time series (1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010) for total growing stockin forests. For the remaining countries and areas FAO estimated total growing stockby taking subregional averages of growing stock per hectare and multiplying theseby the forest area for the respective years. In a few cases, where only one or two datapoints were missing for a complete time series, the FAO estimates for the missingdata points were based on the growing stock per hectare for the closest data point. Bythis procedure a complete dataset with no gaps was obtained, which has been used infurther analysis.A summary of growing stock by region and subregion is shown in Table 2.13,which indicates that there has been a small decline in total growing stock over theperiod 1990–2010. However, it is unlikely that this change (0.5 percent over 20 years)is significant in statistical terms.Growing stock is strongly correlated to forest area, which means that if the forestarea declines, so usually does the growing stock. Growing stock per hectare provides abetter indication of whether forests are becoming more or less well stocked. Growingstock per hectare is increasing globally, particularly in North America and in Europeexcluding the Russian Federation. The uneven trend for South and Southeast Asiais primarily a result of the data reported by Indonesia (which showed an increase ingrowing stock per hectare from 1992 to 1998 followed by a decrease between 1998 and2003). This may be because the methods used in Indonesia were not fully compatibleover time.It is interesting to note that the growing stock figures presented in FRA 2010,including growing stock per hectare, are in general higher than those contained inTable 2.13Trends in growing stock in forest by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregion growing stock (million m 3 ) growing stock (m 3 /ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 2000 2005 2010eastern and Southern africa 15 300 14 486 14 091 13 697 50.3 50.7 50.9 51.2Northern africa 1 415 1 351 1 355 1 346 16.6 17.1 17.2 17.1Western and Central africa 66 319 64 067 63 009 61 908 184.3 186.5 187.7 188.7Total Africa 83 035 79 904 78 455 76 951 110.8 112.8 113.5 114.1east asia 15 987 18 577 20 226 21 337 76.4 81.9 83.6 83.8South and Southeast asia 32 400 30 865 30 132 29 031 99.6 102.5 100.7 98.6Western and Central asia 2 949 3 101 3 204 3 316 71.1 73.5 74.7 76.2Total Asia 51 336 52 543 53 563 53 685 89.1 92.2 91.7 90.6europe excl. russian Federation 23 810 27 487 29 176 30 529 131.9 145.5 151.7 155.8Total Europe 103 849 107 757 109 655 112 052 105.0 107.9 109.5 111.5Caribbean 445 529 567 584 75.5 82.3 84.3 84.2Central america 3 782 3 253 3 073 2 891 147.1 148.0 148.1 148.2North america 74 913 76 925 79 924 82 941 110.7 113.6 117.9 122.2Total north and central America 79 141 80 708 83 564 86 416 111.7 114.4 118.5 122.5Total Oceania 21 293 21 415 21 266 20 885 107.1 108.0 108.1 109.1Total south America 191 451 184 141 181 668 177 215 202.3 203.6 205.9 205.0world 530 105 526 469 528 170 527 203 127.2 128.9 130.1 130.7

Extent of forest resources 39the FRA 2005 report. This is because many countries have collected new and betterdata for FRA 2010, more countries have reported, and more effort has been made tohelp countries provide the best possible estimates with the weak data they often haveavailable.Table 2.14 shows trends in the relative share of coniferous and broadleaved speciesby region and subregion between 1990 and 2010. It is based on data from 110 countriesand areas (representing 71 percent of the total forest area) which reported a completetime series of growing stock distributed by coniferous and broadleaved species. Formost regions, the changes over time are minimal; however East Asia shows a cleartrend towards a higher proportion of broadleaved species, primarily due to plantingof broadleaved species in China. Europe shows a similar, but less pronounced, trend.The figures for Oceania exclude both Australia and New Zealand as neither provideda full time series.A complete time series of the growing stock of commercial species was reportedby 105 countries and areas, representing 64 percent of total forest area. Table 2.15shows the proportion of the total growing stock made up of commercial speciesand how it changes over time. The slightly increasing global trend is unlikely to besignificant in statistical terms. Most regions show no, or a very small, change. OnlyAsia demonstrates a clear declining trend in the proportion of commercial speciesin the total growing stock, despite the fact that the total growing stock is increasingover time in the region. This is primarily due to a decrease in the growing stock ofcommercial species reported by China.A complete time series for growing stock on other wooded land was reported by111 countries (including those that reported zero). For the remaining countries andareas, FAO estimated growing stock on other wooded land by taking the subregionalaverages of growing stock per hectare and multiplying these by the area of otherwooded land for the respective years.Table 2.14Trends in growing stock composition by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregionconiferous species(% of total growing stock)Broadleaved species(% of total growing stock)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 2000 2005 2010eastern and Southern africa 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.4 96.1 96.4 96.6 96.6Northern africa 38.5 39.0 39.0 39.3 61.5 61.0 61.0 60.7Western and Central africa 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Total Africa 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 99.0 98.9 98.9 98.9east asia 59.3 55.7 51.6 51.2 40.7 44.3 48.4 48.8South and Southeast asia 12.8 13.2 13.3 13.5 87.2 86.8 86.7 86.5Western and Central asia 57.9 58.2 58.0 58.0 42.1 41.8 42.0 42.0Total Asia 43.7 42.4 40.2 40.1 56.3 57.6 59.8 59.9europe excl. russian Federation 61.0 60.2 59.1 58.9 39.0 39.8 40.9 41.1Total Europe 75.2 69.3 69.4 71.4 24.8 30.7 30.6 28.6Caribbean 8.5 9.4 9.0 9.0 91.5 90.6 91.0 91.0Central america 12.1 11.5 11.3 10.9 87.9 88.5 88.7 89.1North america 72.9 69.4 70.1 73.1 27.1 30.6 29.9 26.9Total north and central America 70.8 67.7 68.5 71.5 29.2 32.3 31.5 28.5Total Oceania 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Total south America 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 99.1 99.0 98.9 98.8world 37.1 36.0 36.7 38.8 62.9 64.0 63.3 61.2

40Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Table 2.16 shows the growing stock on other wooded land. There are somevariations in the time series, but most are unlikely to be statiscally significant. Thedecrease seen between 1990 and 2000 for the Russian Federation is likely to be a resultof data reported on the extent of other wooded land for 1990 and 2000, for which themethods used may not be fully compatible.Table 2.15Trends in growing stock of commercial species by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregioncommercial species(% of total growing stock)1990 2000 2005 2010eastern and Southern africa 16.2 16.4 16.4 16.5Northern africa 75.6 73.3 72.6 71.8Western and Central africa 20.7 21.0 21.3 21.6Total Africa 19.7 20.0 20.2 20.5east asia 67.0 45.7 32.3 32.4South and Southeast asia 29.2 29.1 28.8 28.8Western and Central asia 66.6 64.9 58.9 53.8Total Asia 52.8 41.5 33.2 32.9europe excl. russian Federation 99.4 99.4 99.5 99.5Total Europe 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9Caribbean 65.3 73.9 77.0 78.0Central america 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1North america 89.8 91.6 91.6 91.5Total north and central America 87.1 89.3 89.6 89.8Total Oceania 51.2 51.2 51.2 51.2Total south America 35.8 35.8 35.8 36.0world 60.0 60.7 60.7 61.6Table 2.16Trends in growing stock in other wooded land by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregion growing stock (million m 3 ) growing stock (m 3 /ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 2000 2005 2010eastern and Southern africa 3 266 3 086 2 995 2 907 15.4 15.0 14.7 14.5Northern africa 510 479 465 449 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.8Western and Central africa 1 794 1 722 1 690 1 662 16.0 16.8 17.3 17.8Total Africa 5 570 5 288 5 150 5 018 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3east asia 1 064 1 046 1 070 1 113 10.0 10.3 10.0 10.7South and Southeast asia 963 1 161 1 248 1 247 16.0 18.1 19.2 19.2Western and Central asia 195 190 185 184 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.7Total Asia 2 223 2 397 2 503 2 544 9.6 10.3 10.5 10.8europe excl. russian Federation 356 310 279 273 12.1 11.3 10.2 10.4Total Europe 1 961 1 903 1 931 2 048 25.5 19.2 19.2 20.6Caribbean 40 40 42 41 38.5 38.1 35.7 37.2Central america 155 165 167 173 26.1 25.4 25.7 26.5North america 229 228 228 227 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8Total north and central America 424 434 438 441 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3Total Oceania 2 367 2 399 2 431 2 463 16.5 16.7 16.9 17.2Total south America 2 654 2 582 2 543 2 508 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0world 15 199 15 003 14 995 15 022 13.0 12.9 12.9 13.1

Extent of forest resources 41conclusionsThe world’s total growing stock in forests is 527 billion m 3 or 131 m 3 /ha. The totalgrowing stock shows a slightly decreasing trend caused by a global decrease in forestarea. However, the growing stock per hectare is increasing globally – this is particularlythe case in North America and in Europe excluding the Russian Federation. Thegrowing stock per hectare is highest in the tropical forests of South America, andWestern and Central Africa, but is also high in temperate and boreal forests. Totalgrowing stock on other wooded land amounts to about 15 billion m 3 or 13 m 3 /ha.While the quality of the data has improved since FRA 2005 as more countries haveconducted national forest inventories, the absence of reliable trend information is stillan issue of concern. The vast majority of countries have only one estimate of growingstock per hectare and for these countries any changes in growing stock reflect only thechanges in forest area.For many countries, there is still no clear explanation of how the original countrydata on growing stock were obtained, and how related key parameters such as thresholdvalues were used, volume equations applied and species included. More work is neededto further improve the quality and the comparability of the growing stock estimates.BiOMAssintroductionForest biomass, expressed in terms of dry weight of living organisms, is an importantmeasure for analysing ecosystem productivity and also for assessing energy potentialand the role of forests in the carbon cycle. Although closely correlated to – and oftenestimated directly from – growing stock it constitutes an important characteristic ofthe forest ecosystem and has formed part of the global forest resources assessmentssince FRA 1990.statusIn total, 180 countries and areas, representing 94 percent of the world’s forests,reported on biomass in forest for 2010. Dead wood was reported by 73 countries andareas representing 60 percent of the world’s forests. For the remaining countries andareas, FAO estimated the biomass and dead wood by taking subregional averages perhectare and multiplying these by the forest area for the respective years.Table 2.17 shows that in 2010 the total biomass (above-ground and below-ground)contained in the world’s forests amounted to 600 Gt. This corresponds to about149 tonnes per hectare. The highest biomass stock per hectare was found in regionswith tropical forests, such as South America, and Western and Central Africa, wherebiomass stocks are over 200 tonnes per hectare. Dead wood in the world’s forests wasestimated to be about 67 Gt of dry matter or 16.6 tonnes per hectare.The global estimates of biomass for FRA 2010 are higher than those for FRA 2005.This is mainly because the estimates of forest area are higher in FRA 2010 than in FRA2005, but also because the biomass stock per hectare is slightly higher in FRA 2010.The vast majority of countries have used the conversion factors provided by theIPCC to estimate biomass from growing stock. The relationships between growingstock, above-ground and below-ground biomass are therefore fairly constant overtime. Table 2.18 shows the biomass conversion and expansion factor 10 , the root–shootratio 11 and the dead–live ratio 12 by subregion based on the estimates of growing stock10The biomass conversion and expansion factor is calculated as the above-ground biomass in tonnesdivided by growing stock in m 3 .11The root–shoot ratio is calculated as below-ground biomass divided by above-ground biomass.12The dead–live ratio is calculated as the dry weight of dead wood divided by the total living biomass(above-ground and below-ground).

42Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Table 2.17Biomass and dead wood stock by region and subregion, 2010region/subregion Biomass dead woodmillion tonnes t/ha million tonnes t/haeastern and Southern africa 33 385 124.8 6 888 25.7Northern africa 3 711 47.1 1 069 13.6Western and Central africa 81 603 248.7 7 747 23.6Total Africa 118 700 176.0 15 704 23.3east asia 18 429 72.4 2 514 9.9South and Southeast asia 51 933 176.4 5 964 20.3Western and Central asia 3 502 80.5 70 1.6Total Asia 73 864 124.7 8 548 14.4europe excl. russian Federation 25 602 130.7 1 434 7.3Total Europe 90 602 90.2 15 790 15.7Caribbean 1 092 157.5 120 17.2Central america 3 715 190.5 419 21.5North america 76 929 113.3 8 633 12.7Total north and central America 81 736 115.9 9 172 13.0Total Oceania 21 302 111.3 3 932 20.5Total south America 213 863 247.4 13 834 16.0world 600 066 148.8 66 980 16.6Table 2.18Biomass conversion and expansion factor, root–shoot ratio and dead–live ratio by region andsubregion, 2010region/subregionBiomass root–shoot ratio dead–live ratioconversion andexpansion factoreastern and Southern africa 1.94 0.26 0.21Northern africa 2.15 0.28 0.29Western and Central africa 1.07 0.23 0.09Total Africa 1.24 0.24 0.13east asia 0.66 0.31 0.14South and Southeast asia 1.43 0.30 0.11Western and Central asia 0.82 0.28 0.02Total Asia 1.08 0.30 0.12europe excl. russian Federation 0.67 0.26 0.06Total Europe 0.65 0.25 0.17Caribbean 1.51 0.24 0.11Central america 1.04 0.24 0.11North america 0.76 0.22 0.11Total north and central America 0.78 0.22 0.11Total Oceania 0.77 0.33 0.18Total south America 0.99 0.20 0.06world 0.92 0.24 0.11and biomass for 2010. As expected, the calculated factors are well within the range ofdefault values presented in the latest IPCC Guidelines (IPCC, 2006).TrendsIn total, 174 countries and areas reported a complete time series for above-ground andbelow-ground biomass in forests. These countries represent more than 93 per cent of

Extent of forest resources 43the global forest area. This is a considerable increase in reporting in comparison withFRA 2005 when 146 countries and areas provided information. For the remainingcountries and areas, FAO estimated biomass by taking the subregional averages ofbiomass per hectare and multiplying them by forest area for the respective years.Table 2.19 shows that, between 1990 and 2010, the global biomass stock decreasedby about 23 Gt, or 3.6 percent globally. Africa and South America show the largestdecrease in total stocks, mainly because of a decrease in forest area. In contrast, Europeand North America show an increase in total biomass stock.Globally, biomass stock per hectare does not show any major changes for the period1990–2010. South and Southeast Asia show a decrease in biomass stock per hectare,while Africa, Europe, North and Central America, and South America show a slightincrease. With the exception of South and Southeast Asia, the trends in biomass stockper hectare follow the trends in growing stock per hectare.Countries were asked to provide data on dead wood only if they had national dataavailable, because the latest IPCC guidelines (IPCC, 2006) do not provide any defaultfactors for estimating it. Consequently, the response rate for dead wood is low withcomplete time series data available for only 65 countries and areas, representing 59 percentof the world’s forest area. 13 The estimates of dead wood are therefore much weaker thanthe biomass estimates. For the remaining countries and areas, FAO made estimates bytaking the subregional averages of dead wood stock per hectare and multiplying themby the forest area for the respective years. Table 2.20 shows the estimated amount ofdead wood in forests expressed in million tonnes dry matter. Dead wood stocks havedecreased by about 3 Gt over the period 1990–2010, mainly due to the decrease in forestarea.Table 2.19Trends in total biomass in forests by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregion Total biomass in forest (million tonnes) Biomass in forest (t/ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 2000 2005 2010eastern and Southern africa 37 118 35 232 34 304 33 385 122.0 123.2 124.0 124.8Northern africa 3 931 3 721 3 731 3 711 46.2 47.0 47.2 47.1Western and Central africa 88 340 84 886 83 275 81 603 245.5 247.2 248.0 248.7Total Africa 129 390 123 839 121 309 118 700 172.7 174.8 175.4 176east asia 13 877 16 185 17 563 18 429 66.3 71.4 72.6 72.4South and Southeast asia 60 649 57 111 54 904 51 933 186.4 189.6 183.4 176.4Western and Central asia 3 063 3 236 3 355 3 502 73.8 76.7 78.2 80.5Total Asia 77 589 76 532 75 822 73 864 134.7 134.2 129.8 124.7europe excl. russian Federation 19 866 22 630 24 097 25 602 110.0 119.8 125.3 130.7Total Europe 84 874 86 943 88 516 90 602 85.8 87.1 88.4 90.2Caribbean 822 987 1 060 1 092 139.3 153.4 157.5 157.5Central america 4 803 4 145 3 931 3 715 186.7 188.6 189.5 190.5North america 72 518 74 453 75 646 76 929 107.2 110.0 111.6 113.3Total north and central America 78 143 79 585 80 637 81 736 110.3 112.8 114.3 115.9Total Oceania 22 095 21 989 21 764 21 302 111.2 110.8 110.6 111.3Total south America 230 703 222 251 217 504 213 863 243.8 245.8 246.5 247.4world 622 794 611 140 605 553 600 066 149.4 149.6 149.1 148.813This does not imply that 65 countries have national data on dead wood – some countries decided toreport the same stock as they reported to FRA 2005 based on the default factors in the IPCC 2003Good Practice Guidance (IPCC, 2003).

44Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Table 2.20Trends in dead wood stocks by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregion dead wood stock (million tonnes) dead wood (t/ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 2000 2005 2010eastern and Southern africa 7 836 7 362 7 126 6 888 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.7Northern africa 1 019 1 024 1 059 1 069 12.0 12.9 13.4 13.6Western and Central africa 8 740 8 271 8 019 7 747 24.3 24.1 23.9 23.6Total Africa 17 595 16 658 16 205 15 704 23.5 23.5 23.4 23.3east asia 1 920 2 193 2 362 2 514 9.2 9.7 9.8 9.9South and Southeast asia 7 435 6 491 6 257 5 964 22.8 21.6 20.9 20.3Western and Central asia 65 69 69 70 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6Total Asia 9 420 8 753 8 689 8 548 16.4 15.4 14.9 14.4europe excl. russian Federation 1 261 1 348 1 391 1 434 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3Total Europe 15 456 15 371 15 355 15 790 15.6 15.4 15.3 15.7Caribbean 89 105 113 120 15.0 16.4 16.8 17.2Central america 552 472 441 419 21.5 21.5 21.3 21.5North america 8 072 8 334 8 474 8 633 11.9 12.3 12.5 12.7Total north and central America 8 713 8 911 9 029 9 172 12.3 12.6 12.8 13.0Total Oceania 4 050 4 045 4 032 3 932 20.4 20.4 20.5 20.5Total south America 14 838 14 353 14 233 13 834 15.7 15.9 16.1 16.0world 70 072 68 089 67 542 66 980 16.8 16.7 16.6 16.6conclusionsThe world’s forests contain 600 Gt of biomass (above-ground and below-ground) andabout 67 Gt of dead wood. The decrease in total biomass stock is mainly a result of theloss of forest area.While data availability and quality have improved since FRA 2005, trend data arestill weak. Biomass is usually estimated by applying conversion factors to growingstock. However, the majority of countries do not have time series data on growingstock so the weaknesses in growing stock trend estimates are also directly translatedinto biomass. Data on dead wood dry matter are very weak and are unlikely to improveuntil the IPCC provides new and better default values and conversion factors.cArBOn sTOcKintroductionForests, like other ecosystems, are affected by climate change. In some places, impactsmay be negative, while in others they may be positive. Forests also influence climateand the climate change process. They absorb carbon in wood, leaves and soil andrelease it into the atmosphere when burned, for example during forest fires or whenforest land is cleared.The Kyoto protocol and the UNFCCC request all member countries to assess andreport national greenhouse gas emissions regularly, including emissions and removalsof carbon reflected as stock changes in forests. To this end, the IPCC has developedguidelines, methods and default values for the parameters needed to assess carbonstocks and their changes in forests (IPCC, 2006). It has thus provided all countries withthe means of estimating and reporting carbon stocks, greenhouse gas emissions andremovals, irrespective of the availability of country-specific data. In order to maximizesynergies and streamline country reporting to international organizations, FAOincorporated the IPCC 2006 guidelines on assessment of carbon stocks in forestsinto its guidelines for country reporting for FRA 2010.

Extent of forest resources 45Quantifying the substantial roles of forests as carbon stores, as sources of carbonemissions and as carbon sinks has become one of the keys to understanding andinfluencing the global carbon cycle. Global forest resources assessments have thepotential to contribute to, or substantiate, the estimates of the magnitude of carbonstocks and flows made by scientific bodies such as IPCC. At the same time, theycomplement and facilitate international reporting by countries on greenhouse gasemissions and removals under the UNFCCC.Figures on carbon stocks in forests reported under the UNFCCC, the KyotoProtocol and to FAO are not necessarily identical. Forest definitions may vary andfurthermore UNFCCC members are requested to report on ‘managed forests’ whichmay comprise all or only part of the forest area of a given country. FRA specificmethods such as calibration, reclassification, estimating and forecasting are also notalways implemented in exactly the same way in the reporting under the UNFCCC andthe Kyoto Protocol.statusIn total, 180 countries and areas, representing 94 percent of the world’s forests, reportedon carbon in biomass for 2010. For carbon in dead wood the corresponding figures are72 countries (61 percent), for carbon in litter 124 countries (78 percent) and forsoil carbon 121 countries (78 percent). For the remaining countries and areas, FAOestimated the carbon stocks by taking subregional averages per hectare and multiplyingthese by the forest area for the respective years.Table 2.21 shows the estimated carbon stock in forests by region, subregion andat a global level. In 2010, the total carbon stock in the biomass of the world’s forestsis estimated at 289 Gt. For most countries, carbon in biomass merely reflects thebiomass stock as the default carbon fraction from the IPCC guidelines has been used.In FRA 2010, most countries used a carbon fraction of 0.47 (as in the 2006 IPCCGuidelines), while some countries used the carbon fraction of 0.5 suggested in theTable 2.21carbon stock in forest by region and subregion, 2010region/subregioncarbonin biomassmillion t/hatonnescarbon in deadwood and littermillion t/hatonnescarbonin soilmillion t/hatonnesTotalcarbon stockmillion t/hatonneseastern and Southern africa 15 762 58.9 3 894 14.6 12 298 46.0 31 955 119.4Northern africa 1 747 22.2 694 8.8 2 757 35.0 5 198 66.0Western and Central africa 38 349 116.9 3 334 10.2 19 406 59.1 61 089 186.2Total Africa 55 859 82.8 7 922 11.7 34 461 51.1 98 242 145.7east asia 8 754 34.4 1 836 7.2 17 270 67.8 27 860 109.4South and Southeast asia 25 204 85.6 1 051 3.6 16 466 55.9 42 722 145.1Western and Central asia 1 731 39.8 546 12.6 1 594 36.6 3 871 89.0Total Asia 35 689 60.2 3 434 5.8 35 330 59.6 74 453 125.7europe excl. russian Federation 12 510 63.9 3 648 18.6 18 924 96.6 35 083 179.1Total Europe 45 010 44.8 20 648 20.5 96 924 96.4 162 583 161.8Caribbean 516 74.4 103 14.8 416 60.0 1 035 149.2Central america 1 763 90.4 714 36.6 1 139 58.4 3 616 185.4North america 37 315 55.0 26 139 38.5 39 643 58.4 103 097 151.8Total north and central America 39 594 56.1 26 956 38.2 41 198 58.4 107 747 152.7Total Oceania 10 480 54.8 2 937 15.3 8 275 43.2 21 692 113.3Total south America 102 190 118.2 9 990 11.6 75 473 87.3 187 654 217.1world 288 821 71.6 71 888 17.8 291 662 72.3 652 371 161.8

46Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010IPCC 2003 Good Practice Guidance. A few countries have used country-specificcarbon fractions for their estimates. Globally, the average carbon fraction used is 0.48with minor variations between subregions.The total carbon stock in dead wood and litter in 2010 amounts to 72 billion tonnesor 17.8 tonnes per hectare. This is slightly more than reported in FRA 2005. However,data on carbon stock in dead wood and litter are still very weak. Most countries donot have national data on these carbon pools, so until the IPCC provides better defaultvalues, estimates of these carbon pools will continue to be weak.The total stock of carbon in soil is estimated at 292 billion tonnes or 72.3 tonnes perhectare. This is slightly more than the total carbon stock in forest biomass.Taking together all carbon in biomass, dead wood, litter and soils, the estimatedtotal carbon stock in forests in 2010 is 652 billion tonnes, corresponding to 161.8tonnes per hectare.TrendsIn total, 174 countries and areas (representing 93 percent of the total forest area) havereported a complete time series on carbon stock in forest biomass (above-ground andbelow-ground). For the remaining countries and areas, FAO estimated carbon stockin forest biomass by taking the subregional averages of carbon stock per hectare andmultiplying them by the forest area for the respective years.Table 2.22 shows the trends in estimated carbon stock in forest biomass bysubregion, region and at the global level for the period 1990–2010. The total carbonstock in the biomass of the world’s forests shows a decrease of about 10 Gt for theperiod 1990–2010 or -0.5 Gt per year on average, mainly due to a reduction in theworld’s forest area. As for biomass, the carbon stock per hectare does not show anysignificant change at the global level.For dead wood carbon the response rate for FRA 2010 was lower than in FRA 2005,mainly because of the IPCC’s decision to omit default conversion factors from thelatest version of their guidelines. A complete time series on carbon in dead wood wasreported by 66 countries and areas (representing 61 percent of the world’s forest area).Table 2.22Trends in carbon stocks in forest biomass by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregion carbon in forest biomass (million tonnes) carbon in forest biomass (t/ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 2000 2005 2010eastern and Southern africa 17 524 16 631 16 193 15 762 57.6 58.2 58.5 58.9Northern africa 1 849 1 751 1 756 1 747 21.7 22.1 22.2 22.2Western and Central africa 41 525 39 895 39 135 38 349 115.4 116.2 116.6 116.9Total Africa 60 898 58 277 57 083 55 859 81.3 82.2 82.6 82.8east asia 6 592 7 690 8 347 8 754 31.5 33.9 34.5 34.4South and Southeast asia 29 110 27 525 26 547 25 204 89.5 91.4 88.7 85.6Western and Central asia 1 511 1 599 1 658 1 731 36.4 37.9 38.7 39.8Total Asia 37 213 36 814 36 553 35 689 64.6 64.6 62.6 60.2europe excl. russian Federation 9 699 11 046 11 763 12 510 53.7 58.5 61.2 63.9Total Europe 42 203 43 203 43 973 45 010 42.7 43.3 43.9 44.8Caribbean 387 466 500 516 65.5 72.4 74.4 74.4Central america 2 279 1 969 1 865 1 763 88.6 89.6 89.9 90.4North america 35 100 36 073 36 672 37 315 51.9 53.3 54.1 55Total north and central America 37 766 38 508 39 038 39 594 53.3 54.6 55.3 56.1Total Oceania 10 862 10 816 10 707 10 480 54.7 54.5 54.4 54.8Total south America 110 281 106 226 103 944 102 190 116.5 117.5 117.8 118.2world 299 224 293 843 291 299 288 821 71.8 71.9 71.7 71.6

Extent of forest resources 47For carbon in litter the response rate was much higher than in FRA 2005 whenonly 54 countries reported. For FRA 2010, 119 countries (accounting for 77 percentof the world’s forest area) reported on carbon in litter. For the remaining countriesand areas, FAO estimated carbon stocks by taking the subregional average carbonstocks per hectare and multiplying them by the forest area for the respective years.Table 2.23 shows trends in carbon stocks of dead wood and litter combined for theperiod 1990–2010.A complete time series on soil carbon was reported by 117 countries and areas(representing 78 percent of the world’s forest area). This is a substantially largerresponse rate than in FRA 2005 when only 43 countries reported. For the remainingcountries and areas, FAO made estimates by taking the subregional average soilcarbon stocks per hectare and multiplying these by the forest area for the respectiveyears. Most countries have used IPCC default values of stocks per hectare whichrelate to a soil depth of 30 cm. In this analysis, no adjustment has been made forcountries reporting soil carbon to non-standard soil depths.The declining trend in the total stock of carbon in the soil for the period 1990–2010(see Table 2.24) is attributed to the loss of forest area during this period as the stocksper hectare show almost no change.Table 2.25 summarizes the FRA 2010 global estimates of carbon stocks in forest.The estimated total carbon stock in forests in 2010 is 652 billion tonnes, whichequates to 161.8 tonnes per hectare. The total carbon stock has decreased duringthe period 1990–2010, mainly as a result of the loss of forest area during the period.Carbon stocks per hectare show a slight increase, but it is unlikely to be significant instatistical terms.FRA 2010 shows slightly higher carbon stocks than those estimated for FRA 2005.This is mostly because forest area is estimated to be higher in FRA 2010 comparedwith FRA 2005. The stocks per hectare are almost the same, but while FRA 2005presented a decreasing trend in stocks per hectare, FRA 2010 shows almost no changeover time.Table 2.23Trends in carbon stocks in dead wood and litter combined, by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregioncarbon in dead wood and litter(million tonnes)carbon in dead wood and litter(t/ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 2000 2005 2010eastern and Southern africa 4 419 4 156 4 025 3 894 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.6Northern africa 674 668 688 694 7.9 8.4 8.7 8.8Western and Central africa 4 118 3 761 3 542 3 334 11.4 11 10.6 10.2Total Africa 9 211 8 586 8 255 7 922 12.3 12.1 11.9 11.7east asia 1 428 1 608 1 729 1 836 6.8 7.1 7.1 7.2South and Southeast asia 1 134 1 069 1 067 1 051 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6Western and Central asia 502 517 530 546 12.1 12.2 12.4 12.6Total Asia 3 064 3 194 3 325 3 434 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.8europe excl. russian Federation 3 337 3 495 3 561 3 648 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.6Total Europe 20 254 20 223 20 259 20 648 20.5 20.3 20.2 20.5Caribbean 72 89 97 103 12.2 13.8 14.3 14.8Central america 929 799 756 714 36.1 36.4 36.4 36.6North america 25 590 25 621 25 932 26 139 37.8 37.8 38.3 38.5Total north and central America 26 591 26 510 26 784 26 956 37.5 37.6 38 38.2Total Oceania 3 027 3 025 3 014 2 937 15.2 15.3 15.3 15.3Total south America 10 776 10 382 10 154 9 990 11.4 11.5 11.5 11.6world 72 923 71 919 71 792 71 888 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8

48Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Table 2.24Trends in carbon stocks in forest in soil by region and subregion, 1990 –2010region/subregion carbon in soil (million tonnes) carbon in soil (t/ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 2000 2005 2010eastern and Southern africa 13 871 13 084 12 690 12 298 45.6 45.8 45.9 46.0Northern africa 2 952 2 748 2 771 2 757 34.7 34.7 35.1 35.0Western and Central africa 21 083 20 223 19 814 19 406 58.6 58.9 59.0 59.1Total Africa 37 907 36 055 35 275 34 461 50.6 50.9 51.0 51.1east asia 14 220 15 402 16 432 17 270 68.0 67.9 67.9 67.8South and Southeast asia 18 071 16 760 16 701 16 466 55.5 55.7 55.8 55.9Western and Central asia 1 534 1 550 1 564 1 594 37.0 36.7 36.5 36.6Total Asia 33 826 33 712 34 698 35 330 58.7 59.1 59.4 59.6europe excl. russian Federation 17 503 18 495 18 632 18 924 97.0 97.9 96.9 96.6Total Europe 95 503 96 495 96 632 96 924 96.5 96.7 96.5 96.4Caribbean 354 386 403 416 59.9 59.9 60.0 60.0Central america 1 511 1 287 1 212 1 139 58.7 58.6 58.4 58.4North america 39 752 39 645 39 613 39 643 58.7 58.6 58.4 58.4Total north and central America 41 617 41 318 41 229 41 198 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.4Total Oceania 8 584 8 533 8 490 8 275 43.2 43.0 43.2 43.2Total south America 82 989 78 961 76 909 75 473 87.7 87.3 87.2 87.3world 300 425 295 073 293 232 291 662 72.1 72.2 72.2 72.3Table 2.25Trends in total carbon stocks in forests, 1990–2010Total carbon stock (million tonnes)carbon stock (t/ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 2000 2005 2010Carbon in biomass 299 224 293 843 291 299 288 821 71.8 71.9 71.7 71.6Carbon in dead wood 34 068 33 172 32 968 32 904 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.2Carbon in litter 38 855 38 748 38 825 38 984 9.3 9.5 9.6 9.7Carbon in soil 300 425 295 073 293 232 291 662 72.1 72.2 72.2 72.3Total carbon stock 672 571 660 836 656 323 652 371 161.4 161.8 161.6 161.8conclusionsThe world’s forests store more than 650 billion tonnes of carbon, 44 percent in thebiomass, 11 percent in dead wood and litter, and 45 percent in the soil. Globally carbonstocks are decreasing as a result of the loss of forest area; however the carbon stock perhectare has remained almost constant for the period 1990–2010. According to theseestimates, the world’s forest is therefore a net source of emissions due to the decreasein total forest area.Data availability and quality have improved since FRA 2005, but there are still someissues of concern. As with growing stock and biomass, trend data are weak as mostcountries only have national data on growing stock for one point in time. This meansthat changes in stocks merely reflect changes in forest area. Default carbon values fordead wood were omitted from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the default values oncarbon in litter are very rough. For soil carbon there are some issues related to the datafrom countries that estimate carbon to different soil depths. Finally, some countrieswith large areas of forested peat land have had difficulties assessing soil carbon usingthe IPCC guidelines.

49Chapter 3Forest biological diversityOverviewBiological diversity encompasses the variety of existing life forms, the ecological rolesthey perform and the genetic diversity they contain (FAO, 1989). In forests, biologicaldiversity allows species to evolve and dynamically adapt to changing environmentalconditions (including climate), to maintain the potential for tree breeding andimprovement (to meet human needs for goods and services, and changing end-userequirements) and to support their ecosystem functions.While timber production often dominated the way in which forests were managedin the twentieth century, new pressures in the twenty-first century demand a morebalanced approach that provides multiple goods and services. Progress towardssustainable forest management is now considered consistent with the conservation ofbiological diversity.Assessing, monitoring and reporting on biological diversity are important activitiesaimed at guiding sustainable forest management. Monitoring of biological diversity –and the changes caused by forestry and other practices – is important in assessing theeffectiveness of management and the cumulative changes brought about by forest use.However, there are conceptual and practical difficulties in measuring it. These are notunique to biological diversity per se, but are general inventory problems for variablesin which target parameters are complex and highly variable.Assessments of biological diversity can be made at a range of different scales thatrequire different methodologies. These scales include ecosystems, landscapes, species,populations, individuals and genes. Varying and complex interactions exist among allthese levels.Because biological diversity encompasses the complexity of all life forms, assessmentand monitoring are only possible for specific aspects or particular, defined goals. Thereis no single, objective measure of biological diversity, only proxy measures appropriatefor specific and, by necessity, restricted purposes. Species richness, for example, has avery wide natural variation from boreal to tropical forests.For policy and monitoring purposes, it is the change in biological diversity that isimportant, which implies identifying the relevant indicators and then monitoring themover time. So far this has not been achieved for forest ecosystems on a wide scale (i.e.national or continental). Most local forest inventories are conducted to estimate forestarea and harvestable volumes of wood and sometimes NWFPs, rather than to monitorbiological diversity. There is an immediate need to categorize – and substantiallyimprove the understanding of – biological diversity with a view to measuring trends,particularly on regional scales.In recent years, the Global Forest Resources Assessment has increased its focuson forest biological diversity. For FRA 2000, data were compiled on the proportionof forests in protected areas. Relevant information was compiled at the landscape andspecies levels for FRA 2005, while some structural and compositional aspects were alsoaddressed. At the ecosystem level, for FRA 2005 countries provided information onthe area of forests and, more specifically, on the area of primary forests and on forestsdesignated for the conservation of biological diversity (including protected areas). Atthe species level, for FRA 2005 FAO focused on the assessment of the number of bothnative and endangered forest tree species at the country level. In addition, country

50Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010reports included lists of the ten most common tree species (measured by their shareof total growing stock), thus providing important information on the tree speciescomposition of forests.The variables measured for FRA 2010 with relevance to forest biological diversityinclude:• area of primary forests;• forest area designated primarily for conservation of biological diversity;• area of forests in protected areas;• tree species composition of forests.Although the second and third variables above are similar, the area of forestdesignated for the conservation of biological diversity is not necessarily equivalentto the area of forest in protected areas. This is because some protected areas may bedesignated for reasons other than the conservation of biological diversity, such as theprotection of soil and water resources, or cultural heritage. At the same time, forestsmay be designated and managed primarily for the conservation of biological diversitywithout forming part of a protected area network.In addition to the variables related to forest biological diversity presented andanalysed here, Chapter 2 provides information on trends in the characteristics offorests – including the extent of selected forest types; Chapter 4 contains informationon woody invasive species; and Chapter 5 presents an analysis of the use of introducedspecies in planted forests.A study on the state of the world’s forest genetic resources is currently underwayand, once completed, will help fill an important information gap (see Box 3.1).Key FindingsPrimary forests account for 36 percent of forest area – but have decreased bymore than 40 million hectares since 2000Globally, more than one-third of all forest is classified as primary forest. This is definedas forest of native species where there are no clearly visible indications of humanactivities and the ecological processes have not been significantly disturbed. Primaryforests, in particular tropical moist forests, include some of the world’s most speciesrich,diverse terrestrial ecosystems. The area of primary forest decreased by about0.4 percent annually over the last ten years, largely as a result of the reclassification ofprimary forest to ‘other naturally regenerated forest’ because of selective logging andother human interventions.Twelve percent of the world’s forests are designated primarily for theconservation of biological diversityThe area of forest where conservation of biological diversity is designated as theprimary function has increased by more than 95 million hectares since 1990, of whichthe largest part (46 percent) was designated between 2000 and 2005. These forests nowaccount for 12 percent of the total forest area or more than 460 million hectares. Most,but not all, of them are located inside protected areas.Legally established protected areas cover an estimated 13 percent of theworld’s forestsNational parks, game reserves, wilderness areas and legally established protected areascover more than 10 percent of the total forest area in most countries and regions. Theprimary function of these forests may be the conservation of biological diversity, theprotection of soil and water resources, or the conservation of cultural heritage. The areaof forest within protected area systems has increased by 94 million hectares since 1990.Two-thirds of this increase has been since 2000.

Forest biological diversity 51Analysis of data on growing stock composition can provide proxy indicatorsof forest tree species richness and relative abundanceThis is useful for qualitative assessment and monitoring of biological diversity. Whilethe growing stock of the ten most common tree species represents more than 90percent of the total growing stock in many countries in the temperate and boreal zone,it represents less than 20 percent of total growing stock in tropical countries withhigh species diversity. The availability and comparability of information remains poor,however.Key cOncLusiOnsData collected for FRA 2010 show a continued positive trend in efforts to conserveforest biological diversity, as measured by quantitative indicators such as the area offorest designated primarily for the conservation of biological diversity and the areaof forest in protected areas, which are both steadily increasing. However, the area ofprimary forest continues to decline.Although information on growing stock composition is a useful proxy indicatorof species richness and abundance, other indicators need to be determined or testedfor use in qualitative assessments, which are necessary to monitor forest biologicaldiversity. The preparation of the first report on The State of the World’s Forest GeneticResources (see Box 3.1) should contribute to the definition of additional indicators formonitoring forest biological diversity and the effectiveness of conservation measures.Box 3.1reporting on the State of the World’s Forest Genetic ResourcesGenetic diversity provides the fundamental basis for the evolution of forest tree species and for theiradaptation to change. Conserving forest genetic resources is therefore vital, as they are a unique andirreplaceable resource for the future.Forest genetic resources management can be effective only if treated as an integral element ofoverall sustainable forest management. Conservation concerns should be integrated into broadernational and local development programmes, such as national forest programmes, rural developmentplans and poverty reduction strategies, which promote cooperation among sectors.However, there is no consolidated global picture on the status and trends of forest geneticresources, and estimates of the rate of genetic diversity loss are lacking. This limits the capacity ofcountries and the international community to integrate forest genetic resources management intooverall cross-cutting policies. It is recognized that reliable general data on forest status and trendsare of great importance for the efficient management of forest genetic resources. Forest-relatedinformation, however, largely refers to forest resources in general rather than to forest diversity andvariation. The availability of specific information on the status and trends in forest genetic resources iscurrently woefully inadequate.The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of FAo acknowledged the urgencyof conserving and sustainably utilizing forest genetic resources. With the support of the Committeeon Forestry, the Commission requested that a State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources report beprepared and presented to the Commission in 2013. The preparation of such a report was welcomed bythe ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD.The State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources will be prepared through a country-drivenapproach based on country reports and thematic studies. The Global Forest Resources Assessmentprocess will serve as a model, and the two processes will be linked.

52Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010AreA OF PrimAry FOresTsintroductionInformation on total forest area, forest characteristics and the change in these over timeis presented in Chapter 2, Extent of Forest Resources. This section focuses on primaryforests, which are defined in FRA 2010 as forests of native species, in which there areno clearly visible indications of human activity and the ecological processes have notbeen significantly disturbed.Primary forests are often equated with high levels of biological diversity, but thisis not always the case. In the boreal zones and the arid tropics, for example, they canbe poor in terms of numbers of plant and animal species, while some modified naturalforests and forests interspersed with agricultural areas may provide additional habitatsand thus harbour more species. Nevertheless, the size of the area of primary forest isan important indicator of the state of forest ecosystems.It should also be kept in mind that primary forests fulfil many essential functionsother than the conservation of biological diversity, such as protection of soil and waterresources, carbon sequestration and the provision of aesthetic, cultural and religiousvalues.statusOf the 233 countries and areas reporting for FRA 2010, 200 countries, accounting for94 percent of total forest area, reported on the area of primary forest. Globally, close to1.4 billion hectares, were classified as primary forest, which represents over one-third(36 percent) of total forest area of the reporting countries. However, information wasmissing for many of the smaller islands and territories, as well as for countries such asCameroon and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (two of the largest countries inthe Congo Basin, the second largest expanse of tropical forest) and for the BolivarianRepublic of Venezuela, so the actual area is probably slightly higher. Several countriesreported that they had insufficient information on the area of primary forests, sothey included it in the category of other naturally regenerated forests. Others usedthe current area of forests in national parks and other protected areas as a proxyvalue or provided an expert estimate of the percentage of natural forests that could beconsidered primary according to the FRA 2010 definition.There is great variation in the distribution of primary forests. At the regional level,the largest expanse is found in South America (624 million hectares), followed byNorth and Central America, and Europe (almost all in the Russian Federation) (seeTable 3.1). Limited areas are reported by some countries of the Caribbean, Europe(excluding the Russian Federation) and the arid zones of Eastern and Southern Africa,Northern Africa and Western and Central Asia. A relatively high proportion of forestsin Central Africa, North and Central America and the Russian Federation have beenclassified as primary.The ten countries with the largest areas of primary forest account for 88 percent ofthe total area of primary forest in the world (see Figure 3.1). However, as discussedabove, information is missing from some of the large tropical countries, which mightotherwise fall within the top ten countries. Primary forest makes up at least 50 percentof the total forest area in 19 countries, and seven countries have classified more than75 percent of their forests as primary (Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2).14Although information was provided for all four reporting years, the Russian Federation was excludedfrom this analysis because there was a large difference in the reported change rate (from +1.6 millionhectares per year in the 1990s to -0.5 million hectares per year in the period 2000–2005). This is theresult of a modification to the classification system introduced in 1995 rather than actual changes inprimary forest area.

Forest biological diversity 53TABle 3.1Area of primary forest by region and subregion, 2010region/subregion information availability Area of primary forest regionaldistributionnumber ofcountries% of totalforest area1 000 ha % %eastern and Southern Africa 23 100.0 6 430 2.4 0.5Northern Africa 8 100.0 13 990 17.8 1.0Western and Central Africa 23 46.9 27 527 17.9 2.0Total Africa 54 74.2 47 947 9.6 3.5east Asia 5 100.0 25 268 9.9 1.9South and Southeast Asia 17 100.0 81 235 27.6 6.0Western and Central Asia 23 96.9 3 201 7.6 0.2Total Asia 45 99.8 109 705 18.6 8.1europe excl. Russian Federation 42 97.7 5 438 2.8 0.4Total europe 43 99.6 261 920 26.2 19.3Caribbean 16 70.4 205 4.2 n.s.Central America 7 100.0 4 482 23.0 0.3North America 5 100.0 275 035 40.5 20.2Total north and central America 28 99.7 279 722 39.8 20.6Total Oceania 17 99.7 35 493 18.6 2.6Total south America 13 94.6 624 077 76.3 45.9world 200 94.3 1 358 864 35.7 100.0FIGuRe 3.1Ten countries with the largest area of primary forest, 2010(%)Brazil 35Russian Federation 19Canada 12united States of America 6Peru 4Indonesia 3Boliva (Plurinational State of) 3Mexico 3Papua New Guinea 2India 1others 12Of the 200 reporting countries and areas, 81 countries, mostly in Europe and thearid zones of Africa and Western Asia, as well as SIDS, reported that they have noprimary forests left. In some cases, this may be due to a lack of data rather than acomplete lack of primary forest, as for example in Finland.TrendsA trend analysis was generated based on 198 countries accounting for 74 percent ofthe total forest area 14 . Of these, 184 countries provided data for all four years (1990,2000, 2005 and 2010), including those reporting that they had no primary forest.Information was missing for eight countries for 1990 (Ecuador, Estonia, Guyana,

54Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TABle 3.2Ten countries with the highest percentage of primary forest, 2010country/areaPrimary forest as% of total forestArea of forest(1 000 ha)Area of primaryforest (1 000 ha)Singapore 100 2 2French Guiana 95 8 082 7 690Suriname 95 14 758 14 001Brazil 92 519 522 476 573Papua New Guinea 91 28 726 26 210Peru 89 67 992 60 178Micronesia (Federated States of) 75 64 48Tajikistan 72 410 297Brunei Darussalam 69 380 263Gabon 65 22 000 14 334FIGuRe 3.2Primary forest as a percentage of total forest area by country, 2010(% of forest area)0–55–1010–2020–5050–100No dataIndonesia, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Samoa),and for seven additional countries (Australia, French Polynesia, Honduras, Jordan,Lebanon, New Zealand and Nicaragua) data were missing for both 1990 and 2000.Estimates were made for these countries using the same trend reported for 2000–2005and 2005–2010 respectively. One country (Niue) only provided an estimate for 2010and was excluded from the analysis. While filling these gaps gives a better idea of thetrend over time, it probably underestimates the actual loss of primary forest, especiallyfor the 1990s.At the global level the area of primary forest decreased by around 4.7 millionhectares per year in the 1990s, and by 4.2 million hectares per year between 2000 and2010. This loss, which equates to 0.4 percent of the area of primary forest annually

Forest biological diversity 55over the ten-year period, is largely due to the reclassification of primary forest to othercategories of forest because of selective logging and other human interventions duringthis period. However, information is still insufficient to determine precisely whatproportion of the decrease in primary forest is due to deforestation and what is due to areclassification to one of the two other categories: ‘other naturally regenerated forests’and ‘planted forests’.South America accounted for the largest proportion of the net loss, followed byAfrica and Asia. The rate of loss is stable or decreasing in all regions except Oceania,where it is increasing (primarily as a result of a higher reported loss from Papua NewGuinea for the period 2005–2010); and in Europe, and North and Central Americawhich registered a net gain (Table 3.3). 15At the subregional level, the loss of primary forests in Eastern and SouthernAfrica has increased slightly, primarily due to an increased rate of loss reported byMadagascar. In Northern Africa a significant reduction in the rate of loss is reported bySudan, while in Western and Central Africa, a slight decrease in the rate of loss reportedby Gabon and Nigeria influence the subregional totals.Overall, the rate of loss of primary forest decreased in East Asia. The Republic ofKorea reported the largest loss in this subregion. In contrast, Japan is increasing itsnet gain (see below) and Mongolia reported a decrease in its net loss. In South andSoutheast Asia, Indonesia reported the largest loss of primary forest, but did notprovide an estimate for 1990; the annual net loss for the 1990s was therefore assumedto be the same as in 2000–2005 for the purpose of Table 3.3 and is likely to be anunderestimate. Over the period 2000–2010, Indonesia reported a significant reductionin the average annual area lost in the five years 2005–2010, compared with 2000–2005.TABle 3.3Trends in area of primary forest by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregioninformationavailabilitynumberofcountries% of totalforest areaArea of primary forest(1 000 ha)1990 2000 2010 1990–2000Annual change(1 000 ha)2000–2010Annual changerate (%)eastern and Southern Africa 23 100.0 7 594 7 024 6 430 -57 -59 -0.78 -0.88Northern Africa 8 100.0 15 276 14 098 13 990 -118 -11 -0.80 -0.08Western and Central Africa 23 46.9 37 737 32 540 27 527 -520 -501 -1.47 -1.66Total Africa 54 74.2 60 607 53 662 47 947 -695 -572 -1.21 -1.12east Asia 5 100.0 28 179 26 456 25 268 -172 -119 -0.63 -0.46South and Southeast Asia 17 100.0 87 062 83 587 81 235 -348 -235 -0.41 -0.29Western and Central Asia 23 96.9 2 924 3 083 3 201 16 12 0.53 0.38Total Asia 45 99.8 118 166 113 127 109 705 -504 -342 -0.43 -0.31Total europe 42 19.1 5 183 5 360 5 438 18 8 0.34 0.14Caribbean 16 70.4 207 206 205 n.s. n.s. -0.07 -0.02Central America 7 100.0 5 766 5 226 4 482 -54 -74 -0.98 -1.52North America 5 100.0 274 920 273 795 275 035 -113 124 -0.04 0.05Total north and central 28 99.7 280 893 279 227 279 722 -167 50 -0.06 0.02AmericaTotal Oceania 16 99.7 41 416 39 191 35 493 -222 -370 -0.55 -0.99Total south America 13 94.6 684 654 653 691 624 077 -3 096 -2 961 -0.46 -0.46world 198 74.3 1 190 919 1 144 258 1 102 382 -4 666 -4 188 -0.40 -0.371990–20002000–201015A gain in primary forest can occur when forest areas that were previously not classified as undisturbedare designated as areas in which no intervention should take place. With time, these areas evolve intoforests that meet the definition of primary as used in the FRA process.

56Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010In Western and Central Asia, Turkey reported an increase in the area of primary forests– based on the area of forests in protected areas – while most other countries reportedno primary forests, no data or no significant change.In Europe (excluding the Russian Federation) an increase in the area of primaryforest was reported by Bulgaria, Denmark, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia, whileEstonia and Latvia reported a slight decrease. All other countries reported no – or nosignificant – change.In the Caribbean only the larger islands reported that they had areas of primaryforest and there was no significant change in the total area. In Central America,Guatemala reported the largest area of primary forest and was the only country thatreported a change in this area – with the loss in the last decade larger than in the 1990s.In North America, Mexico reported a decreasing rate of loss, while the United Statesof America reported an increasing rate of net gain of primary forest.Australia did not report on the area of primary forest in 1990 and 2000, so for thepurpose of Table 3.3, the change rate for the whole period was assumed to be the sameas for 2005–2010. Papua New Guinea, which reported the largest area of primary forestin the region, also reported the largest loss of primary forest for the period, particularlyin the last decade.In South America, Brazil reported both the largest area and the largest loss;however, the rate of loss has decreased in the last decade from an average of 2.8 millionhectares per year in the 1990s to 2.3 million hectares annually in 2005–2010. Peru andBolivia also reported a significant loss of primary forests. This loss peaked in the period2000–2005 in Peru and increased in Bolivia in the last decade compared with the 1990s.The five countries reporting the largest decrease in primary forest over the last20 years were Brazil, Gabon, Mexico, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. A numberof countries registered positive change rates in the area of primary forests, includingseveral European countries, the United States of America and Japan. In most of thesecases, countries have been setting aside natural forest areas in which no interventionshould take place. With time, these areas evolve into forests in which there are noclearly visible indications of human activity and the ecological processes are notsignificantly disturbed, meeting the definition of primary forests used in FRA 2010.For example, Japan and some of the European countries classified all natural forestsover a certain age or size, as well as all forests in inaccessible areas, as primary forests –in some cases only if no interventions had been conducted over a certain time period.The United States of America reported the largest net gain in primary forest of morethan 200 000 ha per year, which was primarily the result of an increase in the area offorest in protected areas.conclusionsWhile globally more than one-third of total forest area is classified as primary forest,this area has decreased by more than 40 million hectares over the last ten years.Although there have been improvements in the availability of data on primary forestssince the last global assessment, many countries still rely on proxies such as the areawithin national parks and other protected areas. Furthermore, information is stillinsufficient to determine what proportion of the decrease in primary forest is due todeforestation and what is due to a reclassification to one of the two other categories:‘other naturally regenerated forests’ and ‘planted forests’.FOresT AreA designATed FOr cOnservATiOn OF biOLOgicAL diversiTyintroductionThe designation and management of land for conservation is a key part of ongoingglobal efforts to conserve biological diversity. The amount of land on which theconservation of biological diversity is the primary function is therefore an important

Forest biological diversity 57indicator of progress, and monitoring of this variable provides valuable information forconservation practitioners.The forest area designated primarily for conservation of biological diversity is notnecessarily equivalent to the area of forest in protected areas because some forests inprotected areas may be designated for reasons other than the conservation of biologicaldiversity, such as the conservation of soil and water resources or cultural heritage.Conversely, forest areas may be designated for the conservation of biodiversitywithout forming part of a protected area network or system.statusOf the 233 countries and areas reporting for FRA 2010, 205 countries and areas,representing 99.9 percent of the total forest area, provided information on forest areadesignated primarily for the conservation of biological diversity. The availability ofinformation has improved compared with the last assessment (FRA 2005), when only172 countries reported on this variable. This is particularly noticeable in Western andCentral Africa, where all 24 countries provided data (compared with only 15 for FRA2005). The availability of information for FRA 2010 was low only in the Caribbean.These data show that, globally, 463 million hectares of forest, or 11.5 percent ofthe total forest area of the reporting countries, are designated for the conservation ofbiological diversity as the primary function (see Table 3.4 and Figure 3.3).The largest area of forest designated for conservation of biological diversity isfound in South America (116 million hectares), followed by North America andAfrica. Central America and South and Southeast Asia have the highest percentageof forests designated primarily for conservation, while Europe (including the RussianFederation), and Western and Central Asia have the lowest.TrendsData for all four reporting years (1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010) was provided by 186countries, representing 86.9 percent of the total forest area (see Table 3.5).TABle 3.4Area of forest designated for conservation of biodiversity by region and subregion, 2010region/subregion information availability Area designated forconservation of biodiversitynumber ofcountries% of totalforest area1 000 ha % of forestareaeastern and Southern Africa 23 100.0 27 821 10.4Northern Africa 7 99.1 12 769 16.3Western and Central Africa 24 100.0 51 939 15.8Total Africa 54 99.9 92 529 13.7east Asia 5 100.0 14 889 5.8South and Southeast Asia 17 100.0 60 846 20.7Western and Central Asia 24 100.0 2 778 6.4Total Asia 46 100.0 78 513 13.3europe excl. Russian Federation 45 100.0 19 578 10.0Total europe 46 100.0 37 150 3.7Caribbean 12 53.8 717 19.2Central America 7 100.0 9 203 47.2North America 5 100.0 99 049 14.6Total north and central America 24 99.5 108 969 15.5Total Oceania 21 99.8 30 640 16.0Total south America 14 100.0 115 613 13.4world 205 99.9 463 415 11.5

58Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010FIGuRe 3.3Proportion of forest area designated for conservation of biodiversity by country, 2010(% of forest area)0–55–1010–2020–5050–100No dataTABle 3.5Trends in area of forest designated for conservation of biodiversity by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregioninformationavailabilitynumberofcountries% oftotalforestareaArea of forest designated forconservation of biodiversity (1 000 ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000Annual change(1 000 ha)2000–2010Annual changerate (%)1990–20002000–2010eastern and Southern 21 80.9 14 467 15 539 17 176 17 064 107 153 0.72 0.94AfricaNorthern Africa 7 99.1 13 325 12 597 12 677 12 769 -73 17 -0.56 0.14Western and Central Africa 22 52.5 22 135 23 215 24 791 25 039 108 182 0.48 0.76Total Africa 50 69.2 49 927 51 351 54 644 54 873 142 352 0.28 0.67east Asia 4 90.2 10 167 10 798 13 737 14 889 63 409 0.60 3.26South and Southeast Asia 17 100.0 47 312 51 005 62 254 60 846 369 984 0.75 1.78Western and Central Asia 23 99.7 1 710 2 095 2 775 2 775 39 68 2.05 2.85Total Asia 44 95.8 59 188 63 898 78 766 78 510 471 1 461 0.77 2.08europe excl. Russian 44 98.2 6 840 13 203 18 240 19 407 636 620 6.80 3.93FederationTotal europe 45 99.7 18 655 29 393 34 728 36 979 1 074 759 4.65 2.32Caribbean 11 53.1 617 671 696 711 5 4 0.85 0.58Central America 3 36.9 4 337 4 023 3 841 3 677 -31 -35 -0.75 -0.90North America 5 100.0 89 811 92 619 95 316 99 049 281 643 0.31 0.67Total north and central 19 97.8 94 765 97 314 99 853 103 437 255 612 0.27 0.61AmericaTotal Oceania 18 21.6 7 196 8 412 8 334 8 234 122 -18 1.57 -0.21Total south America 10 85.1 40 683 52 548 70 804 84 222 1 187 3 167 2.59 4.83world 186 86.9 270 413 302 916 347 129 366 255 3 250 6 334 1.14 1.92

Forest biological diversity 59FIGuRe 3.4Trends in area of forest designated for conservation of biodiversity by region, 1990–2010AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaoceaniaSouth America010 20 30 40 50 60(million ha)708090 100 1101990 2000 2005 2010The area of forest designated for the conservation of biological diversity hasincreased by more than 95 million hectares, or 30 percent, since 1990, of which thelargest part was designated between 2000 and 2005. This trend is apparent in all regionsand subregions except Northern Africa and Central America. The highest rates ofincrease are seen in South America (mainly due to recent conservation measures inBrazil) and Europe.The period 2005–2010 shows a contrasting trend in some subregions however, witha decrease in South and Southeast Asia (mainly in Myanmar) and Eastern and SouthernAfrica, possibly correlated to the loss of forest area in these subregions. Figure 3.4illustrates the evolution of the area of forest designated primarily for the conservationof biological diversity between 1990 and 2010 in different regions.conclusionsThe area of forest where conservation of biological diversity is designated as theprimary function has increased by more than 95 million hectares since 1990, of whichthe largest part (46 percent) was designated between 2000 and 2005. These forests nowaccount for 12 percent of the total forest area or more than 460 million hectares.AreA OF FOresT in PrOTecTed AreAsintroductionThe legal designation of areas as national parks, wildlife reserves or other protectedarea categories has a long tradition and forests were included in some of the first ofthese. The World Database on Protected Areas (http://www.wdpa.org/Default.aspx)contains information on all nationally designated and internationally recognizedprotected areas. According to the latest information (WDPA, 2010), an estimated12.9 percent of the global terrestrial area (excluding Antarctica) is located in protectedareas.

60Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010As part of FRA 2010, countries were asked to provide information on the area offorest contained in protected areas systems. This is not an easy task where spatiallyexplicit information is missing or outdated since not all protected areas are fullyforested. However, most of the large, forest-rich countries did provide this informationfor all four reporting years. Where expert estimates or assumptions were necessary,these are clearly described in the individual country reports.statusData on the area of forest in protected areas were provided by 135 countries,representing 91 percent of the total forest area. Information availability was relativelylow in Western and Central Asia, the Caribbean, Central America and South America.The total area of forest in protected areas is 460 million hectares, representing 12.5percent of the total forest area in reporting countries (Table 3.6 and Figure 3.5). Asiarecorded the highest area of forest in protected areas (126 million hectares), followedby South America and Africa. Central America and South and Southeast Asia havethe highest percentage of their forest area in protected areas, while Europe reportedthe lowest proportion of the forest area as protected area (4 percent). However, whenexcluding the vast forests of the Russian Federation, the percentage increases to 12.3 –similar to the world average.A comparison of the percentage of forest in protected areas reported in FRA 2000with the percentage of forest designated primarily for the conservation of biologicaldiversity in FRA 2005, showed no significant difference. This observation led to thehypothesis that the similarity between the total figures for the two variables observed inFRA 2010 (460 million hectares in protected areas and 463 million hectares designatedfor conservation of biological diversity) would seem to indicate that countries wereusing the area of forest in protected areas as a proxy for the area of forest designatedprimarily for conservation of biological diversity.TABle 3.6Area of forest in protected areas by region and subregion, 2010region/subregion information availability Area of forest in protectedareasnumber ofcountries% of totalforest area1 000 ha % of forestareaeastern and Southern Africa 18 87.1 27 492 11.8Northern Africa 5 98.5 13 986 18.0Western and Central Africa 20 94.1 41 707 13.5Total Africa 43 91.8 83 185 13.4east Asia 4 97.6 43 752 17.6South and Southeast Asia 11 88.5 80 303 30.8Western and Central Asia 11 46.7 1 447 7.1Total Asia 26 89.3 125 502 23.7europe excl. Russian Federation 35 93.4 22 475 12.3Total europe 36 98.7 40 047 4.0Caribbean 9 50.4 779 22.3Central America 4 60.7 6 501 54.9North America 4 100.0 63 572 9.4Total north and central America 17 98.4 70 852 10.2Total Oceania 7 99.1 30 640 16.2Total south America 6 74.6 109 806 17.0world 135 91.0 460 032 12.5

Forest biological diversity 61However, detailed comparison of the data showed that this was not systematicallythe case (see Tables 3.4 and 3.6). In some regions the reported area of forest in protectedareas is slightly lower than the area of forest designated primarily for the conservationof biological diversity. In other regions, such as Asia (and in particular China,Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand), the area of forest in protected areas is much higherthan the area of forest designated for the conservation of biological diversity. This is anencouraging indication that some countries – and possibly a growing number – couldmake the distinction between the two variables. This would enhance the accuracy withwhich efforts to conserve biological diversity could be assessed.TrendsA total of 109 countries (representing 78 percent of the total forest area) provided thefull sequence of data on the area of forests in protected areas over time (see Table 3.7).FIGuRe 3.5Percentage of forest area in protected areas by region, 2010AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaoceaniaSouth America0510(%)152025TABle 3.7Trends in area of forest in protected areas by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregioninformationavailabilitynumberofcountries% oftotalforestareaArea of forest in protected areas(1 000 ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000Annual change(1 000 ha)2000–2010Annual changerate (%)1990–20002000–2010eastern and Southern Africa 17 86.6 24 786 25 863 27 524 27 437 108 157 0.43 0.59Northern Africa 4 9.8 306 320 443 640 1 32 0.45 7.18Western and Central Africa 18 47.0 20 330 21 748 22 206 25 401 142 365 0.68 1.56Total Africa 39 58.4 45 421 47 931 50 173 53 478 251 555 0.54 1.10east Asia 3 87.7 11 847 23 463 29 320 30 603 1 162 714 7.07 2.69South and Southeast Asia 11 88.5 71 584 72 637 83 620 80 303 105 767 0.15 1.01Western and Central Asia 8 38.0 306 559 799 781 25 22 6.23 3.39Total Asia 22 84.5 83 737 96 660 113 739 111 687 1 292 1 503 1.45 1.46europe excl. Russian26 79.2 7 475 12 212 14 808 16 386 474 417 5.03 2.98FederationTotal europe 27 95.9 19 289 28 402 31 296 33 959 911 556 3.94 1.80Caribbean 8 49.7 477 537 636 777 6 24 1.19 3.76Central America 2 18.1 2 217 2 214 2 165 2 148 -0 -7 -0.01 -0.30North America 4 100.0 47 356 50 135 56 338 63 572 278 1 344 0.57 2.40Total north and central14 97.2 50 050 52 886 59 139 66 497 284 1 361 0.55 2.32AmericaTotal Oceania 4 16.7 617 617 617 405 0 -21 0.00 -4.12Total south America 3 65.4 67 368 70 384 83 190 94 693 302 2 431 0.44 3.01world 109 77.9 266 482 296 879 338 155 360 718 3 040 6 384 1.09 1.97

62Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010This area increased steadily between 1990 and 2010, by more than 94 million hectares.While this is a general trend in all regions, poor availability of data for the full sequencedoes not permit a detailed assessment in those subregions showing a negative trend.conclusionsNational parks, game reserves, wilderness areas and other legally established protectedareas cover approximately 13 percent of the world’s forest area and more than 10percent of the total forest area in most countries and regions. The primary functionof these forests may be the conservation of biological diversity, the protection of soiland water resources or the conservation of cultural heritage. The area of forest withinprotected area systems has increased by 94 million hectares since 1990. Two-thirds ofthis increase has been since 2000.Tree sPecies cOmPOsiTiOnintroductionInformation on growing stock composition can be used as a proxy indicator offorest tree species richness and relative abundance. The percentage of growing stockrepresented by a given number of tree species is expected to be inversely correlated totree species richness (and the number of tree species present in the area). Countries wererequested to list the ten most common species in terms of growing stock and documenttheir contribution to total growing stock for 1990, 2000 and 2005. Information was alsoobtained on the area of planted forests primarily composed of introduced species. Theanalysis of this data is found in Chapter 5.To supplement this information, efforts are currently underway to solicit furtherdetails on the state of the world’s forest genetic resources (see Box 3.1).status and trendsInformation on the species represented in growing stock remains poor. For FRA 2010only 79 countries (together representing 61 percent of the total forest area) provideddata on the ten most common species (2005 data). The subregions with the highestresponse rates were East Asia, Europe, North America, Northern Africa and Southand Southeast Asia (Table 3.8).While the growing stock of the ten most common species represents more than90 percent of the total growing stock in many countries in the temperate and borealzone, it represents less than 20 percent of the total growing stock in tropical countrieswith high species diversity, such as the reporting countries from Western and CentralAfrica.Data comparability is still an issue as indicated by the range of figures for eachsubregion (Table 3.8 and Figure 3.6). Some countries only have data on growing stockof commercial species with a merchantable diameter (e.g. Equatorial Guinea), othershave data only for part of the country (e.g. Malaysia and United Republic of Tanzania)or have grouped some species (e.g. Guatemala and Poland). In addition, there is widenatural spread within some subregions – particularly when composed of both large,species-rich countries and small island states (e.g. Eastern and Southern Africa).Comparison of the 1990 and 2005 data did not show significant changes in therelative ranking of the tree species, or in the share of growing stock occupied by theten main species.conclusionThe analysis indicates that data on growing stock composition might provide reliableproxy indicators for tree species richness and relative abundance at a given time. Thisobservation should be confirmed as comparable data become available from a largernumber of countries.

Forest biological diversity 63TABle 3.8growing stock of the ten most common species as a percentage of total growing stock by region and subregion,2005region/subregion information availability growing stock of 10 most common speciesnumber ofcountries% of totalforest areamillion m 3% of total growing stockweightedaveragerangeeastern and Southern Africa 7 59.7 3 363 37 21–100Northern Africa 2 95.3 476 41 31–90Western and Central Africa 6 18.6 1661 18 10–89Total Africa 15 43.8 5 500 28 10–100east Asia 2 82.4 8 183 58 57–86South and Southeast Asia 10 88.4 10 837 39 18–74Western and Central Asia 9 51.3 2 354 99 82–100Total Asia 21 83.2 21 374 48 18–100europe excl. Russian Federation 27 84.4 21 291 92 61–100Total europe 28 97.0 101 021 98 61–100Caribbean 3 11.3 25 58 50–80Central America 2 35.7 655 57 21–85North America 2 90.3 42 116 55 43–70Total north and central America 7 88.0 42 795 55 21–85Total Oceania 6 4.3 2 172 62 45–98Total south America 2 10.1 4 046 55 49–65world 79 61.0 176 908 69 10–100FIGuRe 3.6growing stock of the ten most common species as a percentage of total growing stock by country, 2005(%)0–2020–4040–6060–8080–100No data

65Chapter 4Forest health and vitalityOVERVIEWForests are subject to a variety of disturbances that are themselves strongly influencedby climate. Disturbances such as fire, drought, landslides, species invasions, insectand disease outbreaks, and climatic events such as hurricanes, windstorms and icestorms influence the composition, structure and functions of forests (Dale et al., 2001).Climate change is expected to affect forests’ susceptibility to disturbances, as wellas the frequency, intensity, duration and timing of such disturbances. For example,increased fuel loads, longer fire seasons and the occurrence of more extreme weatherconditions as a consequence of a changing climate are expected to result in increasedforest fire activity (Mortsch, 2006).A changing climate will also alter the disturbance dynamics of native forest insectpests and pathogens, as well as facilitating the establishment and spread of introducedpest species. Such changes in disturbance dynamics, in addition to the direct impactsof climate change on trees and forest ecosystems, can have devastating effects andcan increase forests’ susceptibility to other disturbances. For example, a major stormin January 2005 – and again in 2007 – caused severe windthrow in southern Sweden,especially in middle-aged and old spruce stands resulting in increased populationsof insects, notably the European spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus. Severe stormswere also experienced in several other countries in Europe including Slovakia, wherethe storm of 2004/2005 affected 12 000 hectares of forest in the Tatra National Park,resulting in a severe bark beetle outbreak. Such interactions make the prediction offuture impacts of climate change on forest disturbances more difficult.All of these impacts on trees and forests will inevitably have widespread effectson the forest sector. Changes in the structure and functioning of natural ecosystemsand planted forests (due to changes in temperatures and rainfall regimes) and extremeevents and disasters (such as the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 and storms andblizzards in China in 2008) have had adverse impacts on the productive function offorest ecosystems, which in turn affect local economies.Pests, both native and introduced, pose one of the greatest threats to forests. Riskanalysis, forecasting of future pest outbreaks and the design and implementation ofcost-effective protection strategies all depend on the availability of comprehensivedata at various levels. The development of phytosanitary measures to minimizetransboundary movement of pests must be based on knowledge of the geographicaldistribution and biology of each pest – hence the need for national, regional and globaldata.Continuous monitoring of forest ecosystems is an expensive process, which makesit problematic for developing countries and those with economies in transition. Evensome industrialized countries do not sufficiently consider risks of pest outbreaks intheir management plans. National data collection on disturbances affecting forestsshould provide a basis for improved planning and decision-making and will increaseawareness of the severe problems related to forest insect pests and diseases worldwide,which are often overshadowed in the media by the occurrence of fire.While some forest ecosystems depend on fire for their regeneration, some sensitiveforest ecosystems can be devastated by fire, which can also cause a loss of propertyand human life. However, many countries do not have a reliable reporting system for

66Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010wildfires. National and global monitoring must be improved if countries are to adoptintegrated approaches to fire management in an ecologically and socially acceptableway.Data collected for FRA 2010 on forest health and vitality focused on the following,largely quantifiable categories, for which many countries record incidence and extent:• area of forest significantly affected by insects;• area of forest significantly affected by diseases;• area burned (separated into areas of forest, other wooded land and other land);• number of wildfires (separated into those affecting forests, other wooded landsand other land);• proportion of wildfires and planned fires;• area of forest significantly affected by other biotic factors (such as wildlifebrowsing, grazing and physical damage by animals);• area of forest significantly affected by abiotic factors (such as air pollution, wind,snow, ice, floods, landslides, tropical storms, drought and tsunami);• area of forest significantly affected by invasive species (woody species only).Countries were also requested to list and rank up to ten major outbreaks of insectsand diseases that have occurred since 1990.The categories listed above are not exclusive; hence an area of land with two or moretypes of disturbance that affect the health and vitality of the forest is included undereach type of disturbance. The total area affected by disturbances is, therefore, notnecessarily the sum of the individual disturbances as these may overlap.Countries were asked to provide data averaged over five years, so that largefluctuations in a single year did not significantly skew the figures. Data are thuspresented for 1990 (an average of the period 1988–1992), 2000 (average of 1998–2002)and 2005 (average of 2003–2007).To supplement the data obtained in the last assessment (FRA 2005), when only asmall percentage of countries reported, a global review of forest pests and diseases wasconducted (FAO, 2009a). Where appropriate, this study is referred to in this chapterin order to supplement the sometimes weak information obtained through the countryreports. Similarly, a thematic study on forest fires was prepared as follow-up to FRA2005 (FAO, 2007g).KEy FIndIngsInsect pests and diseases, natural disasters and invasive species are causingsevere damage in some countriesOutbreaks of forest insect pests damage nearly 35 million hectares of forest annually,primarily in the temperate and boreal zones. The mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonusponderosae, native to North America, has devastated more than 11 million hectares offorest in Canada and the western United States of America since the late 1990s and isspreading well beyond its normal range of occurrence in an unprecedented outbreakexacerbated by higher winter temperatures. Diseases, severe storms, blizzards andearthquakes have also damaged large areas of forest since 2000. Woody invasivespecies are of particular concern in SIDS, where they threaten the habitat of endemicspecies. Information availability and quality continue to be poor for most of thesedisturbances.Forest fires are severely underreported at the global levelOn average, 1 percent of all forests were reported to be significantly affected each yearby forest fires. However, the area of forest affected by fires was severely underreported,with information missing from many countries, especially in Africa. Less than10 percent of all forest fires are reported as prescribed burning; the rest are classifiedas wildfires.

Forest health and vitality 67KEy cOnclusIOnsThe overall conclusion drawn from the data supplied for FRA 2010 is that annually eachtype of disturbance (fire, insects, diseases, and other biotic and abiotic disturbances)usually affects less than one or two percent of the forest area, although in individualcountries the affected area can be much higher. The assessment also clearly highlightsthe lack of timely and reliable data.Intergovernmental efforts to gather, analyse and widely disseminate reliablecountry-based information on forest health factors must be further strengthened inorder to provide a solid basis for decision-making and enhanced field level action.This information can provide the foundation for reliable risk analyses and theimplementation of effective forest protection measures.InsEcTs And dIsEAsEsIntroductionFor the purposes of this report insects and diseases are discussed together as they areoften co-dependent. While insects and diseases are integral components of forests andoften fulfil important functions, sporadic outbreaks can have adverse effects on treegrowth and survival, yield and quality of wood and non-wood forest products, wildlifehabitat and the recreational, scenic and cultural value of forests.In recent decades, two major factors have combined to increase the pest threat toforests:• the volume, speed and variety of global trade have increased the opportunities forpests to move internationally;• climate change appears to be increasing the likelihood of pest establishment andthe severity of impacts of both native and introduced pests (see Box 4.1).Threats to the world’s forests require concerted international action. Thedevelopment and implementation of phytosanitary measures is key to preventing theglobal movement of pests and their establishment in new areas. These measures havebeen developed through the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and aredelivered through International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs).Despite the significant adverse impacts of forest pests, and indications thatoutbreaks are on the increase in some regions, they are still not sufficiently taken intoconsideration in the planning of forest management and conservation programmes.There has been no systematic attempt to gather and analyse comprehensive informationon the type, scale and impact of such outbreaks at the global level.Insect and disease problems are often either cyclical or chronic and they requirelong-term investment in data collection. A chronic disturbance by insects and diseasesmay be caused by a complex of species rather than a single entity. The complex can varynot only with the species involved, but also because of the impact of each individualspecies. Thus defining the beginning and end of a disturbance event can be a challenge.Further complications arise when recording data on insect life cycles that overlap orare significantly longer than one year, or when cyclical disturbance events caused bypests last more than a year. For example, gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) outbreaks ofseveral generations can occur every seven to ten years. Capturing data on such longtermcyclical events is difficult, particularly when the length of the cycles is variable.The information supplied by countries for insect pests has been reported as annualaverages over five years to help compensate for this. However, five-year reportingperiods do not adequately reflect the status of long cyclical outbreaks.Moreover, due to the longer duration of some disturbance events, it is difficult toaccurately assess the area affected annually. Some countries appear to have reported thecumulative area affected in a given year, rather than the additional area of forest affectedwithin that year. Thus the figures for the different types of disturbances are not alwaysdirectly comparable.

68Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Box 4.1climate change and forest pestsClimate change – in particular increased temperatures and levels of atmospheric carbondioxide, as well as changes in precipitation and the frequency and severity of extremeclimatic events – is having notable impacts on the world’s forests and the forest sector.Climate change is predicted to increase the likelihood of pest establishment in newlocations and also to increase the severity of impacts of both native and introduced pests.This is likely to arise from two interrelated effects on the interactions between pests andhost trees:• Pests are likely to encounter more suitable climatic conditions for their establishmentand successful development, i.e. they will survive extremes of temperature, such aswinter cold or high summer temperatures, and be able to complete a full life cycle.This applies particularly to pests at the edges of the areas of climate suitabilitywhere, in the past, aspects such as low winter temperatures or lack of synchronybetween pest emergence and host tree development prevented successful breeding.There is evidence that the natural ranges of pests are changing, extending the areasof forest at risk of outbreaks. Pests also tend to establish in new areas without thenatural enemies that normally keep them in check.• Potential host tree species may become more susceptible to pest developmentbecause of climate induced ‘stress’ caused by increased drought, extended growingseasons and generally increased vulnerability caused by extreme climatic events (e.g.flooding, extreme temperatures and violent storms).Combined with increased climate suitability, both the opportunity to encounter treesin new locations arising from increased trade, and the capacity to establish because ofa wider availability of tree hosts have substantially increased the incidences of new pestincursions globally. In addition to these increased risk factors, the fact that introducedpests often establish without the normal range of natural enemies that tend to keep themat endemic levels may influence the severity of impacts from new pests.The quality of the data on forests significantly affected by insect pests anddiseases is poor, in part because of the lack of clarity in interpreting what constitutesa ‘disturbance’. Insect and disease outbreaks in developing countries are primarilysurveyed and reported for planted forests, and corresponding surveys of forest declineand dieback are rare in these countries. Serious outbreak situations may be recorded,but details of causative agents and the quantifiable impact on forest resources are rarelynoted. In some instances, there may be a reluctance to record severe outbreaks becausemanagement jobs or even trade in forest products can be put at risk.For some regions, more data exist but were not readily accessible through FRA 2010because of a lack of information exchange among sectors, individuals and governmentagencies, or a lack of awareness of their existence. For example, data are missing fromthe Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which has had an ongoing outbreak of thepine moth (Dendrolimus spectabilis) since 1998, affecting more than 100 000 hectaresof native Pinus densiflora. Countries in Eastern and Southern Africa have a complexityof insect and disease problems affecting their forests (FAO, 2009a and http://www.fao.org/forestry/fisna/en/) but this is not reflected in the FRA 2010 data. Similarsituations exist in many countries, where other sources indicate disturbances that arenot recorded in the country reports.For FRA 2010 more detailed information was requested than in FRA 2005 andthis resulted in considerable feedback from reporting countries about problems of

Forest health and vitality 69data collection. Most of these comments are applicable to all regions and should beconsidered for FRA 2015. A number of issues were highlighted.• Disturbances caused by insect pests, especially bark beetles and wood borers, mayonly be reported according to the amount of affected wood removed, rather thanby the area infested: for example, in 2005, Poland reported the removal of morethan 3.2 million cubic metres of infested wood. Reports may only include theactual area reforested after salvage. In addition, a forested area may be defoliatedby more than one insect and this often results in an overlap of reported figures.Areas reported as defoliated may include patches that differ in the degree ofdefoliation severity. Areas of tree mortality caused by an insect attacking oneor more species may include other tree species, which subsequently die fromexposure because the stand is opened. Some areas of defoliation may be missed inthe surveys.• For diseases, it can be difficult to convert figures from the total area showing damageto an area newly affected in a year. The area damaged may be underestimated asit can be difficult to assess disease in standing trees. Diseases are very difficult toreport especially in mixed planted forests; there may be spatial distribution of thedisease and, especially for dispersed agents, it may be more appropriate to reportthe percentage of the population of the species that is infested instead of the areaaffected.• For both insects and diseases, new reporting methods may have been adopted bycountries between the reporting periods, making trend analysis difficult. Smallareas which do not meet the definition of forest in the FRA process may beinfected (by disease) or infested (by insect) and would therefore not be reportedas significant. Data may be aggregated and difficult to separate or may only beavailable for state owned, not private, forests.• Further complexities may be caused by diebacks and declines, as a multiplicityof biotic (insects, diseases, mammals) and abiotic factors contribute to thedisturbance.statusGlobally, information on forest insect pests and diseases is relatively sparse and the datacollection methods are highly variable. Several countries could not disaggregate figuresfor insects and diseases. Many of the small island countries and dependent territorieshave not provided information for these two variables, as was the situation for FRA2005. Reporting from Africa was also scant.However, more countries reported for FRA 2010 than for FRA 2005. For insectdamage this increased from 66 to 94 countries, which represent 53 percent of theworld’s forest area. East Asia, Europe and North and Central America providedreports that represented more than 90 percent of the total forest areas for these regions.The reports indicate that close to 40 million hectares of forest per year wereadversely affected by insects and diseases in 2005. The annual area of forest affected byinsects alone was more than 34 million hectares, representing 1.6 percent of the forestarea of the 94 reporting countries.Tables 4.1 and 4.2 present a summary of results for the 2005 reporting period, whileFigures 4.1 and 4.2 present the results by country. Table 4.1 shows that NorthernAfrica, North America, East Asia and Europe excluding the Russian Federationreported the highest percentage of forest area significantly affected by insect pests,while countries with tropical moist forests generally reported a very low proportionof their forests affected. This is most likely due to the high diversity of tree species intropical moist forests.Canada reported the highest area of insect disturbance for a single country of17.3 million hectares. This included major outbreaks of two indigenous species in

70Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TaBle 4.1Average area of forest annually affected by insects by region and subregion, 2005Region/subregion Information availability Area of forest affected by insectsnumber ofcountries% of totalforest area1 000 ha % offorest areaeastern and Southern africa 4 4.7 n.s. n.s.Northern africa 4 9.6 261 3.4Western and Central africa 3 4.9 2 n.s.Total Africa 11 5.3 263 0.7east asia 4 97.4 4 078 1.7South and Southeast asia 5 26.6 985 1.2Western and Central asia 13 43.7 308 1.6Total Asia 22 57.2 5 372 1.6europe excl. Russian Federation 36 79.4 3 458 2.3Total Europe 37 96.0 5 126 0.5Caribbean 7 50.0 2 0.1Central america 3 48.0 7 0.1North america 4 100.0 22 951 3.4Total north and central America 14 98.0 22 961 3.3Total Oceania 4 5.0 40 0.4Total south America 6 15.0 726 0.5World 94 53.0 34 487 1.6TaBle 4.2Average area of forest annually affected by diseases by region and subregion, 2005Region/subregion Information availability Area of forest affected by diseasesnumber ofcountries% of totalforest area1 000 ha % offorest areaeastern and Southern africa 4 4.7 n.s. n.s.Northern africa 2 1.3 n.s. n.s.Western and Central africa 4 5.3 4 n.s.Total Africa 10 4.6 4 n.s.east asia 3 92.7 349 0.2South and Southeast asia 4 26.2 n.s. n.s.Western and Central asia 12 42.6 41 0.2Total Asia 19 54.9 390 0.1europe excl. Russian Federation 33 71.8 1 786 1.3Total Europe 34 94.6 2 918 0.3Caribbean 6 48.9 n.s. n.s.Central america 1 18.9 n.s. n.s.North america 2 9.7 19 n.s.Total north and central America 9 10.3 19 n.s.Total Oceania 4 4.7 320 3.5Total south America 4 10.5 113 0.1World 80 36.3 3 764 0.32006: the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), which damaged 9.2 millionhectares of forest, and the forest tent caterpillar (Malacosoma disstria), which affected5 million hectares.Information on diseases is still sporadic and countries reporting on this variablerepresent only 36 percent of the total forest area. However, more countries reportedon diseases for FRA 2010 than for FRA 2005, increasing from 57 countries to 80.

Forest health and vitality 71FIguRe 4.1Average area of forest annually affected by insects by country, 2005(1 000 ha)< 100100–1 0001 000–5 0005 000–10 000> 10 000No dataFIguRe 4.2Average area of forest annually affected by diseases by country, 2005< 5050–200200–500(1 000 ha)500–1 000> 1 000No data

72Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Disease affected 3.8 million hectares (5-year average) representing 0.3 percent of thetotal forest area of the 80 reporting countries. For the 2005 reporting period, East Asiaand Europe provided data for over 90 percent of the forest areas within the region.However, for many countries information on diseases was missing, not available orwas recorded as zero, particularly by countries in Africa, Central and North Americaand the Caribbean.No data were reported on diseases for the United States of America in this reportingperiod, compared with 17.4 million hectares reported for FRA 2005. This was due tosubstantial changes in the forest disturbances indicator design that included altering thepresentation to specify the proportion of forest damage caused by non-native insectsand pathogens (Heinz Center, 2008). Consequently disease data was not recorded forthis reporting period.Europe (excluding the Russian Federation) reported a high incidence of diseaseaffecting 1.3 percent of the forest area. The Russian Federation reported diseaseaffecting 1.1 million hectares of forest, equivalent to less than 0.2 percent of its forestarea, but the causative agents were not specified.In Oceania, New Zealand only reported diseases in planted forests; no diseases werereported in indigenous forests. In Asia the highest incidence of disease was reportedfor China and this represented 0.2 percent of China’s total forest area; no details oncausative agents were provided.TrendsFor insect infestations, of the 233 countries and areas included in FRA 2010,69 countries, representing 49 percent of the total forest area, provided data for allperiods i.e. 1990, 2000 and 2005. A further 25 countries provided data for the 2005reporting period only.For diseases, 58 countries provided data for all three reporting periods. A further22 countries provided data for the 2005 reporting period only. Relatively few countriesreported quantitative data, and it is therefore not possible to undertake a detailed trendanalysis for the three reporting periods. As a result only regional results are presentedhere.Generally speaking, no significant trends were noted and any changes within thesereporting periods may be attributable to altered methods of assessment for the threeperiods rather than actual trends. However, there appears to be a decreasing trend inthe area affected by forest insect pests for the period 1990 to 2005 in North and SouthAmerica. An increase was noted in the area of forest affected by disease since 1990 inAsia (particularly East Asia) and in Europe (including the Russian Federation) (seeTables 4.3 and 4.4). It should be noted, however, that this information is indicative only.Although there are three data points in time, disease data are missing for a number ofthe larger forest countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States of America.Countries were also invited to list and rank up to ten major outbreaks of insectsand diseases that have occurred since 1990, recording the name of the causative agent,the tree species affected, year of outbreak, area affected (if recorded) and the outbreakcycle (see Tables 4.5 and 4.6).Similarities were noted in insect and disease distributions among some of theregions. However, the distribution is indicative only, as many countries did not providethis information. Table 4.5 therefore includes mainly European countries. More detailsabout many of these pest species and their distributions are available in FAO (2009a).conclusionsTwo main conclusions can be drawn.While usually affecting less than 2 percent of the global forest area, insect pestsand diseases are causing severe damage in some countries, primarily in the temperate

Forest health and vitality 73TaBle 4.3Trends in area of forest annually affected by insects by region and subregion, 1990–2005Region/subregion Information availability Area of forest affected by insectsnumberofcountries% of totalforest area1990 2000 20051 000 ha % offorestarea1 000 ha % offorestarea1 000 ha % offorestareaeastern and Southern africa 4 4.7 0 0 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Northern africa 3 9.5 272 3.7 178 2.4 260 3.5Western and Central africa 2 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Africa 9 4.5 272 0.9 178 0.6 260 0.8east asia 4 97.4 829 0.4 3 761 1.7 4 078 1.7South and Southeast asia 3 3.5 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Western and Central asia 10 41.9 420 2.5 549 3.2 300 1.7Total Asia 17 45.2 1 250 0.6 4 309 1.7 4 378 1.7europe excl. Russian Federation 26 61.3 2 673 2.4 2 292 2.0 2 747 2.3Total Europe 27 92.6 4 390 0.5 7 245 0.8 4 415 0.5Caribbean 5 8.8 1 0.1 0 0 0 0Central america 1 1.5 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.4North america 3 100.0 33 666 5.0 21 206 3.1 22 951 3.4Total north and central America 9 96.2 33 667 5.0 21 206 3.1 22 953 3.4Total Oceania 3 4.2 60 0.8 50 0.6 40 0.5Total south America 4 10.5 868 0.9 533 0.6 318 0.3World 69 49.3 40 507 2.1 33 521 1.7 32 363 1.6TaBle 4.4Trends in area of forest annually affected by diseases by region, 1990–2005Region Information availability Area of forest affected by diseasesnumberofcountries% of totalforest area1990 2000 20051 000 ha % offorestarea1 000 ha % offorest area1 000 ha % offorestareaafrica 7 3.6 0 0 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.asia 15 42.7 155 0.1 460 0.2 389 0.2europe 24 91.4 838 0.1 1 700 0.2 2 069 0.2North and Central america 6 9.4 11 0 2 n.s. 19 n.s.oceania 3 4.2 265 3.4 240 2.9 320 3.9South america 3 2.7 13 0.1 810 3.4 110 0.5World 58 31.7 1 282 0.1 3 212 0.3 2 907 0.2and boreal zones. As a recent example, the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonusponderoseae, native to North America has devastated more than 11 million hectares inCanada and the western United States of America since the late 1990s and is spreadingwell beyond its normal range of occurrence in an unprecedented outbreak exacerbatedby milder winter temperatures.Information availability on the area of forest significantly affected by insect pestsand disease continues to be poor and data collection methods are highly variable.Methods need to be devised to obtain and analyse data on diseases in particular.The problems with data reporting in the country reports should be taken intoconsideration and methods need to be devised to obtain and analyse data on diseasesin particular.

74Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TaBle 4.5Ten most prevalent insect pests reportedPestLymantria dispar, gypsy moth(european and asian strains)Ips typographus, european sprucebark beetleTortrix viridana, european oak leafrollerThaumetopoea pityocampa, pineprocessionary caterpillarNeodiprion sertifer, european pinesawflynumber ofcountriesreports27 algeria, armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, georgia,germany, Hungary, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, latvia,lithuania, lebanon, Maldives, Mongolia, Morocco,Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Serbia,Slovakia, Switzerland, The Former Yugoslav Republicof Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, ukraine, united Statesof america, uzbekistan19 austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France,georgia, germany, Hungary, latvia, lithuania,Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation,Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey10 Croatia, Czech Republic, germany, Netherlands,Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, The FormerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, ukraine9 albania, algeria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Morocco, Syrianarab Republic, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia, Tunisia, Turkey7 Belarus, georgia, latvia, Norway, The FormerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, ukrainePanolis flammea, pine beauty moth 7 Belarus, germany, latvia, lithuania, Poland, ukraine,united KingdomPityogenes chalcographus,six-toothed spruce bark beetle7 austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, germany, Serbia,Slovakia, SwitzerlandBupalus piniarius, pine looper moth 6 estonia, germany, latvia, Poland, ukraine, unitedKingdomDendrolimus pini, pine lappet moth 6 Belarus, georgia, germany, lithuania, Poland,ukraineLymantria monacha, nun moth 6 Belarus, Czech Republic, germany, latvia, lithuania,PolandTaBle 4.6Most prevalent pathogens reportedPathogenArmillaria spp., armillaria rootdiseaseCryphonectria parasitica, chestnutblightHeterobasidion spp., annosum rootrotMelampsora larici-populina, poplarrustMycosphaerella pini, red band needleblightSphaeropsis sapinea, diplodia tipblightnumber ofcountriesreports10 austria, Bhutan, Brazil, Croatia, germany, Malawi,Mauritius, New Zealand, Peru, Slovakia6 albania, Croatia, georgia, germany, The FormerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey6 austria, Belarus, Finland, germany, RussianFederation, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia4 Belgium, France, Iceland, uzbekistan4 Belgium, Croatia, France, New Zealand4 austria, Croatia, France, germanyChalara fraxinea, ash dieback 3 France, germany, NorwayGremmeniella sp. 2 Finland, SwedenMelampsora allii-populina, poplar rust 2 albania, FranceFOREsT FIREsIntroductionFire is a major disturbance factor that has both beneficial and detrimental effects. Someforest ecosystems are adapted to fire and need it to retain their vigour and reproductivecapacity. However fires often get out of control and destroy forest vegetation andbiomass, which in turn results in considerable soil erosion by wind and water. Firesaffect not only forests and their functions and services, but also other assets, human

Forest health and vitality 75lives and livelihoods. The damage extends to landscapes, and results in haze anddeposited pollutants, as well as the release of greenhouse gases. Both uncontrolledexpansion of agricultural land onto forested land and the increased use of forests forrecreational purposes and tourism increase the risk of forest fires.In relation to the loss of human lives recent examples include the forest fires inVictoria, Australia in 2009, which caused 173 fatalities (Teague, McClead and Pascoe,2009), while fires in Greece in 2007 fires resulted in 80 dead (69 civilians, 9 seasonal firefighters and 2 pilots) (Joint Research Centre, 2008). Many wilderness–urban interfacefires (e.g. in Australia, Italy and the United States of America) have clearly shown howwildfires affect and threaten residential areas.statusInformation on forest fires continues to be poor. Based on the data from 78 respondingcountries, representing 63 percent of the global forest area, an average of just under60 million hectares of land (forests, other wooded land and other land) burned per yearduring the period 2003–2007 in these countries. The largest areas burnt were reportedby Cameroon, Mali, Botswana, Chad, Namibia, United States of America, Ghana,Canada, Mongolia and Senegal.Some 13 countries were able to provide information on the total area burnt, butdid not specify the forest area burnt. Many of these were relatively small countries inAfrica (6), Asia (2) and Central America (1), but the list also included such forest-richcountries as Brazil, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Papua New Guinea.Just over half the countries and areas included in FRA 2010 (118 out of 233) providedinformation on the area of forest burnt in the period 2003–2007. Based on the data fromthese 118 countries, which represent 65 percent of the global forest area, an average of19.8 million hectares of forests were affected by fire annually. This area represents lessthan one percent of the total forest area in these countries (see Table 4.7). The highestpercentages of forest area affected by fire were reported by Chad, Senegal, Ghana,Botswana and Portugal, while the largest areas of forest affected by fire were reportedTaBle 4.7Average area of forest annually affected by fire by region and subregion, 2005Region/subregion Information availability Area of forest affected by firenumber ofcountries% of totalforest area1 000 ha % offorest areaeastern and Southern africa 8 29.3 452 0.6Northern africa 5 10.0 17 0.2Western and Central africa 8 19.7 7 849 11.9Total Africa 21 22.4 8 318 5.4east asia 5 100.0 549 0.2South and Southeast asia 8 83.3 1 859 0.7Western and Central asia 16 51.7 50 0.2Total Asia 29 87.9 2 457 0.5europe excl. Russian Federation 41 96.6 270 0.1Total Europe 42 99.4 1 262 0.1Caribbean 7 74.1 15 0.3Central america 4 72.6 107 0.7North america 4 100.0 3 437 0.5Total north and central America 15 98.9 3 558 0.5Total Oceania 6 82.5 3 903 2.4Total south America 5 14.0 333 0.3World 118 65.2 19 831 0.7

76Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010by Chad, Australia, United States of America, India and Canada, which all reported anaverage of more than 1 million hectares of forest burnt annually (Figure 4.3).An additional 17.9 million hectares of other wooded land were significantly affectedby fire each year during the period 2003–2007 in 105 countries. Although the reportingcountries represent less than half the global forest area, there is a clear indication that alarge proportion of fires are significantly affecting other wooded lands. This is especiallythe case in Africa, where large areas of other wooded land affected by fire were reportedby Cameroon, Chad, Botswana, Ghana, Madagascar and Senegal. This phenomenonmay be explained by the widespread use of fire as a land-use management tool.Countries were also asked to report on the number of fires. According toinformation from 64 countries, representing 60 percent of the global forest area, anaverage of 487 000 vegetation fires occurred per year during the period 2003–2007 inforests, other wooded land and other land. Mozambique, the United States of America,Madagascar, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Spain, Argentina and Hungarytop the list – all with an average of over 10 000 vegetation fires per year.In terms of the number of forest fires, 81 countries, representing 50 percent of theglobal forest area, reported an average of 156 000 forest fires per year during the period2003–2007 (i.e. an average of around 1 900 forest fires per country per year). However, aswould be expected, there was great variation between countries. The largest numbers offorest fires were reported by the United States of America, the Russian Federation, India,Poland and China, which all reported an average of more than 10 000 forest fires per year.The small proportion of global forest area represented by the reporting countries makesit difficult to estimate the global number of forest fires during this period.Countries were asked to estimate how large a proportion of the area burnt wascaused by wildfire as opposed to planned fires. Some 87 countries, accounting for77 percent of the world’s forests, provided this information for the period 2003–2007.FIguRe 4.3Average area of forest annually affected by fire by country, 2005(1 000 ha)< 100100–500500–1 0001 000–2 000> 2 000No data

Forest health and vitality 77In these countries an estimated 94 percent of the total forest area affected by fire wasdue to wildfires and only 6 percent due to planned fires. Although these countriesrepresent a high proportion of the global forest area, more information is neededto confirm this figure. In many cases the information seems to be based on expertestimates rather than on national registration systems.TrendsA total of 96 countries, accounting for 59 percent of the total forest area in the world,provided information on the area of forest burnt for all three reporting periods(1990, 2000 and 2005). The total area burnt (forest, other wooded land and other landcombined) for all three periods was reported by 52 countries, accounting for 58 percentof the forest area. Information on the area of other wooded land and other landburnt for all three periods was reported by 87 and 29 countries respectively, togetheraccounting for 43 and 21 percent of the forest area.Both the total area affected by fires and the forest area affected by fires are lowerin recent years compared with the period around 1990. However, whether this canbe interpreted as a consistent trend is debatable, given the lack of comprehensiveinformation and the nature of fires, which are closely linked to climatic fluctuationssuch as the El Niño phenomenon in some countries and regions. It is an encouragingsign that countries such as Thailand and Indonesia have significantly reduced the areaof forest burnt annually, although it is too early to tell the impact of fires in 2010 whichis predicted to be another strong El Niño year.Table 4.8 shows the subregional and regional figures for the three reporting periodsfor those countries that provided a complete data series.The number of forest fires has decreased slightly over the years while the proportionof wildland fires has remained relatively constant for the reporting countries.Information was provided on the number of forest fires for all three reporting periodsby only 61 countries (accounting for 45 percent of total forest area) and this variablemay be considered less useful in future assessments. The proportion of the area burnedTaBle 4.8Trends in area of forest annually affected by fire by region and subregion, 1990–2005Region/subregion Information availability Area of forest affected by fire (1 000 ha)number of % of total 1990 2000 2005countries forest areaeastern and Southern africa 6 25.0 88 50 53Northern africa 4 9.6 14 21 16Western and Central africa 4 9.2 12 141 8 462 7 157Total Africa 14 15.6 12 243 8 533 7 226east asia 5 100.0 318 417 549South and Southeast asia 7 82.2 3 090 2 149 1 852Western and Central asia 13 48.7 19 79 47Total Asia 25 87.1 3 427 2 644 2 448europe excl. Russian Federation 36 80.2 273 225 261Total Europe 37 96.2 896 1 387 1 252Caribbean 6 73.8 11 18 15Central america 0 – – – –North america 4 100.0 2 781 3 112 3 437Total north and central America 10 96.8 2 793 3 130 3 452Total Oceania 5 4.2 0 0 0Total south America 5 14.0 490 708 333World 96 59.0 19 849 16 402 14 710

78Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010that was caused by wildfire as opposed to planned fires was reported for all threeperiods by 73 countries (representing 56 percent of the total forest area) and showedno significant change over time.Box 4.2 illustrates the type of analysis that can be undertaken for countries whereinformation on forest fires is more readily available.Box 4.2Trends in forest fires in Europealthough forest fires are an integral part of forest dynamics in europe, trends in fire frequency andfire impact have changed throughout the years. The data for this analysis were extracted from theeuropean Fire Database in the european Forest Fire Information System (eFFIS). These data includesingle fire records provided by the individual european countries in the eFFIS network. Currently, datafrom 21 countries are available in this database, although the network is made up of 26 countries. Thenumber of years for which data are available differs between countries, with the time series for theMediterranean region being the longest.Fire frequency is determined by the annual number of fires in a country. a derived measure of firefrequency is fire density, which is estimated as the number of fires by area (in this case 10 square km).Due to the fact that most of the fires in europe take place in the Mediterranean region, fire figures arepresented for the Mediterranean region, and separately for the rest of europe. Figure 4.4 presents thenumber of fires and the total burnt area in the Mediterranean region in the last decades. The figureshows a slightly decreasing trend in the number of fires during recent years. However, the trend in theburnt areas is not obvious. Years with a large fire impact are next to years with minor fire effects.FIguRe 4.4number of fires and burnt area in the Eu-Mediterranean regionBurnt area in the EU-Med regionNumber of fires in the EU-Med region120080Burnt area (1000 ha)1000800600400200Number of fires (thousands)7060504030201000198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008200420062008The non-Mediterranean countries do not show clear trends in the number of fires or the total burntarea. The number of fires and the total burnt area in this part of europe are presented in Figure 4.5.FIguRe 4.5number of fires and total burnt area in the non-Mediterranean regionBurnt area in non-Mediterranean countriesNumber of fires in non-Mediterranean countriesBurnt area (1000 ha)1401201008060402001999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Number of fires (thousands)504540353025201510501999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Forest health and vitality 79Fire frequency expressed as average forest fire density provides information on the spatialdistribution of forest fires. Fire density in europe and total burnt area by country and forest area (burntfraction) in each country are shown in Figure 4.6.FIguRe 4.6Average forest fire density and average burned forest fraction in Europe, 1998–2007number of fires/yr/10km 2 of wildland00–0.010.01–0.020.02–0.040.04–0.080.08–0.120.13–0.200.21–0.300.31–0.600.61–59.71No data availableArea of forest burned/yr(% of total forest area)0–0.010.01–0.020.02–0.030.03–0.040.05–0.060.07–0.150.16–0.300.31–0.900.91–12.22No data availableFigure 4.6 shows that fires are not confined to the Mediterranean region, although the largestimpact in terms of burnt areas occurs in this region. Fire density in the northern and eastern regionsof europe can also be high; however, the extent of these fires is not large due to the weatherconditions under which they occur. analysis of the data in eFFIS showed a very close correlationbetween fire danger, which represents the weather conditions, and the total burnt area for the overallMediterranean region.Source: european Commission, 2009Notes:Mediterranean countries included in this study: Cyprus, France, greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain.Non-Mediterranean countries included in this study: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, estonia, Finland, germany,Hungary, latvia, lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

80Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010conclusionsOn average, 1 percent of all forests were reported to be significantly affected each yearby forest fires. However, the area of forest affected by fires was severely underreported,with information missing from many countries, especially in Africa. Less than10 percent of all forest fires are reported as prescribed burning; the rest are classifiedas wildfires.Data on the extent of forest affected by fires contribute to our understanding offires, and thus to the development of appropriate risk management strategies. Evenwhen data on fire frequency and areas burned are available, disaggregation of this datainto different kinds of vegetation (forests, other wooded land and other land) is oftenlacking. Additional information is needed on the ecological dynamics of fire, directand underlying causes, impacts and the desired long-term ecosystem condition (e.g.structure, species composition and health).The use of remote sensing for forest fire monitoring should be encouraged,particularly for countries in Africa, which seems to be the continent most affected bywildfires. Yet reporting on the extent of fires and their impacts on forests and otherwooded land is missing for many counties in this region.OTHER dIsTuRBAncEsIntroductionFor the purposes of the FRA 2010 report, other disturbances include a range of bioticand abiotic factors, as well as the spread of invasive (woody) species.Disturbance by biotic factors includes damage by biotic agents other than insects ordiseases, such as wildlife browsing, bark stripping, grazing or other physical damageby animals. In general, information on disturbances attributed to these factors is highlyerratic and open to interpretation, with a broad range of causative agents. Problemsreported include possums, camels, beavers, deer, rodents (particularly squirrelsand rats), lagomorphs (hares and rabbits), plus mites and nematodes (especially thequarantine pest, the pine wood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus).The impact of mammalian browsing (as noted with possums in the New Zealandcountry report for FRA 2010) can vary within plant populations, communities andecosystems, and is influenced by a range of biotic and abiotic factors, which maypredispose plant communities to browsing damage. Selective browsing on some speciesmay have a gradual effect on forest composition, with some species disappearing fromcertain areas.Abiotic disturbances, including climatic events such as storms, drought, wind, snow,ice and floods, have always influenced forest ecosystems and are considered importantfor maintaining biological diversity and facilitating forest regeneration. However,global climate change, primarily the result of human activities, is reportedly makingforest ecosystems more prone to damage by altering the frequency, intensity andtiming of fire events, hurricanes, storms, landslides, and insect and disease outbreaks.Climate-related shifts in the range of pest species, many of which are forest-dependent,can further exacerbate abiotic impacts on forest health.In European forests where timber production is a major objective, heavy stormscan create significant economic, ecological and social problems and together with fireare likely to be the most important, large-scale disturbance to stands of both naturaland managed forests. Catastrophic storms tend to occur every five to ten years inEurope; however due to the effects of climate change, change in wind patterns oroceanic currents and general increased variability in meteorological events, the periodbetween destructive storms could change in the coming years or decades. These stormsare becoming of such concern that the Directorate-General for the Environment of theEuropean Commission is preparing a study on destructive storms entitled DestructiveStorms in European Forests: Past and Forthcoming Impacts.

Forest health and vitality 81To supplement the information in FRA 2010, and in acknowledgement of theincreasing importance of abiotic influences on forest health, FAO will prepare a moredetailed study in 2011.Several disturbance factors such as illegal logging, encroachment, overharvestingand other unsustainable management practices were not included in the reporting forFRA 2010 because of a lack of quantitative information in most countries. However,some countries did report on disturbances caused by human interference. For instance,several countries commented on overharvesting through illegal cutting, encroachmentand habitat degradation from excessive hunting and tourism as significant causes ofdisturbance to forest and other wooded land.statusReporting of other biotic and abiotic disturbances was more detailed in FRA 2010than in FRA 2005. However, in general, information on disturbances attributed tothese factors was highly sporadic, with a broad range of causative agents. While somecategories have broad relevance (e.g. storms and wind), other data have relevance torelatively isolated areas (e.g. specific animal species). Furthermore, there may only beoccasional reporting after a major storm or other major weather event and most oftenthe volume of wood that is damaged is reported (e.g. through salvage felling reports)but not the area affected. Thus few of the data are comparable and it has not beenpossible to carry out a separate analysis for each of the disturbances caused by bioticand abiotic influences.For the 2005 reporting period 60 countries, accounting for only 13 percent of thetotal forest area, reported that biotic agents affected close to 30 million hectares offorest, and 60 countries (together representing 27 percent of the world’s forest area)reported that abiotic factors affected 8 million hectares of forest. However, thereappears to be a wide range of interpretations of the term ‘significantly affected by’with some countries reporting on the total area in which one of the factors has beenrecorded, regardless of the severity of the impact, while others have applied a morestrict definition of damage.In Asia, India recorded some 25.5 million hectares of forests as being affected bygrazing by domestic animals and 4.4 million hectares by abiotic disturbances. Chinareported approximately 0.75 million hectares of forests affected by rat damage. TheUK noted that present mammal damage was likely to have been persistent for manyyears so the presence of new damage did not necessarily imply that the area was newlyaffected. There may also be overlaps between the areas recorded with mammal barkstripping and mammal browsing.Since the last assessment (FRA 2005) there have been some major catastrophicevents including the Indian Ocean tsunami in December 2004 (not fully reportedin FRA 2005). The tsunami took over 200 000 lives and destroyed livelihoods andinfrastructure all around the Indian Ocean. Among other damage, trees were snapped,uprooted and undermined by waves and strong currents associated with the tsunami.In addition to the physical damage, some trees – particularly planted trees – wereaffected by soil salination. Reports that intact coastal forest (including mangroves)provided protection against the tsunami prompted the affected countries to call forthe establishment of coastal buffer zones or greenbelts (FAO, 2006c). For the FRA2010 assessment, the Maldives reported considerable destruction of trees and forestvegetation caused by the tsunami, but neither Thailand nor Indonesia reported damage.In Europe, Sweden recorded 1.8 million hectares affected by biotic factors and1.2 million hectares affected by abiotic factors including a major storm in January2005 which caused severe windthrow in the south of the country, especially affectingmiddle-aged and old spruce stands. The same storms that contributed to extensivewindthrow in 2005 (and 2007) resulted in increased populations of some insects,

82Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010notably Ips typographus. The Russian Federation reported that abiotic factors affected1.3 million hectares of forests and Italy reported snow, storm and drought affecting0.5 million hectares of forest.Storms and blizzards in January 2008 caused great damage to 18.6 millionhectares of forest in eight provinces in China including Hunan; 1 781 state-ownedfarms and 1 200 nurseries were severely damaged, while 760 tonnes of tree seed and10 billion seedlings were frozen (State Forestry Administration, 2008). In addition to acatastrophic loss of human life and destruction of towns and villages, the earthquake inWenchaun, Sichuan Province, China in 2008 caused forest fragmentation and severelydamaged ecosystems that support some of the last remaining giant panda (Ailuropodamelanoleuca) populations in the wild (Xu et al., 2009). No reference to either of theseextreme events was made in China’s country report.Disturbances in Africa were generally not quantified. The disturbance caused bycyclones remains irregular and thus unpredictable, particularly for small islands suchas Mauritius. The severe drought of the 1970s and 1980s which affected the mangroveecosystem in the Gambia was reported but again no quantitative data were available.The impact of woody invasive species on forest health and vitality is causingincreasing concern and 48 countries listed up to five invasive species each. Severalspecies may be found in more than one country and in more than one region (see Table4.9). Some countries included data on the area of forest affected. The United States ofAmerica recorded 34 million hectares of forest affected by five woody invasive species(including shrubs and vines). Sudan recorded 1.6 million hectares affected by Prosopischilensis. In relative terms, small island states and territories such as French Polynesia,Réunion and Mayotte recorded the largest proportion of their forests affected byinvasive woody species (from 35 to 65 percent of the total forest area).It should be noted that methodologies for monitoring invasive species may not existin some countries, may not be applicable, or may only be suitable for one genus (e.g.acacias in Portugal which are recorded through an individualized area evaluation inthe national forest inventory). Herbaceous weeds may also be included and the area ofinvasiveness may include overlapping species.TaBle 4.9Most prevalent woody invasive species reportedspeciesAcacia spp. including:Acacia sp. (3 reports)A. mangium (3)A. dealbata (2)A. auriculiformis (2)A. cyanophylla (1)A. farnesiana (1)A. salicina (1)A. saligna (1)A. victoriae (1)number ofcountriesreports10 Cook Islands, Cuba, Cyprus, Israel, liberia, Portugal, Réunion, Southafrica, Spain, Trinidad and TobagoAilanthus altissima 6 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Spain, united States of americaProsopis juliflora 6 Chad, ethiopia, Mauritania, Niger, Saudi arabia, YemenAcer negundo 5 austria, France, Hungary, Poland, SpainLantana camara 5 Bhutan, New Caledonia, Réunion, Swaziland, South africaLeucaena leucocephala 5 Barbados, Bhutan, Jamaica, liberia, New CaledoniaPrunus serotina 5 Belgium, France, luxembourg, Netherlands, PolandRobinia pseudoacacia 5 Croatia, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, SwitzerlandAmorpha fruticosa 3 Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary

Forest health and vitality 83TrendsOf the 233 countries and areas included in FRA 2010, 45 countries reported on the areaof forest affected by biotic factors other than insects and diseases for all three reportingperiods (i.e. 1990, 2000 and 2005), representing a mere 10 percent of the total forestarea. A further 15 countries reported for the 2005 reporting period only. Data wereprovided by 45 countries on the area of forest affected by abiotic factors other thanfire for all three reporting periods, together accounting for 24 percent of the total forestarea. A further 15 countries provided data for the 2005 reporting period only.At this point in time, there is insufficient quantitative information for a trendanalysis.conclusionsInformation on disturbances caused by biotic and abiotic factors other than insects,disease and fire was very sporadic and included a broad range of causative agents– some of them very localized – making an aggregation and comparison betweencountries and regions virtually impossible.Major factors reported included storms, domestic animals and damage by wildlifeincluding rats. The impact of woody invasive species on forest health and vitality iscausing increasing concern – particularly in SIDS, where they threaten the habitat ofendemic species.An international agreement on what constitutes a disturbance and how best toobtain and analyse data would assist with future data collection and reporting.

85Chapter 5Productive functions of forestresourcesOVERVIEWForests, other wooded land and trees outside forests provide a wide range of wood andnon-wood forest products. The productive function of forest resources is a traditionalthematic element and one of the main objectives of forest resources assessments. Itindicates the economic and social utility of forest resources to national economiesand forest-dependent local communities and reflects the wish to maintain an ampleand valuable supply of primary forest products, while at the same time ensuring thatproduction and harvesting are sustainable and do not compromise the managementoptions of future generations for productive or other functions of forests.Earlier assessments were focused on timber supply, but the concept of forestproduction has since widened to encompass all types of wood and non-wood forestproducts. As part of the FRA 2010 process, information was collected on the followingvariables related to the productive function of forest resources 16 :• area of forest designated for production;• area of planted forests;• areas of afforestation and reforestation;• removals of wood products;• removals of non-wood forest products (NWFPs).Many products are extracted from forests, ranging from wood for timber andfuelwood to food (berries, mushrooms, edible plants, bushmeat), fodder and otherNWFPs. By quantity, industrial roundwood and woodfuel are the most importantproducts; among NWFPs, food and fodder are the most significant.KEy fIndIngsThirty percent of the world’s forests are primarily used for production ofwood and non-wood forest productsClose to 1.2 billion hectares of forest are managed primarily for the production ofwood and non-wood forest products. An additional 949 million hectares (24 percent)are designated for multiple use – in most cases including the production of wood andnon-wood forest products. The area designated primarily for productive functionshas decreased by more than 50 million hectares since 1990, or 0.22 percent annually asforests have been designated for other purposes. The area designated for multiple usehas increased by 10 million hectares in the same period.The area of planted forest is increasing and now accounts for 7 percent oftotal forest areaForests and trees are planted for many purposes and make up an estimated 7 percentof the total forest area, or 264 million hectares. Five countries (China, the United16Not all planted forests are designated for productive functions, but since no information was solicitedon the designated functions of planted forests, the information gathered on them and on afforestationand reforestation is presented in this chapter.

86Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010States of America, the Russian Federation, Japan and India) account for more than half(53 percent) of this area. Some arid zone countries and the Netherlands report that alltheir forests are planted. Between 2000 and 2010, the area of planted forest increasedby about 5 million hectares per year. Most of this was established through afforestation(i.e. planting of areas not classified as forest) particularly in China.The rate of establishment of planted forests has increased in the past 10 yearscompared with the 1990s in most regions except for Europe. Given the current trend,a further rise can be anticipated in the area of planted forest to 300 million hectaresby 2020.Three-quarters of all planted forests consist of native speciesThe remaining quarter comprises introduced species. In sub-Saharan Africa, Oceaniaand South America a number of countries with a significant area of planted forestsreport that they almost exclusively plant introduced species. In the temperate andboreal zones of Europe and North America and in arid zone countries introducedspecies are used to a minor extent.More than 12 million hectares per year are afforested or reforested each yearIn the 10-year period from 1998 to 2007, at the global level, altogether more than12 million hectares per year were afforested and reforested, mostly with indigenousspecies. China accounts for a large proportion of this area. Introduced species are used,on average, at a rate of 29 percent in afforestation and 36 percent in reforestation.Wood removals increased between 2000 and 2005, following a fall in the1990sAt the global level, reported wood removals in 2005 amounted to 3.4 billion cubicmetres annually, similar to the volume recorded for 1990 and equivalent to 0.7 percentof the total growing stock. Considering that informally and illegally removed wood,especially woodfuel, is not usually recorded, the actual amount of wood removals isundoubtedly higher. At the global level, woodfuel accounted for about half of theremoved wood. Wood removals from other wooded land amounted to 299 millioncubic metres or 9 percent of total wood removals in 2005. The proportions of industrialroundwood and woodfuel did not change significantly between 1990 and 2005.food is the largest category of nWfP removals globallyOther important categories include exudates, other plant products, wild honeyandbeeswax, and ornamental plants. Asia, and in particular China, reported thelargestvolume of NWFP removals, most of which are of plant origin (camellia, oilseeds, nuts andbamboo products). The sheer size of the removals reported by Chinadwarfs any othercountry’s removals. Europe has the highest reported level of animalbasedNWFPremovals.KEy COnClusIOnsMore than half of the world’s forests are designated primarily for the production ofwood and NWFPs or have productive functions as part of the management objective.In addition to meeting the demands for wood and a large range on NWFPs, theseforests provide income and employment to millions of people worldwide.The decrease in the area of forest designated primarily for productive functionsreflects an increased reliance on planted forests and more intensively managed naturalforests for wood production and a partial shift in designation from production tomultiple use in line with increasing demands for other services provided by forests.The area of planted forests is increasing rapidly and most of the long-term growth inwood supply is occurring in countries that have established planted forests during the

Productive functions of forest resources 87last few decades. In spite of data limitations it is evident that wood supply (particularlyindustrial roundwood) is shifting from natural forests to planted forests.It is thus foreseen that planted forests will increasingly contribute to the supply ofthe world’s wood, fibre, fuel and NWFPs (as well as protecting soil and water resourcesand fulfilling other purposes) and that this shift may reduce the pressure on naturalforests. The impact of this development on timber markets should be considered bypolicy-makers, planners and forest managers and supported by outlook studies thatevaluate the future contribution of planted forests to economic, environmental andsocial services.Information on NWFPs continue to be poor and efforts should be made to improvedata collection and analysis given their importance in support of local livelihoods andalso their substantive contribution to the national economy in some countries.Reporting on afforestation and reforestation was introduced for the first time inFRA 2010 in an attempt to obtain better information on forest change dynamics.Although a large number of countries were able to report on these variables, significantissues still need to be resolved before a complete balance sheet of gains and losses inforest area over time can be reported by all countries.AREAs dEsIgnATEd fOR PROduCTIVE funCTIOnsIntroductionForest areas that have been designated for productive functions bear no legal, economicor technical restrictions on wood production and serve primarily for the productionof various commodities, including roundwood (industrial roundwood and woodfuel)and NWFPs. They have been designated either by legal prescription or by decisionof the landowner or manager. In these forests production is reported as the ‘primaryfunction’, which is considered to be significantly more important than other functions.statusBased on information from the 205 countries and areas that reported on this variable –together accounting for 99.9 percent of the total forest area – at the global level, closeto 1.2 billion hectares or 30 percent of the total forest area have production designatedas the main function in 2010 (see Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1).The regional results indicate some marked differences in the perception anddesignation of forest functions. Europe has the highest share of forest where productionis the primary function (52 percent of its forest area), while North America and SouthAmerica reported only 14 percent designated for production. North America reportedmost of its forest area as designated for multiple use, while South America showed afairly equal distribution across the five main forest functions (production, protection,conservation, social services and multiple use). A number of countries with forestareas above 10 million hectares designated more than 70 percent of their forest areato multiple use (the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Botswana, Canada, Central AfricanRepublic, Ethiopia, Germany, Iran, Mexico and Zimbabwe). See Table 5 in Annex 3.TrendsThe analysis of trends in area of forest designated primarily for production is based onthe countries that reported a complete time series for 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010 (187countries representing 90.6 percent of the global forest area). The results are shown inTable 5.2.Globally since 1990, there has been a slightly decreasing trend in the area of forestwith production as the primary function. The decline amounts to 2.5 million hectaresper year (-0.22 percent annually) for the period from 1990 to 2010. Many regionsand subregions follow this global trend, while Northern Africa, Western and CentralAfrica, Asia, Europe and the Caribbean show an irregular pattern.

88Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Table 5.1Area of forest designated for production by region and subregion, 2010Region/subregion Information availability Area of forest designatedfor productionnumber ofcountries% of total forestarea1 000 ha % of total forestareaeastern and Southern africa 23 100.0 73 077 27Northern africa 7 99.1 36 819 47Western and Central africa 24 100.0 95 141 29Total Africa 54 99.9 205 037 30east asia 5 100.0 98 978 39South and Southeast asia 17 100.0 124 239 42Western and Central asia 24 100.0 9 537 22Total Asia 46 100.0 232 754 39europe excl. Russian Federation 45 100.0 110 855 57Total Europe 46 100.0 526 646 52Caribbean 12 53.8 1 030 28Central america 7 100.0 3 613 19North america 5 100.0 97 138 14Total north and Central America 24 99.5 101 781 14Total Oceania 21 99.8 11 656 6Total south America 14 100.0 118 295 14World 205 99.9 1 196 168 30FiguRe 5.1Proportion of forest area designated for production by country, 2010(% of forest area)0–2020–4040–6060–8080–100No data

Productive functions of forest resources 89Table 5.2Trends in area of forest designated for production by region and subregion, 1990–2010Region/subregionInformationavailabilitynumberofcountries% oftotalforestareaArea of forest designatedfor production(1 000 ha)1990 2000 2010 1990–2000Annual change(1 000 ha)2000–2010Annual changerate (%)eastern and Southern africa 21 80.9 71 280 65 961 61 156 -532 -480 -0.77 -0.75Northern africa 7 99.1 39 557 36 637 36 819 -292 18 -0.76 0.05Western and Central africa 22 52.5 100 108 100 095 88 052 -1 -1 204 0 -1.27Total Africa 50 69.2 210 944 202 693 186 027 -825 -1 667 -0.40 -0.85east asia 4 90.2 126 936 119 592 94 711 -734 -2 488 -0.59 -2.31South and Southeast asia 17 100.0 114 809 128 657 124 239 1 385 -442 1.15 -0.35Western and Central asia 23 99.7 9 566 9 685 9 529 12 -16 0.12 -0.16Total Asia 44 95.8 251 311 257 934 228 479 662 -2 945 0.26 -1.21europe excl. Russian Federation 44 98.2 111 363 111 229 108 829 -13 -240 -0.01 -0.22Total Europe 45 99.7 558 042 522 666 524 620 -3 538 195 -0.65 0.04Caribbean 11 53.1 879 860 1 028 -2 17 -0.21 1.80Central america 3 36.9 1 743 1 620 1 522 -12 -10 -0.73 -0.62North america 5 100.0 80 560 87 506 97 138 695 963 0.83 1.05Total north and Central America 19 97.8 83 181 89 986 99 689 680 970 0.79 1.03Total Oceania 19 99.6 7 241 11 180 11 569 394 39 4.44 0.34Total south America 10 85.1 70 857 75 866 80 827 501 496 0.69 0.64World 187 90.6 1 181 576 1 160 325 1 131 210 -2 125 -2 911 -0.18 -0.251990–20002000–2010In Northern Africa the reported decline of 292 000 ha per year between 1990and 2000 was halted after 2000 as a result of an increase in production forest area inMorocco and Tunisia. By contrast, the production forest area in Western and CentralAfrica has declined after 2000 as Gabon, Liberia and Nigeria reported a substantialdecrease in production forest area. In Gabon this decrease was a result of a changein the forest legislation in 2001 and a reassignment of forest functions; in Liberia thereported decline was caused by the cancellation of forest concessions after 2005.In Asia the area of production forest increased at a rate of 662 000 ha per yearfrom 1990 to 2000, while from 2000 to 2010 it decreased by nearly 3 million hectaresannually. This development is mainly due to a reduction in the area designated forproductive functions in China by close to 30 million hectares between 1990 and 2010,a change in the designation of forest functions and the reclassification of forest areasin Myanmar, as well as a significant decline in productive forest area reported byIndonesia (12.7 million hectares since 1990).Europe reported a decrease in the production forest area of 3.5 million hectaresbetween 1990 and 2000, and only a very slight increase from 2000 to 2010. The irregulartrend in the Caribbean is a result of the deforestation of production forests in Cuba inthe middle of the 1990s followed by an increase in area of production forests throughthe establishment of planted forests.South America, North America and Oceania report a steady increase in forest areaprimarily designated for production since 1990, with the largest increases being seenin Brazil (21.5 million hectares), the United States of America (13.4 million hectares),Mexico (3.2 million hectares) and Papua New Guinea (3.1 million hectares). With thenotable exception of Papua New Guinea, where the increase is due to the allocationof new timber concessions on land held under customary ownership, this is mainly aresult of the large-scale establishment of planted forests with production as the primary

90Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010function. Peru reports a remarkable decrease in production forest area of 15 millionhectares since 2000 due to a change in forest legislation favouring the designation offorest area for conservation and protection.ConclusionsThe reported 1.2 billion hectares of forest area primarily designated for productiongives an indication of the importance of this function. However, it is a considerableunderestimate of the available forest resource base for the production of wood andnon-wood forest products, as a substantial part of the 949 million hectares of forestarea assigned to multiple use also has productive functions. Furthermore, the removalof NWFPs is often allowed in parts of areas designated for the protection of soil andwater resources or the conservation of biological diversity.The decrease over time reflects an increased reliance on planted forests andmore intensively managed natural forests for wood production and a partial shift indesignation from production to multiple use.PlAnTEd fOREsTsIntroductionPlanted forests are composed of trees established through planting and/or throughdeliberate seeding of native or introduced species. Establishment is either throughafforestation on land that until then was not classified as forest, or by reforestation ofland classified as forest, for instance after a fire or a storm or following clearfelling.The concept of planted forests is broader than the concept of forest plantations usedin previous global assessments. This change was made to capture all planted forestsand is in line with the recommendations of the Global Planted Forests Thematic Study2005 (FAO, 2006d) and recent efforts to develop guidelines and best practices for theestablishment and management of planted forests.Planted forests are established for different purposes and not all of them aredesignated for production of wood or NWFPs. However, no information was solicitedon the area of planted forests designated for productive and protective purposes forFRA 2010. Based on the results of the Global Planted Forests Thematic Study 2005, itis estimated that around 76 percent of planted forests have production as their primaryfunction 17 . This should be kept in mind when interpreting the findings below, whichcover all planted forests irrespective of their designated functions.statusA total of 203 countries and areas, representing 98.6 percent of the global forest area,reported on their area of planted forests. (Cameroon only reported for 2005. Forthe purpose of this analysis, this figure has been assumed to be valid for 2010 also.)The total area of planted forest as of 2010 is estimated to be 264 million hectares,corresponding to 6.6 percent of the forest area. The planted forest area by region andsubregion is presented in Table 5.3.East Asia, Europe and North America reported the greatest area of planted forests,together accounting for about 75 percent of global planted forest area. In East Asiaplanted forests make up 35 percent of the total forest area; most of these are foundin China. The second largest area of planted forests is found in Europe, although theshare of planted forests here is close to the world average. However, if the RussianFederation with its vast area of natural forest is excluded from Europe, the share ofplanted forests in Europe increases to 27 percent, the second highest proportion in17This percentage may have decreased since then, as a large proportion of the increase in planted forestshas taken place in China and many of these are established for protective purposes (desertificationcontrol and protection of soil and water resources).

Productive functions of forest resources 91Table 5.3Area of planted forests by region and subregion, 2010Region/subregion Information availability Area of planted forestnumber ofcountries% of totalforest area1 000 ha % of totalforest areaeastern and Southern africa 23 100.0 4 116 1.5Northern africa 8 99.1 8 091 10.3Western and Central africa 24 100.0 3 203 1.0Total Africa 55 100.0 15 409 2.3east asia 5 100.0 90 232 35.4South and Southeast asia 17 100.0 25 552 8.7Western and Central asia 23 96.9 6 991 16.6Total Asia 45 99.8 122 775 20.8europe excl. Russian Federation 42 97.7 52 327 27.3Total Europe 43 99.6 69 318 6.9Caribbean 16 70.4 548 11.2Central america 7 100.0 584 3.0North america 5 100.0 37 529 5.5Total north and Central America 28 99.7 38 661 5.5Total Oceania 18 99.7 4 101 2.1Total south America 13 94.6 13 821 1.7World 203 98.6 264 084 6.6the world. North America has the third largest area of planted forests with a share of5.5 percent of the total forest area in this subregion. Subregions reporting the smallestarea of planted forests are the African subregions, the Caribbean, Central America andWestern and Central Asia.In most subregions, the majority of the planted forests are found in just a fewcountries. For instance, in Northern Africa 75 percent of the planted forest area islocated in Sudan; in East Asia, 86 percent is found in China; and in South and SoutheastAsia, 90 percent is in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Viet Nam. Some aridzone countries (Cape Verde, Egypt, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Oman, UnitedArab Emirates) and the Netherlands report that all their forests have been establishedthrough planting or deliberate seeding.In total, there are 33 countries with a planted forest area above 1 million hectareswhich together account for 90 percent of the global planted forest area (see Figure 5.2).Of these, China, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, Japan and Indiatogether account for more than half the world’s planted forests (53 percent).The area of planted forest reported for FRA 2010 is lower than that reported inthe Global Planted Forests Thematic Study 2005 (FAO, 2006d). A comparison of thefigures recorded for 2005 in FRA 2010 with the estimates for 2005 provided in theThematic Study reveals a difference of more than 38 million hectares, with the figurespresented in FRA 2010 being 14 percent lower than the figures in the Thematic Study.The difference is mainly caused by revised estimates provided for FRA 2010 by India(down by more than 20 million hectares), China and the Republic of Korea in Asia,and by France, Germany, Portugal, Romania and Sweden in Europe, as well as missingestimates from Austria and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.In FRA 2010 countries also reported on the use of introduced species in theestablishment of planted forests. Globally, of the 233 countries and areas included,90 reported that they have planted introduced species, while 17 countries reportedthat they have not used introduced species in the establishment of planted forests. Theremaining 116 countries and areas did not report on the use of introduced species.

92Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010FiguRe 5.2Area of planted forest by country, 2010< 11–2.52.5–5(million ha)5–20> 20No dataTable 5.4use of introduced species in planted forests by region and subregion, 2010Region/subregionnumberof countriesInformationavailability% of totalforest areaArea of planted forest1 000 ha % of totalarea ofplanted forestArea of planted forestcomprising primarily ofintroduced species1 000 ha % of plantedforest areaeastern and Southern africa 13 37.1 3 012 73 3 007 99.8Northern africa 5 97.5 7 449 92 481 6.5Western and Central africa 12 26.5 1 778 56 1 251 70.4Total Africa 30 39.0 12 239 79 4 740 38.7east asia 2 83.7 89 306 99 22 828 28.9South and Southeast asia 6 27.7 10 846 42 1 735 16.0Western and Central asia 12 47.0 4 445 64 162 3.6Total Asia 20 53.2 104 596 85 24 725 26.2europe excl. Russian Federation 30 82.2 41 913 80 7 183 17.1Total Europe 31 96.5 58 904 85 7 183 12.2Caribbean 11 67.0 519 95 164 31.6Central america 3 44.8 94 16 76 80.7North america 3 44.8 25 364 68 435 1.7Total north and Central America 17 45.0 25 977 67 675 2.6Total Oceania 10 84.5 3 931 96 3 027 77.0Total south America 9 76.0 12 375 90 12 019 97.1World 117 66.6 218 022 83 52 369 25.2

Productive functions of forest resources 93The results are compiled in Table 5.4. It should be noted that they refer only to those117 countries that reported on the use of introduced species. Together, they account for67 percent of all forests and 83 percent of all planted forests.At the global level introduced species grow on one quarter (25 percent) of the plantedforest area of the countries that reported on this variable. However, there are markeddifferences by region and subregion. In the tropical and subtropical regions a numberof countries with a significant area of planted forest report that they almost exclusivelyuse introduced species for the establishment of planted forests. This is particularlythe case in Eastern and Southern Africa (Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, South Africa,Uganda and Zimbabwe) and in Western and Central Africa (Burundi, Cape Verdeand Niger). Planted forests are also predominantly composed of introduced speciesin Oceania (New Zealand) and in South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile,Ecuador and Uruguay). In East Asia, China uses introduced species on around onequarter (28 percent) of the planted forest area while Japan did not report. In South andSoutheast Asia a number of countries with a significant area of planted forest did notreport on the use of introduced species (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Viet Nam).In Western and Central Asian countries (e.g. Turkey) the use of introduced speciesis very low, while other countries in this subregion did not report. In the temperateand boreal regions of Europe and North America and in the arid zone countries ofNorthern Africa introduced species are only used to a minor extent.TrendsThe analysis of trends in the extent of planted forests is based on 203 countries thatreported an almost complete time series from 1990 to 2010. Sixteen countries andareas did not provide a complete time series (Cameroon, Ecuador, Estonia, FrenchPolynesia, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Mexico, Nicaragua, Niue,Portugal, Republic of Korea, Samoa and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines). In thesecases a reasonable estimate was added to the database in order to obtain a comparabletotal for regions and subregions. The missing data for 1990 and 2000 were estimatedto be the same as the reported numbers for 2000 and 2005 respectively. The missingfigure for 2010 for Cameroon was estimated to be the same as that reported for 2005.Where a clear trend could be observed in the figures reported for 2000, 2005 and 2010this trend was extrapolated to complement the missing year 1990. Thirty countries andareas did not report any figures from 1990 to 2010 and were excluded from the analysis.The results are shown in Table 5.5.Since 1990 the planted forest area has steadily increased in all regions and subregions.At the global level, the planted forest area increased by more than 3.6 million hectaresper year from 1990–2000, by 5.6 million hectares per year from 2000–2005, and by4.2 million hectares per year from 2005–2010. In the last decade the planted forest areahas increased by an average of almost 5 million hectares every year.The steadily rising trend in planted forest area varies considerably amongsubregions. Figure 5.3 presents the trends for the ten countries with the highestannual increase in planted forest areas, with China taking the first rank in the past20-year period, followed by the United States of America, Canada and India. Thesefour countries together account for an average annual increase in planted forests of3.3 million hectares over this period.Although there was a significant increase in planted forest area on a global andregional scale, there are some countries that report a loss in planted forest area. Thelargest annual decrease in planted forest area over the last 20 years was reported by theDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea (an average loss of 17 000 ha per year over thelast 20 years).

94Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Table 5.5Trends in area of planted forests by region and subregion, 1990–2010Region/subregionInformationavailabilitynumberofcountries% oftotalforestareaArea of planted forest(1 000 ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000Annual change(1 000 ha)2000–2010Annual changerate (%)eastern and Southern africa 23 100.0 3 500 3 689 3 813 4 116 19 43 0.53 1.10Northern africa 8 100.0 6 794 7 315 7 692 8 091 52 78 0.74 1.01Western and Central africa 25 94.0 1 369 1 953 2 526 3 203 58 125 3.62 5.07Total Africa 56 97.1 11 663 12 958 14 032 15 409 129 245 1.06 1.75east asia 5 100.0 55 049 67 494 80 308 90 232 1 244 2 274 2.06 2.95South and Southeast asia 17 100.0 16 531 19 736 23 364 25 552 321 582 1.79 2.62Western and Central asia 23 96.9 4 678 5 698 5 998 6 991 102 129 1.99 2.07Total Asia 45 99.8 76 258 92 928 109 670 122 775 1 667 2 985 2.00 2.82europe excl. Russian42 97.7 46 395 49 951 51 539 52 327 356 238 0.74 0.47FederationTotal Europe 43 99.6 59 046 65 312 68 502 69 318 627 401 1.01 0.60Caribbean 16 70.4 391 394 445 548 0 15 0.09 3.33Central america 7 100.0 445 428 474 584 -2 16 -0.37 3.14North america 5 100.0 19 645 29 438 34 867 37 529 979 809 4.13 2.46Total north and Central 28 99.7 20 481 30 261 35 787 38 661 978 840 3.98 2.48AmericaTotal Oceania 18 99.7 2 583 3 323 3 851 4 101 74 78 2.55 2.12Total south America 13 94.6 8 276 10 058 11 123 13 821 178 376 1.97 3.23World 203 98.6 178 307 214 839 242 965 264 084 3 653 4 925 1.88 2.091990–20002000–2010FiguRe 5.3Ten countries with greatest annual increase in planted forest area, 1990–2010(1 000 ha/yr)China 1 932united States 805Canada 385india 251Russian Federation 199Mexico 178brazil 156Viet Nam 134Turkey 91Finland 82ConclusionsThe country reports for FRA 2010 report a planted forest area of 264 million hectarescorresponding to 6.6 percent of the forest area of the reporting countries. At the globallevel this area has steadily increased since 1990 by an average of 4.3 million hectares peryear. In most regions except for Europe and North America the rate of establishmentof planted forests increased in the past ten years compared with the previous decade,

Productive functions of forest resources 95although it appears to have peaked during 2000–2005. Given this trend, a further risein the planted forest area up to 300 million hectares by 2020 can be anticipated. Plantedforests are therefore expected to increasingly contribute to the world’s wood, fibre, fueland NWFPs supply, as well as providing environmental and social services at a timewhen demand for these resources is increasing. The impact of this development ontimber markets should be considered by policy-makers, planners and forest managersand supported by outlook studies that evaluate the future contribution of plantedforests to economic, environmental and social services. To supply the data needed forsuch analysis, it is recommended that future assessments estimate the proportion ofplanted forests designated for different functions.AffOREsTATIOn And REfOREsTATIOnIntroductionIn view of the growing significance of planted forests and to enable countries to reporton progress towards the Global Objectives on Forests, the parameters ‘afforestation’and ‘reforestation’ were included in FRA 2010.Afforestation is the act of establishing forests through planting and/or deliberateseeding on land that is not classified as forest, while reforestation refers to there-establishment of forest through planting and/or deliberate seeding on land classifiedas forest, for instance after a fire, storm or following clearfelling. No attempt wasmade to quantify the area of forest regenerated through natural or assisted naturalregeneration in FRA 2010. Afforestation implies an increase in forest area throughthe conversion of land not bearing forest to forested land, while reforestation doesnot have an impact on the size of the total area of forest. It should be kept in mindthat afforestation and reforestation are not only aimed at establishing planted foreststo fulfill productive purposes. However, all afforestation and reforestation efforts arereported in this chapter regardless of their intended purpose.From a global perspective reporting on these two parameters is fragmented(Table 5.6).Since afforestation and reforestation activities may vary slightly between theyears, countries were asked to report the average area afforested or reforested over afive-year period centred around the years 1990, 2000 and 2005. Of the 233 countriesand areas covered by FRA 2010, 29 countries (12 percent) reported that they didnot currently carry out any afforestation or reforestation measures and 74 countries(32 percent) did not report at all for 1990, 2000 and 2005. However, most of thesecountries and areas are small and would not influence the global figures in a significantway. Both afforestation and reforestation measures were reported by 60 countriesTable 5.6Country reporting on afforestation and reforestation by region, 2005RegionTotal numberof countriesbothafforestationandreforestationnumber of countries that reported....onlyafforestationonlyreforestationzeroafforestationandreforestation*number ofcountries thatdid not reportafrica 57 10 14 14 8 11asia 48 17 3 10 4 14europe 50 24 5 3 5 13North and Central america 39 3 6 5 6 19Oceania 25 3 2 2 2 16South america 14 3 0 6 4 1World 233 60 30 40 29 74* including also those countries which reported zero for one of the categories and no data for the other.

96Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010(26 percent), while 30 countries (13 percent) reported only afforestation and 40countries (17 percent) only reforestation measures (see Table 5.6). Reported figures for1990, covering the period 1988 to 1992, appear incomplete. More complete datasetswere reported for 2000 (covering the period 1998 to 2002) and for 2005 (covering theperiod 2003 to 2007). Therefore, status and trends of afforestation and reforestationmeasures were analysed and interpreted for regions and subregions only for the tenyearperiod from 1998 to 2007.statusTable 5.7 gives a summary by region and subregion of the status of afforestation andreforestation in 2005, covering the period 2003 to 2007, based on information from 163countries and areas, which account for 95 percent of the total forest area and 98 percentof the total area of planted forests. 18At the global level, an average of 5.6 million hectares per year were reported forafforestation and 5.3 million hectares per year for reforestation. Together, this area(about 11 million hectares) is more than twice the reported average annual increasein the area of planted forests during the period 2000–2010 (see Table 5.5). In part,this difference can be explained by the fact that countries were asked to report onthe area planted or sown annually, not the area of forest established. Gross figuresfor afforestation and reforestation were therefore reported, which did not take intoaccount the fact that survival or establishment rates can be low – particularly forafforestation aimed at desertification control such as in China and Northern Africa.Furthermore, part of the reforestation involved replanting previously existing plantedforests (see below) and, therefore, did not result in an increase in the overall areaof planted forests. Some countries reported that areas of planted forests had beenconverted to other land uses during the period. For example, in Malaysia rubberplantations have been converted to other uses – in some cases oil palm plantations.Table 5.7Afforestation and reforestation by region and subregion, 2005Region/subregion Afforestation (ha/yr) Reforestation (ha/yr)eastern and Southern africa 58 933 105 226Northern africa 53 250 28 024Western and Central africa 47 930 103 873Total Africa 160 113 237 123east asia 4 385 209 361 288South and Southeast asia 398 053 2 067 129Western and Central asia 142 406 50 384Total Asia 4 925 668 2 478 801Total Europe 169 657 992 540Caribbean 45 7 664Central america 4 328 14 728North america 199 362 853 815Total north and Central America 203 735 876 207Total Oceania 59 381 37 423Total south America 103 879 722 527World 5 622 433 5 348 01718The figures on reforestation from the Russian Federation include areas under natural regeneration.Based on the information on afforestation and change in area of planted forests, it is estimated that thearea of reforestation amounts to 40 percent of the total area regenerated. The reforestation area hasbeen adjusted accordingly for the purpose of this chapter.

Productive functions of forest resources 97Since oil palm is an agricultural tree crop the area thus moved from the class ‘plantedforests’ to ‘other land with tree cover’, which counterbalances some of the increase.Finally, a few countries in Europe (e.g. Belgium) noted that some planted forests hadbeen re-established through natural regeneration in the period and these areas thenmoved from the category ‘planted forests’ to ‘other naturally regenerated forests’. Allthese factors would result in a lower net increase in the area of planted forest comparedwith the area of afforestation and reforestation. However, the significant differencebetween the gross planting rates and the net increase in planted forests warrants furtheranalysis and points to the need for more detailed information in future assessments,including estimates of survival rates for newly planted areas.East Asia showed a very high level of afforestation, with around 4.4 million hectaresper year on average for 2005, of which more than 99 percent were reported by China.Introduced species were used for 28 percent of afforestation in East Asia which is inline with the global figure (see Table 5.8). Reforestation activities, in contrast, weregreatest in South and Southeast Asia 19 , with 2.1 million hectares annually, and inEurope with 1.0 million hectares per year. In both regions the proportion of introducedspecies used in reforestation was low.The ten countries with the highest planting rates for afforestation and reforestationin 2005 are shown in Figures 5.4 and 5.5.Of the 100 countries that reported some reforestation, 35 reported on the proportionof this area that was previously planted. Together these countries account for just overTable 5.8use of introduced species in afforestation and reforestation, 2005Region/subregionAfforestationInformation availabilitynumber ofreportingcountries% of totalforest areaAreareforested(ha/yr)% ofintroducedspeciesReforestationInformation availabilitynumber ofreportingcountries% of totalforest areaAreareforested(ha/yr)% ofintroducedspecieseastern and16 75.2 52 208 100 12 35.6 101 816 99Southern africaNorthern africa 6 98.8 53 250 36 3 3.5 9 900 58Western and11 22.6 15 867 69 12 32.9 77 954 85Central africaTotal Africa 33 52.3 121 325 68 27 30.6 189 670 91east asia 1 79.8 4 385 000 28 2 82.4 324 781 27South and3 0.3 28 100 4 7.2 33 113 94Southeast asiaWestern and10 13.8 14 170 7 10 14.9 3 674 13Central asiaTotal Asia 14 34.2 4 399 198 28 16 38.9 361 568 33Total Europe 26 93.2 121 391 19 29 94.4 1 562 659 3Caribbean 8 17.3 35 100 8 45.9 6 864 59Central america 2 17.4 3 141 80 0 – –North america 1 44.6 121 532 2 0 – –Total north and 11 43.5 124 708 4 8 0.4 6 864 59Central AmericaTotal Oceania 9 84.6 59 381 22 7 5.9 37 423 100Total south6 9.6 87 531 99 7 75.0 627 980 98AmericaWorld 99 50.5 4 913 534 29 94 50.7 2 786 163 3619This includes afforestation efforts in India, where it was not possible to break down national figures oftree planting into afforestation and reforestation.

98Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010FiguRe 5.4Ten countries with largest area of afforestation, 2005(ha/yr)China 4 854 800indonesia 250 421Viet Nam 138 920united States 122 000Turkey 87 300Mexico 69 200Chile 64 331australia 50 000Spain 30 461Sudan 25 630FiguRe 5.5Ten countries with largest area of reforestation, 2005(ha/yr)india* 1 480 000united States 606 000brazil* 553 000Russian Federation 422 856China 337 000Viet Nam 327 785Mexico 247 600indonesia 153 941Finland 133 680Sweden 130 550* includes afforestationone-third of the total forest area (36 percent), 58 percent of the total area of plantedforests and 38 percent of the total area reforested. In these countries, some 72 percentof all the reforestation undertaken in and around year 2005 took place on areas thatwere previously planted, while some 576 000 hectares of naturally regenerated forestswere converted to planted forests annually. However, due to the limited informationavailability, this result should be treated with caution.Reporting on the use of introduced species in afforestation and reforestation isfragmented. Of the 233 countries and areas covered by FRA 2010, only 99 countries(51 percent) reported on the use of introduced species in afforestation and 94 countries(51 percent) on the use of introduced species in reforestation. Together, they accountfor 87 percent of the total area afforested and 52 percent of the area reforested. Table5.8 gives a summary by region and subregion for 2005.

Productive functions of forest resources 99At the global level introduced species were used at a rate of 29 percent in afforestationand 36 percent in reforestation in the reporting countries. However, marked differencesexisted in the use of introduced species, by region and subregion.The reporting countries of the tropical and subtropical regions almost exclusivelyused introduced species for afforestation and reforestation, particularly in Eastern andSouthern Africa (Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi and South Africa); South and SoutheastAsia (e.g. Malaysia) and the Caribbean. However a number of countries with asignificant area of planted forest did not report on the use of introduced species inafforestation and reforestation (Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam). In Oceania (NewZealand) and South America (Argentina, Brazil and Chile) introduced species alsopredominated in afforestation and reforestation. In East Asia, China used introducedspecies on around one quarter (28 percent) of both afforested and reforested areas.Countries in the temperate regions (Western and Central Asia, Europe and NorthAmerica) used introduced species for afforestation and reforestation only to a minorextent.TrendsGlobally there has been a decreasing trend in afforestation and a slight increasingtrend in reforestation during the observed ten-year period from 1998 to 2007. Therate of afforestation decreased by 1.0 percent annually and reforestation increased by0.3 percent when comparing the average for 2000 with that for 2005 for the reportingcountries (see Table 5.9). However there are marked differences between the regionsand subregions.African subregions show an increasing trend in afforestation and reforestation,except for Northern Africa. A similar trend can be observed in South and SoutheastAsia and in Western and Central Asia. In East Asia (i.e. China) afforestation andreforestation trends are both decreasing, although the afforested area is still the largestin the world. In Europe and North and Central America the annually afforestedand reforested areas have considerably decreased, in particular the planting of newTable 5.9Trends in afforestation and reforestation by region and subregion, 2000 –2005Region/subregion Afforestation Reforestation2000(ha/yr)2005(ha/yr)Annualchange rate(%)2000(ha/yr)2005(ha/yr)Annualchange rate(%)eastern and Southern africa 25 966 48 727 13.42 71 574 101 926 7.33Northern africa 46 327 53 250 2.82 28 908 28 024 -0.62Western and Central africa 47 300 47 930 0.26 81 117 107 270 5.75Total Africa 119 593 149 907 4.62 181 599 237 220 5.49east asia 4 737 100 4 385 209 -1.53 694 508 361 288 -12.25South and Southeast asia 210 633 398 053 13.58 1 833 148 2 067 129 2.43Western and Central asia 62 019 142 254 18.06 45 352 48 188 1.22Total Asia 5 009 752 4 925 516 -0.34 2 573 008 2 476 605 -0.76Total Europe 273 812 169 250 -9.17 1 204 892 989 754 -3.86Caribbean 41 35 -3.11 6 323 7 664 3.92Central america 10 088 4 328 -15.57 11870 14 728 4.41North america 250 873 199 362 -4.49 982 026 853 815 -2.76Total north and Central America 261 002 203 725 -4.83 1 000 219 876 207 -2.61Total Oceania 128 167 59 339 -14.27 37 277 37 054 -0.12Total south America 93 287 87 531 -1.27 247 225 714 418 23.64World 5 885 614 5 595 268 -1.01 5 244 219 5 331 258 0.33

100Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010forest areas through afforestation, while in South America the rate of reforestation isincreasing rapidly.ConclusionsDuring the period from 1998 to 2007 afforestation and reforestation have madea substantial impact on the development of forest resources. At the global level,afforestation measures, together with natural expansion of forests in some countriesand regions, have helped reduce the net loss of forest area to 8.3 million hectaresannually in the 1990s and to 5.2 million hectares per year in the last decade, comparedwith the gross rate of loss through deforestation and natural causes, estimated at 16million hectares per year in the 1990s and 13 million hectares per year in the last decade.Reforestation has contributed to maintaining forests on more than 5 million hectaresof land per year on average from 1998 to 2007. Both afforestation and reforestationrates are reported to have increased in most of the tropical regions, which so faraccount for the highest loss of forests. Some large countries, in particular China and theUnited States of America, have slowed their afforestation and reforestation activitiesalthough both still feature among the countries with the highest rates of tree plantingin the world. The large increase in the area reforested in South America is primarilydue to Brazil, where more than 0.5 million hectares are being planted annually – mostof this as reforestation.Reporting on afforestation and reforestation was introduced for the first time inFRA 2010 in an attempt to obtain better information on forest area change dynamics.Although quite a large number of countries were able to report on these variables, thedata analysis indicates that there are still significant data issues to be resolved beforea complete balance sheet can be reported by countries displaying forest loss (throughdeforestation and natural causes) and forest gain (through afforestation and naturalexpansion of forests) over time.REMOVAls Of WOOd PROduCTsIntroductionWood removed from forests and other wooded land constitutes an importantcomponent of the productive function. The volume of wood removed indicates theeconomic and social utility of forest resources to national economies and dependentlocal communities. This information also contributes to monitoring the use of forestresources by comparing actual removals with the sustainable potential.Industrial roundwood and woodfuel were reported separately for FRA 2010. For1990, 2000 and 2005, the data reported are five-year averages for 1988–1992, 1998–2002and 2003–2007 respectively.As a check on the quality and consistency of the information, the reports forFRA 2010 were compared with the removals statistics published in the FAOSTATdatabase 20 (FAO, 2009b). This detailed examination of the data revealed a number ofdifferences between the two sources in absolute numbers, particularly for woodfuelremovals. At the global level, wood removals figures reported for FRA 2010 are about15 percent lower than those in FAOSTAT (5 percent lower for industrial roundwoodand 25 percent lower for woodfuel). Lower absolute figures reported for FRA 2010may be explained by the fact that not all countries reported removals, some reportedremovals from forest only and a few did not include removals from plantations.FAOSTAT includes removal estimates from all sources (i.e. forest and non-forest land),as well as woodfuel estimates generated by FAO for the countries that do not reportreliable removals statistics (Whiteman, Broadhead and Bahdon, 2002). In spite of the20FAOSTAT wood removal figures were recalculated into 5-year average volume over bark by using theconversion ratio 1.15.

Productive functions of forest resources 101divergence between these sources, global and regional trends for removals are similarin the two datasets.statusData on wood removals in 2005 were available for 172 countries that account for99.8 percent of the global forest area. The majority of countries (101) reported datafor removals from forest only, while 22 countries provided data for wood removalsbroken down by source (forest and other wooded land) and another 49 countries didnot specify the source of wood removals.Reported global wood removals in 2005 amounted to 3.4 billion cubic metres, ofwhich about half were industrial roundwood and half woodfuel (see Table 5.10) 21 .Reported wood removals from other wooded land amounted to about 299 millioncubic metres, or 9 percent of total wood removals in 2005. The true figure (as well astotal volume of removals) was probably much higher because most of the countriesonly reported removals from forests or did not specify the source of wood removals.India accounted for the majority of reported removals from other wooded land(252 million cubic metres, which constitutes 82 percent of the total wood removals inthe country).In Africa, the Caribbean, Central America and South and Southeast Asia removalswere mainly woodfuel, while in North America, East Asia, Europe and Oceaniaremovals were mainly industrial roundwood. In South America removals were evenlydistributed between industrial roundwood and woodfuel.The ten countries reporting the highest figures for wood removals account for justbelow 60 percent of total global removals (see Figure 5.6).Table 5.10Wood removals by region and subregion, 2005Region/subregionIndustrialroundwoodWoodfuelTotalremovalsmillion m³ million m³ % of total million m³eastern and Southern africa 39 292 88 331Northern africa 4 24 87 27Western and Central africa 30 301 91 330Total Africa 72 616 90 688east asia 86 71 45 157South and Southeast asia 99 464 82 562Western and Central asia 17 13 43 30Total Asia 201 548 73 749Total Europe 568 167 23 735Caribbean 1 5 82 6Central america 4 17 81 22North america 701 55 7 756Total north and Central America 706 77 10 783Total Oceania 55 1 1 56Total south America 180 167 48 347World 1 783 1 576 47 3 35921Some countries only provided information on removals of woodfuel or industrial roundwood and didnot present a total on the FRA questionnaire. In such cases, these figures were used for the totals in theanalysis and were included in the tables presented here.

102Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010FiguRe 5.6Ten countries with largest volume of wood removals in percent, 2005(%)united States 16india 9brazil 7Canada 6Russian Federation 6China 4ethiopia 3indonesia 3Sudan 3Democratic Republic of the Congo 2Remaining countries 41Table 5.11Trends in wood removals by region and subregion, 1990–2005Region/subregionWood removals (million m³)Industrial roundwood Woodfuel Total1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005eastern and Southern africa 28 31 35 140 162 174 168 193 209Northern africa 3 3 4 21 22 24 24 25 27Western and Central africa 20 24 24 222 277 297 242 301 322Total Africa 51 59 63 383 461 495 434 519 558east asia 98 77 86 70 83 71 168 161 157South and Southeast asia 123 92 99 466 459 463 589 551 561Western and Central asia 15 16 17 18 14 13 33 30 30Total Asia 237 186 201 554 556 547 791 741 748Total Europe 603 486 560 163 145 164 766 631 723Caribbean 1 1 1 5 5 5 6 6 6Central america 2 3 3 16 17 16 18 19 19North america 696 715 701 105 56 55 801 771 756Total north and Central America 699 719 705 126 77 76 825 796 781Total Oceania 33 48 55 0 0 1 34 48 56Total south America 153 142 178 196 164 167 349 306 344World 1 777 1 640 1 762 1 422 1 403 1 449 3 199 3 043 3 211TrendsTable 5.11 is based on 159 countries and areas that provided a complete time series onwood removals. Those reporting both industrial roundwood and woodfuel for all threeyears account for about 97 percent of the global forest area.At the global level, total removals increased between 2000 and 2005 after a fall inthe 1990s and the proportions of industrial roundwood and woodfuel did not changesignificantly when comparing 1990 to 2005. However, the trends varied between regions.African countries reported steadily increasing wood removals: from 434 million cubicmetres in 1990 to 558 million cubic metres in 2005. The average annual growth of3 percent in wood removals in Africa is in line with population growth over the sameperiod.

Productive functions of forest resources 103East Asia reported a decline in removals, caused primarily by a significant decreasein wood removals in China as a result of a partial logging ban, as well as a continuousdecline in Japan. South and Southeast Asia reported a significant decline during the1990s, particularly for industrial roundwood caused by log export restrictions inMalaysia and Indonesia. Between 2000 and 2005, removals rose slightly in this regionbecause of a reported increase in India and Malaysia. For Asia as a whole, total reportedremovals declined from 791 million cubic metres in 1990 to 748 million cubic metresin 2005. However, the figure for 2005 is an underestimate by at least 50 million cubicmetres because China, Indonesia and Thailand provided only partial data and, forexample, did not include wood removals from rubber plantations. Southeast Asia andChina experienced a significant shift from logging in natural forests to planted forestsover the two decades. The actual wood removals in Asia are now probably higher thanduring the 1990s.A sharp decline in removals in the Russian Federation in the early 1990s – a resultof the transition from a centrally-planned to a market-based economy – caused anoverall reduction in removals in Europe of 8 percent between 1990 and 2000. However,following this decrease, removals in Europe including the Russian Federation havebeen moving back towards their 1990 level. Removals in Europe excluding the RussianFederation have been growing steadily, at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent overthe period 1990 to 2005.North and Central America show a very stable trend over the last 15 years: totalremovals decreased gradually from 825 million cubic metres in 1990 to 781 million cubicmetres in 2005.A steady increase in removals was reported for Oceania. Four countries (Australia,New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands) account for most of thewood removals, which nearly doubled from 34 million cubic metres in 1990 to56 million cubic metres in 2005 because of an increased supply of industrial roundwoodfrom forest plantations in New Zealand and Australia.South America reported a significant reduction, from 349 million cubic metres in1990 to 306 million cubic metres in 2000, mainly due to reduced logging in Brazil’snatural forests. However, after 2000 removals bounced back to the level of 1990. Similarto Oceania, a growing supply of industrial roundwood from forest plantations (Brazil,Chile, Argentina and Uruguay) accounted for most of this increase in removals.ConclusionsIn the long term, wood removals are gradually increasing globally in line withgrowing populations and income, which in turn translate into higher demand for andconsumption of wood products. This trend will continue in the next decades.Globally, wood removals account for 0.7 percent of growing stock and nearly half ofthis wood is used as woodfuel. However, significant differences exist between regions,with more than two thirds of wood used as woodfuel in Africa and Asia and less than20 percent in Europe, North America and Oceania.Most of the long-term growth in wood supply is occurring in countries thatdeveloped forest plantations over the last few decades (in Asia, Latin Americaand Oceania). In spite of some data limitations, it is evident that wood supply(particularly industrial roundwood) is shifting from natural forests to planted forests.This means that pressure on natural forests as a wood source is likely to diminishfurther in future.REMOVAls Of nOn-WOOd fOREsT PROduCTsIntroductionInformation on removals of NWFPs demonstrates their importance, both ascommodities for national and international markets, and for the livelihoods of

104Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010many local and indigenous people who depend on them. This information showsthat NWFPs often deserve a higher priority in the development of national povertyalleviation policies, rural development projects and forest conservation strategies.A wide variety of products are collected from forests, woodlands and from treesand land outside forests, and a major portion of them are consumed by households orsold locally, while some find export markets. Various products have been – or are being– domesticated. In fact, the borderline between NWFPs (counting as ‘forest sector’outputs) and agricultural crops is increasingly blurred. Data collection on forest-basedNWFP production is hampered by the inability of agricultural classification andproduction accounting systems to incorporate both forest and farm-based production,and the inadequacy of human and financial resources in national statistics institutionsto gather and analyse NWFP data.In FRA 2010 NWFPs are defined as ‘goods derived from forests that are tangibleand physical objects of biological origin other than wood’. As such, NWFPs include allplant and animal products with the exception of ‘wood’ collected from areas defined asforests, whether natural forests or plantations. From the data provided it is not alwayspossible to distinguish NWFPs from (sometimes the same) products collected on landsunder agricultural or agroforestry production systems (for instance, mushrooms, beeproducts and honey, medicinal plants, nuts, cork, bamboo, hunted animals and gumarabic). The units used for reporting the quantity of NWFP removals are varied andinclude: number (e.g. of skins and hides), tonnes or kilograms (e.g. of nuts or resin) andcubic metres or litres (e.g. for fodder or palm wine). Sometimes different measures areapplied to the same product by different countries. It is therefore not always possibleto aggregate totals of NWFP removals at regional or global levels.A multitude of NWFPs are gathered and consumed, both for subsistence andcommercial use, locally and beyond. Quantitative data are difficult to obtain onnational production of all NWFPs, so countries were asked to list the ten mostimportant NWFPs in order of importance, under 16 use-based categories. Importancewas based on the value (or estimated value) of the removals for the reporting year 2005.(The value of NWFP removals is discussed in Chapter 7.) Countries were asked toreport the national output in terms of quantity (and value) by providing the botanicalnames of the key NWFP species in the following categories:Plant products/raw material1. Food2. Fodder3. Raw material for medicine and aromatic products4. Raw material for colorants and dyes5. Raw material for utensils, handicrafts and construction6. Ornamental plants7. Exudates8. Other plant productsAnimal products/raw material9. Living animals10. Hides, skins and trophies11. Wild honey and beeswax12. Wild meat13. Raw material for medicine14. Raw material for colorants15. Other edible animal products16. Other non-edible animal products

Productive functions of forest resources 105The vast majority of country reports included the botanical names of the speciesfrom which the NWFPs were derived. This greatly facilitated follow-up work tocheck the relevance and consistency of the data, including the reported quantities (andvalues), as well as whether the reported products could really be considered as NWFPs.The aggregation of national data on the NWFP production categories into regional andglobal level statistics is difficult and must be treated with caution. Not only have somecountries reported the same NWFP species under different categories, but also a singlespecies often yields different categories of NWFP. The aggregation of quantitativeproduction data at regional and global levels is more meaningful when done accordingto ‘species (or groups of similar species)’ rather than categories of use.A section on the status of NWFPs was first included in FRA 2000. In FRA 2005additional quantitative information was provided on the amount and value of NWFPremovals. For FRA 2010 a total of 92 countries (representing 79 percent of the totalforest area) reported data on removals of one or more categories of NWFPs, mostlyfor the reporting year 2005 (see Figure 5.7). However, 141 countries, representing 21percent of the global forest area, did not report any data at all, even though it is knownthat NWFPs play a significant role (for example, in the Central African countries andin Papua New Guinea). Where national statistics do exist, data on removals are oftenlimited to those NWFPs that are (inter-)nationally traded. However, many NWFPs areused and consumed non-commercially, so the figures reported are often a significantunderestimate of the full range of NWFPs gathered in the country.The major categories of NWFP removals about which countries provided the mostinformation are (in descending order of importance):1. Food2. Exudates3. Other plant products4. Wild honey and beeswax5. Ornamental plants6. Raw materials for medicine and aromatic products7. Wild meat8. Raw materials for utensils, handicrafts and construction9. Living animals10. Hides, skins and trophiesFiguRe 5.7Information availability – nWfP removals, 2005eastern and Southern africa (8)Northern africa (6)Western and Central africa (7)east asia (3)South and Southeast asia (10)Western and Central asia (7)europe (31)Caribbean (2)Central america (3)North america (4)Oceania (3)South america (8)World (92)020406080100(% of total forest area)Note: Numbers in ( ) are number of reporting countries.

106Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010There was insignificant or no reporting at all for the remaining categories.Food was by far the largest of these ten most-reported categories. Asia accountedfor the largest share of removals (by volume), almost exclusively comprising NWFPsof plant origin. Only three countries in Asia reported data for animal-derived NWFPs,and in very limited quantities. Asian removals consisted mainly of camellia, oil seeds,nuts and bamboo products. China was the largest producer by far; other countries withsignificant removal volumes were Republic of Korea, Japan and India. Following these,in decreasing order of importance in the food category were Europe, Oceania, North,Central and South America, and Africa, where a large majority of removals werealso from plant-based NWFPs. It is interesting to note that in these regions data onanimal-based NWFPs were more common than in Asia. However, the proportion ofanimal-based NWFP removals remained minimal, with the exception of Europe, whichhad the highest level of animal-based NWFP removals. The 24 European countries thatreported on the animal-based product categories provided the most detailed reports onthe contribution of hunting and its products (meat, trophies, skins, etc.).Exudates were the second largest NWFP category. Sudan was the world’s majorproducer of exudates, with gum arabic. China was the leading producer of pine resin,tannin extract and raw lacquer.Fodder removals were reported by only 13 countries (compared with 16 inFRA 2005). Nevertheless, some countries – particularly India, Italy, Morocco andColombia – reported very large quantities, indicating that this was a very importantproduct category, however severely under-reported. Raw materials for utensils, craftsand construction, such as bamboo and rattan, were reported in large quantities fromcountries such as India and Myanmar. Ornamental plants, palm fronds and boughswere reported in large quantities from several countries in all regions.The majority of reporting countries (except Asia) included removals of animalproducts, such as live animals (birds, insects, reptiles and crabs), meat, hides, skinsand trophies, as well as wild honey and beeswax. The most comprehensive figures foredible animals (hunting, game products and wild meat) were provided in the reportsby the OECD countries of Europe, North America and Oceania (New Zealand andAustralia). It is well known, however, that wild meat and animal products are animportant source of food in many African, Asian and Latin American countries, butthese reported very few figures for this removal category, which may therefore beheavily underestimated.For the remaining categories of NWFPs, information was provided by a limitednumber of countries, so the calculation of global totals is not very meaningful.However, some particular subregional aspects are highlighted below.Africa: Thirty countries, mainly from Northern and Eastern Africa, provideddata on their NWFP removals. Data were more limited from Western and CentralAfrican countries despite the fact that removals of NWFPs must be important in thesecountries. Cork, medicinal and aromatic plants, fodder and game meat were the mostimportant NWFP removals reported by Northern African countries. In Eastern andSouthern Africa, exudates (mainly gum arabic and frankincense), medicinal plants,fruits, honey and raw materials for handicrafts and construction prevailed. Western andCentral African countries reported food (sheanut butter, bushmeat, mushrooms, palmoil and wine), medicinal and aromatic plants, rattan and gums.Asia: Three East Asian countries (China, Japan and Republic of Korea) providedvery complete and comparable responses because of the similarity of their forestresources. However, the sheer size of the removals reported by China dwarfs any othercountry’s output. Bamboo products, mushrooms, nuts and medicinal herbs were themajor NWFP removals. Reports from nine South and Southeast Asian countries wereless complete but included a more diverse range of NWFP categories, reflecting themore diversified resource base in the region. Bamboo, rattan, food (fruits, nuts, spices

Productive functions of forest resources 107and mushrooms), medicinals and essential oils were among the major NWFP removalsreported by these countries. Information from seven Western and Central Asiancountries was more fragmented. The key removal categories reported were honey, food(pine and pistachio nuts) and aromatic plants.Europe: Of the 50 European countries, 31 provided rich information on theirNWFP removals. Food was the largest removal category, followed by honey,ornamental plants, wild meat and medicinals. Nuts, mushrooms, berries and honeywere mentioned by almost all countries among their most important NWFP removals,followed by Christmas trees (in Northern Europe), hunting, game meat, skins andtrophies, and cork (by the Southwestern Mediterranean countries).North, Central and South America and the Caribbean: Among the Caribbeancountries, Cuba reported palm fronds and Trinidad and Tobago wild meat as theirmajor removals. Three Central American countries listed exudates (pine, sweetgum,rosin, maple and balsam), honey and seeds as their key removals. In North Americamaple products, Christmas trees, resins, berries, furs, boughs and mushrooms wereamong the major removals mentioned, while resin, nuts, fruits and mushrooms werelisted for South America.Oceania: Only 3 countries (Kiribati, New Zealand and the Solomon Islands)reported on the quantity of NWFPs removed. New Zealand reported honey,sphagnum moss, Christmas trees and hunting products as the major removals, whilefor the reporting Pacific islands, fibre materials (mainly pandanus leaves, rattan andcoconut) for thatching and artisanal works, and food (honey, fruits and juices) were themost frequently reported NWFP removal categories.ConclusionsInformation on NWFPs continues to be poor, despite their importance locally and, insome cases, nationally and internationally.Based on the information supplied for FRA 2010, food is the largest category ofNWFPs globally. Other important categories include exudates, other plant products,wild honey and beeswax, and ornamental plants. Asia, and in particular China, reportedthe largest volume of NWFP removals, most of which are of plant origin (camellia oilseeds, nuts and bamboo products). The sheer size of the removals reported by Chinadwarfs any other country’s removals. Europe has the highest reported level of animalbasedNWFP removals.

109Chapter 6Protective functions of forestresourcesOverviewEarly forest resources assessments focused on the productive functions of forests,particularly wood supply, as this was the main issue identified by policy-makers.However, in many countries there is increasing awareness of the protective functionsand environmental services provided by forests, and the importance of these forsustainable forest management. With each succeeding FRA, the environmental servicesprovided by forests have gained increasing recognition.As Leslie (2005) observes, “Current world demand for the products and servicesof forests is a mix of static or only slightly increasing demand for wood, a steady butslowly increasing demand for non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and a burgeoning,but largely unmonetized demand for environmental services”. A large proportion ofthese services are related to the protective role of forests. As a result, trends in foreststhat have a protective function were also evaluated for FRA 2010.In the context of FRA 2010, countries were asked to report on only one variable:the area of forest with ‘protection of soil and water as the primary designated function’.The wording ‘protective’ role or function is thus, in this report, intended to denoteforest areas with soil and water conservation as the main function or managementobjective.The world’s forests have many protective functions, some local and some global,including protection of soils from wind and water erosion, coastal protection,avalanche control, and as air pollution filters. Quantitative and qualitative studies onthe role of forests in water regulation, protection and conservation in different naturaland man-made ecosystems have been published in a related Thematic Study on Forestsand Water (FAO, 2008a).Key findingseight percent of the world’s forests have protection of soil and waterresources as their primary objectiveAround 330 million hectares of forest are designated for soil and water conservation,avalanche control, sand dune stabilization, desertification control or coastal protection.The area of forest designated for protective functions increased by 59 million hectaresbetween 1990 and 2010, primarily because of large-scale planting in China aimed atdesertification control, conservation of soil and water resources and other protectivepurposes.Key cOnclusiOnsIn view of the many protective functions of forests and their increasing importance,there is a growing imperative for countries to gather, analyse and present informationon the extent and condition of forests with a protective function. All forests andwoodlands, including productive forests, play a protective role to varying degrees andthe protective functions could often be enhanced by an alteration of the managementregime. While this might result in income foregone or greater forest management costs(for example, by avoiding harvesting on critical sites or through upgrading harvesting

110Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010practices), the value of these environmental services to human welfare, health andeconomies is increasingly being recognized. Environmental or ecological economicsprovides new tools for monetizing these services (see, for example, Landell-Mills andPorras, 2002).FRA 2010 is the second attempt to evaluate the importance of the protectivefunctions of forests at the global level and is based on a limited number of quantitativevariables. The findings of FRA 2010 suggest that there is a trend towards increasingidentification and designation of forest areas for protective purposes, which is verypositive. It would seem likely that the trend for a greater proportion of the world’sforests to be classified as having a protective function as the main managementobjective will continue and that FRA 2015 may show more than 10 percent in thiscategory. The FRA Thematic Study on Forests and Water (FAO, 2008a) providesimportant recommendations in this respect.The analysis of FRA 2010 highlights significant regional differences in the areaof forests with a protective function. In some cases this is related to the reportingand definition criteria and more specifically to the fact that not all countries have acategory for forests with soil and water protective function as a primary use in theirnational statistics. There is, therefore, a real need to harmonize and clarify the criteriafor reporting under this category for FRA 2015.fOrest AreA designAted fOr PrOtective PurPOsesintroductionOne of the most important protective function of forests is related to soil and waterresources. Forests conserve water by increasing infiltration, reducing runoff velocityand surface erosion, and decreasing sedimentation (which is particularly relevantbehind dams and in irrigation systems). Forests play a role in filtering water pollutants,regulating water yield and flow, moderating floods, enhancing precipitation (e.g. ‘cloudforests’, which capture moisture from clouds) and mitigating salinity. For FRA 2010the variable forest area with ‘protection of soil and water as the primary designatedfunction’ refers specifically to the area of forests that have been set aside for thepurposes of soil and water conservation, either by legal prescription or by decisionof the landowner or manager. More specifically, the variable refers to soil and waterconservation, avalanche control, sand dune stabilization, desertification control andcoastal protection. It does not include forests that have a protective function in termsof biodiversity conservation or those in protected areas, unless the main purpose issoil and water conservation. These forest categories are included in other parts of thisreport.statusOf 233 country reports, 205 provided information on the area of forest with protectionof soil and water as the primary designated function in 2010, together accountingfor 99.9 percent of the world’s forest area. This indicates an improvement in overallcountry reporting over the last 20 years, given that in 1990 only 186 countries reportedon the protective function of forests. In most regions 90 percent or more of countriesreported on this variable in 2010. The main exception was the Caribbean region wherefewer than half of the countries reported on this variable.The total extent of forests which are designated for protection of soil and water wasestimated in 2010 to be 330 million hectares, equivalent to 8 percent of total forest area(see Table 6.1). Asia has the highest proportion of forests with a protective function(26 percent), followed by Europe (9 percent).Analysis of the data at the subregional level (Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1) reveals someimportant differences. The highest proportion of protective forests is reported from theCaribbean region, and these forests are almost entirely located in Cuba (1.36 million

Protective functions of forest resources 111Table 6.1Area of forest designated for protection of soil and water, 2010region/subregion information availability Area of forest designated forprotection of soil and waternumber ofcountriesreporting% of totalforest area1 000 ha % offorest areaeastern and Southern africa 23 100.0 12 627 4.7Northern africa 7 99.1 3 851 4.9Western and Central africa 24 100.0 3 079 0.9total Africa 54 99.9 19 557 2.9east asia 5 100.0 83 225 32.7South and Southeast asia 17 100.0 56 501 19.2Western and Central asia 24 100.0 13 703 31.5total Asia 46 100.0 153 429 25.9total europe 46 100.0 93 229 9.3Caribbean 12 53.8 1 430 38.3Central america 7 100.0 1 718 8.8North america* 5 100.0 0 0total north and central America 24 99.5 3 148 0.4total Oceania* 21 99.8 926 0.5total south America 14 100.0 58 879 6.8world 205 99.9 329 168 8.2* See text.Figure 6.1Proportion of forest area designated for protection of soil and water by subregion, 2010eastern and Southern africaNorthern africaWestern and Central africaeast asiaSouth and Southeast asiaWestern and Central asiaeuropeCaribbeanCentral americaNorth america*Oceania*South americaWorld010203040(% of total forest area)* See text.out of 1.43 million hectares). East Asia reported 33 percent protective forests, a largeproportion of which (60 million out of 83 million hectares) is accounted for by China.In Western and Central Asia, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are mainlyresponsible for the high proportion of forests with a protective function. The RussianFederation accounts for 71 million out of the 93 million hectares of protective forestsreported in Europe, and Brazil makes up much of the protective forests in SouthAmerica (43 million out of 59 million hectares). In Africa, almost half of the protective

112Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010forests (8.7 million hectares) are located in Mozambique. Kenya and Sudan also haveimportant areas of protective forests, with 3.3 million hectares in Kenya and 2.4 millionhectares in Sudan, out of an African total of 19.6 million hectares. Box 6.1 highlightsthe important role played by forests in combating desertification in arid zone countries.bOx 6.1Arid zone forests: preventing and combating desertificationThe increasing number of communities and countries that suffer the negative impactsof land degradation and desertification is a source of huge concern to both the affectedcountries and the FaO. The desertification process is not merely the advance of existingdeserts but rather the combined effect of localized land degradation (usually followingdeforestation), overexploitation of forests, trees, bush, grazing land and soil resources,and inadequate water resource management. in addition, according to the iPCC,global warming will cause a decrease in rainfall and an increase in extreme weatherconditions, such as long periods of drought leading to severe water scarcity and increaseddesertification.Sand encroachment, which has devastating environmental and socio-economic impacts,is another desertification challenge. it reduces arable and grazing land, and diminishesthe availability of water resources, threatening the productivity of ecosystems andagriculture, as well as the food security and livelihoods of local communities.The protective functions of forests are more important in arid zones thanelsewhere. These lands are more vulnerable to desertification, due to the extremelyharsh environmental and socio-economic conditions. indeed, forests in arid zoneshave a significant role to play in biodiversity conservation, while providing essentialecosystem goods (such as fodder, wood, medicines and herbs, tradable goods and otherNWFPs) as well as services (such as soil stabilization, water conservation, and erosionand desertification control). Their role in climate change mitigation and adaptation isalso important, as the sustained provision of these ecosystems’ goods and services willhelp adapt to hardship under a changing climate. However, despite their value, forestecosystems in arid zones are often caught in a spiral of deforestation, fragmentation,degradation and desertification.The sustainable management and restoration of arid zone forests is one of themain approaches promoted by FaO and its partners for preventing and combatingdesertification in the long term. FaO is working with its member countries, experts,research networks and partners to prepare and publish key guidelines to support membercountries in their efforts to sustainably manage and rehabilitate arid zone forests. Overthe last two years, FaO has facilitated country-driven and regional processes involving awide range of experts and forestry department representatives in order to the preparethe following key publications:• Guidelines on good forestry and range practices in arid and semi-arid zones of theNear East (FaO regional Office for the Near east Working Paper – rNeO 1-09);• Guidelines on sustainable forest management in drylands of sub-Saharan Africa(arid Zone Forests and Forestry Working Paper 1, 2010);• Fighting against sand encroachment: lessons from Mauritania (FaO Forestry Paper158, 2010).On the ground, in collaboration with its partners, FaO has implemented a numberof field projects. The most recent example is the project ‘acacia Operation: Support tofood security, poverty alleviation and control of soil degradation in the gum and resinproducing countries’. This project involved six countries (burkina Faso, Chad, Kenya,

Protective functions of forest resources 113Niger, Senegal and Sudan) and was funded by the italian government. The objectiveof the project was to strengthen the capacity of the six pilot countries to address foodsecurity and desertification through the improvement of agrosilvipastoral systems and thesustainable development of the gum and resin sectors. by strengthening local resources,the project focused on improving and sustaining agricultural and pastoral systems, aswell as diversifying and increasing household income, thereby contributing to local socioeconomicdevelopment.a mechanized water harvesting technology was adopted (Vallerani Technology®),which permits microbasins to be dug while ploughing degraded soils. This aimedto develop acacia-based agrosilvipastoral systems and reverse land degradation inthe six pilot countries. Working with local communities, a total of 13 240 ha weresuccessfully ploughed and planted. an intensive capacity building programme wascarried out with local communities on the use and application of the mechanized waterharvesting technology, nursery establishment, agricultural production, gum and resinproduction, tapping and quality control, including post-harvest handling. The pilotphase was successful and efforts are currently underway to secure funding for a ten-yearprogramme, involving eight sub-Saharan countries, to address wider aspects of forestland rehabilitation, livelihoods, market development and climate change mitigation andadaptation.A total of 86 countries state that they do not have any forest area with ‘protection’as the primary designated function. While for certain countries this might in fact bethe case (for example countries in Central and Western Asia, such as Oman, Qatar,Saudi Arabia and the Syrian Arab Republic), for other countries – most prominentlythose in North and Central America, and Oceania – further clarification is necessary.A very small proportion of forests with protective functions was reported fromNorth and Central America, and Oceania. This is due not to a lack of informationin this category, but rather to the fact that these functions are generally embeddedin national and local laws and guidance on sound forest management practices.While legislation, regulations and policy may provide guidance on how forestareas must address soil and water conservation, areas with protection as a specificlegal designation for their primary function are rare. For example, because soil andwater protection are integral considerations in the development of all forest policyand management practices, the United States of America does not report in thecategory of ‘primary function’. Further, the classification of protective functionin Oceania is strongly affected by Australia, where the classification system doesnot directly relate to the designated function classes. Nonetheless, the AustralianNational Report states that the primary functions of many public native forests inAustralia – including those used for timber production – are to protect soil, waterand biodiversity.For these reasons, forest areas that are set aside for the purposes of soil and waterconservation in these reporting regions are generally included under the primarydesignated function ‘multiple use’ in this report. Given these caveats and the factthat the combined forest area of these countries is very large, caution should beused in interpreting the data on the area of forest with ‘protection’ as the primarydesignated function in a global context.Ten countries, mostly in the arid zone, report that 80 percent or more of theirtotal forest area is designated for protective purposes (see Table 6.2). Figure 6.2shows the ten countries with the largest area of forest designated for protectivefunctions.

114Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Table 6.2ten countries with the highest proportion of forest area designated for protection of soil andwater, 2010country/area forest area designated for protection of soil and water (%)libyan arab Jamahiriya 100bahrain 100Kuwait 100Jordan 98Turkmenistan 97Kenya 94uzbekistan 93azerbaijan 92Wallis and Futuna islands 87iraq 80Figure 6.2ten countries with the largest area of forest designated for protection of soil and water, 2010(1 000 ha)russian Federation 71 436China 60 480brazil 42 574indonesia 22 667Japan 17 506india 10 703lao People’s Democratic republic 9 074Mozambique 8 667Venezuala (bolivarian republic of) 7 915Viet Nam 5 131remaining countries 73 014trendsThe results of the trend analysis, based on the 186 countries that provided informationfor all four reporting years, show an overall global increase of 59 million hectares in thearea of forests with a protective function between 1990 and 2010. Table 6.3 and Figure6.3 show how the trends vary significantly in the different regions. The positive globaltrend results mainly from a significant increase in forest area with a protective functionin East Asia and Europe. Box 6.2 highlights the increased awareness of the role forestsplay in conserving water in Europe.Detailed analysis of the country data results in a varied picture. The most significantincrease in the area of forests with a protective function is reported from East Asia.This is mainly the result of large-scale planting in China aimed at desertificationcontrol, conservation of soil and water resources and other protective purposes, whichmore than tripled the area of protective forests between 1990 and 2010. In contrast,Mongolia reported a negative trend in this category.In Europe the main increase was recorded in the decade between 1990 and 2000.The Russian Federation was largely responsible for this increase, where area of forest

Protective functions of forest resources 115Table 6.3trends in area of forest designated for protection of soil and water by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregioninformationavailabilitynumberofcountries% oftotal forestareaArea of forestdesignated for protection of soiland water (1 000 ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000Annualchange(1 000 ha)2000–2010Annualchange rate(%)eastern and21 80.9 14 003 13 311 12 950 12 611 -69 -70 -0.51 -0.54Southern africaNorthern africa 7 99.1 4 068 3 855 3 842 3 851 -21 0 -0.54 -0.01Western and22 52.5 2 639 3 281 3 236 3 079 64 -20 2.20 -0.63Central africatotal Africa 50 69.2 20 709 20 447 20 027 19 540 -26 -91 -0.13 -0.45east asia 4 90.2 24 061 38 514 58 336 65 719 1 445 2 721 4.82 5.49South and17 100.0 55 811 57 932 59 389 56 501 212 -143 0.37 -0.25Southeast asiaWestern and23 99.7 12 222 13 059 13 553 13 669 84 61 0.66 0.46Central asiatotal Asia 44 95.8 92 094 109 505 131 278 135 889 1 741 2 638 1.75 2.18total europe 45 99.7 76 932 90 788 91 671 92 995 1 386 221 1.67 0.24Caribbean 11 53.1 869 1 106 1 327 1 428 24 32 2.44 2.58Central america 3 36.9 124 114 102 90 -1 -2 -0.90 -2.33North america* 5 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – –total north and 19 97.8 994 1 220 1 429 1 517 23 30 2.07 2.21central Americatotal Oceania* 18 21.6 1 048 1 078 1 087 888 3 -19 0.28 -1.92total south10 85.1 48 656 48 661 48 542 48 549 1 -11 n.s. -0.02Americaworld 186 86.9 240 433 271 699 294 034 299 378 3 127 2 768 1.23 0.97* See text.1990–20002000–2010with a protective function increased from 59 million hectares in 1990 to over 70 millionhectares in 2000.In Africa the forest area with a protective function decreased somewhat. Thecountry information shows that the negative trend in Eastern and Southern Africaresults from a decrease in forest with a protective function in the three most importantcountries in this category (Kenya, Mozambique and Zimbabwe).In South and Southeast Asia the forest area with a protective function increasedduring the decade from 1990 to 2000 and then decreased again from 2000 to 2010. Thesituation is quite heterogeneous in this region. A steady increase in forest cover witha protective function was reported for example by Bhutan, India, the Philippines andThailand, but the opposite trend was registered in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Lao People’sDemocratic Republic, Nepal and Timor-Leste. Finally, in some countries such asMalaysia, Myanmar and Viet Nam, the forest area in this category increased between1990 and 2000 and decreased again from 2000 to 2010.The very low figures reported for North and Central America and Oceania arethe result of differences in how soil and water protection is legislatively mandated inCanada, Mexico, the United States of America and Australia (see earlier discussion).In South America the area of forest with a protective function has remained relativelystable.conclusionsAround 330 million hectares of forest are designated for soil and water conservation,avalanche control, sand dune stabilization, desertification control or coastal protection.

116Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Figure 6.3trends in area of forest designated for protection of soil and water by subregion, 1990–2010eastern and Southern africaNorthern africaWestern and Central africaeast asiaSouth and Southeast asiaWestern and Central asiaeuropeCaribbeanCentral americaNorth america*Oceania*South america0204060801001990 2000 2010(million ha)* See text.This area increased by 59 million hectares between 1990 and 2010 and now accountsfor eight percent of the global forest area. The recent increase is primarily due to largescaleplanting in China for protective purposes.In view of the many protective functions of forests and their increasing importance,there is a growing imperative for countries to gather, analyse and present informationon the extent and condition of forests with a protective function.The analysis of data supplied for FRA 2010 highlights significant regional differencesin reporting on the area of forest with a protective function and there is a clear needto harmonize and clarify the criteria for reporting under this category for FRA 2015.

Protective functions of forest resources 117bOx 6.2generating momentum on forests and water in europeForests influence water availability and regulate surface and groundwater flows, while maintaining high waterquality. Forested watersheds supply a high proportion of the water for domestic, agricultural, industrial andecological needs in both upstream and downstream areas. The availability and quality of water in many regionsof the world is increasingly threatened by overuse, misuse, pollution and the projected negative impacts ofclimate change. a key challenge faced by land, forest and water managers is to maximize the wide range offorest benefits without detriment to water resources and ecosystem functions, particularly in the context ofadaptation to climate change, which increasingly reinforces the importance of sustainable forest management.To address this challenge, enhanced synergy is needed between the water and forest communities, throughinstitutional mechanisms aimed at implementing programmes of actions at national and regional levels. Similarly,there is an urgent need for an even greater understanding of the interactions between forests and water, and forembedding the research findings into policy agendas.Over the past few years, the interactions between forests and water have received increasing attention ineurope. The Warsaw resolution 2 “Forests and Water” of Forests europe (the former Ministerial Conference onthe Protection of Forests in europe) was a milestone in triggering this significant international momentum. Theresolution was adopted on the occasion of the Fifth Ministerial Conference held in Warsaw, Poland, from 5 to7 November 2007. recognizing the close interrelation between forests and water, the signatory states and theeuropean Community committed themselves to undertaking consistent action in order to address four main areasof concern:• sustainable management of forests in relation to water;• coordinating policies on forests and water;• forests, water and climate change;• economic valuation of water-related forest services.as part of the follow-up to the endorsement of Warsaw resolution 2, a number of important events wereorganized on this topic in europe between 2008 and 2010:• the 26 th session of the european Forestry Commission’s Working Party on the Management of MountainWatersheds, 19–22 august 2008, in Oulu, Finland, with the seminar topic “Forest, Water and ClimateChange in High altitude and High latitude Watersheds”;• the iii international Conference on Forests and Water, 14–17 September 2008, in Mragowo, Poland;• the plenary session on forests and water held during european Forest Week, 20–24 October 2008, at FaOHeadquarters, rome, italy;• the international conference “Water and Forest: a Convenient Truth?”, 30–31 October 2008, in barcelona,Spain;• the Workshop on Forests and Water, held within the work programme of Forest europe, 12–14 May 2009,in antalya, Turkey;• the forests and water sessions and side event, 18–25 October 2009, at the xiii World Forestry Congress inbuenos aires, argentina;• the plenary session on forests and water held during the 35 th session of the european Forestry Commission,27–30 april 2010, in lisbon, Portugal.each of these events was organized by a different stakeholder group and discussed the ‘forests and water’topic from a slightly different perspective. as a result, the harvest of conclusions and recommendations fromthese consultations is very rich. The events highlighted the gaps and misconceptions that still persist and the needto translate scientific knowledge into tools that can be used by policy-makers; the need to create national andtransboundary institutions able to bring together all actors; and the need to share between countries the existingexperiences related to joint forest and water management. in close collaboration with the key partner institutionsthat were the drivers of these events, FaO is synthesizing the recommendations resulting from this process inorder to plan future actions and develop a relevant and practical international forests and water agenda.Sources: FaO (2010b); eFC (2010)

119Chapter 7Socio-economic functions of forestresourcesOverviewForest provide a wide variety of social and economic benefits, ranging from easilyquantified economic values associated with forest products, to less tangible servicesand contributions to society. In order to measure progress towards the implementationof sustainable forest management, it is necessary to monitor changes in the outputsprovided by forest management in social and economic, as well as environmental,dimensions. This chapter presents statistics about the economic and social benefitsof forest management, as well as information about the ways in which forests aremanaged from a social and economic perspective.The economic benefits of forest management can be calculated directly as thequantity of outputs (products and services) produced by forests, each multiplied by anappropriate value then added together. For many outputs, market prices can be usedas an estimate of value. However, it is more difficult to estimate values for subsistenceuses of forest products or for outputs that are not bought and sold in markets.The social benefits of forests are much more difficult to measure because theamount and value of these contributions to society are both difficult to quantify.In this case, indirect measures are often used to allow trends to be quantified andmonitored over time.This chapter starts by describing two ways in which forest management is changing.First, recent trends in forest ownership and management rights are described. Second,the fiscal measures that governments use to provide support to forest management andcollect fees and charges from the sector are outlined. This information is importantin understanding the changing roles of government and citizens in the sector. Itthen presents the current status and trends for an indicator of the economic benefitsof forestry – the value of wood and NWFP removals; and two social indicators –employment in forestry and the area of forests designated for social services (anindirect measure of social benefits).Information was collected from all countries on ownership and management rightsof forests by local communities, and the formal employment opportunities offeredby forests. To complement this, a special study is underway to highlight the linksbetween forests, poverty and livelihoods. A short summary of this study is providedin Box 7.1.Key findingSeighty percent of the world’s forests are publicly owned, but ownership andmanagement of forests by communities, individuals and private companies ison the riseDespite changes in forest ownership and tenure in some regions, most of the world’sforests remain under public ownership. Differences among regions are considerable.North and Central America, Europe (other than the Russian Federation), SouthAmerica and Oceania have a higher proportion of private ownership than other regions.In some regions, there is an increasing trend towards the involvement of communities,individuals and private companies in the management of publicly owned forests.

120Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Box 7.1frA 2010 special study on forestry, poverty and livelihoodsThere is increasing interest in the role that forests play in supporting the poor, in reducing theirvulnerability to economic and environmental shocks, and in reducing poverty. However, thecontribution that forests actually make to poverty reduction and increasing the livelihood resilienceof the poor is often obscure for policy-makers in key ministries, including finance, planning and localgovernment, and the supra-ministerial bodies where poverty reduction strategy processes are oftenlocated. There is a tendency to underestimate the contribution of forests – and off-farm naturalresources in general – to livelihoods, and the role of forests in poverty reduction has so far not beenreflected in any significant way in national level strategy in most countries.on the forestry side, reporting has typically been focused on the physical resource and its statusand extent. Such reporting sheds no light on the contributions made by forests to the lives of the poor.Ministries responsible for forestry have only moved very slowly towards collecting new kinds of data tomeet this challenge. Their previous experience has not prepared them for this task and they need to besupported to deal effectively with the new requirements.To address this issue FAo is developing ways of collecting and incorporating data about the relianceof local people on forests, and the value of those forests to them, into future Global Forest ResourceAssessments. It will become essential for countries to learn how to assess this aspect of the value offorests, which will greatly increase the visibility and profile of the sector in poverty reduction.In partnership with IUCN, the Center for International Forestry Research and the Program onForests of the World Bank, FAo will undertake a pilot study to test methods in three countries: Uganda(Africa), Viet Nam (Southeast Asia) and a third country in Central America (possibly Guatemala). Fieldwork in the three countries will help establish a baseline from which the contribution of forests tolivelihood resilience and poverty reduction can be derived. The field work will use the most recentcensus in each country and apply agreed wealth or poverty criteria to all villages in all districts whereforests exist. A more detailed assessment will then be undertaken in a sample of villages throughoutthe country. Finally, guidance will be provided to governments on ways of establishing low cost datacollection methods that illuminate the value of forests to local livelihoods and poverty reduction.By June 2011 the study is expected to provide an assessment of the reliance of local people onforests and the value of forests to them; and a rough national level picture of the links betweenpoverty and forests, extrapolated from village-level studies.governments generally spend more on forestry than they collect in revenueOn average, total forest revenue collection was about US$4.5 per hectare, rangingfrom under US$1 per hectare in Africa to just over US$6 per hectare in Europe. Publicexpenditure on forestry was about US$7.5 per hectare on average. Average expenditurewas highest in Asia (over US$20 per hectare). In contrast, the average expenditure perhectare was less than US$1 in South America and Oceania.The value of wood removals is high, but fluctuatingWood removals were valued at just over US$100 billion annually in the period2003–2007. Industrial roundwood accounted for most of this value. At the global levelthe reported value of wood removals showed no change between 1990 and 2000, butincreased by about 5 percent annually over the period 2000–2005. This suggests thatroundwood prices recovered somewhat from their decline (in real terms) in the decade1990–2000. However, since 2005 they have fallen sharply.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 121The value of nwfPs remains underestimatedThe reported value of NWFP removals amounts to about US$18.5 billion for 2005.Food products account for the greatest share of this. However, information is stillmissing from many countries where NWFPs are highly important, and the true valueof subsistence use is rarely captured. As a result, the reported statistics probably coveronly a fraction of the true total value of harvested NWFPs.Around 10 million people are employed in forest management andconservation – but many more are directly dependent on forests for theirlivelihoodsReported employment in forest establishment, management and use declined by about10 percent between 1990 and 2005, probably because of gains in labour productivity.Europe, East Asia and North America saw steep declines (15 to 40 percent between1990 and 2005), while in other regions, employment increased somewhat – probablybecause roundwood production has increased faster than gains in labour productivity.Most countries reported increased employment in the management of protected areas.Given that much forestry employment is outside the formal sector, forest work iscertainly much more important for rural livelihoods and national economies than thereported figures suggest.The management of forests for social and cultural functions is increasing, butthe area is difficult to quantifyGlobally, 4 percent of the world’s forests are designated for the provision of socialservices. East Asia and Europe are the only regions with fairly good data on thedesignation of forests for recreation, tourism, education or conservation of culturaland spiritual heritage. In these two regions, provision of social services was reported asthe primary management objective for 3 percent (East Asia) and 2 percent (Europe) ofthe total forest area. Brazil has designated more than one-fifth of its forest area for theprotection of the culture and way of life of forest-dependent peoples.Key COnCluSiOnSThe poor availability of data makes it very difficult to draw any conclusions aboutincreasing or decreasing trends in the importance of forests’ socio-economic functions.However, it appears that the main economic benefits of forests (employment and valueof outputs) may be static or declining, while the social and cultural benefits couldbe increasing. This very broad shift towards non-market outputs of forests seemsto concur with national and international policy debates about forests and forestry,where social and environmental aspects are always very high on the agenda. It is alsoconsistent with the information collected about forest ownership and governmentinvolvement in the sector, which shows a gradual shift towards less public ownershipin most countries and regions and slightly more net public expenditure on forestry.It will always be difficult to quantify and collect information about social andenvironmental functions, but they represent some of the main outputs from forests andit is recommended that the FRA process should continue to collect this informationin future.OwnerShiP And mAnAgemenT righTSintroductionSince 2005, information about forest ownership and management rights (or foresttenure) has been included in the FRA as one indicator of the socio-economic functionsof forests. Compared with the previous assessment, FRA 2010 includes moreinformation about different types of private ownership (e.g. individual, corporate andcommunity/indigenous) as well as new information about who manages public forests.

122Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010This expanded dataset significantly improves the quality and the usefulness of theinformation collected. 22It is commonly assumed that ‘secure tenure’ enables or provides incentives forpeople to invest time and resources in forest management (FAO, 2006e, 2008b, 2009c;Sunderlin, Hatcher and Liddle, 2008). Access to data on forest tenure (including changesand trends) is therefore a fundamental prerequisite for any country in designing andadopting effective and secure tenure arrangements that can help to reduce deforestationand forest degradation. This is especially true where changes in resource tenure patternsare increasing the complexity of relationships between stakeholders.StatusOf the 233 countries and areas covered by FRA 2010, 188 reported on forest ownershipfor 2005 in the main categories (public, private and other). These 188 countriesaccounted for 99 percent of the total forest area (compared with 77 percent in FRA2005).In 2005, 80 percent of the global forest area was publicly owned, 18 percent wasprivately owned and 2 percent was classified as ‘other’ ownership, including unknownand disputed ownership (Table 7.1).Public ownership was predominant in all regions and subregions. Europe excludingthe Russian Federation was the exception to this, where public ownership accountedfor less than half (46 percent) of the forest area 23 (see Figure 7.1). Public ownershipwas also by far the most common form of ownership in many of the countries withhigh forest cover, such as Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia andthe Russian Federation. Private ownership was more common in North America(31 percent), Central America (46 percent) and Oceania (37 percent). It was alsosignificant in South America (21 percent) and East Asia (33 percent), due to high levelsof private ownership in a few countries such as Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and China.Figure 7.2 shows private forest ownership by type of forest owner in 2005. Far fewercountries reported this information, with reporting countries covering 55 percent ofthe forest area globally and only 16 percent in Asia (the region with the lowest rateof response). Fewer countries also reported forest ownership for the entire time series(1990–2000–2005).TABle 7.1forest ownership by region, 2005region information availability forest area by ownershipnumber % ofPublic Private Otherof countries totalreporting forest area1 000 ha % 1 000 ha % 1 000 ha %Africa 49 97.0 634 571 94.6 25 710 3.8 10 487 1.6Asia 46 100.0 475 879 81.5 107 520 18.4 640 0.1europe 45 100.0 897 463 89.6 101 817 10.2 1 847 0.2North and Central America 22 99.4 432 307 61.7 222 799 31.8 46 040 6.6oceania 13 99.7 121 316 61.9 72 677 37.1 2 088 1.1South America 13 96.5 641 505 75.3 180 602 21.2 29 552 3.5world 188 98.6 3 203 040 80.0 711 125 17.8 90 654 2.322It should be noted that this data refers to the ownership of forests and trees rather than the ownershipof forest.23Including the Russian Federation in Europe, public ownership was almost 90 percent, because all forestin the Russian Federation is publicly owned.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 123FIGURe 7.1forest ownership by subregion, 2005eastern and Southern AfricaNorthern AfricaWestern and Central Africaeast AsiaSouth and Southeast AsiaWestern and Central Asiaeurope excl. Russian FederationeuropeCaribbeanCentral AmericaNorth AmericaoceaniaSouth AmericaWorld020406080100Public(%)PrivateotherFIGURe 7.2Private forest ownership by type of forest owner and subregion, 2005eastern and Southern AfricaNorthern AfricaWestern and Central AfricaWestern and Central AsiaeuropeCaribbeanCentral AmericaNorth AmericaWorld020406080100(%)IndividualsCorporate/institutionsCommunity/indigenousNote:This figure only includes subregions where information covered more than 50 percent of the total forest area.This limited information gives only an imprecise indication of private forestownership at the global and regional levels. However, the countries reporting thisinformation indicated that 61 percent of private forests were owned by individuals,19 percent by private corporations and institutions, and the remaining 21 percent bylocal communities and indigenous people. At the regional level, individual ownershipwas dominant in most regions and corporate ownership was also significant in NorthAmerica, Europe (excluding the Russian Federation) and Western and Central Asia.Communities and indigenous people owned the majority of private forests insub-Saharan Africa, although this is insignificant in terms of total forest area (aroundone percent of the total area), because almost all forest in these countries is owned by

124Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010the state. Communities and indigenous people also owned a significant share of privateforests (and total forest area) in Central America as a whole (44 percent) because of thesituation in a few countries such as Guatemala and Honduras. 24Publicly owned forests may be managed by the state, communities, individualsor the private sector. Figure 7.3 shows who was responsible for management ofpublic forests at the global and subregional levels. This information was reported by152 countries (accounting for 92 percent of total forest area) for 2005 and 130 countries(80 percent of total forest area) reported the entire time series. These figures thereforegive a fairly good, albeit partial, picture of who manages public forests across the world.At the global level, the state retains management responsibilities in about 80 percentof public forests, followed by private corporations and institutions (10 percent),and communities (7 percent). Private corporations and institutions were particularlyimportant in a few regions and subregions, such as Oceania, South and Southeast Asiaand Western and Central Africa, because of their large influence in countries such asAustralia, Indonesia and those of the Congo Basin. In these regions and subregions,private companies were responsible for forest management in 58, 30 and 14 percent ofpublic forests respectively.In South America, private corporations and institutions did not manage muchpublic forest, although this is expected to increase in the future as a result of the forestconcession law introduced in 2006 in Brazil. However, community management ofpublic forests was very common in South America (e.g. in Brazil) and in South andSoutheast Asia (e.g. in India and the Philippines).TrendsAt the global level, the area of forest under public ownership decreased by 141 millionhectares, or about 0.3 percent annually between 1990 and 2005, while the area of forestunder private ownership increased by 113 million hectares or almost 1.5 percent perFIGURe 7.3management of public forests by subregion, 2005eastern and Southern AfricaNorthern AfricaWestern and Central Africaeast AsiaSouth and Southeast AsiaWestern and Central Asiaeurope excl. Russian FederationeuropeCaribbeanCentral AmericaNorth AmericaoceaniaSouth AmericaWorld02040(%)6080100Public administrationIndividualsPrivate corporations and institutionsCommunitiesother24It should also be noted that 70 percent of forests in Mexico are owned by ‘ejidos’ (local communities),but this is not shown here because these were classified as ‘other forms of ownership’.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 125year on average. It is likely that the increase in privately owned forests mostly occurredin planted forests rather than natural forest as this is the main means of acquiringprivate forest ownership in many countries. It is not possible to say how much of thereduction in the area of publicly owned forests is due to changes in ownership itself orto a reduction of the total forest area but the latter seems more likely in many cases.However, the area of privately owned forests has increased over the past 15 years inboth Asia and South America as a result of significant increases in countries such asChina and Colombia. In contrast, it only increased very slightly in Africa and declinedin North and Central America (see Figure 7.4). The reason for the decline of privatelyowned forests in North America is a move towards more public ownership of forestsin the United States of America in line with long term restoration and conservationstrategies.Due to the lack of data, it is not possible to examine trends in the different types ofprivate ownership over time, but it is possible to show the changes in the managementof public forests over the last 15 years (see Figure 7.5).A reduction in state forest management and an increase in private sector managementwere seen in Europe (largely because of the Russian Federation, where private sectormanagement increased from zero in 1990 to 137 million hectares in 2005) and inAfrica. A shift from state management to management by local communities occurredin South America. Less evident are the change rates in Asia: both state and corporatemanagement have decreased, but this appears to be linked to a reduction in the forestarea of the reporting countries (data were missing from China) rather than a greaterrole for local communities in managing the public forests. Finally, although the role oflocal communities has increased in percentage terms in Africa, the area of public forestmanaged by local communities is still very small in this region.FIGURe 7.4Trends in public and private ownership of forests by region, 1990–2005AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaSouth America02004006008001 000(million ha)Public 1990 Private 1990Public 2005 Private 2005Note: oceania not shown due to low level of information availability

126Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010FIGURe 7.5Trends in management of public forests by region, 1990–2005AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaSouth America02004006008001 000(million ha)Public administration 1990Public administration 2005Private corporations and institutions 1990Private corporations and institutions 2005Communities 1990Communities 2005other 1990other 2005Note: oceania is not shown because of a low level of data availability.ConclusionsThe increased number of reporting countries compared to FRA 2005 is encouragingand might indicate that countries are becoming more aware of the importance ofgathering forest tenure data as a basis for the development and implementation ofpolicy and legislation.Public ownership remains the predominant ownership category in all regions andat the global level, although the area of forest under public ownership has declinedin the past 15 years. The most notable changes at the regional level are the increaseddevolution of management responsibilities from the state to the private sector –especially in Central Africa and the Russian Federation – and to local communitiesin South America and Southeast Asia. Furthermore, it is expected that major shiftsin forest ownership and management will continue as a consequence of forest tenurereform in China (in favour of private ownership by individuals and families) andpossibly in Latin America (with the growing role of the private sector in Brazil). InAfrica, the role of the state remains dominant with some management rights devolvedto private corporations in the high forest cover countries of Central Africa and tocommunities in Eastern and Southern Africa.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 127PubliC exPendiTure And revenue COlleCTiOnintroductionPublic expenditure and revenue collection from forestry are measures of the financialflows between government and the forestry sector. In FRA 2010 forest revenue wasdefined to include all taxes, fees, charges and royalties collected specifically from thedomestic production and trade of forest products, but it excluded general taxes collectedfrom all sectors of the economy (e.g. corporation tax and sales tax). Public expenditureincluded expenditure on forestry activities by all relevant public institutions and wasdivided into operational expenditure and transfer payments 25 , with each of these typesof expenditure divided by source of funding (domestic or external). Countries werealso asked to exclude the income and expenditure of publicly-owned businesses in theirreports (FAO, 2007h).Forest revenue can be interpreted in two ways, depending on the arrangements forforest management in a country. In countries where large areas of forest are owned ormanaged by the state and are used for commercial production, forest revenue can be anindicator of the economic benefit of forest management (i.e. the income, rent or profitto the state as forest owner). A more general interpretation is that forest revenue is anindicator of the contribution of forestry activities to public finances. This is a broaderindicator of the economic benefit of the sector as a whole, which is particularly usefulwhen it is compared to public expenditure to show the net financial flow betweengovernment and the forestry sector. Data on forest revenue may indicate how theeconomic benefits of forestry change over time, but comparisons between countriesshould be interpreted carefully because forest revenue can be affected by numerousfactors, such as the actual or potential market value of forest resources, forestmanagement objectives and the ability of governments to collect revenue (FAO, 2003).Public expenditure on forestry is a partial indicator of the level of governmentinfluence over forestry activities in a country. In broad terms, governments have fourdifferent sets of instruments to implement public policies: regulations; fiscal policies(e.g. transfer payments and tax regimes); direct action (e.g. public expenditure directlyon forest management); and activities to facilitate or encourage changes in behaviour(e.g. awareness raising activities). With the exception of preferential tax treatment and,to some extent, direct action 26 , the information collected about public expenditureindicates how much governments spend on the different types of instruments listedabove.The division of this information into operational expenditure and transfer paymentsgives a very rough indication of the relative emphasis given to regulation andfacilitation (operational expenditure) and transfer payments. Furthermore, it is likelythat expenditure on regulation is much higher than expenditure on facilitation, sothis information gives a broad indication of how much governments try to restrictbehaviour (i.e. through regulations) as opposed to their efforts to try to encouragecertain types of behaviour through financial incentives (i.e. transfer payments).The information about the sources of funding for public expenditure gives anindication of the reliance of countries on foreign assistance for the implementation oftheir forestry policies, programmes and projects. The total amount of funding from25Transfer payments are payments by government to support forestry activities by non-state individuals,companies and institutions. These include, for example, grants for afforestation and forest management,and subsidies for employment, tools and materials.26The extent to which expenditure on direct action is included in the data collected for FRA 2010depends on whether countries implement such actions through government-owned business entities(e.g. state forest enterprises) or more directly through the forest administration (e.g. civil service). Theintention in FRA 2010 was to exclude income and expenditure on direct action from the data suppliedby countries, but it was not easy to describe this in the definitions used for FRA 2010 and it is likelythat some countries have included such expenditure in their replies.

128Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010external sources gives a partial indication of the amount of development assistance forforestry. However, it only includes funding that is provided to governments. It doesnot include assistance in-kind and development assistance that is provided throughnon-governmental institutions. Therefore, it is an underestimate of total foreignassistance to the sector.As noted above, this information is only a partial indicator of the investmentsand returns to forest management in a country, but it is a slightly better indicatorof the amount of government intervention in the sector and the main instrumentsthat governments use to try to influence forestry activities. Thus, it provides usefulinformation about some of the economic aspects of governments’ progress towardssustainable forest management and it should be interpreted in this context rather thanas a measure of the outputs from the sector.StatusEstimates of forest revenue and public expenditure were collected for the years 2000and 2005 and the figures for 2005 are shown in Table 7.2 and Table 7.3, while Figure7.6 and Figure 7.7 show forest revenue and public expenditure per hectare of forestby country. Over 100 countries supplied this information, with countries reportingrevenue collection accounting for 79 percent of the global forest area and thosereporting expenditure accounting for 64 percent of the area. Thus, the figures presentonly a partial estimate of global revenue collection and expenditure on forestry, butthe reporting countries account for a significant share of global forest resources.The countries with significant forest areas that were unable to supply some of thisinformation included Australia, Canada, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Finland,France, Germany, Indonesia and New Zealand, but many of these provided at leastpartial information.Total forest revenue collection in 2005 was US$14.6 billion, which is equivalentto about US$4.60 per hectare or US$6.10 per cubic metre of wood production. 27Revenue collection in the different regions was roughly in proportion to their forestareas, resulting in similar figures for revenue collection per hectare in each region.The one major exception was Africa, where revenue collection was very low atTABle 7.2forest revenue collection by region, 2005region information availability forest revenue in 2005number ofcountries% of totalforest areaTotal revenue per ha(uS$)million uS$ % AllareasPublicarearevenue per m 3(uS$)AllremovalsAdjusted 2Africa 31 63 285 2 1 1 1.24 6.85Asia 22 88 2 846 19 5 7 4.31 18.92europe 20 89 5 420 37 6 6 13.39 17.72North and Central America 1 14 90 2 620 18 4 6 3.40 5.56oceania 7 20 146 1 4 23 5.33 33.24South America 7 76 3 290 23 5 6 10.80 26.50world 101 79 14 607 100 5 6 6.09 12.34Notes:1These figures use revenue figures for 2000 for the United States of America (2005 not available).2excludes fuelwood production and production from private forests (based on share of total forest area).27All figures per hectare and per cubic metre were calculated by dividing total revenue or expenditure bythe area of forest or amount of production in those countries reporting revenue or expenditure.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 129TABle 7.3Public expenditure on forestry by region, 2005region information availability Public expenditure on forestry in 2005number ofcountries% of totalforest areaTotalexpenditure per ha (uS$)million uS$ % All area Public areaAfrica 26 46 625 3 2.04 2.15Asia 22 51 6 766 36 22.46 30.09europe 28 94 5 137 27 5.45 5.85North and Central America 13 55 6 303 33 16.28 43.96oceania 6 16 15 0 0.51 16.21South America 8 73 166 1 0.26 0.35world 103 64 19 012 100 7.31 9.47FIGURe 7.6forest revenue collection by country, 2005(uS$/ha)< 11–55–10> 10No dataonly US$285 million in total or US$0.67 per hectare on average. Furthermore, threecountries (Cameroon, Morocco and the Republic of the Congo) accounted for abouttwo-thirds of reported revenue collection in Africa, indicating that revenue collectionin the other reporting countries is extremely low.If it is assumed that most forest revenue is collected from the use of state-ownedforest resources, then the global average for revenue collection per hectare is slightlyhigher at US$5.60. The one region where this figure was much higher is Oceania. Thisis because in Papua New Guinea the government collects a significant amount of forestrevenue but most of the forest is owned by traditional landowners. Similarly, revenuecollection per cubic metre of wood production is higher if fuelwood production isexcluded and it is assumed that this is mostly collected from production in state-

130Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010FIGURe 7.7Public expenditure on forestry by country, 2005(uS$/ha)< 11–55–10> 10No dataowned forests. However, these figures (shown in the last column of Table 7.2) are veryimprecise, because the exact amount of production from state-owned forests was notcollected in FRA 2010.Total public expenditure on forestry in 2005 was just over US$19 billion, withmost of this expenditure in Asia, Europe and North and Central America. Averageexpenditure per hectare was US$7.31, but expenditure per hectare was much higherin Asia and North and Central America. The figure for Europe was lower than theglobal average due to the inclusion of the Russian Federation in this region (whichhas a vast forest area and relatively low expenditure per hectare). Excluding theRussian Federation, expenditure per hectare in the rest of Europe would be very high(US$30.95 per hectare).Public expenditure on forestry in Africa was relatively low, but expenditures inOceania (US$0.51 per hectare) and South America (US$0.26 per hectare) were evenlower. These low figures were caused by the dominance of Papua New Guinea andBrazil in the calculation of the regional averages, as both countries have comparativelylarge forest areas resulting in very low expenditure per hectare. In the case of PapuaNew Guinea the low figures per hectare may also be explained by the fact that most ofthe forest area is under private (communal) ownership.Again, if it is assumed that the majority of public expenditure is devoted to themanagement of state-owned forests, then total expenditure divided by the area offorests in public ownership results in a higher estimate of expenditure per hectare (witha global average of US$9.47 per hectare). However, some of this expenditure is used tosupport forestry in the private sector or to fund administration and other regulatoryactivities, so this is not a very reliable estimate of investment in forest management instate-owned forests.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 131Table 7.4 shows the sources of funding (domestic and external) and the uses of publicexpenditure on forestry in 2005. As the table shows, the majority of public expenditureon forestry came from domestic sources and the amount of external funding wasonly US$699 million, or about 4 percent of the total. As might be expected, Africahad the highest contribution of external funding to public expenditure on forestry atUS$175 million (28 percent of the total). Europe also had a relatively high proportionof external funding. This is because some public expenditure on forestry in memberstates of the European Union comes from common funds administered by theEuropean Commission.The distribution of expenditure between operational expenditure and transferpayments was very variable between regions, with transfer payments accountingfor about 43 percent of all expenditure at the global level. Transfer payments werecomparatively high in Asia, Europe and South America, but much lower in the otherthree regions. This is probably partly due to expenditure on support for establishmentof planted forests as well the higher levels of private forest ownership in manycountries in these regions.All the data collected showed considerable variation between countries in revenuecollected and public expenditure per hectare of forest. This is due to various factorssuch as the difference in forest types in different countries, but also their different levelsof economic development (more developed countries are generally able to spend moreon forestry than poorer countries). To demonstrate this variation, Lorenz curves wereconstructed that show how revenue collection and public expenditure are distributedacross the global forest resource. These curves were calculated separately for thecountries reporting revenue collection and public expenditure and are shown in Figure7.8 and Figure 7.9.In Figure 7.8, the distribution of revenue collection shows that very little forestrevenue is collected in 46 countries accounting for about 20 percent of the forest area(of all countries reporting revenue collection). Revenue collection in these countries isless than US$1 per hectare. In another 29 countries, forest revenue collection is US$1–5per hectare. This group includes many of the countries with significant forest areas,such as Canada, Indonesia, the Russian Federation and the United States of America.Between them, these countries account for about 35 percent of revenue collectionand 60 percent of the forest area. Starting with Brazil, the final group of 24 countriescollects 65 percent of all the forest revenue reported. These countries (many in Europe)account for the remaining 20 percent of the forest area and have levels of revenuecollection of over US$5 per hectare.TABle 7.4Sources and uses of public expenditure on forestry by region, 2005region Public expenditure on forestry in 2005Operational expenditure(million uS$)Transfer payments(million uS$)domestic external Total domestic external Totalexternalfunding(%)Transferpayments(%)Africa 418 122 541 31 53 84 28 13Asia 1 699 12 1 712 4 999 43 5 041 1 75europe 2 266 151 2 417 1 468 263 1 731 10 42North and Central America 5 505 30 5 535 751 17 769 1 12oceania 15 1 15 0 0 0 4 0South America 98 5 103 60 2 63 5 38world 10 001 321 10 323 7 309 378 7 687 4 43Note: Totals are less than shown in Table 7.2 above because some countries did not provide a breakdown of their public expenditure.

132Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010FIGURe 7.8distribution of forest revenue collection at the global level, 2005100Cumulative revenue collection (total = 14.6 billion uS$) (%)908070605040302010Average level of revenue collection = uS$ 4.60 per haRussianFederationIndonesiaChinaCanadaIndiaSwedenRepublic of KoreaTurkeyUkraineMalaysiaUSABrazil0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Cumulative forest area (total = 3.2 billion hectares) (%)100FIGURe 7.9distribution of public expenditure on forestry at the global level, 2005Cumulative public expenditure (total = 19.0 billion uS$) (%)908070605040302010BrazilAverage level of expenditure = uS$ 7.31 per haRussianFederationItalyRepublic of KoreaChinaUSA0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Cumulative forest area (total = 2.6 billion hectares) (%)

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 133Thus, to summarize, very little revenue is collected from about 20 percent of theforest area while, at the other end of the scale, the majority of forest revenue is collectedfrom another 20 percent of the area where revenue collection per hectare is very high.In the remaining 60 percent of the forest area between these two extremes, revenuecollection per hectare is close to the global average.The distribution of public expenditure on forestry (Figure 7.9) shows even greatervariation between countries. Twenty-seven countries spent less than US$1 per hectareon forestry, accounting for less than 1 percent of all public expenditure on forestrybut 35 percent of the forest area. The most significant country in this group wasBrazil, where public expenditure on forestry was just under US$0.10 per hectare. Asecond group of 33 countries spent US$1–10 per hectare on forestry. These countriesaccounted for a further 40 percent of the forest area and 12 percent of all expenditure.The Russian Federation had the most significant forest area in this group. The lastgroup of 43 countries accounted for 25 percent of the forest area but about 88 percentof all public expenditure on forestry. Again, a few countries (China, Italy, the Republicof Korea and the United States of America) were significant in this group, accountingfor a major share of public expenditure on forestry.As the above figures have shown, there is great variation in revenue collection andpublic expenditure on forestry and this variation is even greater when the two datasetsare combined (because some countries collect a lot of revenue and spend very littlewhile others do the opposite). To show the net flows of funding between governmentsand the forestry sector, public expenditure was subtracted from revenue collection forthose countries providing both of these figures and the results at the global level areshown in Figure 7.10.FIGURe 7.10net revenue collection and public expenditure on forestry, 2005Share of cumulative net expenditure or revenue (billion uS$)8.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0-1.0-2.0-3.0-4.0-5.0-6.0-7.0-8.0-9.0-10.0-11.024 countries spend less onforestry than they collect inrevenue (47% of forest areaof countries reporting bothrevenue and expenditure).Total net revenue in thesecountries is US$ 7.3 billion.ChinaUSASwedenMalaysiaBrazil54 countries spend more onforestry than they collect inrevenue (53% of forest areaof countries reporting bothrevenue and expenditure).Total net expenditure in thesecountries is US$ 11.1 billion.-12.00.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6Cumulative forest area (billion ha)

134Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010A much smaller group of countries provided figures for both revenue and publicexpenditure (78 countries, covering 1.6 billion hectares or 40 percent of the globalforest area) and the total net flow of funds in these countries was a net expenditure ofUS$3.8 billion, indicating that governments, on average, spent more on forestry thanthey collected in revenue. Roughly two-thirds of these countries (or slightly more thanhalf by forest area) spent more on forestry than they collected in revenue. However,as above, most of the net revenue or net expenditure occurred in a few significantcountries and revenue and expenditure were roughly equal in the vast majority ofcountries. This can be seen in Figure 7.10, as the 48 countries between the United Statesof America and Brazil that are close to a zero share of cumulative net expenditure orrevenue.TrendsThe changes in forest revenue and public expenditure on forestry (between 2000 and2005) are shown in Table 7.5 and Table 7.6. Fewer countries provided this informationfor both years and these tables only compare the figures for countries reporting bothyears. However, they do give a general indication of trends in forest revenue and publicexpenditure in the different regions and at the global level.Table 7.5 shows that forest revenue increased by about 44 percent between 2000and 2005 (or about 7.6 percent per year on average). Industrial roundwood productionincreased only slightly between these two years (by about 8 percent), so the majorityof this increase is due to higher levels of forest charges (per unit of production) and,possibly, higher collection of forest charges on other goods and services provided byforests. These figures are not adjusted for inflation, but indicate that forest revenuecollection increased by more than the rate of inflation (i.e. increased in real terms).At the regional level, all regions increased their revenue collection except Africa.The relatively low increase in North and Central America was largely due to Canada,where production did not increase much between the two years and revenue collectionincreased only slightly. The very large increase in Europe was largely a result ofincreases in Sweden and the Russian Federation. In both of these countries, industrialroundwood production increased, but the average level of revenue collection per cubicmetre also increased (significantly in the case of the Russian Federation). In Africa, allof the decline in revenue collection was related to Gabon, where revenue collectionfell from US$143 million in 2000 to US$16 million in 2005, despite an increase inproduction. Excluding Gabon, most other countries in this region increased theirrevenue collection by modest amounts.TABle 7.5Trends in forest revenue collection by region, 2000–2005regionCountries reporting bothforest revenueyearsnumber % of20002005Change rate (%)forest area (million uS$) (million uS$)total per yearAfrica 25 58 326 273 -16.3 -3.5Asia 20 72 1 981 2 510 26.7 4.9europe 19 88 3 104 5 410 74.3 11.8North and Central America 9 45 1 231 1 289 4.7 0.9oceania 7 20 103 146 42.1 7.3South America 5 67 2 213 3 282 48.3 8.2world 85 66 8 957 12 910 44.1 7.6Note: The United States of America only provided data for 2000 and is therefore excluded from this table.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 135Table 7.6 shows that public expenditure on forestry also increased between 2000 and2005 and by a similar amount to revenue collection (49 percent in total or 8.3 percentper year). At the regional level, there were modest increases in South America, andNorth and Central America and increases similar to the global average in Europe andOceania. The two regions with significant increases were Africa and Asia. In the caseof Asia, this was due to large increases in transfer payments in some countries (mostlikely due to increased government support for the establishment of planted forests).In Africa, the increase was mostly due to Morocco and South Africa, where there werelarge increases in public expenditure on forestry.Both domestic and external funding increased between 2000 and 2005, but the shareof external funding in total public expenditure was largely unchanged (3 percent in 2000and 4 percent in 2005). Furthermore, this slight increase in external funding occurredmainly in Europe and was most likely a result of the expansion of the European Union(giving more countries access to the European Union’s common funds). In addition,there was also a slight increase in external funding for forestry in Africa, while externalfunding declined in all of the other regions.The most interesting change in the public expenditure data was the shift inexpenditure towards transfer payments that occurred between 2000 and 2005. Transferpayments increased from US$3.7 billion (31 percent of total expenditure) in 2000 toUS$7.7 billion (43 percent of the total) in 2005. Furthermore, the total amount oftransfer payments increased in all regions (and increased as a proportion of the total inall regions except Europe).Table 7.5 and Table 7.6 are not directly comparable because data from somecountries appear in only one of the tables (e.g. South Africa and the United States ofAmerica). They imply that public expenditure has increased by more than revenuecollection and that, at the global level, the difference between public expenditure andrevenue collection has increased from 2000 to 2005 (i.e. net expenditure has increased).However, as noted above, these figures are very variable between countries, so theycan only be usefully interpreted at the country level. Examination of the countrydata showed that net expenditure or net revenue in each country generally increasedbetween the two years and that, apart from these increases in magnitude, the overallpattern of net expenditure or revenue was similar in 2000 to that shown in Figure 7.10.ConclusionsGiven the huge variations between countries, any conclusions reached frominterpretation of these figures are likely to be very general and will not apply to manyTABle 7.6Trends in public expenditure on forestry by region, 2000–2005regionCountries reportingboth yearsnumber % offorest area2000(million uS$)Public expenditureon forestry2005Change rate (%)(million uS$)total per yearAfrica 20 36 361 578 60.1 9.9Asia 19 51 2 969 6 727 126.6 17.8europe 24 13 2 792 3 994 43.1 7.4North and Central America 8 44 5 382 5 910 9.8 1.9oceania 4 16 10 14 40.9 7.1South America 6 71 148 160 7.7 1.5world 81 40 11 663 17 383 49.0 8.3

136Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010countries. However, the figures support four general observations about the status andtrends in forest revenue collection and public expenditure in the sector.The first observation is that, in the majority of countries, public expenditureon forestry is higher than revenue collected from the sector. However, with a fewexceptions, this level of support is generally quite modest. Thus, the majority ofinvestment in forest management comes from the private sector (including localcommunities and individuals as well as the forest industry) and is probably devoted tocommercial or productive uses of the forest resource.A second observation is that public expenditure on forestry is gradually moving awayfrom operational expenditure towards transfer payments. To some extent, this may bedue to changes in forest ownership and, especially, government support for plantedforest establishment. However, it also suggests that the role of forest administrationsis gradually changing away from direct action and regulation of the sector towardsfacilitation and support for other non-state actors. This is in line with a general trendin public administration in many countries in recent years, where governments aretending to take less of a direct role in service provision and focus more on facilitationand service provision through partnerships with the private sector.Comparing the two years 2000 and 2005, both revenue collection and publicexpenditure have increased in real terms (i.e. by amounts higher than the level ofinflation), so government interest and involvement in the sector has increased. Thisis a positive development but, as noted above, the increase in net public expenditureon forestry is only modest in most countries. The non-market benefits of forests areoften stressed in forestry policy debates, but forest administrations seem unable tocompete with other demands for public funding, to achieve higher levels of publicinvestment in the sector. This suggests that either these benefits are not particularlyimportant (e.g. when compared to other public services) or that forest administrationsare not particularly effective at communicating the importance of forests and forestryto decision-makers in government.Finally, the one region that appears very different from the others is Africa (bothat the regional and country levels). Revenue collection and public expenditure arecomparatively low in Africa and the region relies greatly on external assistance; themajority of public expenditure on forestry in the region is destined for operationalexpenditure. To some extent, these figures reflect some of the general constraints todevelopment in Africa. However, they also imply that governments have relatively littleinterest or capacity to support the sector. Given that the majority of forest resourcesin this region are still nominally owned or controlled by the government (in many ofthese countries, all forest is publicly owned), this suggests that existing arrangementsfor forest administration in Africa may be quite ineffective.vAlue Of wOOd And nOn-wOOd fOreST PrOduCT remOvAlSintroductionThe value of wood and NWPF removals is an indicator of the contribution of forestsand woodlands to national economies and is the indicator of socio-economic benefitsthat is generally most easy to quantify and interpret. These figures also provide someindication of how the sector contributes to poverty alleviation (especially in the caseof NWPFs, which are often collected by poor people), although they mostly fail toinclude the very important contribution that subsistence production and consumptionmay make to local livelihoods. To compensate for annual fluctuations of volumesremoved and their value, the figures for value of wood removals are five year averagesi.e. the average of 1988–1992 for 1990, 1998–2002 for 2000 and 2003–2007 for 2005.As information on NWPFs is often limited, countries were only asked for the value ofthese for 2005.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 137StatusInformation about the total value of wood removals in 2005 was provided by 112countries covering 85 percent of the total forest area (see Table 7.7). 28 Countrieswere also asked to provide this information divided into industrial roundwoodand woodfuel. Many countries responded for industrial roundwood, but far fewerprovided information about the value of woodfuel removals.With the exception of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, most of the countriesthat did not supply this information have relatively limited wood production.Considering this, and the fact that the value of woodfuel removals is generally low,the data collected for FRA 2010 gives a reasonable indication of the value of woodremovals at the global and regional levels.A total of 85 countries, accounting for 77 percent of the global forest area, providedinformation on the value of NWFP removals (using the same methodology as thatdescribed for the quantity assessment in Chapter 5). At the regional and subregionallevels, the highest response rate (based on the forest area of countries reporting data)was achieved in North America, followed by East Asia, Europe, Southeast Asia, SouthAmerica, Oceania, Africa and Western and Central Asia.In general, more information was reported about the value of plant products thananimal products (except in OECD countries). Within the plant product categories,most information was available for food, exudates, ornamental plants, and medicinaland aromatic plants. For animal products, most information was available for honeyand beeswax.It should be noted that there are a number of problems with assessing the value ofNWFP removals. One is that the assessment asked for the value of primary production(i.e. excluding the income from downstream processing outside the forest), but in manycases countries reported figures for the values of semi-processed products (which areoften significantly higher to cover transport and labour costs). For example, somecountries provided value data on their production of shea nut butter, which is obtainedby processing the seeds of the Butyrospermum parkii tree, rather than assessing thevalue of the seeds. Another example is the case of wild honey, which is collected inforests and refined and graded (at various levels) before being brought to the market.Many countries provided value data based on this final market value.Another problem is many countries only reported the value of their five to tenmost important NWFPs and did not provide estimates of the total value of all NWFPsTABle 7.7number of countries reporting value of wood removals by region, 2005region woodfuel industrial roundwood Totalnumber ofcountriesreporting% of forestareanumber ofcountriesreporting% of forestareanumber ofcountriesreporting% of forestareaAfrica 23 32 25 46 33 50Asia 13 24 22 74 24 73europe 26 96 29 96 29 96North and Central America 3 53 8 98 8 98oceania 2 1 6 98 6 98South America 5 67 12 93 12 93world 72 57 102 84 112 8528Some countries only provided information for the value of woodfuel or industrial roundwoodremovals (e.g. Canada, China and Malaysia only provided the latter) and did not present a total onthe FRA questionnaire. In such cases, these figures were used for the totals in the analysis and wereincluded in the tables presented here.

138Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010produced in the country. Most countries also only reported the value of NWFPsthat are used commercially and did not estimate the value of those mainly used forsubsistence.Given these measurement problems, the figures for the value of NWFP removalsare very imprecise and could be significant over- or underestimates, depending on thetypes of products removed, their uses and the different methodologies employed toestimate their values. However, they give a very broad indication of the importanceof different products, regional variations and the relative importance of NWFPscompared to removals of wood products.Table 7.8 shows that the total value of forest product removals in 2005 wasUS$121.9 billion; about 71 percent of this was from industrial roundwood, 15 percentfrom NWFPs and 14 percent from woodfuel.At the regional level, most of the value of removals occurred in three regions: Asia,Europe and North and Central America. These three regions together accounted for87 percent of the total value of removals. The other interesting result at the regionallevel was the very different composition of the value of removals in different regions.In North and Central America, Oceania and South America industrial roundwoodaccounted for almost all of the value of removals. The value of woodfuel removalswas particularly important in Asia and Africa (although this may be under-reported inmany of the other regions).Table 7.8 also shows the value of wood removals per cubic metre. As would beexpected, the average value of woodfuel was much lower (US$18 per cubic metre)than the value of industrial roundwood (US$51 per cubic metre). At the regionallevel, the differences in unit values were significant and can be explained by a numberof factors. First, the relative abundance and scarcity of wood in different regions(i.e. supply and demand balance) may partly explain why the value of woodfueland industrial roundwood removals in Asia was relatively high while the value ofindustrial roundwood removals in South America was relatively low. Second, speciescomposition may account for some of the variation (e.g. removals of high value tropicalspecies probably contribute to the higher unit values of removals in Africa and Asia).Similarly, regions with a relatively high proportion of removals from planted forests(e.g. Europe and South America) might be expected to have relatively low unit values,because the value of roundwood from planted forest is generally low compared toproduction from natural forests.The variation in the average value (or price) of industrial roundwood removals isalso interesting and is shown in Figure 7.11. This shows that the majority of industrialroundwood had a value of US$30–70 per cubic metre and the value of roundwood inTABle 7.8Total value of wood and nwfP removals by region, 2005region wood nwfPs AllproductsbillionuS$woodfueluS$/m 3industrialroundwoodbillion uS$/m 3uS$billionuS$TotaluS$/m 3Total(billionuS$)Total(billionuS$)Africa 1.4 7 2.9 54 4.3 16 0.5 4.8Asia 10.3 27 18.1 100 28.4 51 7.0 35.4europe 3.4 23 20.7 40 24.1 36 8.4 32.5North and Central America 0.4 7 37.0 53 37.3 49 1.7 39.0oceania 0 14 2.7 51 2.7 51 0.4 3.1South America 1.8 12 4.7 25 6.4 19 0.5 6.9world 17.2 18 86.1 51 103.4 39 18.5 121.9

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 139many of the world’s major wood producing countries fell into this range. Significantproducers with relatively low industrial roundwood values included Brazil and Russia,whereas the value of roundwood in India (where wood is scarce compared to the sizeof the population) was very high. The average value of industrial roundwood variedbetween countries (and was also variable within countries) for a number of reasons.Nonetheless, Figure 7.11 provides a very general indication of average industrialroundwood prices in different countries.Table 7.9 shows the relative importance of the different NWFPs (in terms of thevalue of removals) at the global and regional level. 29 At the global level, five majorcategories accounted for 90 percent of the total value of NWFP removals: food (51percent), other plant products (17 percent), honey (11 percent), ornamental plants (6percent) and exudates (4 percent).Plant products (eight categories) accounted for 84 percent of the total value ofNWFP removals and food had the highest value (US$8.6 billion). Fruit, berries,mushrooms and nuts were identified as the main food products by most countries.Other plant products (US$2.8 billion) included a wide range of species used mainly fornon-food purposes (e.g. the production of bidi leaves in India).The removal of animal products had a total value of US$2.7 billion, with US$1.8billion from honey and beeswax, and US$0.6 billion from wild meat production.However, these figures may not include a significant amount of animal products. Forexample, the reported value of wild meat (bushmeat) removals outside Europe wasFIGURe 7.11value of industrial roundwood removals, 2005150IndiaAverage value of production (uS$/m 3 )10050GermanySwedenUSAFinlandCanadaChinaBrazilRussian Federation00.0 0.5 1.0 1.5Cumulative industrial roundwood production (billion m 3 )29The total value for the 15 NWFP categories is lower than the total global reported value ofUS$18.5 billion, because the values of ‘any other plant or animal products’ (over and above the top tenproducts) are not shown here.

140Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TABle 7.9value of nwfP removals by category and region, 2005nwfP categoriesTotalShare of each category in total value (%)(millionuS$)world europe Asia Americas Oceania AfricaFood 8 614 51 48 67 23 47 39other plants products 2 792 17 3 22 61 3 7Wild honey and beeswax 1 805 11 21 n.s. n.s. 12 n.s.ornamental plants 984 6 10 1 3 4 0exudates 631 4 1 7 5 0 25Plant materials for medicine, etc. 628 4 5 2 1 9 18Wild meat 577 3 7 n.s. n.s. 1 2Materials for utensils, construction, etc. 427 3 3 1 3 18 n.s.Hides, skins and trophies 183 1 1 n.s. 3 7 n.s.living animals 154 1 2 n.s. n.s. 0 7Fodder 21 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 2Colorants and dyes 18 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 n.s.other non-edible animal products 6 n.s. 0 n.s. 0 0 n.s.other edible animal products 1 n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 n.s.Raw animal material for medicine 0 n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 0Total value (million uS$) 16 839 16 839 8 389 5 655 2 132 402 261Note: n.s. = ‘not significant’ (i.e. less than one percent of the total)only US$10 million, which is likely to be a vast underestimate of the true value ofremovals in other regions.In Europe, major producers of NWFPs included the Russian Federation(61 percent of the European total), Germany (7 percent), Spain (6 percent), Portugal(5 percent), and Italy (4 percent). Together, these countries accounted for 83 percent ofthe European total. Three NWFP categories in Europe accounted for 79 percent of thetotal value of removals: food (48 percent), honey (21 percent) and ornamental plants(10 percent). The reported value of wild meat removals was close to US$0.6 billion andthe value of all hunting products combined amounted to about 10 percent of the total.In Asia, three countries accounted for 96 percent of the value of all NWFP removals:China (67 percent), Republic of Korea (26 percent) and Japan (3 percent). Food was byfar the most significant product (67 percent of the Asian total), followed by other plantproducts (22 percent) and exudates (7 percent).In the Americas (North, Central and South America, plus the Caribbean), theUnited States of America accounted for 61 percent of the value of NWFP removals,followed by Brazil (13 percent), Canada (12 percent) and Colombia (7 percent).Together, these four countries accounted for 93 percent of the reported total. MajorNWFP categories were other plant products (61 percent of the total), food (23 percent)and exudates (5 percent).South Africa accounted for 71 percent of the total value of NWFP removals inAfrica, followed by Sudan (10 percent). Food and exudates (mainly gum arabic)were the most important NWFPs, accounting for 39 percent (food) and 25 percent(exudates) of the total value of production.In Oceania, food accounted for nearly half (47 percent) of the value reported,followed by materials for utensils and construction (18 percent) and wild honey andbeeswax (12 percent).At the country level, China and Russia accounted for half of the global valueof NWFP removals and 23 countries accounted for 96 percent of the global total.Countries with high values of NWFP removals are shown in Figure 7.12.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 141FIGURe 7.12Countries with high values of nwfP removals, 2005(uS$ million)> 100> 1 000> 500 < 100 or no dataTrendsDue to a number of factors, comparisons of the value of wood and NWFP removals indifferent years may be very unreliable. First, trends in the value of wood removals canonly be analysed for countries supplying information for all the years requested in theFRA 2010 enquiry, but the number of countries reporting this information was verylow (see Table 7.10). Second, in the case of NWFPs, the amount and reliability of dataprobably improved significantly in FRA 2010 compared with the previous assessment(see below), so any difference between the values reported for FRA 2005 and FRA2010 is likely to reflect improvements in data collection and reporting rather than realtrends in values.Finally, the values of removals may fluctuate greatly from year to year (dependingon market conditions), so information for only a few years may reflect short-termTABle 7.10Countries reporting on value of wood removals by region, 1990, 2000 and 2005region woodfuel industrial roundwood Total removalsnumber ofcountriesreporting% of forestareanumber ofcountriesreporting% of forestareanumber ofcountriesreporting% of forestareaAfrica 14 23 19 35 22 36Asia 11 24 18 72 21 73europe 20 15 23 15 23 15North and Central America 3 53 5 97 5 97oceania 1 0 3 20 4 20South America 4 67 7 70 7 70world 53 35 75 53 82 53

142Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010changes in market values rather than long-term trends. This is particularly true forindustrial roundwood, where a more complete time series (i.e. annual figures overmany years) would be required to get a better picture of trends in values.Table 7.11 compares the values of wood removals in 1990, 2000 and 2005. Thecountries supplying this information only accounted for about half of the global forestarea and the table does not show the value of woodfuel removals separately (althoughthis is included in the calculated totals). The table shows that the total value of woodremovals in 1990 and 2000 were roughly the same but increased by 31 percent between2000 and 2005 (with the same trends for industrial roundwood removals, whichaccount for the majority of the total).At the regional level, two different trends are present in the data. Africa, Asia,Europe and South America showed a decline in the value of roundwood removals from1990 to 2000, followed by an increase from 2000 to 2005. Similar trends also appear inthe values of removals per cubic metre in these regions. In North and Central Americaand Oceania, the figures show an increase in the value of removals throughout theperiod. 30These comparisons between years can be partly explained by short-term marketconditions. The decline in the value of removals in Asia (1990–2000) is partly due to theeconomic crisis that affected much of this region at the end of the 1990s. This resultedin a decline in both removal volumes and unit values. In Europe, the relatively lowfigure for 2000 reflects the longer and more gradual process of market liberalization inEastern Europe that occurred throughout the 1990s. This started with dramatic fallsin removal volumes and unit values at the start of the 1990s, followed by a gradualincrease in volumes and values as markets across Europe began to converge. In bothcases, the value of removals per cubic metre was still lower in 2005 than in 1990,although close to previous levels.In North and Central America and Oceania these economic events did not have asgreat an impact on the markets for roundwood because most wood removals are usedwithin the country or region or are traded with other countries that were less affectedby such events (e.g. Japan). However, international trade in wood and wood productsis much more important in South America and Africa and this could partly explain whythe trends in these regions are similar to those in Europe and Asia.In the case of NWFPs, trends cannot be calculated because countries were onlyasked to provide data for one point in time (2005). The reported global value of NWFPremovals in FRA 2005 was US$4.7 billion, compared with the figure of US$18.5 billionin FRA 2010. However, a much larger number of countries (85) reported the value ofTABle 7.11Trends in value of wood removals by region, 1990–2005region industrial roundwood removals Total roundwood removalsTotal value (billion uS$) unit value (uS$/m 3 ) Total value (billion uS$)1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Africa 1.7 1.1 1.7 50 28 38 2.6 2.1 2.9Asia 21.7 15.1 18.1 106 92 100 31.0 22.9 28.4europe 14.5 11.6 17.2 49 34 46 17.0 13.4 20.3North and Central America 18.1 28.6 36.7 26 40 52 18.4 29.0 37.1oceania 0.6 0.9 1.5 40 39 55 0.6 0.9 1.5South America 4.2 3.1 4.4 28 21 24 5.5 4.4 6.1world 60.8 60.4 79.7 43 42 53 75.2 72.8 96.330However, it should also be noted that the value of wood removals has declined again in many regionssince 2005, as a result of the economic recession at the end of this decade.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 143NWFP removals in the more recent enquiry and the quality of reported data appearedto be much higher. Therefore, this significant increase is mainly due to changes in theamount and quality of data collected this time rather than a real increase in values.ConclusionsThe figures presented above show that industrial roundwood remains by far the mostimportant output from forests (in terms of market value) at the global level and in everyregion. However, they also show that this value can vary considerably over time, dueto changes in market conditions.Interestingly, the total value and unit value of wood removals has only increased inreal terms in North and Central America and in Oceania. In all other regions, thesevalues have increased by less than the rate of inflation or, in some cases, have evendeclined. Although these trends only cover about half of the global forest area, thissuggests that significant changes are occurring in the supply of roundwood. At leastpart of these changes may be due to the growing importance of planted forests in globalwood supply. One implication of these trends is that, if the value of removals continuesto stagnate or fall, income from wood production will also fall and forest owners andmanagers will find it more difficult to invest in forest management in natural forests.This has wider implications for the question of how sustainable forest managementshould be financed and implemented.It is important to recognize and applaud the significant efforts that countrieshave made to improve the quality of their NWFP reporting for FRA 2010. The85 countries that provided NWFP value data have a total forest area of 3.1 billion hectares(77 percent of the total forest area), which is a great improvement on past enquiries.Although the availability of information may still be quite limited, the significantvalue of NWFP removals clearly underlines the importance of this sector for nationaleconomies, rural development and poverty alleviation. Given that NWFP removalsbenefit large numbers of people, there is an urgent need to improve these statistics toexplain more precisely the contribution of NWFPs to sustainable forest management,nature conservation, poverty alleviation and economic development. This is especiallytrue for the many developing countries working towards achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals.emPlOymenTintroductionThe level of employment in forestry is an indicator of both the social and economicvalue of the sector to society. Employment provides income and, as forestry activitiesoccur in rural areas that are often poorer than the average, it gives some indication ofthe sector’s contribution to poverty alleviation. In social terms, employment is valuablebecause it enables individuals to be productive members of society.It is important to gather and analyse this information as it is a significant indicatorof the impact of forests on people and demonstrates the contribution of the sector tobroader economic aims and objectives. Governments are concerned about the level ofemployment and this is often a major performance indicator for government policy.For FRA 2010, employment was defined as:“Persons who during a specified reference period performed some workfor wage or salary (paid employment) or profit or family gain (selfemployment)in cash or in kind”. 3131This definition was based on definitions used by the International Labour Organization and the UnitedNations Statistics Division.

144Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010However, information was requested only on employment related to the primaryproduction of forest goods and related services (i.e. excluding the processing of woodand NWFPs). Thus the figures cannot be compared with statistics on employment inthe forestry sector as a whole. In contrast to FRA 2005, the definition of “Employmentin primary production of goods” used this time was aligned with the InternationalStandard Industrial Classification (ISIC) of economic activities, generally used bynational statistical agencies in most countries. 32StatusAt the global level, 141 countries 33 reported on forestry employment in the primaryproduction of goods and 76 countries reported on employment in the managementof protected areas. Those reporting for all three years account for about 60 percent ofglobal forest area.As a check on the quality of the information, the data provided for FRA 2010 werecompared with the statistics on forestry employment reported by national statisticaloffices (FAO, 2008c). This detailed examination of the quality of the statistics revealeda number of problems and issues, especially with a few large countries, which had amajor impact on the global results (see Box 7.2).The total reported level of employment in forestry in 2005 was about 11 millionpeople (see Table 7.12). Regionally, the reported level of employment is highest in Asia(8.4 million), with India accounting for three-quarters of this and China a further 15percent (1.3 million). Reported employment in the management of protected areasaccounted for only about three percent of total employment in forestry.Box 7.2Problems and issues with the estimation of employment levels in forestryIt appears that some countries may have reported the number of people employedpart time in the sector, without converting these figures to full time equivalents. Indiaprovided the most notable example of this, where the national report showed veryhigh levels of employment in the sector (6.4 million people in 1990 and 6.2 million in2005). This was largely a result of the inclusion of some very high numbers for peopleemployed in the establishment of forest plantations. These employment estimates werebased on the number of hectares planted multiplied by the average number of peopleemployed per hectare. For forest plantation establishment, this factor was reported to be3 persons per hectare. While 3 persons per hectare, on average, may have been employedtemporarily at some time in planting trees, it seems very unlikely that this is a figure forpermanent employment in tree planting.Moreover, most countries (including India) stated that their data did not include thenumber of people collecting woodfuel and NWFPs for subsistence purposes. Although theguidelines and definitions (FAo, 2007h) noted that all employment should be included inthe statistics, it seems likely that employment in subsistence production was not capturedhere for most countries. In addition, where countries did provide subsistence employmentfigures, the data and methodologies used to estimate these figures seemed quite weakand differed between countries.32The FRA 2010 definition of forestry employment also included employment in Christmas tree,rubber and bamboo plantations. This differs from the ISIC definition, which counts these activities asagriculture rather than forestry.33Ten of these countries only provided information on paid employment.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 145TABle 7.12number of people employed in forestry by region, 2005region data availability number employed (thousand fTe)Primary productionof goodsmanagement ofprotected areasTotalnumber ofcountries% offorestareanumber ofcountries% offorestareaPrimaryproductionof goodsmanagementof protectedareasAfrica 34 52 20 25 573 13 586Asia 31 83 19 73 8 232 179 8 411europe 35 99 20 91 1 113 126 1 239North and Central America 16 89 8 43 354 16 370oceania 6 98 3 4 27 2 28South America 10 84 6 75 239 3 242world 132 84 76 61 10 537 338 10 876In 2008, FAO estimated that total employment in forestry in 2005 was 4 million(FAO, 2008b). Although that figure included estimates for a number of countries, itis notable that the statistics reported above amount to more than twice this figure.However, one country – India – accounts for much of this discrepancy. 34 In manyother countries, the figures reported here and in FAO (2008c) are quite similar or canbe explained by differences in definitions.TrendsTable 7.13 shows global and regional trends in employment, based on the data fromcountries that reported on employment for all three years (1990, 2000 and 2005).Globally, reported employment in forestry declined slightly from 1990 to 2005 byabout 1 million (or 10 percent) and most of this decline occurred during the 1990s. AsiaTABle 7.13Trends in number of people employed in forestry by region, 1990–2005region data availability number employed (thousand fTe)Primary productionof goodsnumber ofcountries% offorestareamanagementof protected areasnumber ofcountries% offorestareaPrimaryproductionof goodsmanagementof protectedareasTotal1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Africa 26 44 12 20 333 391 427 9 10 10 342 401 437Asia 31 87 12 53 8 911 8 196 8 150 43 102 160 8 954 8 298 8 310europe 31 95 9 5 1 672 1 076 1 005 5 10 11 1 677 1 086 1 016North 11 89 4 0 223 252 234 – – – 223 252 234andCentralAmericaoceania 5 98 3 4 25 28 26 1 1 2 27 30 28South 5 7 3 6 46 53 59 1 1 1 47 54 60Americaworld 109 65 43 14 11 210 9 996 9 901 60 125 184 11 270 10 121 10 08534The figure presented in FAO (2008c) was based on the results of an earlier FAO survey of forestryemployment, in which India reported a 1994 level of employment of only 263,000 people (comparedwith over 6 million reported to FRA 2010).

146Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010and Europe accounted for all of this decline, while in the other regions employmentincreased slightly.These changes in employment can be explained by a number of factors. In general,this decline has occurred in the primary production of goods, which can probablybe attributed to increases in labour productivity (e.g. increased mechanization ofharvesting operations). The fall in employment in Asia was influenced by a steepdecline in China because of the partial logging ban in the late 1990s. In Europe, thedecline in employment numbers can be explained by the restructuring of formerlycentrally-planned economies. In some countries this has led to decreased productionand lower employment. More generally, the privatization of forestry activities inEastern Europe has led to large increases in labour productivity in the region and, asa consequence, a decline in employment numbers. In the regions showing an increasein employment, this is partly because roundwood production has increased faster thanlabour productivity (for a more detailed discussion, see FAO, 2008c).ConclusionsGiven the unreliability of some of these figures, it is not possible to draw any robustconclusions about the current status and trends in forestry employment on the basisof the data collected at the global and regional levels. However, the figures suggest thatemployment is probably declining somewhat in most countries and regions.A focused effort should be made to improve the quality of employment statisticsin a few key countries in which the reported statistics are missing or are very high butmay be based on minimal survey data or very simple estimation techniques.AreA Of fOreST deSignATed fOr SOCiAl ServiCeSintroductionThe area of forest designated for social services indicates the extent to which countriesand forest managers have identified specific forests areas for recreation, tourism,education, research and for the conservation of cultural or spiritual sites.Out of the total of 233 countries and areas covered by FRA 2010, 205 provideddata on the designated functions of their forests, together accounting for 99.9 percentof the total forest area. Many countries reported that they did not have forest areasspecifically designated for this purpose, while data were incomplete in others. Just 59countries designated more than 1 000 ha of forests under this category and only 53 ofthese provided a complete data series (1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010).Many countries recognize the importance of this function but have included itunder the category of multiple use and/or unknown function when it was not possibleto quantify the area. The United States of America, for instance, did not report anyforest area designated primarily for social services, but included such areas withinthe multiple use category while noting that 85 percent of the national forest area wasavailable for outdoor activities. Many forests in Africa and elsewhere are used fortourism, but the main function, in most cases, is the conservation of wildlife. Nationalparks were therefore mostly assigned to the category conservation of biologicaldiversity rather than social services. Even among the countries that did report areasdesignated for social services, there continued to be different interpretations of whichareas should be included in this category 35 and figures are, therefore, not alwayscomparable between countries.35Brazil and Guyana reported on forests designated for the protection of the culture of indigenousand forest-dependent peoples, seven countries focused on recreation and highlighted the importanceof urban forests, three countries focused on sacred forests, two on education and one made specificreference to human well-being. The remaining countries referred to tourism or a combination of thepurposes mentioned above.

Socio-economic functions of forest resources 147StatusGlobally, an estimated 3.7 percent of the world’s forests were designated for theprovision of recreation, tourism, education or conservation of cultural and spiritualheritage. However, the only subregions and regions with fairly good data were EastAsia and Europe. The provision of such social services was reported as the primarymanagement objective for 3 percent of the total forest area in East Asia and 2 percentin Europe (see Table 7.14).The top five countries with forest areas designated for social services were Brazil,the Russian Federation, China, Japan and Ukraine, which together designated some142 million hectares for this purpose. Brazil has designated 119 million hectares, ormore than one-fifth of its forest area, for the protection of the culture and way of life offorest-dependent peoples. This area accounts for more than three-quarters of the totalarea of forest designated for social services worldwide.At the regional level, South America contributed 78 percent (mainly in Brazil) ofthe total area in this category; Europe 14 percent; and Asia 7 percent. The remainingregions together accounted for around 1 percent of the total area designated for theprovision of social services.TrendsThe analysis of trends of forest area designated for social services is based on thosecountries and areas that reported a complete time series.The strong trend towards increasing area in South America (see Figure 7.13)is entirely accounted for by Brazil, where large areas of forest were designated as‘indigenous lands’ and ‘sustainable development reserves’ during the 1990s. Europeshows a decrease in forest area designated for social services between 1990 and 2000and an increase from 2000 to 2010, while Asia (mainly East Asia) reported a slightincrease in the last decade. The trend in Africa was stable.TABle 7.14Area of forest designated for social services by region and subregion, 2010region/subregion information availability Area designated for socialservicesnumber ofcountries% of totalforest area1 000 ha % of forestareaeastern and Southern Africa 23 100.0 464 0.2Northern Africa 7 99.1 3 n.s.Western and Central Africa 24 100.0 434 0.1Total Africa 54 99.9 901 0.1east Asia 5 100.0 8 347 3.3South and Southeast Asia 17 100.0 283 0.1Western and Central Asia 24 100.0 823 1.9Total Asia 46 100.0 9 453 1.6europe excl. Russian Federation 45 100.0 6 432 3.3Total europe 46 100.0 19 377 1.9Caribbean 12 53.8 19 0.5Central America 7 100.0 767 3.9North America 5 100.0 0 0Total north and Central America 24 99.5 786 0.1Total Oceania 21 99.8 67 n.s.Total South America 14 100.0 119 561 13.8world 205 99.9 150 146 3.7

148Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010FIGURe 7.13Trend in forest area designated for social services by region, 1990–2010AfricaAsiaeuropeSouth America020406080 100120(million ha)1990 200520002010Note: North and Central America is not included because countries in this subregion reported no areas designated for this function. oceania isexcluded due to low information availability of trend data.ConclusionsA higher percentage of the world’s countries reported on the designated functionsof forests for FRA 2010 (81 percent) in comparison with the FRA 2005 (75 percent).However, there continue to be substantial data gaps in terms of the area of forestdesignated for social services and a wide range of interpretations of which areas shouldbe included in this category, which make comparison between countries and regionsdifficult.The main conclusion therefore remains that the management of forests for social andcultural functions is increasing, but the area is difficult to quantify. Future assessmentsshould focus on obtaining more detailed and more comparable data on this variable.

149Chapter 8Legal, policy and institutionalframeworkOverviewThe national legal, policy and institutional framework related to forests constitutesthe fundamental basis for sustainable forest management. National forest programmesprovide an internationally agreed framework which many countries use for thedevelopment and implementation of national forest-related policies and internationalcommitments. The effective development and implementation of forest policydepends on the institutional capacity of national and subnational forest agencies.These include, among others, forest administrations, agencies responsible forthe enforcement of forest laws and regulations and forest research and educationinstitutions. For FRA 2010 countries were asked for the first time to report on thesekey aspects, with the aim of addressing a critical information gap on the governanceof the world’s forests.More specifically, for FRA 2010 countries were asked to provide information on thefollowing variables:• the existence of a national and/or subnational forest law, date of enactment anddate of latest amendment;• the existence of a national and/or subnational forest policy and date ofendorsement;• the existence of a national forest programme, date of commencement and itscurrent status;• the institutional structure related to forests and forestry;• human resources in public forestry institutions;• the number of graduates in forest-related education;• the number of professional staff in publicly funded forest research centres.In addition, information was compiled on international conventions and agreementsrelated to forests and the extent to which countries have ratified or adopted these.Key findingsSignificant progress has been made in developing forest policies, laws and nationalforest programmes. Of the 143 countries that reported the existence of a forest policystatement, 76 have issued or updated their statements since 2000. Of the 156 countriesthat have a specific forest law, 69 countries – primarily in Europe and Africa – reportedthat their current forest law was enacted or amended since 2005. Close to 75 percentof the world’s forests are covered by national forest programmes, most of which werestarted since 2000 and are currently in implementation.staff numbers in public forest institutions are decreasingAround 1.3 million people were reported to work in public forest institutions,22 percent of whom were female. At the global level, the number of staff has declinedby 1.2 percent annually since 2000. More than 20 000 professionals work in publicforest research institutions. Forest policy is mostly within the purview of the ministryof agriculture, but only about one-third of heads of forestry agencies report directly tothe minister. The others report to lower levels in the ministry.

150Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010The number of university students graduating in forestry is increasingMore than 60 000 university students graduate in forestry annually. This is about1 per 86 000 inhabitants, or around 200 per 10 million hectares of forests. One-third ofgraduating students are female, and this proportion is increasing.Key cOncLusiOnsThe high response rate on this theme, particularly from developing countries, inthis first reporting within the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessments providesimportant global reference data. The findings show that countries have been veryactive in developing and updating their forest policies, programmes and legislation inthe years since 2000, often using national forest programmes as a comprehensive forestpolicy framework.The status of, and trends in, human resource capacity in public forest administrationsprovide an indication of a country’s ability to govern its forests. While existing dataindicate that the number of staff is decreasing, little is known about trends in staffquality. It is also noteworthy that only 63 percent of countries provided informationon human resources.In many countries national capacities in forest education and research seem to beinadequate to support the sustainable development of the forestry sector and respondto new issues. While the data indicate growing numbers of university level graduates, itremains unclear how well this education enables them – including graduates working inforest research institutions – to face up to the challenges of a globalized world.POLicy and LegaL framewOrKintroductionThe national or subnational policy framework on forests and their management aimsto guide decision-making and provide a clear sense of direction over time. In thecontext of international commitments many countries have agreed to use ‘nationalforest programmes’ (NFPs) as a comprehensive framework in order to develop andimplement their forest policies. The legal framework provides a key instrumentin support of the national forest policy. Together the national policy and the legalframework related to forests constitute the basis for sustainable forest management.statusGlobally, 181 countries and areas reported on forest policies. Of these, 143 countries(more than 80 percent), accounting for more than 70 percent of the total forest area,responded that they had a forest policy statement. The large majority of countriesreported that they had a national level policy statement; only eight countries – amongthem Brazil – reported that they had subnational statements but no national forestpolicy statement. Thirty-eight countries and areas reported that they did not have aforest policy statement. Countries without a forest policy statement were mainly foundin Western and Central Asia, Europe and Africa. Fifty-two countries and areas did notreport on this variable.A total of 178 countries and areas reported on NFPs. Almost three-quarters ofthese (74 percent, 131 countries) stated that they had an NFP as of 2008. Together,these countries account for around 75 percent of the global forest area (Figure 8.1).Only a few countries had a forest policy statement but no NFP, and even fewerreported that they had an NFP but no policy statement. Around two-thirds of theresponding countries (66 percent) reported that their NFP was in the implementationstage. In close to one-third of the remaining countries, NFPs were either indevelopment or under revision. In a few countries the NFP process was stalled at thetime of reporting. Forty-seven countries stated that they had no NFP, while 55 did notprovide data. Overall, more NFPs were reported in Africa and Europe compared with

Legal, policy and institutional framework 151Figure 8.1Percentage of forest area covered by national forest programmes byregion and subregion, 2008AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth America02040(%)6080100other regions, while North America had the lowest proportion of countries reportingan NFP.Of the 233 countries and areas included in FRA 2010, 182 (covering 99.4 percentof the world’s forests) reported on forest legislation. The remaining 51 countries andareas, with a combined forest area of 24.7 million hectares (0.6 percent of the world’sforests), did not report. Forest management is regulated through a specific forest lawin 156 countries, or 86 percent of those reporting. In the vast majority of these (150countries) a specific forest law exists at the national level, while in six countries forestsare regulated through subnational but not national legislation. Seventeen countriesreported that forests are not covered through specific laws but are incorporated underother legislation. Nine countries, mostly small island states, reported that forests arenot covered under legislation at all. Eight of these nine also reported no forest policystatement or NFP. Six countries govern their forests through national forest legislationonly, without a forest policy statement or NFP. Two countries reported the existenceof a forest policy statement but did not have specific forest legislation.Table 8.1 summarizes the information on forest policies, NFPs and forest laws byregion and subregion. Box 8.1 lists the main international conventions and agreementsrelated to forests and the extent to which countries have ratified or adopted these. Forcountry-level information, see Table 16 and Table 20 in Annex 3.TrendsA large majority of national forest policy statements were issued comparatively recently:more than a quarter (28 percent) of statements with known issue dates are from the lastfive years, and more than half of the statements date from the last decade (see Figure8.2). In a number of countries processes to develop a forest policy are ongoing or haverecently concluded. Almost twice as many countries issued forest policy statements inthe 2000s compared with the 1990s. Over the last five years, on average more than tencountries have issued a national forest policy statement each year.Following the international commitments made by countries in the context of theIntergovernmental Panel on Forests/Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IPF/IFF)and later the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), it appears that countries havewidely adopted them in one form or another across the globe. Almost three-quarters(85 of the 115 NFPs whose starting year was reported in FRA 2010) began since 2000,and one-third began comparatively recently, since 2006. Only around one-fifth of thecountries (25) reported that they started their NFP in 1999 or earlier. This indicates thatan increasing number of countries have made efforts more recently to use NFPs as anapproach to forest policy development and implementation.The year of enactment of forest legislation currently in force varied widely betweencountries. The forest law in some countries dates back to the 1970s or earlier andchanges in forest legislation in many of these countries are made through amendments

152Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TABLe 8.1number of countries with a national forest policy, nfP and national forest law by region and subregion, 2008region/subregion national forest policy national forestprogrammeexistsdoesnotexistnodataexistsdoesnotexistnodataspecificforestlawnational forest lawincorporatedinother laweastern and Southern Africa 15 5 3 15 5 3 17 1 2 3Northern Africa 4 2 2 3 2 3 5 1 0 2Western and Central Africa 21 3 2 21 1 4 21 1 1 3Total africa 40 10 7 39 8 10 43 3 3 8east Asia 3 1 1 4 0 1 4 0 0 1South and Southeast Asia 16 2 0 15 3 0 15 2 1 0Western and Central Asia 11 8 6 11 9 5 17 1 2 5Total asia 30 11 7 30 12 6 36 3 3 6Total europe 27 11 12 31 6 13 33 2 3 12Caribbean 10 4 13 8 6 13 10 3 2 12Central America 6 0 1 6 0 1 6 0 0 1North America 4 0 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1Total north and central america 20 4 15 15 9 15 18 4 3 14Total Oceania 10 4 11 6 8 11 8 4 2 11Total south america 8 6 0 10 4 0 12 1 1 0world 135 46 52 131 47 55 150 17 15 51nolawnodataFigure 8.2date of endorsement of forest policy statementBefore 19841985–19891990–19941995–19992000–20042005–200901020304050 60 70(number of countries)AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth Americarather than by enacting a new law. Most existing forest laws are a decade old or less. Infact, the number of countries enacting new forest legislation each year has considerablyincreased over the last decades. In the mid-1970s, only around two countries enacteda new forest law each year, rising to about four per year in the 1980s. Since the mid-1990s, however, every year six to eight countries have enacted new forest legislation andeven more countries have amended their forest laws. Around 63 percent of countries(100 out of the 159 countries that provided data) reported that their latest amendmenttook place in, or after, the year 2000. For a few others, however, the latest amendmentoccurred in the mid-1970s. In around half of all 159 reporting countries the currentlyvalid forest law – either enacted or amended – is from 2004 or later (see Figure 8.3).On a regional scale, on average, forest legislation is most recent in European countries,followed by Africa. In comparison, in countries of North and Central America and inOceania current legislation averages more than a decade in age.

Legal, policy and institutional framework 153BOx 8.1international conventions and agreements related to forestsA number of binding and non-binding international conventions and agreementsrelate to forests and their management. Among the non-binding agreements, the Non-Legally Binding instrument on All Types of Forests, adopted by the uN general Assemblyin 2007, is particularly important. Prior agreements are the Non-Legally BindingAuthoritative Statement of Principles for a global Consensus on the Management,Conservation and Sustainable Development of all Types of Forests, also known as the‘Forest Principles’, and ‘Chapter 11 of Agenda 21: Combating Deforestation’. Theseboth resulted from the united Nations Conference on environment and Development(uNCeD) in rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992.There are several legally-binding international conventions and agreements relatedto the sustainable management and conservation of forests. These internationalconventions and agreements rely for their impact on ratification by individual countries.Once ratified, the agreements are incorporated into the signatory countries’ nationallegal frameworks, through which they take effect.For the purposes of FrA 2010, the ratification status of international conventionsand agreements related to forests were compiled based on information provided ontheir official web sites. The detailed ratification status is shown in Table 20 in Annex 3and summarized below. The total number of countries refer to those countries thathave either ratified, acceded to, approved, accepted or adopted a convention or anagreement.number of countriesconvention or agreementas of 1 January 2010Non-Legally Binding instrument on All Types of Forests 192Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 192united Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (uNFCCC) 193Kyoto Protocol 191united Nations Convention on Combating Desertification (uNCCD) 192Convention on international Trade in endangered Species of Wild Fauna175and Flora (CiTeS)Convention on Wetlands of international importance (ramsar) 160World Heritage Convention 187international Tropical Timber Agreement (iTTA) 60sources:NLBi: http://www.un.org/en/members/CBD: http://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list/uNFCCC: http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/items/2352.phpKyoto Protocol: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.phpuNCCD: http://www.unccd.int/convention/ratif/doeif.phpCiTeS: http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/parties/alphabet.shtmlramsar: http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-about-parties-contracting-parties-to-23808/main/ramsar/1-36-123%5e23808_4000_0__World Heritage Convention: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/iTTA: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/

154Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Figure 8.3date of enactment of forest legislationBefore 19841985–19891990–19941995–19992000–20042005–200901020304050 60 70(number of countries)AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth AmericaconclusionsThe results of FRA 2010 indicate that developing and issuing forest policy statementshas become considerably more widespread over the last decade – almost equallyacross the countries around the globe. This is an indication that more attention isbeing given to developing and updating formal policies and, often, to communicatingthem. If properly developed and implemented, for example in the context of an NFPprocess, such policies provide effective strategic guidance towards sustainable forestmanagement.Following the commitments made in the context of the IPF/IFF, and later UNFF,countries reported that NFPs have indeed been widely taken up as a comprehensiveapproach to forest policy development. However, in many countries an NFP still tendsto be understood as a programming document, rather than an ongoing forest policyprocess. Several of the NFP elements are comparatively new in forest policy processes:in particular, the strong emphasis on broad stakeholder participation and the focuson cross-sectoral coordination. Given the often major differences from traditionalapproaches, the progress made in adopting and integrating new elements over a shortperiod of time varies across countries. The real added value of the NFP approach,however, accrues over time and with experience of iterative NFP cycles.Most countries reported that they have enacted or amended their forest legislationrelatively recently, enabling them to take into account the multitude of changesover the last decades and to recognize better the broad concept of sustainable forestmanagement. If the legislation is sound and enforced this should provide a solid basisfor the sustainable management of forests.insTiTuTiOnaL framewOrKintroductionThe importance of institutional structure and capacity in achieving national goalsfor forest management is increasingly being recognized. For the first time, in FRA2010, countries were invited to submit information regarding their forest institutionalstructure, including: main responsibility for forest policy formulation; the ministry towhich the national forestry agency reports; the level of subordination to the ministerand human resource levels, disaggregated by gender and level of education.statusCountries were asked to report which ministry held the main responsibility for forestpolicy formulation in 2008. A total of 168 countries and areas, together accounting for

Legal, policy and institutional framework 15598 percent of the world’s forests, replied. As can be seen in Figure 8.4, forest policyformulation was most commonly within the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture(43 percent of reporting countries). In about 33 percent of reporting countries, itwas a responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment and, in about 20 percent ofcountries, forest policy was the responsibility of multiple ministries, the prime minister,president, or other ministries that feature neither ‘agriculture’ nor ‘environment’ intheir title. This category includes countries where forest policy formulation has beenentirely regionalized, with regional forestry agencies reporting to regional ministriesor their equivalent (e.g. Belgium). It also includes countries where the public forestryagency is autonomous and reports directly to the president, prime minister or a boardof directors (e.g. Paraguay). In 55 of the reporting countries (about one out of three)the word ‘forestry’ featured in the title of the ministry.International negotiations to address climate change through a reduction in emissionsfrom deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) pose a potential challenge tocountries where interministerial coordination is not effective, since these negotiationsare typically carried out by representatives of the ministry of environment, despite thefact that responsibility for taking action may fall within the ministry of agriculture andforestry. As can be seen in Figure 8.4, this is a potential risk for a significant numberof countries.A related question enquired about the level of subordination of the head of theforestry agency to the ministry. A total of 168 countries (72 percent of the total)responded to this question, representing 98 percent of the global forest area. In abouta third of these countries (57) the head of the forestry agency reported directly (firstlevel of subordination) to the minister or held a ministerial level position (as in China).These countries account for 52 percent of the total forest area. Direct reporting to theminister, however, varied greatly among regions (see Table 8.2).Thirty-eight percent of countries (35 percent of forest area) reported at the second levelof subordination (e.g. a vice-minister); 21 percent of countries (7 percent of area) reportedat the third level; and 7 percent of countries (6 percent of area) reported at the fourthlevel of subordination. Overall, in 71 percent of responding countries (covering about87 percent of forest area) the head of forestry reported either directly to a minister orto the next level of subordination.Countries were also asked to report on the level of human resources within publicforest institutions in 2008 (Table 8.3). This question was answered by 146 countries,representing 60 percent of the global forest area. Some large, forest-rich countries likeAustralia, Canada, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Russian Federationdid not report on staff levels.Figure 8.4ministry with main responsibility for forest policy, 2008Agriculture, not environmentenvironment, not agricultureOtherBoth agriculture and environment01020304050 60 70 80(number of countries)With forestry in titleWithout forestry in title

156Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Most countries reported staff numbers at the national and subnational levels.However, some countries only reported a figure for national level staff (e.g. Brazil onlyreported staff levels for federal institutions), only for forestry officers (e.g. Thailand)or only for selected institutions (e.g. United States of America and Mexico). Withthe above caveats, the human resources within public forest institutions amounted toTABLe 8.2first level of subordination of the head of forestry to ministerregion/subregion information availability number ofcountries withnumber of % of total forest1 st level ofcountriesareasubordination% of forest areawith 1 st level ofsubordinationeastern and Southern Africa 20 100.0 2 n.s.Northern Africa 6 98.8 4 98.5Western and Central Africa 23 96.8 6 10.6Total africa 49 98.3 12 16.4east Asia 4 97.4 3 95.2South and Southeast Asia 13 87.7 3 58.0Western and Central Asia 18 71.5 3 20.8Total asia 35 90.5 9 72.4Total europe 36 99.3 20 91.7Caribbean 14 83.6 5 8.9Central America 6 93.1 4 81.3North America 3 100.0 1 9.7Total north and central america 23 99.6 10 11.6Total Oceania 12 99.6 1 4.2Total south america 13 100.0 5 65.0world 168 98.1 57 52.0TABLe 8.3Human resource levels per unit of forest area 2008 and changes between 2000 and 2008region/subregion information availability number of staff 2008 % of total annual changestaff with ratenumber of % of total Totalperuniversity 2000–2008countries forest area100 000 hadegree (2008) (%)eastern and Southern Africa 18 96.2 22 819 9 3.8 -2.6Northern Africa 6 98.8 24 587 32 13.4 -0.1Western and Central Africa 20 41.7 25 782 18 33.4 2.3Total africa 44 70.0 73 188 15 17.0 n.s.east Asia 4 97.4 746 300 317 35.7 -1.6South and Southeast Asia 14 89.6 306 600 114 20.1 -0.3Western and Central Asia 13 48.1 33 498 163 33.8 -0.7Total asia 31 89.8 1 086 398 207 21.8 1.3Total europe 29 16.0 81 120 51 18.7 1.0Caribbean 11 53.6 4 146 115 12.5 2.1Central America 6 53.6 1 167 6 61.4 n.s.North America 2 54.2 32 577 9 55.1 –Total north and central19 55.4 37 890 10 50.6 1.9americaTotal Oceania 11 21.6 2 732 6 49.1 2.8Total south america 12 93.1 5 215 1 47.4 2.2world 146 59.7 1 286 543 53 23.2 1.2

Legal, policy and institutional framework 157about 1.3 million people, mostly concentrated in Asia (1.1 million), Europe (81 000)and Africa (78 000). Only about 5 000 were reportedly employed in South America.Levels of human resources can be used to estimate the number of staff per 100 000ha, a partial indicator of the institutional capacity to promote forest objectives. Regionsexhibited large differences. Staffing levels per 100 000 ha ranged from higher than 100in Asia and the Caribbean to lower than 10 in Central, North and South America andOceania, with figures somewhere in the middle in Africa and Europe. This variabilityappears to correlate with population density, so densely populated countries havehigher personnel levels per unit of forest area. When staffing levels per unit area areplotted against total forest area, there appears to be a positive correlation between thetwo variables meaning that more forested countries have lower human resource levelsper unit area, as would be expected. The country with the highest number of staff per100 000 ha was Egypt (9 700 or almost one staff member per 10 ha) while Venezuelahad the lowest number of staff per 100 000 ha (0.17 or almost one member of staff perhalf a million hectares).Fewer countries responded to the question on the number of staff in public forestinstitutions with a university degree. Only 119 countries (or 51 percent of the total)reported on this question for 2008, representing 35 percent of the global forest area,and information was missing for several of the larger countries. A total of about104 000 professionals were employed in the reporting countries. On average, aboutone in five members of staff (23 percent) in public forest institutions had a universitydegree. This percentage varied from 17 percent in Africa to over 50 percent in Northand Central America.The percentage of female staff in 2008 was reported by 124 countries (or 53 percentof the total, representing 40 percent of the global forest area). Globally, countriesreported that about one in five (22 percent) of total staff members were female. Thispercentage varied from less than 18 percent in Africa and Europe to over 30 percent inNorth and Central America (see Figure 8.5).The percentage of female professional staff in 2008 was reported by 109 countries(or 47 percent of the total, representing 33 percent of the global forest area). In 2008,19 percent of professional staff members were female. The proportion of female staffwas highest among professionals in the reporting countries of North and CentralAmerica and lowest in Asia.TrendsStaff of public forest institutions decreased globally between 2000 and 2008 by9.1 percent, or 1.2 percent annually. These decreases were mostly concentrated inAsia and Europe. On the other hand, North, Central and South America and Oceaniaexperienced an increase while numbers in Africa remained basically unchanged.Reported decreases may reflect a reduction in staffing levels but also a redefinitionof jurisdiction, a distribution of assets to other agencies (e.g. South Africa andMozambique), privatization of functions previously performed by public forestagencies, or structural changes (e.g. Georgia). The number of professional staff grewat an annual rate of 0.4 percent between 2000 and 2008, suggesting an increasingprofessionalization of public forest agencies.Between 2000 and 2008, the proportion of female staff diminished slightly,from 23.5 percent to 22.1 percent. Indeed, this global decrease is mostly a result ofreductions in the Eastern and Southern Africa and the East Asia subregions, as all otherregions experienced an increase or no change in the proportion of female staff. Only66 countries (representing 21 percent of the global forest area) reported figures thatcould be used to compare the percentage of professional female staff between 2000 and2008. Globally, the percentage of women among professional staff remained basicallyunchanged.

158Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Figure 8.5Percentage of female staff in public forest institutions by region, 2008AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth AmericaWorld0510152025 30 35(%)Of total staffOf professional staffconclusionsAs the role of forests in climate change mitigation becomes increasingly recognized,so does the need for improved interministerial coordination, in particular amongministries of environment and ministries of agriculture and/or forestry. This isparticularly important where forest policy formulation and climate change policy arewithin the purview of separate ministries.It is noteworthy that only 63 percent of countries reported figures on total humanresources working in public forest institutions. Many large countries (e.g. Australia,Canada, Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Russian Federation) did not reporton this variable, presumably because their decentralized institutional structures madecompiling this level of information very difficult. Since this is the first time that countrieshave reported on such data, full comparability among them cannot be expected.Are current staffing levels in public forest institutions appropriate to promotesustainable forest management? Unfortunately, this question cannot be easily answeredbecause many factors contribute to overall institutional capacity including financialresources, knowledge, technology, infrastructure and equipment, partnerships andoverall institutional context (e.g. policies, legal framework and other institutions).Furthermore, the appropriateness of staffing levels also depends on society’s demandson forests which, in turn, are driven by demographic, geographic, environmental andclimatic factors, as well as the level of economic development and national priorities.educaTiOn and researcHintroductionInformation about education and research provides a useful indication of a country’smanagerial, technical and administrative capacity for sustainable forest managementand its ability to adapt the forestry sector to complex challenges such as climate change.The number of students completing a master’s degree is one indicator of the futurenational ability to develop and implement policies and strategies for sustainableforest management; the number of bachelor’s degrees can provide an indicator ofthe ability to manage programmes and implement policies; and technical certificatesor diplomas indicate the ability to implement operational plans. The total number

Legal, policy and institutional framework 159of university students who graduate with master’s and bachelor’s degrees may alsoindicate the importance society accords to forests and their management. The numberof professionals working in publicly funded forest research is an indication of thenational interest in, and capacity to solve, forestry sector issues, while the percentageof female students points to possible future changes in the gender balance in forestry.statusIn 2008, 125 countries representing more than 70 percent of the total forest cover,reported that a total of 106 800 students completed an education in forest sciences. Ofthese, 62 600 were university students (13 200 completing a master’s degree and 49 400a bachelor’s degree) and 44 200 obtained a forest technician’s certificate (see Figure 8.6).Globally, the ratio of master’s to bachelor’s degrees was about one to four, butthe pattern varied considerably between and within regions. For example, the lownumber of bachelor’s degrees in Europe is partly due to the fact that the educationsystem in many countries provides a combination of bachelor’s and master’s degreesin forestry, but is also a result of the lack of data for several large countries, includingthe Russian Federation. The lower number of technical certificates compared withbachelor’s degrees is surprising. It highlights the particular difficulty of compiling dataat the global level about technical certificate students focusing on forestry. Techniciansoften receive a broad technical education which includes forestry, agriculture andenvironment, and the forestry part is not necessarily mentioned in the title. Theinformation related to master’s and bachelor’s degrees appears to be more coherent asit is gathered mainly from universities and faculties of forestry.It may be assumed that a society that educates more students in forest scienceswould be better prepared for future challenges related to forest conservation andFigure 8.6graduation of students in forestrelated education, 2008AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaSouth AmericaWorld010 00020 00030 00040 00050 000(number of graduates)Master’s degreeBachelor’s degreeTechnical certificateNote: Oceania is not included as Australia and New Zealand did not report.

160Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010management. The readiness of the forestry sector to respond to such challengescan therefore be assessed by calculating the ratio of university educated students inforest sciences to the total population or forest area. In 2008, globally one universitystudent graduated per 86 300 people, or one per 44 200 ha of forest. Figure 8.7 showsthe number of university graduates for every 10 million people and every 10 millionhectares by region. The number of graduates per 10 million hectares of forest in Asiawas very high in comparison with other regions as a result of the large number ofuniversity students graduating in China.Female students made up about 31 percent of total master’s students, 36 percent ofbachelor’s students and 16 percent of technicians. However, some significant forestcountries did not provide gender disaggregated information. Asia, North and CentralAmerica and Oceania had the highest proportions of female students in 2008, whileEurope and Africa had the lowest (see Figure 8.8).A total of 124 countries, representing 53 percent of the total forest area, reportedthat about 21 000 professionals were working in publicly funded research centres in2008. Information was missing from many countries with large forest areas includingAustralia, Canada and the Russian Federation. About 25 percent of the total forestresearch workforce held a Ph.D. degree. When related to the total forest area of thereporting countries, this is equivalent to one Ph.D. per 417 000 ha of forest. Europehad by far the highest number of Ph.D. level researchers per unit of forest area (seeFigure 8.9).TrendsBetween 2000 and 2008 the trend in numbers of students graduating in forest scienceswas generally positive. Countries that reported on master’s and bachelor’s degreesrepresent about 50 percent of world forest area, and indicated that the number ofmaster’s students increased by about 8 percent annually and bachelor’s students by13 percent per year over the period. This increase varied between regions and subregions.Asia accounted for the largest change with an annual increase of 17 percent in master’sand 16 percent in bachelor’s graduates; Africa and America saw rises of between 4 and8 percent per year in the number of master’s and bachelor’s students graduating inFigure 8.7ratio of university graduates to population and forest area, 2008AfricaAsiaeurope excl. russian FederationNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth AmericaWorld02004006008001 000graduates/population (10 million inhabitants)graduates/forest (10 million ha)(number of graduates)

Legal, policy and institutional framework 161Figure 8.8Percentage of female graduates in forestrelated education, 2008AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth AmericaWorld010Master’s degree20(%)304050Bachelor’s degreeTechnical certificateFigure 8.9number of Ph.d. researchers in public forest research institutions per million hectares of forest, 2008AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth AmericaWorld0246810 12 14 16(number of researchers per million ha)Note: Several large countries, including Australia, Canada and the russian Federation, did not report on this variableforest sciences. Europe showed an annual increase of only 1 percent for master’s and4 percent for bachelor’s degrees.Fewer countries, representing only 33 percent of total forest area, reported ontechnicians and the trend was less positive at this level of education. Africa andSouth America showed a negative trend (-0.5 percent and -6.0 percent per annumrespectively), while the United States of America showed the greatest increase with16 percent annually.Changing numbers of university students (master’s plus bachelor’s degrees) maytranslate into a changed potential for influencing society on current and futureforest-related issues. Between 2000 and 2008, the total number of the foresters whograduated from university steadily increased for most regions by 2 to 8 percent per

162Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010year, and globally by 11.7 percent per year on average. This trend is strongly influencedby China which significantly increased the number of university students in forestsciences between 2000 and 2008.Data from the few countries (68) that reported on the proportion of femalegraduates confirmed the progressive increase in the proportion of women studyingforest sciences at university between 2000 and 2008. At the global level this changewas about 2.1 percent annually, taking the proportion of female forestry students atuniversity level from 30 percent in 2000 to about 34 percent in 2008.In countries where a time series was reported the total number of Ph.D. and master’sdegrees held by the publicly-funded forest research workforce increased by about2 percent per year between 2000 and 2008, while the number of research staff withbachelor’s degrees increased by 1 percent annually.conclusionsAdequate national forest education and research capacity is essential for providing theinformation and knowledge needed to manage, conserve and enhance forest resources.General trends in education numbers do not suggest an imminent collapse in theprofession. However, the magnitude and diversity of demands on forests and therelated threats and opportunities have grown significantly in recent decades in manycountries. To address these new challenges, education and research systems need toprovide appropriate skills and knowledge. An assessment of whether existing capacitiesare appropriate is not feasible on the basis of the data reported and must be carried outat country level.

163Chapter 9Progress towards sustainableforest managementIntroductIonChapters 2 to 8 of this report focus on the results for each of the seven thematicelements of sustainable forest management. As indicated in those chapters andillustrated in Figure 9.1, forests are managed for a variety of uses and values. But howwell are they managed? What does the information provided in FRA 2010 tell usabout the overall progress towards sustainable forest management since 1990 at global,regional and subregional scales?The analysis presented in this chapter focuses first on the status of forestmanagement and then on progress towards sustainable forest management morebroadly, by illustrating aggregated findings from FRA 2010 covering all seventhematic elements of sustainable forest management.The purpose of this analysis is to shed more light on some of the complexities ofsustainable forest management and stimulate additional analyses and debate, thuspromoting decision-making and action for further progress.StAtuS oF ForESt MAnAGEMEntIn addition to reporting on the area of forest designated for specific functions,countries were asked to report on four additional variables to illustrate the status offorest management:• the area of forest in protected areas;• the area of permanent forest estate;• the area of forest with a management plan;• the area of forest under sustainable forest management.The analysis of the data for the first variable can be found in Chapter 3 on BiologicalDiversity. The remaining three variables are discussed here. Country-level data can befound in Table 6 in Annex 3.Figure 9.1designated functions of the world’s forests, 2010(%)Production 30Protection of soil and water 8Conservation of biodiversity 12Social services 4Multiple use 24Other 7unknown 16

164Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Area of permanent forest estateThe area of permanent forest estate indicates the area of forest designated to be retainedas forest. As such, trends in this variable over time are a better indicator of progresstowards sustainable forest management than trends in the total forest area in countrieswhere certain forest areas have been set aside for future conversion to other uses (e.g.agriculture, infrastructure or urban expansion) through a transparent and technicallysound decision-making process.FRA 2010 was the first time countries were asked to report on the area ofpermanent forest estate and some countries clearly had difficulties identifying theequivalent designation in their national classification systems. Nevertheless, a totalof 122 countries, together accounting for 84 percent of the total forest area providedinformation on this variable. At the global level, an estimated 52 percent of thetotal forest area is designated as permanent forest estate or its equivalent in 2010 (seeTable 9.1).A number of countries were unable to provide a full data series (for 1990, 2000,2005 and 2010). However, information from 107 countries and areas (representing77 percent of the world’s forests) indicates that the permanent forest estate increasedby almost 15 million hectares per year in the 1990s and close to 10 million hectares peryear since 2000 (Table 9.2).Area of forest with a management planThe area of forest with a management plan provides another indication of progresstowards sustainable forest management, although it must be noted that areas without aplan – including inaccessible areas – may also be conserved and sustainably managed,while the mere existence of a plan does not provide assurance that the plan is sound, isbeing implemented, or has the intended effect.A total of 121 countries, representing 79 percent of the global forest area,reported on this variable. These reports indicate that at least 1.6 billion hectaresof forest are covered by a management plan with a duration of ten years or moreTABLe 9.1Area of permanent forest estate by region and subregion, 2010region/subregion Information availability Area of permanentforest estatenumber ofcountries% of totalforest area1 000 ha % of forestareaeastern and Southern Africa 17 78.1 86 000 41.2Northern Africa 6 98.8 67 147 86.2Western and Central Africa 18 51.8 87 402 51.4total Africa 41 67.7 240 548 52.7east Asia 3 95.3 230 908 95.1South and Southeast Asia 8 73.9 167 533 77.0Western and Central Asia 13 49.3 18 291 85.2total Asia 24 81.3 416 732 86.5europe excl. russian Federation 29 69.7 120 459 88.2total Europe 30 94.1 301 155 31.8Caribbean 6 51.2 3 182 89.7Central America 1 16.7 164 5.0North America 4 90.5 418 604 68.2total north and central America 11 88.0 421 950 68.0total oceania 7 99.0 36 854 19.4total South America 9 82.2 349 534 49.2World 122 84.4 1 766 774 51.9

Progress towards sustainable forest management 165TABLe 9.2trends in area of permanent forest estate by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregionInformationavailabilitynumberofcountries% oftotalforestareaArea of permanent forest estate(1 000 ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000Annual change(1 000 ha)2000–2010Annual changerate (%)eastern and Southern 15 74.0 87 512 85 990 85 239 84 537 -152 -145 -0.18 -0.17AfricaNorthern Africa 6 98.8 66 851 66 940 67 056 67 147 9 21 0.01 0.03Western and Central 17 48.6 86 688 86 320 76 829 78 867 -37 -745 -0.04 -0.90Africatotal Africa 38 64.6 241 050 239 249 229 123 230 550 -180 -870 -0.07 -0.37east Asia 2 85.5 169 677 188 718 204 352 217 759 1 904 2 904 1.07 1.44South and Southeast Asia 8 73.9 180 756 171 634 169 992 167 533 -912 -410 -0.52 -0.24Western and Central Asia 11 42.7 11 957 15 242 16 318 18 271 328 303 2.46 1.83total Asia 21 76.6 362 390 375 594 390 662 403 563 1 320 2 797 0.36 0.72europe excl. russian 27 66.8 105 451 113 334 115 534 118 484 788 515 0.72 0.45Federationtotal Europe 28 93.5 249 647 299 483 301 975 299 180 4 984 -30 1.84 -0.01Caribbean 4 50.4 2 356 2 731 2 993 3 165 38 43 1.49 1.48Central America 1 16.7 0 164 164 164 16 0 - 0North America 4 90.5 407 048 413 242 415 923 418 604 619 536 0.15 0.13total north and central 9 88.0 409 403 416 138 419 080 421 933 673 580 0.16 0.14Americatotal oceania 6 21.0 4 795 4 950 5 072 5 073 16 12 0.32 0.25total South America 5 71.8 133 821 215 435 258 923 288 415 8 161 7 298 4.88 2.96World 107 77.1 1 401 106 1 550 849 1 604 835 1 648 715 14 974 9 787 1.02 0.611990–20002000–2010(Table 9.3). The true figure is undoubtedly higher as information was missing frommany countries.Information on trends over time was more limited with a full data series onlyavailable for 94 countries and areas, covering 64 percent of the world’s forests.However, there was a clear increasing trend in the area of forest with a managementplan in all regions and subregions over the last 20 years (see Table 9.4 and Figure9.2). Particularly noteworthy is the rapid increase in this area over the last ten years,primarily in East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and South America.Area of forest under sustainable forest managementFRA 2010 is the first time countries have been asked to provide an estimate of the areaof forest considered to be under sustainable forest management in the FRA process.Because there is no agreed definition or assessment methodology, this was considereda pilot assessment and countries were also asked to provide the definition, criteria andmethod used to assess the area under sustainable forest management. The purpose ofthis pilot was to obtain information on how countries might define and assess thisindicator as an input to future discussions on the topic at subregional, regional andglobal levels, in anticipation of the need for countries to report on it as part of theassessment of progress towards the Global Objectives on Forests by 2015. Wherecountries did not have established assessment criteria, it was suggested that they mightwish to use or adapt those applied by ITTO in its assessment of the Status of TropicalForest Management (ITTO, 2006), which were as follows:“Forest areas that fulfil any of the following conditions:• have been independently certified or in which progress towards certification isbeing made;

166Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TABLe 9.3Area of forest with a management plan by region and subregion, 2010region/subregion Information availability Area of forest witha management plannumber ofcountries% of totalforest area1 000 ha % offorest areaeastern and Southern Africa 15 86.3 45 607 19.8Northern Africa 6 98.8 17 693 22.7Western and Central Africa 19 96.2 42 410 13.4total Africa 40 92.6 105 710 16.9east Asia 4 97.8 156 920 63.0South and Southeast Asia 8 52.9 102 131 65.6Western and Central Asia 11 47.2 16 017 78.0total Asia 23 71.7 275 068 64.7europe excl. russian Federation 33 91.7 127 621 71.0total Europe 34 98.4 936 711 94.7Caribbean 5 46.6 2 531 78.4Central America 4 60.7 1 247 10.5North America 2 44.8 206 084 67.8total north and central America 11 45.2 209 862 65.8total oceania 7 84.0 38 728 24.1total South America 6 79.2 110 119 16.1World 121 79.4 1 676 199 52.3TABLe 9.4trends in area of forest with a management plan by region and subregion, 1990–2010region/subregionInformationavailabilitynumberofcountries% oftotalforestareaArea of forest witha management plan (1 000 ha)1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000Annual change(1 000 ha)2000–2010Annual changerate (%)eastern and Southern 11 62.5 10 982 10 845 11 126 31 157 -14 2 031 -0.13 11.13AfricaNorthern Africa 5 10.1 1 014 1 582 2 095 2 838 57 126 4.55 6.01Western and Central 15 39.5 1 238 4 750 9 571 24 167 351 1 942 14.39 17.67Africatotal Africa 31 45.2 13 234 17 178 22 793 58 163 394 4 098 2.64 12.97east Asia 4 97.8 62 687 82 200 141 800 156 920 1 951 7 472 2.75 6.68South and Southeast Asia 6 49.8 68 574 92 134 98 239 99 010 2 356 688 3.00 0.72Western and Central Asia 9 39.8 13 631 14 398 15 123 15 709 77 131 0.55 0.88total Asia 19 69.7 144 891 188 731 255 162 271 639 4 384 8 291 2.68 3.71europe excl. russian29 75.3 111 368 112 156 113 415 114 054 79 190 0.07 0.17Federationtotal Europe 30 95.2 920 318 921 425 922 205 923 144 111 172 0.01 0.02Caribbean 2 44.7 1 974 861 1 337 2 487 -111 163 -7.96 11.19Central America 2 18.1 87 110 86 71 2 -4 2.39 -4.31North America 2 44.8 184 679 195 731 200 907 206 084 1 105 1 035 0.58 0.52total north and central 6 44.0 186 740 196 702 202 330 208 642 996 1 194 0.52 0.59Americatotal oceania 6 6.0 6 169 6 699 6 980 6 947 53 25 0.83 0.36total South America 2 68.0 62 344 72 605 78 229 91 970 1 026 1 937 1.54 2.39World 94 64.1 1 333 696 1 403 340 1 487 698 1 560 504 6 964 15 716 0.51 1.071990–20002000–2010

Progress towards sustainable forest management 167Figure 9.2trends in area of forest with a management plan by region, 1990–2010AfricaAsiaeuropeNorth and Central AmericaOceaniaSouth America0200400600 8001 000(million ha)1990 20052000 2010• have fully developed, long-term (ten years or more) forest management plans withfirm information that these plans are being implemented effectively;• are considered as model forest units in their country and information is availableon the quality of management;• are community-based forest management units with secure tenure for which thequality of management is known to be of high standard;• are protected areas with secure boundaries and a management plan that aregenerally considered in the country and by other observers to be well managedand that are not under significant threat from destructive agents.”Although this was not an easy task, 104 countries and areas, together accountingfor 62 percent of the world’s forests provided estimates of the area under sustainableforest management for 2010, and 110 countries covering 81 percent of the global forestarea provided an estimate for at least one point in time. Unfortunately, they did not allprovide information on the definition, assessment criteria and method used.Due to differences in definitions, it is not possible to compare the results by countryor to generate regional or global totals and no attempts have been made to do so. Figure9.3 illustrates the range in the proportion of the forest area considered to be undersustainable forest management by region. The 82 countries that provided a full dataseries clearly indicated a positive trend in the total forest area considered to be undersustainable forest management.A separate publication (FAO, 2010c) provides a more detailed analysis of thedefinitions, assessment criteria and methods applied by countries.

168Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Figure 9.3Variation in proportion of forest area under sustainable forest management by subregion, 2010eastern and Southern AfricaNorthern AfricaWestern and Central Africaeast AsiaSouth and Southeast AsiaWestern and Central AsiaeuropeCaribbeanCentral AmericaNorth AmericaOceaniaSouth America02040range (%)6080100ProGrESS toWArdS SuStAInABLE ForESt MAnAGEMEntTo obtain a broad picture of progress towards sustainable forest management, a sub-setof indicators were selected for each of the seven thematic elements of sustainable forestmanagement and data on trends were compiled and compared at global, regional andsubregional levels across the seven themes. The results can be found in Tables 9.5 to 9.12.MethodologyVariable selectionAs a general rule, three variables were selected from the FRA 2010 reporting tablesfor each of the seven thematic elements, based on their relevance to the theme andinformation availability. No relative weighting of variables was applied. There weretwo exceptions to this rule: there was only one variable available for the protectivefunctions of forest resources and only two variables were chosen for forest health andvitality because of poor information availability and incompatible data.This yielded a total of 18 variables (see Table 9.5) selected from the 17 reportingtables. Some are derived from the variables reported by countries: for example, growingstock per hectare is derived from total growing stock and forest area.An increase in the value of a variable is generally interpreted as making a positivecontribution to the thematic element (with the exception of area of forest affected byfire and by insects) and thereby to sustainable forest management. The extent to whichthis assumption holds depends on local or national circumstances. For example, anincrease in forest area is likely to be seen as a positive development in most countries,but where it is a result of abandonment of agricultural land and declining ruralpopulations, it may not be seen as positive by policy-makers or society.Three variables were selected for analysis of the extent of forest resources: area offorest, growing stock per hectare and total carbon stock in forest biomass.There were no species or population-level indicators in FRA 2010 suitable for aglobal comparison of trends over time, so the biological diversity theme includes thearea of primary forest, areas designated for conservation of biological diversity andarea of forest in protected areas. Primary forests are usually associated with high levelsof biological diversity, particularly in tropical regions, but in temperate and borealecosystems, primary forests can present a limited number of species and may not be agood indicator of species diversity. Yet area of primary forest is an important indicatorof the status of the forest ecosystem as a whole.

Progress towards sustainable forest management 169Forest health and vitality is described by two variables indicating the area affected byfire and the area affected by insect pests. Within this theme, stable or decreasing valuesare seen as a positive contribution to sustainable forest management. It is recognizedthat a number of forest ecosystems are dependant on fire to maintain their vitality andregenerative capacity (particularly in boreal zones). However, fires frequently run wildand destroy large areas of forest, resulting in soil erosion and desertification – a seriousthreat to the sustainable management of natural resources.Three variables represent the productive function of forest resources: the area of forestdesignated for productive purposes, the area of planted forests and total wood removals.This theme seeks to address the need to maintain a high and valuable supply of primaryforest products, while at the same time ensuring that production and harvesting aresustainable and do not compromise the management options of future generations. Thusan increase in wood removals may not be positive in all cases, as the level of removals maynot be sustainable in the long term. Planted forests are not all established and managedfor productive purposes, but most of them represent a potential future source of wood.The protective functions theme is depicted by only one variable indicating the totalarea of forest designated primarily for protection of soil and water.Socio-economic functions of forests cover a wide range of benefits to humankind.The variables selected for this analysis are: level of private ownership, employment in theprimary production of goods in forests and related support services and the total valueof wood removals. The level of private ownership is a somewhat ambiguous variable. Insome situations, an increase in this variable may be seen as a benefit for sustainable forestmanagement, indicating devolution of management responsibility and control to individualsor communities. In other cases, it may mean that forest property rights are beingtransferred from the state and concentrated in the hands of relatively few individuals.The legal, policy and institutional framework is represented by the area of forest witha management plan, the level of human resources in public forest institutions and thenumber of university students graduating in forestry annually.Information availabilityMany countries were unable to provide complete data for all variables or for each pointin time. However, presenting data as global and regional aggregations overcomes someof the limitations in data availability on subregional scales. The extent to which countriescan report on this limited set of variables also provides an indication of data availabilityand reporting capacity for the wider range of uses and values that societies expect offorests and a synthesis such as this can be used to expose weaknesses in data and identifythose areas where information collection efforts should be targeted to improve decisionmaking.Rules were created for handling gaps in data in the regions and subregions as follows.Information availability was determined as the sum of the area of forest of those countriesreporting on a given variable, expressed as a percentage of total forest area in the regionor subregion. It is rated high if the reporting countries together represent 75–100 percentof the total forest area, medium if the countries represent 50–74 percent and low if thepercentage is 25–49 percent. If the reporting countries together account for less than25 percent of the total forest area in the region or subregion, no findings are presented asthere are insufficient data.Data analysis and presentation of resultsThe country data included in the calculations are those for which countries have reporteda complete time series for the variable for all reporting years.The annual change rate for each variable is expressed as the compound change rate inpercent for the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2010, with a few exceptions. Thus the ratefor each period is based on two different estimates, the accuracy of which is unknown.

170Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010An arbitrary threshold of +/-0.5 percent per year was selected for all variables in orderto highlight large changes and to distinguish the cases where the difference betweentwo estimates indicates an actual change from those cases where the difference may notbe statistically significant.Simple, three-coloured ‘traffic light’ matrices were prepared to visualize changerates in the variables listed under each thematic area for a particular region. Theseindicate trends in the selected variables over time and the progress they reflect towardssustainable forest management. Trends can thus be positive, negative or with no majorchange (less than 0.5 percent) for each of the 18 variables.The results of this analysis are presented at global, regional and subregional levels.Global resultsTable 9.5 summarizes trends in the selected variables at the global level.Extent of forest resources. The area of forest decreased by an average of 8.3 millionhectares per year over the period 1990–2000 (0.20 percent per year) and by 5.2 millionhectares per year in the last decade (0.13 percent per year). Forest carbon stocks showan annual decrease of about 0.5 Gt per year, while the growing stock per hectare isincreasing slightly. However, none of the change rates exceed the threshold of 0.5percent annually.Forest biological diversity. The area of primary forest decreased by an average of4.7 million hectares per year in the 1990s and 4.2 million hectares per year between2000 and 2010. These figures exclude the Russian Federation, where large differencesin the values over time were due to the introduction of a new classification system. Ona positive note, the area of forest designated for conservation of biological diversityincreased by about 6.3 million hectares per year during the last decade and a similarincrease occurred in the area of forest in protected areas. In both cases the increase isequivalent to nearly 2 percent per year over the last decade.Forest health and vitality. Both the area of forest adversely affected by fire and byinsects show a decrease since 1990. However, information for this theme was missingfor many countries, particularly in Africa, so the figures should be treated withcaution.Productive functions of forest resources. The area of forest designated primarily forproductive purposes decreased by more than 50 million hectares between 1990 and2010, while the area of planted forest increased by about 86 million hectares. Whilenot all planted forests are established and used for productive purposes, these figuresindicate that substantial areas of natural forests previously allocated for productivepurposes are now designated for other uses, while the proportion of wood removalscoming from planted forest is likely to significantly increase in the future. Woodremovals decreased in the 1990s (particularly in the Russian Federation), but increasedrapidly again between 2000 and 2005.Protective functions of forest resources. The area of forest designated primarily forprotection of soil and water increased by an average of 3.1 million hectares per year inthe 1990s and by 2.8 million hectares per year since 2000, a total increase of 59 millionhectares over the last 20 years.Socio-economic functions of forests. The area of privately owned forests increasedby an average of 4 million hectares per year in the period 1990–2000 and by 14.7million hectares per year in the period 2000–2005. At the global level the reportedvalue of wood removals showed no significant change between 1990 and 2000, butincreased by more than 5 percent annually over the period 2000–2005. This suggeststhat roundwood prices recovered somewhat from their decline (in real terms) in thedecade 1990–2000. However, since 2005 they have fallen sharply. Employment in theprimary production of goods in forests decreased by about 1 percent per year in the1990s, but levelled off in the period 2000–2005.

Progress towards sustainable forest management 171TABLe 9.5Progress towards sustainable forest management at the global level, 1990–2010thematic element FrA 2010 variables dataavailabilityextent of forestresourcesForest biologicaldiversityForest health andvitalityProductive functionsof forest resourcesProtective functionsof forest resourcesSocio-economicfunctions of forestsLegal, policyand institutionalframeworkAnnual changerate (%)1990–20002000–20101990–2000Annual change2000–2010Area of forest H -0.20 -0.13 -8 323 -5 211 1 000 hagrowing stock of forests H 0.13 0.14 n.s. n.s. m 3 /haForest carbon stock in livingbiomassH -0.18 -0.17 -538 -502 million tonnesArea of primary forest M -0.40 -0.37 -4 666 -4 188 1 000 haArea of forest designated H 1.14 1.92 3 250 6 334 1 000 haprimarily for conservation ofbiodiversityArea of forest withinH 1.09 1.97 3 040 6 384 1 000 haprotected areasArea of forest affected by M -1.89 -2.15 -345 -338 1 000 hafireArea of forest affected by L -1.88 -0.70 -699 -231 1 000 hainsectsArea of forest designated H -0.18 -0.25 -2 125 -2 911 1 000 haprimarily for productionArea of planted forest H 1.90 2.09 3 688 4 925 1 000 haTotal wood removals H -0.50 1.08 -15 616 33 701 1 000 m 3Area of forest designated H 1.23 0.97 3 127 2 768 1 000 haprimarily for protection ofsoil and waterArea of forest under private H 0.75 2.56 3 958 14 718 1 000 haownershipValue of total woodM -0.32 5.77 -241 4 713 million uS$removalsemployment in primaryM -1.20 -0.11 -126 -10 1 000 FTeproduction of goodsForest area withM 0.51 1.07 6 964 15 716 1 000 hamanagement planHuman resources in public L -1.94 0.07 -23 568 830 total staffforest institutionsNumber of studentsgraduating in forestryunitL 15.67 8.83 4 384 4 081 number ofstudentsNotes: No forecasting to 2010 was done for areas affected by fire and by insects or for the amount and value of wood removals.For these variables estimates were provided for 1990 (an average of the period 1988–1992), 2000 (average of 1998–2002) and2005 (average of 2003–2007). Data on ownership and employment were requested only for 1990, 2000 and 2005. in all these caseschange rates were calculated for the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2005. Data for human resources in public institutions and thenumber of forestry graduates are from 2000, 2005 and 2008; change rates are calculated for 2000–2005 and 2005–2008.H = High (reporting countries represent 75–100% of total forest area)M = Medium (reporting countries represent 50–74% of total forest area)L = Low (reporting countries represent 25–49% of total forest area)= Positive change (greater than 0.50%)= No major change (between -0.50 and 0.50%)= Negative change (less than -0.50%)– = insufficient data to determine trendLegal, policy and institutional framework. The area of forest with a managementplan increased rapidly in the last ten years. However, information is missing for morethan one-third of the world’s forests. Human resources in public forest institutionsdecreased significantly between 2000 and 2005, but remained stable in the period 2005–2008. However, data availability for this variable was exceptionally poor, so the figuresshould be treated with caution. The number of graduates in forestry increased bymore than 4 000 annually over the period 2000–2008. Again, information availabilityon this variable for all reporting years was relatively poor as many countries lackedinformation for the year 2000.

172Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Conclusions. Overall, the situation at the global level has remained relativelystable over the last 20 years. The change in forest area is well below the threshold of0.5 percent per year for a significant change. The largest negative rates (in percentageterms) include the decrease in the area of primary forest over the entire 20-year period;in wood removals and employment in the 1990s; and in human resources in public forestinstitutions during the period 2000–2005. Significant positive trends were reported inthe area of forest designated for the conservation of biological diversity and the area offorest in protected areas (particularly in the last decade), the area of planted forest andthe number of students graduating in forestry. Forests under private ownership and thevalue of wood products showed a positive trend for the period 2000–2005.AfricaTable 9.6 summarizes trends in the selected variables for Africa.Extent of forest resources. The area of forest decreased at an alarming rate duringboth periods in this region. There are indications, however, that the net loss of forestsis slowing down. In the period 1990–2000 the net area change was about -4.0 millionhectares per year, while in the period 2000–2010, it averaged -3.4 million hectares peryear. The decrease in carbon stock was below the threshold of 0.5 percent per year.Growing stock per hectare did not change significantly, but this probably reflects thefact that few countries have more than one estimate of growing stock over time.Forest biological diversity. The area of primary forest in Africa decreased by closeto 700 000 ha annually between 1990 and 2000 and by around 572 000 ha per year in2000–2010. However, information for this variable was missing for some countries –for example, Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Congo Basin(which represents the second largest area of tropical primary forest after the AmazonBasin). Some of this decrease was caused by deforestation, some by alteration of foreststhrough selective logging and other human interventions. This ‘altered’ forest areawas subsequently classified as ‘other naturally regenerated forest’. On a positive note,there has been an increase in the area of forest designated primarily for conservation ofbiological diversity of about 5 million hectares since 1990 and an even greater increasein the area of forest in protected areas. Again, information is missing from several largecountries in the region, so these figures are likely to be underestimates.Forest health and vitality. Data availability was insufficient for trend analysis forboth of the variables representing this theme.Productive functions of forest resources. There was a steady increase in woodremovals from 434 million cubic metres in 1990 to 558 million cubic metres in 2005,or an annual increase of about 8 million cubic metres despite the fact that the areadesignated for production of wood and NWFPs has decreased by more than a millionhectares per year since 1990. Most of the increase in wood removals stemmed fromincreased production of woodfuel, particularly in Western and Central Africa. A largepart of this may have been collected from areas outside forests (other wooded land andtrees outside forests) and some may have come from forests designated for multipleuse – including community forests – rather than from forests designated primarily forproductive purposes. The area of planted forest increased by just under 2.5 millionhectares in the region over the last ten years.Protective functions of forest resources. The area of forest designated for protectionof soil and water shows a slight decrease but this is below the level of 0.5 percentchange per year.Socio-economic functions of forests. The status of the information is generally quiteweak and data availability is particularly low for the value of wood removals and thelevel of employment. The area under private ownership declined slightly in the 1990sbut increased in the period 2000–2005. However, privately owned forests still accountfor less than 4 percent of the total forest area. While the value of wood removals declined

Progress towards sustainable forest management 173TABLe 9.6Progress towards sustainable forest management in Africa, 1990–2010thematic element FrA 2010 variables dataavailabilityextent of forestresourcesForest biologicaldiversityForest health andvitalityProductive functionsof forest resourcesProtective functionsof forest resourcesSocio-economicfunctions of forestsLegal, policyand institutionalframeworkAnnual changerate (%)1990–20002000–20101990–2000Annual change2000–2010Area of forest H -0.56 -0.49 -4 067 -3 414 1 000 hagrowing stock of forests H 0.17 0.12 n.s. n.s. m 3 /haForest carbon stock in livingbiomassH -0.44 -0.42 -262 -242 million tonnesArea of primary forest M -1.21 -1.12 -695 -572 1 000 haArea of forest designated M 0.28 0.67 142 352 1 000 haprimarily for conservationof biodiversityArea of forest withinM 0.54 1.10 251 555 1 000 haprotected areasArea of forest affected by – – – – – 1 000 hafireArea of forest affected by – – – – – 1 000 hainsectsArea of forest designated M -0.40 -0.85 -825 -1 667 1 000 haprimarily for productionArea of planted forest H 1.06 1.75 129 245 1 000 haTotal wood removals H 1.81 1.45 8 549 7 767 1 000 m 3Area of forest designated M -0.13 -0.45 -26 -91 1 000 haprimarily for protection ofsoil and waterArea of forest under private H -1.05 3.25 -243 758 1 000 haownershipValue of total woodL -1.99 6.44 -48 156 million uS$removalsemployment in primaryL 0.70 3.60 2 13 1 000 FTeproduction of goodsForest area withL 2.64 12.97 394 4 098 1 000 hamanagement planHuman resources in public M -1.43 2.42 -797 1 317 total staffforest institutionsNumber of studentsgraduating in forestryunitM 8.11 1.01 147 23 number ofstudentsNotes: No forecasting to 2010 was done for areas affected by fire and by insects or for the amount and value of wood removals.For these variables estimates were provided for 1990 (an average of the period 1988–1992), 2000 (average of 1998–2002) and2005 (average of 2003–2007). Data on ownership and employment were requested only for 1990, 2000 and 2005. in all these caseschange rates were calculated for the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2005. Data for human resources in public institutions and thenumber of forestry graduates are from 2000, 2005 and 2008; change rates are calculated for 2000–2005 and 2005–2008.H = High (reporting countries represent 75–100% of total forest area)M = Medium (reporting countries represent 50–74% of total forest area)L = Low (reporting countries represent 25–49% of total forest area)= Positive change (greater than 0.50%)= No major change (between -0.50 and 0.50%)= Negative change (less than -0.50%)– = insufficient data to determine trendin the 1990s (despite an increase in the amount produced), it increased significantlyduring the period 2000–2005. The level of employment in the primary production ofwood also increased during the 2000–2005 period. However, information availabilityfor all the reporting years was below 30 percent of the total forest area for this variable.Legal, policy and institutional framework. The area of forest with a managementplan increased rapidly over the last ten years (a net increase of more than 4 millionhectares annually). The level of human resources in public forest institutions decreasedin the period 2000–2005 but increased again between 2005 and 2008. The number ofgraduates in forestry increased between 2000 and 2005 but has since levelled off.

174Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Conclusions. On the whole, progress towards sustainable forest management inAfrica has improved when comparing the last decade to the 1990s. The net loss offorest area has slowed down and the areas of forest designated for the conservationof biological diversity included in protected areas have increased slightly. The sharpincrease in the area of forest with a management plan over the last ten years isparticularly good news. The continued, rapid loss of forest area (the second largestof any region during this 20-year period) is, however, still a cause for concern, as isthe loss of primary forests. A summary of information by subregion can be found inTable 9.12.AsiaTable 9.7 summarizes trends in the selected variables for Asia.Extent of forest resources. At the regional level, a net loss of forests of about 600 000 haper year in the 1990s was reversed to form an annual net gain of 2.2 million hectaresin the period 2000–2010. This was largely due to increased afforestation activity in theregion, particularly in China, and despite a continued net loss of forests in South andSoutheast Asia. In the period 1990–2010, the carbon stock in forest biomass decreasedslightly in the region as a whole. There was, however, a large variation among the threesubregions, with a net annual increase in East Asia and in Western and Central Asiaand a significant decrease in South and Southeast Asia. Growing stock per hectare waslargely unchanged, reflecting the fact that few countries had more than one estimate ofgrowing stock per hectare over time. Over the last 20 years, the trend for this themewas largely stable or slightly negative, with some positive trends recently in a numberof countries and some very large variations between subregions and countries.Forest biological diversity. The area of primary forest decreased at a rate of about340 000 ha per year during the last 10 years – almost entirely in the subregion of Southand Southeast Asia. The cause of the decrease was not only deforestation but alsoalteration of forests through selective logging and other human interventions, whichresulted in a subsequent classification of such forests as ‘other naturally regeneratedforest’. About 13 percent of the forest area is currently designated primarily forconservation of biological diversity, representing an average annual increase of1.5 million hectares per year since 2000. The area of forest in protected areas hasincreased by a similar amount and now accounts for almost 24 percent of the totalforest area of the region.Forest health and vitality. The incidence of forest fires decreased, while the areaaffected by insect pests increased in the 1990s and was relatively stable in the 2000–2005period. However, insect pests still affected a relatively small proportion of the totalforest area in Asia (less than 2 percent of the 17 countries that reported on this variable).Productive functions of forest resources. The forest area designated primarily forthe production of wood and NWFPs decreased by almost 3 million hectares per yearin the last decade – most of this due to a logging ban in parts of China. At the sametime, the area of planted forest increased by a similar amount, the highest increase inany region. This rapid expansion took place primarily in China, where the area ofplanted forest increased by about 1.2 million hectares per year in the 1990s and by2.3 million hectares per year in the period 2000–2010. Total wood removals decreasedsignificantly during the 1990s, partly because of the logging ban in China where woodis now being imported, from both within and outside the region. However, the rateof removals increased again in South and Southeast Asia during the period 2000–2005.Several countries in the region noted that the figures for wood removals submitted donot take into account illegal removals or informal collection of woodfuel, so actualremovals may be higher.Protective functions of forest resources. The area of forest designated for protectionof soil and water showed an increase over the past 20 years and grew by an average of

Progress towards sustainable forest management 175TABLe 9.7Progress towards sustainable forest management in Asia, 1990–2010thematic element FrA 2010 variables dataavailabilityextent of forestresourcesForest biologicaldiversityForest health andvitalityProductive functionsof forest resourcesProtective functionsof forest resourcesSocio-economicfunctions of forestsLegal, policyand institutionalframeworkAnnual changerate (%)1990–20002000–20101990–2000Annual change2000–2010Area of forest H -0.10 0.39 -595 2 235 1 000 hagrowing stock of forests H 0.34 -0.17 n.s. n.s. m 3 /haForest carbon stock in livingbiomassH -0.11 -0.31 -40 -112 million tonnesArea of primary forest H -0.43 -0.31 -504 -342 1 000 haArea of forest designated H 0.77 2.08 471 1 461 1 000 haprimarily for conservationof biodiversityArea of forest withinH 1.45 1.46 1 292 1 503 1 000 haprotected areasArea of forest affected by H -2.56 -1.53 -78 -39 1 000 hafireArea of forest affected by L 13.18 0.32 306 14 1 000 hainsectsArea of forest designated H 0.26 -1.21 662 -2 945 1 000 haprimarily for productionArea of planted forest H 2.00 2.82 1 667 2 985 1 000 haTotal wood removals H -0.64 0.18 -4 948 1 364 1 000 m 3Area of forest designated H 1.75 2.18 1 741 2 638 1 000 haprimarily for protection ofsoil and waterArea of forest under private H 4.79 6.27 2 930 5 572 1 000 haownershipValue of total woodM -2.97 4.36 -806 1 091 million uS$removalsemployment in primaryM -0.85 -0.10 -73 -8 1 000 FTeproduction of goodsForest area withM 2.68 3.71 4 384 8 291 1 000 hamanagement planHuman resources in public H -2.14 0.16 -22 922 1 633 total staffforest institutionsNumber of studentsgraduating in forestryunitM 23.89 10.80 3 856 3 522 number ofstudentsNotes: No forecasting to 2010 was done for areas affected by fire and by insects or for the amount and value of wood removals.For these variables estimates were provided for 1990 (an average of the period 1988–1992), 2000 (average of 1998–2002) and2005 (average of 2003–2007). Data on ownership and employment were requested only for 1990, 2000 and 2005. in all these caseschange rates were calculated for the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2005. Data for human resources in public institutions and thenumber of forestry graduates are from 2000, 2005 and 2008; change rates are calculated for 2000–2005 and 2005–2008H = High (reporting countries represent 75–100% of total forest area)M = Medium (reporting countries represent 50–74% of total forest area)L = Low (reporting countries represent 25–49% of total forest area)= Positive change (greater than 0.50%)= No major change (between -0.50 and 0.50%)= Negative change (less than -0.50%)– = insufficient data to determine trend2.6 million hectares per year over the last decade, reflecting greater attention to the roleof forests in the conservation of soil and water, as well as other protective functions.Socio-economic functions of forests. The area of forest under private ownershipincreased significantly during the period 1990–2005, particularly since 2000. Chinaalmost entirely accounted for this increase (some 5.6 million hectares per year onaverage between 2000 and 2005). The value of wood removals decreased in the 1990s,but between 2000 and 2005 increased at a faster rate (in percentage terms) than thevolume of wood removed, indicating an increase in wood price. Employment showeda reduction in the 1990s, but is now stable.

176Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Legal, policy and institutional framework. The area of forest with a managementplan increased significantly and more than 80 million hectares were added in the last tenyears. Most of this increase took place in East Asia (China in particular), while Southand Southeast Asia accounted for the largest increase in forest area with a managementplan in the 1990s. The level of human resources in public forest institutions decreasedbetween 2000 and 2005 but was relatively stable between 2005 and 2008, while thenumber of graduates in forestry increased very rapidly in China between 2000 and2008, strongly affecting the regional totals.Conclusions. Overall, the forest area in Asia is about 16 million hectares larger in2010 than it was in 1990 as a result of large-scale afforestation efforts during the last10–15 years, particularly in China. The decrease in area of primary forest is cause forconcern, while the increase in the forest area designated for conservation of biologicaldiversity, the area of forest in protected areas and forests designated for protectivefunctions is commendable. The area affected by fire decreased while that affectedby insects increased sharply between 1990 and 2000, but then levelled off. Variablesrepresenting the legal, policy and institutional framework are largely positive or stableand information availability in the region is generally good. In short, there has beenmixed progress over the last 20 years at the regional level with large variations betweencountries and subregions. A summary of information by subregion can be found inTable 9.12.EuropeTable 9.8 summarizes trends in the selected variables for Europe.Extent of forest resources. The forest area in Europe increased by an average of776 000 ha per year over the last 20 years. The total carbon stock in forest biomassincreased both as a result of the increase in forest area and because forests in Europebecame more densely stocked. Average volume per hectare increased from 105 to112 cubic metres per hectare (from 132 to 156 cubic metres per hectare if the RussianFederation is excluded, an annual increase of 1.2 cubic metres per hectare per year).Forest biological diversity. Although the Russian Federation provided informationfor all four reporting years, it was excluded from the analysis of primary forest becausethere was a large difference in the reported change rate (from +1.6 million hectares peryear in the 1990s to -0.5 million hectares per year in the period 2000–2005). This isprimarily due to a change in the classification system used rather than actual changesin primary forest area. As a result, the information availability for Europe falls belowthe threshold of 25 percent of the total forest area, so no results are presented at theregional level for this variable. Four percent of forest area is currently designatedprimarily for the conservation of biological diversity. If the Russian Federation isexcluded, this proportion rises to 10 percent. There has been a large increase in this areasince 1990 (more than 900 000 ha per year on average). The area of forest in protectedareas has also increased steadily.Forest health and vitality. The area affected by forest fires increased between 1990and 2000 but decreased between 2000 and 2005. A similar trend was noted for the areaof forest affected by insect pests.Productive functions of forest resources. The total volume of wood removalsdecreased in the 1990s. This was caused by a sharp decline in removals in theRussian Federation in the early 1990s – a result of the transition from a centrallyplannedto a market-based economy. However, removals in Europe including theRussian Federation have since been moving back towards their 1990 level. The areaof planted forest increased slightly over the 20-year period, while the area of forestused primarily for wood production decreased by about 33 million hectares, withcorresponding gains in the areas of forest designated for multiple use, conservationand protective functions.

Progress towards sustainable forest management 177TABLe 9.8Progress towards sustainable forest management in Europe, 1990–2010thematic element FrA 2010 variables dataavailabilityextent of forestresourcesForest biologicaldiversityForest health andvitalityProductive functionsof forest resourcesProtective functionsof forest resourcesSocio-economicfunctions of forestsLegal, policyand institutionalframeworkAnnual changerate (%)1990–20002000–20101990–2000Annual change2000–2010Area of forest H 0.09 0.07 877 676 1 000 hagrowing stock of forests H 0.28 0.32 n.s. n.s. m 3 /haForest carbon stock in livingbiomassH 0.23 0.41 100 181 million tonnesArea of primary forest – – – – – 1 000 haArea of forest designated H 4.65 2.32 1 074 759 1 000 haprimarily for conservationof biodiversityArea of forest withinH 3.94 1.80 911 556 1 000 haprotected areasArea of forest affected by H 4.47 -2.03 49 -27 1 000 hafireArea of forest affected by H 5.14 -9.43 285 -566 1 000 hainsectsArea of forest designated H -0.65 0.04 -3 538 195 1 000 haprimarily for productionArea of planted forest H 1.01 0.60 627 401 1 000 haTotal wood removals H -1.92 2.76 -13 475 18 424 1 000 m 3Area of forest designated H 1.67 0.24 1 386 221 1 000 haprimarily for protection ofsoil and waterArea of forest under private H 1.09 0.63 1 012 624 1 000 haownershipValue of total wood– – – – – million uS$removalsemployment in primaryH -4.32 -1.36 -60 -14 1 000 FTeproduction of goodsForest area withH 0.01 0.02 111 172 1 000 hamanagement planHuman resources in public – – – – – total staffforest institutionsNumber of studentsgraduating in forestryunit– – – – – number ofstudentsNotes: No forecasting to 2010 was done for areas affected by fire and by insects or for the amount and value of wood removals.For these variables estimates were provided for 1990 (an average of the period 1988–1992), 2000 (average of 1998–2002) and2005 (average of 2003–2007). Data on ownership and employment were requested only for 1990, 2000 and 2005. in all these caseschange rates were calculated for the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2005. Data for human resources in public institutions and thenumber of forestry graduates are from 2000, 2005 and 2008; change rates are calculated for 2000–2005 and 2005–2008.H = High (reporting countries represent 75–100% of total forest area)M = Medium (reporting countries represent 50–74% of total forest area)L = Low (reporting countries represent 25–49% of total forest area)= Positive change (greater than 0.50%)= No major change (between -0.50 and 0.50%)= Negative change (less than -0.50%)– = insufficient data to determine trendProtective functions of forest resources. The area of forest designated primarily forprotection of soil and water increased by more than 16 million hectares during theperiod 1990–2010, most of this between 1990 and 2000, and now accounts for 9 percentof the total forest area in Europe.Socio-economic functions of forests. The area of forest under private ownershipincreased by more than 1 million hectares per year in the 1990s but, while still increasing,the rate of change slowed down between 2000 and 2005. To a large extent this is a resultof the recent privatization process in central and eastern European countries. The levelof employment in the primary production of goods in forests decreased, probably due

178Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010to an increase in mechanization and organizational streamlining. There are insufficientdata for an analysis of trends in the value of wood removals due to a lack of informationfrom the Russian Federation for 1990.Legal, policy and institutional framework. The vast majority of the forest area inEurope (95 percent) is subject to a management plan, so the increase in this variable inrecent years is insignificant. The information availability is insufficient to carry out atrend analysis for the other two variables representing this theme.Conclusions. Data availability was generally high for Europe, although results werestrongly influenced by the Russian Federation. The status of forest resources in Europehas essentially been stable over the last 20 years. While the area of forest is expanding,the focus of forest management in Europe has clearly shifted away from productivefunctions towards conservation of biological diversity, protection and multiple uses– a shift already evident at the end of the 1990s. The main negative trends are foundin employment and – when analysing figures excluding the Russian Federation – inhuman resources in public forest institutions between 2005 and 2008, as well as in thevalue of wood removals in the 1990s. Table 9.12 shows the trends for Europe includingand excluding the Russian Federation.north and central AmericaTable 9.9 summarizes trends in the selected variables for North and Central America.Extent of forest resources. Forest area for the region as a whole (705 million hectaresin 2010) is almost the same as in 1990 (3 million hectares less, or 0.4 percent lower).While there was a decrease in forest area in Central America of about 6 million hectaresfor the period 1990–2010, the area of forest in North America increased by about2 million hectares, mainly due to afforestation in the United States of America, and inthe Caribbean by about 1 million hectares, largely as a result of natural expansion ontoabandoned agricultural land, during the same period. As in Europe, the total carbonstock in forest biomass increased and the forests became more densely stocked.Forest biological diversity. The area of primary forest has remained fairly stableoverall, although there has been a significant decrease in relative (percentage) terms inCentral America. The area of forest designated for conservation of biological diversityincreased by more than 8 million hectares since 1990, while the area of forest inprotected areas increased by more than 16 million hectares over the same period andnow equals 10 percent of the total forest area of the region.Forest health and vitality. The area adversely affected by forest fires has increasedover time, while the area affected by insects decreased between 1990 and 2000, onlyto increase again between 2000 and 2005. North America reported the highest area ofinsect disturbance for 2005 of any region (some 22 million hectares or 3.4 percent of theforest area). This included major outbreaks of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonusponderosae), which has devastated more than 11 million hectares of forest in Canadaand the western United States of America since the late 1990s – an unprecedentedoutbreak exacerbated by higher winter temperatures.Productive functions of forest resources. The most prominent change over timewas the increase in area of forest designated primarily for productive purposes, whichcontrasts with the decrease in this designation in most other regions. The area ofplanted forest also increased, particularly in the 1990s, while total wood removalsdecreased by just under 3 million cubic metres per year over the last 20 years, or0.4 percent annually.Protective functions of forest resources. The area of forest designated for theprotection of soil and water showed a significant increase in relative (percentage) termsduring the last 15 years. However, in absolute terms the increase was fairly small incomparison with other variables. It should be noted that the forest areas managed forthe purposes of soil and water conservation in North America are generally included

Progress towards sustainable forest management 179TABLe 9.9Progress towards sustainable forest management in north and central America, 1990–2010thematic element FrA 2010 variables dataavailabilityextent of forestresourcesForest biologicaldiversityForest health andvitalityProductive functionsof forest resourcesProtective functionsof forest resourcesSocio-economicfunctions of forestsLegal, policyand institutionalframeworkAnnual changerate (%)1990–20002000–20101990–2000Annual change2000–2010Area of forest H -0.04 n.s. -289 -10 1 000 hagrowing stock of forests H 0.24 0.69 n.s. 1 m 3 /haForest carbon stock in livingbiomassH 0.19 0.28 74 109 million tonnesArea of primary forest H -0.06 0.02 -167 50 1 000 haArea of forest designated H 0.27 0.61 255 612 1 000 haprimarily for conservation ofbiodiversityArea of forest withinH 0.55 2.32 284 1 361 1 000 haprotected areasArea of forest affected by H 1.15 1.98 34 64 1 000 hafireArea of forest affected by H -4.52 1.60 -1 246 349 1 000 hainsectsArea of forest designated H 0.79 1.03 680 970 1 000 haprimarily for productionArea of planted forest H 4.16 2.48 1 013 840 1 000 haTotal wood removals H -0.36 -0.38 -2 914 -2 982 1 000 m 3Area of forest designated H 2.07 2.21 23 30 1 000 haprimarily for protection ofsoil and waterArea of forest under private H -0.12 -0.14 -246 -273 1 000 haownershipValue of total woodH 4.62 5.07 1 054 1 626 million uS$removalsemployment in primaryL 2.55 -0.51 3 -1 1 000 FTeproduction of goodsForest area withL 0.52 0.59 996 1 194 1 000 hamanagement planHuman resources in public – – – – – total staffforest institutionsNumber of studentsgraduating in forestryunitM 2.42 8.43 98 400 number ofstudentsNotes: No forecasting to 2010 was done for areas affected by fire and by insects or for the amount and value of wood removals.For these variables estimates were provided for 1990 (an average of the period 1988–1992), 2000 (average of 1998–2002) and2005 (average of 2003–2007). Data on ownership and employment were requested only for 1990, 2000 and 2005. in all these caseschange rates were calculated for the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2005. Data for human resources in public institutions and thenumber of forestry graduates are from 2000, 2005 and 2008; change rates are calculated for 2000–2005 and 2005–2008.H = High (reporting countries represent 75–100% of total forest area)M = Medium (reporting countries represent 50–74% of total forest area)L = Low (reporting countries represent 25–49% of total forest area)= Positive change (greater than 0.50%)= No major change (between -0.50 and 0.50%)= Negative change (less than -0.50%)– = insufficient data to determine trendunder the primary designated function of ‘multiple use’ rather than under ‘protectivefunction’. This influences the figures from this region as a whole.Socio-economic functions of forests. The area of forest under private ownershipdecreased slightly over the last 20 years, but the annual change rate was below thethreshold of 0.5 percent. The value of wood removals increased between 1990 and2005, despite the slight decrease in the amount of wood removals indicating an increasein price. The level of employment in the primary production of goods in forests andrelated services showed an increase in the 1990s followed by a decrease since 2000.

180Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Legal, policy and institutional framework. The area of forest with a managementplan increased steadily over the last 20 years, adding an average of some 1 millionhectares annually – primarily in the United States of America. However, informationon this variable was missing from several of the larger countries in the region, includingboth Canada and Mexico. The number of graduates in forestry increased in bothperiods, while there was insufficient information on the level of human resources inpublic forest institutions to analyse trends over time.Conclusions. Progress towards sustainable forest management was generallypositive in North and Central America as a whole during the period 1990–2010, withthe notable exception of the significant negative trends noted for the area of forestaffected by fire and by insect pests and the slight decrease in the level of employment.There was, however, considerable variation among subregions, as can be seen inTable 9.12.oceaniaTable 9.10 summarizes trends in the selected variables for Oceania.Extent of forest resources. The area of forest was essentially stable over the period1990–2000, but has decreased at an average rate of some 700 000 ha per year since2000. This net loss seems to be increasing and is reported to be more than 1 millionhectares per year in the last five years. This is due to large losses of forests in Australia,where severe drought and forest fires have exacerbated the loss of forest since 2000.However, as mentioned in the Country Report from Australia: “It is unclear at thisstage whether the climatic-induced reduction is a temporary or permanent loss offorest.” Information availability was insufficient to determine trends in the remainingtwo variables under this theme.Forest biological diversity. There has been a decrease in the area of primary forestof almost 6 million hectares since 1990. Information availability was insufficient toidentify trends in the area of forest designated for conservation of biological diversityand the area of forest in protected areas (1990 data were missing for Australia).Forest health and vitality. Data availability was insufficient for trend analysis forboth variables.Productive functions of forest resources. The area of forest designated for productivepurposes increased significantly in the 1990s but rose only slightly after 2000. Thearea of planted forest increased by more than 2 percent annually over the last 20 yearsbut is still relatively small (4 million hectares or 2 percent of the total forest area inthe region). The amount of wood removals has increased by around 1.5 million cubicmetres annually since 1990.Protective functions of forest resources. Information availability was insufficient onthe area of forest designated primarily for the protection of soil and water (1990 datawere missing for Australia).Socio-economic functions of forests. The number of people employed in the primaryproduction of forest goods and services and related activities increased slightly from1990 to 2000 but declined slightly between 2000 and 2005. Information availability wasinsufficient for an analysis of the other variables.Legal, policy and institutional framework. Data availability was insufficient fortrend analysis for all three variables representing this theme.Conclusions. Data availability is largely determined by Australia, since it accountsfor 78 percent of the forest area in this region. With information missing fromAustralia for 1990 for many of these variables it is impossible to assess long-termtrends in this region for most of the themes. The loss of primary forest and theincrease in the net loss of forest area in the region are cause for concern, despite thefact that part of the latter may be a temporary loss of forest cover due to an extensivedrought in Australia.

Progress towards sustainable forest management 181TABLe 9.10Progress towards sustainable forest management in oceania, 1990–2010thematic element FrA 2010 variables dataavailabilityextent of forestresourcesForest biologicaldiversityForest health andvitalityProductive functionsof forest resourcesProtective functionsof forest resourcesSocio-economicfunctions of forestsLegal, policyand institutionalframeworkAnnual changerate (%)1990–20002000–20101990–2000Annual change2000–2010Area of forest H -0.02 -0.36 -36 -700 1 000 hagrowing stock of forests – – – – – m 3 /haForest carbon stock in livingbiomass– – – – – million tonnesArea of primary forest H -0.55 -0.99 -222 -370 1 000 haArea of forest designated– – – – – 1 000 haprimarily for conservation ofbiodiversityArea of forest within– – – – – 1 000 haprotected areasArea of forest affected by fire – – – – – 1 000 haArea of forest affected by – – – – – 1 000 hainsectsArea of forest designated H 4.44 0.34 394 39 1 000 haprimarily for productionArea of planted forest H 2.55 2.12 74 78 1 000 haTotal wood removals H 3.65 2.97 1 446 1 514 1 000 m 3Area of forest designated– – – 1 000 haprimarily for protection ofsoil and waterArea of forest under private – – – – – 1 000 haownershipValue of total wood removals – – – million uS$employment in primaryH 1.95 -1.53 n.s. n.s. 1 000 FTeproduction of goodsForest area with management – – – – – 1 000 haplanHuman resources in public – – – – – total staffforest institutionsNumber of studentsgraduating in forestryunit– – – – – number ofstudentsNotes: No forecasting to 2010 was done for areas affected by fire and by insects or for the amount and value of wood removals.For these variables estimates were provided for 1990 (an average of the period 1988–1992), 2000 (average of 1998–2002) and2005 (average of 2003–2007). Data on ownership and employment were requested only for 1990, 2000 and 2005. in all these caseschange rates were calculated for the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2005. Data for human resources in public institutions and thenumber of forestry graduates are from 2000, 2005 and 2008; change rates are calculated for 2000–2005 and 2005–2008.H = High (reporting countries represent 75–100% of total forest area)M = Medium (reporting countries represent 50–74% of total forest area)L = Low (reporting countries represent 25–49% of total forest area)= Positive change (greater than 0.50%)= No major change (between -0.50 and 0.50%)= Negative change (less than -0.50%)– = insufficient data to determine trendSouth AmericaTable 9.11 summarizes trends in the selected variables for South America.Extent of forest resources. Forest area in South America decreased at an alarmingrate in the 1990s and continued to do so in the period 2000–2010, although it didshow signs of slowing down, particularly in the last five years. The annual net lossduring the period 1990–2000 was 4.2 million hectares, falling to 4.0 million hectaresin the period 2000–2010, the highest annual net loss of any region. It has furtherdropped to 3.6 million hectares annually in the last five years. It should be notedthat the figures for the Amazonia in Brazil related to areas of forest cleared, withouttaking into account the clear-cut areas that may have regenerated and returned to

182Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010forest. Net loss for the region as a whole may thus be overestimated and was belowthe threshold of 0.5 percent per year for the period 1990–2010. Carbon stock inforest biomass followed the trend of total forest area, while growing stock perhectare reportedly did not change significantly – probably reflecting the fact that fewcountries had more than one estimate of growing stock over time.Forest biological diversity. Primary forests currently account for 76 percent oftotal forest area in the region but continue to decrease rapidly by an average ofaround 3 million hectares per year in the period 1990–2010. Apart from deforestation,the decrease was caused by alteration of forests through selective logging and otherhuman interventions, which resulted in a subsequent reclassification of such forests as‘other naturally regenerated forest’. On a positive note, the area of forest designatedprimarily for conservation of biological diversity increased by about 3.2 millionhectares per year in the last ten years, or a total of 43 million hectares since 1990,while the area of forest in protected areas increased by 2.4 million hectares annuallyin the last ten years and now encompasses an estimated 17 percent of the total forestarea in the region.Forest health and vitality. Data availability was insufficient for trend analysis forboth variables.Productive functions of forest resources. The area of forest designated forproductive functions has increased steadily by about half a million hectares annuallysince 1990. The area of planted forest also increased. South America reported asignificant reduction in wood removals in the 1990s, from 349 million cubic metresin 1990 to 306 million cubic metres in 2000, mainly because of a reduction in theproduction of woodfuel. However, after 2000 removals bounced back to the level of1990, primarily as a result of an increase in the production of industrial wood.Protective functions of forest resources. The area of forest designated for theprotection of soil and water resources remained stable over the last 20 years.Socio-economic functions of forests. The area of forest under private ownershipincreased by more than 40 million hectares during the period 2000–2005, primarilyas a result of changes reported by Colombia. The value of wood removals decreasedin the 1990s but increased between 2000 and 2005, following the global trend. Dataavailability on employment was insufficient for trend analysis.Legal, policy and institutional framework. The area of forest with a managementplan continues to increase in the region – currently at a rate of 1.9 million hectaresannually. The number of students graduating in forestry annually has also increasedsignificantly since 2000. Information on human resources in public forest institutionswas too limited to permit a trend analysis.Conclusions. Overall, progress towards sustainable forest management was mixed inSouth America. The rate of net forest loss continues to be a cause for concern althoughsignificant progress has been made, particularly in the last five years. The rate of lossof primary forest also remains alarmingly high. Nonetheless, there were also positivesigns, e.g. in the increased areas of forest designated for conservation of biologicaldiversity and in protected areas. The decrease in removals of woodfuel may reflect areduced demand for this product in the region, but this was partly offset by an increasein removals of industrial wood since 2000. The area of planted forests increased andmay meet a larger proportion of the demand for wood in the future. The increase inthe area of forest with a management plan is also a positive sign.Subregional trendsSubregional trends were determined using the same method as that used for theregions, and following the division into subregions adopted for FRA 2010 reporting(see Chapter 1). Three regions (Africa, Asia and North and Central America) thathave significant intraregional differences were divided into three subregions each. No

Progress towards sustainable forest management 183TABLe 9.11Progress towards sustainable forest management in South America, 1990–2010thematic element FrA 2010 variables dataavailabilityextent of forestresourcesForest biologicaldiversityForest health andvitalityProductive functionsof forest resourcesProtective functionsof forest resourcesSocio-economicfunctions of forestsLegal, policyand institutionalframeworkAnnual changerate (%)1990–20002000–20101990–2000Annual change2000–2010Area of forest H -0.45 -0.45 -4 213 -3 997 1 000 hagrowing stock of forests H 0.07 0.07 n.s. n.s. m 3 /haForest carbon stock in livingbiomassH -0.37 -0.39 -406 -404 million tonnesArea of primary forest H -0.46 -0.46 -3 096 -2 961 1 000 haArea of forest designated H 2.59 4.83 1 187 3 167 1 000 haprimarily for conservationof biodiversityArea of forest withinM 0.44 3.01 302 2 431 1 000 haprotected areasArea of forest affected by – – – – – 1 000 hafireArea of forest affected by – – – – – 1 000 hainsectsArea of forest designated H 0.69 0.64 501 496 1 000 haprimarily for productionArea of planted forest H 1.97 3.23 178 376 1 000 haTotal wood removals H -1.30 2.37 -4 275 7 614 1 000 m 3Area of forest designated H n.s. -0.02 1 -11 1 000 haprimarily for protection ofsoil and waterArea of forest under private H 0.51 6.39 562 8 180 1 000 haownershipValue of total woodM -2.20 6.98 -109 352 million uS$removalsemployment in primary– – – – – 1 000 FTeproduction of goodsForest area withM 1.54 2.39 1 026 1 937 1 000 hamanagement planHuman resources in public – – – – – total staffforest institutionsNumber of studentsgraduating in forestryunitH 9.56 6.30 117 107 number ofstudentsNotes: No forecasting to 2010 was done for areas affected by fire and by insects or for the amount and value of wood removals.For these variables estimates were provided for 1990 (an average of the period 1988–1992), 2000 (average of 1998–2002) and2005 (average of 2003–2007). Data on ownership and employment were requested only for 1990, 2000 and 2005. in all these caseschange rates were calculated for the periods 1990–2000 and 2000–2005. Data for human resources in public institutions and thenumber of forestry graduates are from 2000, 2005 and 2008; change rates are calculated for 2000–2005 and 2005–2008.H = High (reporting countries represent 75–100% of total forest area)M = Medium (reporting countries represent 50–74% of total forest area)L = Low (reporting countries represent 25–49% of total forest area)= Positive change (greater than 0.50%)= No major change (between -0.50 and 0.50%)= Negative change (less than -0.50%)– = insufficient data to determine trendsubregional divisions were made of Europe, Oceania and South America, which can beconsidered relatively homogeneous with respect to the variables studied. The possibleexception is Europe, where the Russian Federation dominates because of its size, sofigures are presented for Europe as a whole, as well as for Europe excluding the RussianFederation. Table 9.12 summarizes the results for each subregion and illustrates someimportant intraregional differences.In Africa, the Western and Central Africa subregion showed more positive trendsthan negative ones. Eastern and Southern Africa demonstrated predominantly negativetrends in the 1990s but a more balanced mix for the last ten years. In Asia, East Asia

184Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TABLe 9.12Progress towards sustainable forest management by subregion, 1990–2010themes and variables Africa AsiaEasternandSouthernnorthernWesternandcentralEastr1 r2 r1 r2 r1 r2 r1 r2Extent of forest resourcesArea of forest H H H Hgrowing stock of forests H H H HForest carbon stock in living biomass H H H HForest biological diversityArea of primary forest H H L HArea of forest designated primarily for conservation of biodiversity H H M HArea of forest within protected areas H – – – L HForest health and vitalityArea of forest affected by fire L – – – – – – HArea of forest affected by insects – – – – – – – – – HProductive functions of forest resourcesArea of forest designated primarily for production H H M HArea of planted forest H H H HTotal wood removals H H H HProtective functions of forest resourcesArea of forest designated primarily for protection of soil and water H H M HSocio-economic functions of forestsArea of forest under private ownership H H H HValue of total wood removals – – – H L Hemployment in primary production of goods L – – – – – – HLegal, policy and institutional frameworkForest area with management plan M – – – L HHuman resources in public forest institutions H H L HNumber of students graduating in forestry M H L HNotes:r1 = reference period 1: 1990–2000 with a few exceptions, see footnote to Table 9.5r2 = reference period 1: 2000–2010 with a few exceptions, see footnote to Table 9.5H = High (reporting countries represent 75–100% of total forest area)M = Medium (reporting countries represent 50–74% of total forest area)L = Low (reporting countries represent 25–49% of total forest area)= Positive change (greater than 0.50%)= No major change (between -0.50 and 0.50%)= Negative change (less than -0.50%)– = insufficient data to determine trendhad a strong set of positive trends, but also a few that were strongly negative, whileWestern and Central Asia and South and Southeast Asia showed less significantchanges in relative terms. South and Southeast Asia showed a clear negative trendin the extent of forest resources compared with the positive trends in the other twosubregions. Europe, excluding the Russian Federation, had more positive trends for the1990s than when the Russian Federation was included, but the opposite was true forthe 2000–2010 period. The most significant intraregional difference occurred in Northand Central America, where North America and the Caribbean showed a majority ofpositive trends, while Central America had a preponderance of negative ones.

Progress towards sustainable forest management 185South andSoutheastAsia Europe north and central America oceania SouthAmericaWesternandcentraltotalEuropeEuropeexcl.russianFederationcaribbeancentralAmericanorthAmericar1 r2 r1 r2 r1 r2 r1 r2 r1 r2 r1 r2 r1 r2 r1 r2 r1 r2H H H H H H H H HH H H H H H H – – – HH H H H H H H – – – HH H – – – M M H H H HH H H H M L H – – – HH L H H L – – – H – – – MH L H H M – – – H – – – – – –– – – L H M – – – – – – H – – – – – –H H H H M L H H HH H H H M H H H HH H H H H M H H HH H H H M L H – – – HH H H H M L H – – – HM M – – – H L – – – H – – – ML M H M – – – L L H – – –L L H H L – – – L – – – MM L – – – M – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –L L – – – M L L M – – – HClearly, the division into subregions reveals trends and patterns that are notprominent on a regional scale, just as the regional breakdown highlights variations thatare masked at the global scale.discussionApproach and limitationsSeveral disclaimers must be advanced regarding the methodology and findingspresented in this chapter:• Information availability is not satisfactory for all variables, which leaves a numberof gaps in the analysis.• Selection of variables is subjective and may not be valid in other contexts or scales.• Indications of positive or negative values for trends can be argued in several cases,particularly if the trend is seen in a bigger policy perspective.

186Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010• Indications of positive or negative trends are not presented in relation to thecurrent status of forests and their management. For example, the positive trendin the area of forest with a management plan is more striking in Africa than inEurope, where most of the forest already had a management plan in 1990.• Although no weights are explicitly applied in the analyses, the selection of certainvariables is in itself a weighting.• Aggregation of trends by region and subregion obscures positive or negativetrends in individual countries. Results cannot therefore be seen as applicable toindividual countries in any region.The analysis is clearly sensitive to the selection of variables. The variables that couldbe selected were limited by the set of FRA 2010 reporting tables and further reduced bythe limited information availability for several of these. It was particularly difficult toobtain information on negative aspects, such as forest degradation and illegal logging, dueto a lack of common definitions and assessment methodologies. Other variables, such asprogress in the revision of forest policies and legislation, did not easily fit into this typeof analysis. It should also be noted that forest benefits generated in secondary productionand trade were explicitly excluded from FRA 2010. Some relevant parameters were notincluded because of a lack of information at the global level. The list of potential variablesfor selection was therefore limited and the resulting selection may be somewhat skewed.In addition, there is a high covariation between some variables, which must be consideredbefore drawing far-reaching conclusions from the findings.The methodology used to illustrate these key trends does not take into accountvalue judgments or variations in stakeholder perceptions of forest benefits and therelative importance of different variables. While such evaluation methodologies exist,the objectives of this chapter are to illustrate how existing information, collected as partof FRA 2010, can be used in an initial analysis of progress towards sustainable forestmanagement and to stimulate further discussion and more detailed analyses.In conclusion, the analyses and presentations in this chapter are limited by thevariables and data available in the FRA 2010 reporting tables. Nevertheless, theresults provide an overview of key trends with respect to the management and use offorest resources and should be seen as an illustration of progress, or lack of progress,towards sustainable forest management at global and regional levels. A more detailedanalysis must take into consideration the variations in conditions between regions andcountries.Is there progress towards sustainable forest management?There are many good signs and positive trends at the global level, particularly in thelast ten years, but many negative trends remain at regional, subregional and nationallevels. While the area of planted forest and conservation efforts are on the rise, the areaof primary forests continues to decline at an alarming rate as these forests come underuse or are converted to other uses. As the analyses above illustrate, the answer dependson the suite of indicators selected and the scale at which they are applied. Given thisand the complexity of the question, the answer cannot be definitive.

187Chapter 10ConclusionsFAO has been coordinating global forest resources assessments since 1946. FRA 2010is the latest and the most comprehensive assessment to date. Information was collectedand analysed from 233 countries and areas for four points in time: 1990, 2000, 2005and 2010. Some 90 variables were included related to the extent, condition, uses andvalues of forests.More than 900 people were involved in the FRA 2010 process, including 178officially nominated national correspondents, their colleagues, an Advisory Group,international experts, FAO and UNECE staff, consultants and volunteers from aroundthe world. The outcome of this process is harmonized definitions and classifications,more streamlined reporting on forests, higher quality data, a transparent reportingprocess and enhanced national capacity in data analysis and reporting.This section offers general conclusions on the scope, process and results ofFRA 2010. It does not repeat detailed findings from previous chapters.SCope and Coverage of fra 2010The scope and coverage of global forest resources assessments have evolved overthe past 60 years, from a timber supply orientation through a strong focus onenvironmental issues to a broader approach in FRA 2000 and FRA 2005. FRA 2010continued this trend by explicitly addressing all seven thematic elements of sustainableforest management.A critical first step in the FRA 2010 process was to select and define the globalreporting variables. Following a consultative process, including a global consultationwith national correspondents to FRA in Finland in June 2006 (FAO, 2006a),17 reporting tables with about 90 variables were defined (FAO, 2007b). The tablesand variables were generalized to facilitate reporting from all regions, which bynecessity limits the degree of detail and emphasizes the need to consult countryspecificclassifications and references for more detailed analyses. At the same time, thereporting tables represented a broader coverage of forest resource parameters than inprevious global assessments, for example by including information on afforestationand natural expansion of forests, and on the legal, policy and institutional frameworkgoverning the management and use of the world’s forests.Although the introduction of new tables increases the reporting burden and mayresult in divergent interpretations and an incomplete data set in the first round, theiraddition provided new insights on rates of deforestation and the significant efforts overthe last ten years in many developing countries to put in place an enabling frameworkfor sustainable forest management.As in FRA 2005, data on deforestation rates were not directly compiled for FRA2010 because few countries have this information. In FRA 2005 the global deforestationrate was estimated from net changes in forest area. The additional information onafforestation and natural expansion of forest for the past 20 years collected for FRA2010 has now also made it possible to take into account deforestation within thosecountries that have had an overall net gain in forest area. As a result, the estimateof the global rate of deforestation and loss from natural causes for 1990–2000 of13 million hectares per year in FRA 2005 was revised to the higher, but more accuratefigure of close to 16 million hectares per year in FRA 2010. While the deforestationrate for the tropical countries for the 1990s did not change significantly as a result of

188Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010this additional information, the inclusion of countries in the temperate and boreal zonemade a significant difference.The tables on the legal, policy and institutional framework confirm that significantprogress has been made in developing forest policies and laws. Some 76 countries haveissued or updated their forest policy statements and 69 countries – primarily in Europeand Africa – reported that their current forest law was enacted or amended since 2005.One important consideration in defining the tables was the availability of informationat the country level. For example, while more detailed information related to protectivefunctions of forest resources was desirable, it was not considered meaningful to requestinformation if very few countries could respond. On the other hand, certain parameters,including NWFP values and forest fire occurrence, were considered important enoughto include even if the response frequency would be low. The tables thus represent acompromise between information availability and the objective of reporting on each ofthe thematic elements of sustainable forest management.The experience of linking with related reporting processes and attempting toharmonize overlapping variables was generally good. For example, further streamliningof reporting to FAO, ITTO and the Forest Europe was achieved. New variableswere included in FRA 2010 to enable the assessment of progress towards the 2010Biodiversity Target of the CBD and towards the four Global Objectives on Forests ofthe Non-Legally Binding Instrument on all Types of Forests adopted by the UnitedNations General Assembly at its 62nd Session (UNGA, 2008). Methods for reportingon variables related to forest biomass and carbon were harmonized with the latestspecifications and guidelines of the IPCC (IPCC, 2006). The proportion of land areaunder forests, reported to FAO as part of FRA 2010, is also used as one of the indicatorsof progress in reaching the Millennium Development Goals. Efforts have continued toestablish and maintain globally consistent definitions in the FRA process, in order toensure consistency over time and reduce the overall reporting burden on countries.data availability and qualityOverall, the response rate was very good, with nine tables having information for morethan 80 percent of the global forest area and all tables having more than 53 percentcoverage (Figure 10.1).However, the conclusion regarding poor information availability in earlier FRAreports is still valid: many developing countries have difficulty reporting becausetheir national monitoring systems are inadequate both for international reporting anddomestic needs. Data quality also remains an issue.To address the issue of data availability and quality, FAO has developed a programmeto support national forest assessments (see Box 10.1), and results from efforts over thelast ten years are visible in a number of country reports to FRA 2010. Nevertheless,information gaps remain wide in many countries, including major forest countries.Complementary informationA global remote sensing survey is currently being carried out for FRA 2010 to obtainmore detailed and comparable information on forest change dynamics (deforestation,afforestation and natural expansion of forests) between 1990 and 2005 at global, biomeand regional levels. The results are expected at the end of 2011 (see Box 2.3).A series of special studies is also underway to provide information on specifictopics where there are no agreed definitions or assessment methodologies. Thesestudies aim to provide complementary information as well as inputs to discussions onhow these aspects can be incorporated into future assessments. They include studieson forest degradation, trees outside forests, forest genetic resources, and on forests,livelihoods and poverty. Data availability is a key concern for SIDS and, even wheninformation is available, the figures reported are often ‘not significant’, given the units

Conclusions 189FIGurE 10.1Information availability for the 17 reporting tables in fra 2010, in relation to global forest areaT1-Extent of forest and other wooded land (233)T2-Forest ownership and management rights (188)T3-Forest designation and management (205)T4-Forest characteristics (200)T5-Forest establishment and reforestation (134)T6-Growing stock (180)T7-Biomass (180)T8-Carbon stock (180)T9-Forest fires (118)T10-Other disturbances affecting forest health and vitality (95)T11-Wood removal and value of removals (172)T12-NWFP removals and value of removals (92)T13-Employment (120)T14-Policy and legal framework (181)T15-Institutional framework (146)T16-Education and research (133)T17-Public revenue collection and expenditure (106)020406080100(%)Information available for all yearsInformation available for latest yearInformation not available for latest yearNotes: No trend data were requested for NWFP removals and the existence of a policy and legal framework.Numbers in ( ) are number of countries that provided data for the latest reporting year.of measurements necessary to include information from the large forested countries. Aspecial study aims to address both of these issues (see Box 10.2).The fra 2010 proCeSSThe active, direct involvement of countries was a defining characteristic of FRA 2005.FRA 2010 continued and expanded this process by strengthening the collaborationwith other forest-related organizations and reporting processes.FAO, with the support of donors, invested considerable resources in establishinga network of national correspondents and organizing global and regional meetingsto support the reporting process and build capacity. Countries readily provided theexpertise and resources needed to participate and the network currently numbers178 officially nominated national correspondents and a large number of alternates,representatives of forest-related organizations and individual resource assessmentspecialists. While demanding of resources, the network of national correspondents wasa critical success factor for FRA 2010.As in FRA 2005, the information from each country is documented in a nationalreport in either English, French or Spanish, following a standard outline. To help thosecountries from which limited new information was expected, FAO pre-filled the FRA2010 reports with the information provided for FRA 2005. This significantly reducedthe workload involved in the documentation of information sources and original data.However, where new information was available, substantial efforts were needed by thenational correspondents to document each step in the transformation of national datato the FRA 2010 reporting tables. These efforts involved extensive knowledge-sharingthrough discussions at regional workshops, and between countries and the regionalfocal points at FAO headquarters.

190Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010BOx 10.1fao’s support to national forest monitoring and assessmentThe National Forest Monitoring and Assessment (NFMA) programme at FAO is developing costeffectivemethodologies that include both remote sensing techniques and systematic field datacollections to assess and monitor the multiple benefits from forests (and other natural resources)at the country level, in order to support national policy processes.Over the last decade, the NFMA programme has collaborated with more than 20 countriesaround the world to strengthen their capacities to establish and manage systems for national forestmonitoring and assessment and to carry out national forest inventories. This forestry informationsupports national level planning and policy formulation in a broad context, which includes, forexample, forest management, law enforcement, monitoring and evaluation, poverty monitoring,land use planning and administration, investment opportunities, research, training, advice andoutreach, and determination of forests’ contributions to GDP. While forests and forestry (includingwood production and commercial values, as well as other benefits and beneficiaries of forestresources) are at the centre of the NFMA, strong links are established with related sectors, such asagriculture, water resources, rangelands and energy.The programme helps countries to produce national level data on a vast number of variables.These include variables needed to calculate growing stock, biomass and carbon (stem diameter, treeheight, deadwood biomass, soil carbon and litter); vegetation type (including species compositionand naturalness); extent of land use and land cover, biodiversity status, land use history, humandisturbances, management practices and conservation status. The inventory covers measurementsof trees outside forests, making it possible to estimate above-ground biomass outside forests and tovalue the multiple functions of trees. Data are also collected on factors that may help in determiningthe best mechanisms for mitigating deforestation and forest degradation, such as ownership, accessto input markets, consumption levels of forest products, potential revenues accrued from forestresources and crop production systems.NFMA-generated data respond to the needs of both national and international users. Nationalusers comprise policy-makers from ministries of agriculture, land, forestry, finance and statistics, aswell as universities, research institutes and civil society organizations. International users includeinternational reporting processes, conventions and others, such as the Global Forest resourcesAssessment, the CBD, the Millennium Development Goals, ITTO, uNFCCC, as well as universities andresearch organizations around the world.The NFMA programme relies on a wide network of experts and specialists who provide technicaland strategic guidance, and actively promotes south–south collaboration and knowledge sharing.While the programme provides technical assistance to countries, the actual implementation iscarried out by national institutions and national staff to enable strong country ownership of theprocess as well as replicability and institutional strengthening for long-term forestry monitoring.The programme aims to harmonize methods in order to improve technical collaboration betweencountries and to facilitate reporting to international processes.FAO works actively with countries and forest-related organizations to identify andaddress information gaps for continuous improvement of knowledge about forestsand forestry. The FRA process enhances country reporting capacity through trainingand feedback on national reports. In response to specific country requests, FAO alsoprovides technical support to implement and improve national forest monitoring andassessment systems, for new and better information (see Box 10.1).

Conclusions 191BOx 10.2Special study on Small Island developing StatesThe Global Forest resources Assessment 2010 shows that the data reported by many SIDS areinadequate to determine trends for the majority of the variables. A lack of resources and limitedtechnical capacity for forest resource monitoring in many SIDS means that they have some of thepoorest forest data in the world, suffering from gaps, inconsistent quality and old age.In addition, many SIDS have expressed concern that the data they report for the Global Forestresources Assessments are not visible, because of the small size of these countries relative to thesize of the reporting units. recommendations have been made in several meetings for a specialstudy on SIDS.The combined forest cover of SIDS is considered insignificant in global terms (representing lessthan 1 percent of the forest area of the world). However, forests and trees play a crucial role in thesocial and economic development of SIDS. In addition, they provide environmental services (e.g.soil and water protection, tourism and carbon sequestration) and many of the island habitats haveglobal significance in terms of conservation of biological diversity, particularly of endemic species.It is clear from FAO’s work globally that better information can lead to better informeddecisions. Working in partnership with the officially nominated FrA National Correspondents andthe Secretariat of the Pacific Community, FAO will conduct a special study of forests and forestresources in SIDS. This study will lead to benefits through improved forest resource informationfeeding into broader social, economic and environmental policies and strategies in SIDS. It aims todraw attention to forests, forest management and specific forest-related issues in SIDS and (fundingpermitting) will:• increase awareness of the role of forests and trees in SIDS;• examine the current status, trends and management of forest resources;• evaluate constraints and opportunities for sustainable forest management;• examine drivers of deforestation;• enhance capacity building and regional networks;• develop base land cover maps;• develop ways to map forest cover change and information on land use dynamics.The special study follows recommendations made by the officially nominated NationalCorrespondents to the FrA reporting process. The project will be spearheaded by FAO and carriedout in partnership with countries and existing forest-related organizations to ensure a coordinatedapproach to capacity building.While there are common issues for SIDS, there are also differences related to the size of eachcountry. These are due to variations in population size and density, remoteness, distance tomarkets and access to resources. The study is expected to highlight common issues among SIDSand identify differences (and similarities) between specific sub-groups (e.g. large, medium andsmall countries).progreSS TowardS SuSTaInable foreST managemenTUsing the thematic elements of sustainable forest management as a frameworkfor FRA 2010 has helped further increase the utility of the global forest resourcesassessments. In addition to providing information on traditional variables suchforest area change and deforestation (the first thematic element of sustainable forestmanagement), FRA 2010 also includes detailed information on key aspects related toforest biological diversity, forest health, the productive, protective and socio-economicfunctions of forests, and the legal, policy and institutional framework guiding theirmanagement and use. The result is a much richer review of key trends in forestresources, their functions and benefits.

192Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010It is clear from the findings of FRA 2010 that there is mixed progress towardssustainable forest management. While many trends remain alarming, there are alsomany positive developments over the last 20 years.When interpreting the findings from FRA 2010, the scale is crucial. At the globallevel, the world’s forest resources appear to be fairly stable (Chapter 9, Table 9.5):changes in most variables are relatively small and the large changes indicate morepositive than negative trends. However, this picture changes dramatically when theinformation is broken down by region and subregion (Tables 9.6–9.12 in the samechapter), revealing considerable differences, with alarming trends in several tropicalsubregions. The country reports suggest that the variations are even greater at nationaland subnational scales, but it is not the purpose of this report to draw conclusions atthese levels.All regions and subregions display a mixture of positive and negative trends,which makes it difficult to say anything definite about the level of progress towardssustainable forest management. The FRA process and this report do not attemptto weight the variables, which would imply that one trend is more important thananother, nor is an assessment of progress towards sustainable forest management at thecountry level included. This would need to be the subject of further analyses by, forexample, national forest programmes or other policy or planning processes.The global forest resources assessment process delivers observed trends of keyparameters related to forestry and the forest ecosystem. The FRA process does notinclude scenario development. By contrast, the FAO-led Forestry Outlook Studies(FAO, 2009d), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) and the GlobalEnvironmental Outlook 4 (UNEP, 2007) are examples of processes that make good useof the knowledge generated by the FRA process to predict future scenarios. The FRAreport does, however, illustrate recent positive and negative trends at global, regionaland subregional levels, which hopefully will stimulate a healthy debate and furtheranalysis of the overall performance of the forestry sector.alarming trendsThe key findings of FRA 2010 highlight a number of observations that are alarming inthe light of aspirations for sustainable forest management and for progress towards the2010 Biodiversity Target and the four Global Objectives on Forests:• Deforestation and natural loss of forest continues at an alarming rate in severalregions and countries.• The area of primary forest is decreasing by about 4 million hectares each year.This is partly a result of deforestation and partly due to selective logging andother human activities that leave visible signs of human impact and thus transformthe forest into ‘other naturally regenerated forest’ in the FRA 2010 classificationsystem.• In some regions, the area of forest adversely affected by drought and by insectpests is increasing.• Employment in forest establishment, management and use declined by about10 percent globally between 1990 and 2005.• The value of wood removals fell in the 1990s, rose between 2000 and 2005, but hassince fallen sharply again.Although the above trends are not universally perceived as negative (a decrease inthe level of employment could be due to increased labour productivity and may resultin decreased production costs), substantial efforts are needed to address a number ofalarming trends and advance progress towards sustainable forest management in allcountries and regions. National forest programmes offer a potential vehicle for thediscussion of issues and for reaching agreements on priority actions at the national andsubnational levels.

Conclusions 193positive newsHowever, there is also some very positive news:• The rate of deforestation is showing signs of slowing down at the global level andsignificant progress has been made in some countries to reduce the rate of forestloss in the last 5–10 years.• The area of forest designated for conservation of biological diversity has increasedby more than 95 million hectares since 1990. These forests now account for morethan 460 million hectares. Most, but not all, of them are located inside legallyestablished protected areas, which now account for an estimated 13 percent of theworld’s forests.• The area of planted forest increased by about 5 million hectares per year duringthe period 2000–2010 and, although only accounting for 7 percent of the totalforest area, planted forests supply an increasing share of the demand for wood.• The area of forest designated primarily for the protection of soil and waterincreased by 59 million hectares between 1990 and 2010 and now accounts for8 percent of the total forest area.• Significant progress has been made in further developing an enabling frameworkfor sustainable forest management. A large number of forest policies and lawshave been created or updated; close to 75 percent of the world’s forests are nowcovered by national forest programmes; and the area of forest with a managementplan has increased significantly in sub-Saharan Africa and South America.forests and climate change – a window of opportunityAmong other functions, forests play a crucial role in climate change mitigation andadaptation. One of the positive messages from FRA 2010 is that carbon emissionsfrom forests have been reduced in recent years as a result of the decrease in the rate ofdeforestation combined with large-scale planting of new forests.There is now unprecedented awareness of the role forests play in climate changemitigation. The recent discussions under the UNFCCC to establish a mechanism toreward developing countries that reduce their carbon emissions from deforestation andforest degradation (REDD-plus) and the additional funding already pledged will, it ishoped, help further reduce the rates of deforestation and forest degradation in manycountries.nexT STepSMembers of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests, regional groups, nongovernmentalorganizations and countries worked together in the design andimplementation of FRA 2010. Joint planning for the next global assessment (FRA2015) will commence in 2011, based on an in-depth evaluation of FRA 2010.

195BibliographyCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2010. The world fact book (Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html).Dale, V.H., Joyce, L.A., McNulty, S., Neilson, R.P., Ayres, M.P., Flannigan, M.D.,Hanson, P.J., Irland, L.C., Lugo, A.E., Peterson, C.J., Simberloff, D., Swanson,F.J., Stocks, B.J. & Wotton, B.M. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances.Bioscience, 51(9): 723–734.European Commission. 2009. Forest fires in Europe 2008. Publication of the EuropeanCommunity. EUR 23971 EN. Luxembourg.EFC. 2010. Background paper for the forests and water segment. European ForestryCommission, 35 th Session, 27–30 April 2010, Lisbon, Portugal.FAO. 1948. Forest resources of the world. Unasylva, 2(4). Washington, DC.FAO. 1989. Plant genetic resources: their conservation in situ for human use. Preparedin collaboration with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO), UNEP and IUCN. Rome, Italy.FAO. 2000. Basic texts of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, Vols. I and II – 2000 edition. Rome, Italy. (Also available at www.fao.org/documents/docrep/003/x8700e/x8700e00.htm).FAO. 2001. Global forest resources assessment 2000 – main report. FAO Forestry PaperNo. 140. Rome, Italy. (Also available at www.fao.org/forestry/site/7949/en/).FAO. 2003. State of the World’s Forests 2003. Rome, Italy.FAO. 2006a. Report of the expert consultation on Global Forest Resources Assessment:Towards FRA 2010, 12–16 June 2006, Kotka, Finland. Rome, Italy. (Also availableat http://www.fao.org/forestry/11187-1-0.pdf).FAO. 2006b. Global forest resources assessment 2005 – Progress towards sustainableforest management. FAO Forestry Paper No. 147. Rome, Italy. (Also available atwww.fao.org/forestry/fra2005/en/).FAO. 2006c. Asia–Pacific forestry focus: Forestry after the tsunami. Forestry InformationNote 13. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.(Available at: www.fao.org/world/regional/rap/infonote/infonote/infonote13.pdf).FAO. 2006d. Global planted forests thematic study. Results and analysis. PlantedForests and Trees Working Paper No. FP38. Rome, Italy.FAO. 2006e. Understanding forest tenure in South and Southeast Asia. Forest Policyand Institutions Working Paper No. 14. Rome, Italy.FAO. 2007a. Report of the Eighteenth Session of the Committee on Forestry,13–16 March2007, Rome, Italy. COFO-2007/REP. Rome, Italy. (Also available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/012/j9643e.pdf).FAO. 2007b. Global forest resources assessment 2010 – guidelines for country reporting toFRA 2010. FAO Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper No. 143. Rome, Italy.FAO. 2007c. Global forest resources assessment 2010 – specification of national reportingtables for FRA 2010. FAO Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper No. 135.Rome, Italy. (Also available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/51315/en/).FAO. 2007d. Global forest resources assessment 2010 – terms and definitions. FAOForest Resources Assessment Working Paper 144. Rome, Italy.FAO. 2007e. The world’s mangroves 1980–2005. A thematic study prepared in theframework of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. FAO ForestryPaper No. 153. Rome, Italy. (Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1427e/a1427e00.htm).

196Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010FAO. 2007f. World bamboo resources. A thematic study prepared in the framework ofthe Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. Non-wood Forest Products No. 18.Rome, Italy. (Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1243e/a1243e00.pdf ).FAO. 2007g. Fire management global assessment 2006. A thematic study prepared inthe framework of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. FAO ForestryPaper No. 151, Rome, Italy. (Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0969e/a0969e00.htm).FAO. 2007h. Specification of national reporting tables for FRA 2010. Rome, Italy.(Available at: www.fao.org/forestry/14119-1-0.pdf).FAO. 2008a. Forests and water – a thematic study prepared in the framework of theGlobal Forest Resources Assessment 2005. FAO Forestry Paper No. 155. Rome, Italy.FAO. 2008b. Understanding forest tenure in Africa: opportunities and challenges forforest tenure diversification. Forest Policy and Institutions Working Paper No. 19.Rome, Italy.FAO. 2008c. Contribution of the forestry sector to national economies, 1990–2006.Forest Finance Working Paper FSFM/ACC/08. Rome, Italy. (Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/011/k4588e/k4588e00.htm).FAO. 2009a. Global review of forest pests and diseases. FAO Forestry Paper No. 156.Rome, Italy. (Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0640e/i0640e00.htm).FAO. 2009b. FAOSTAT-Forestry database. Rome, Italy. (Available at: faostat.fao.org/site/630/default.aspx).FAO. 2009c. Forest tenure in Latin American countries: an overview. Forest Policy andInstitutions. Working Paper No. 24. Rome, Italy.FAO. 2009d. State of the World’s Forests 2009. Rome, Italy. (Also available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0350e/i0350e00.htm).FAO. 2010a. FAO Strategy for Forests and Forestry. Rome, Italy. (Also available at:http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al043e/al043e00.pdf).FAO. 2010b. Forests and water – a synthesis report. Rome, Italy. (Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/forestsandwater/59204/en/)FAO. 2010c (in preparation). The area of forest under sustainable management. Ananalysis of reports to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. FAO ForestResources Assessment Working Paper. Rome, Italy.Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V., Potapov, P.V., Arunarwati, B., Stolle, F. & Pittman,K. 2009. Quantifying changes in the rates of forest clearing in Indonesia from1990 to 2005 using remotely sensed data sets. Environ Res Lett 4:10. 1088/1748-9326/4/3/034001. (Available at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/3/034001).Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V., Potapov, P.V. 2010. Quantification of global grossforest cover loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (19): 8650-8655. (Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912668107).Heinz Center. 2008. The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems 2008. Measuring the Lands,Waters, and Living Resources of the United States: Technical Notes. pp. 309–311.Washington, DC.: The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and theEnvironment. Island Press.Holmgren, P. & Persson, R. 2002. Evolution and prospects of global forest assessments.Unasylva 210: 3–9. (Also available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4001e/y4001e02.htm).IMF. 2010. World Economic Outlook database. Data for 2008. (Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28).IPCC. 2003. Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry.Kanagawa, Japan: Institute for Global Environment Strategies.IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4Agriculture, forestry and other land use. (Also available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html).

Bibliography 197IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007. The physical science basis: Contribution of WorkingGroup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge, UK.ITTO. 2006. Status of tropical forest management 2005. ITTO Technical Series No 24.Yokohama, Japan: International Tropical Timber Organization. (Also available athttp://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).Joint Research Centre. 2008. Forest fires in Europe 2007. JRC Scientific and TechnicalReports Report No. 8. Luxembourg: Institute for Environment and Sustainability,European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Landell-Mills, N. & Porras, I.T. 2002. Silver bullet or fool’s gold? A global review ofmarkets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. London,UK: International Institute for Environment and Development.Leslie, A. 2005. What will we want from the forests? ITTO Tropical Forest Update15(1): 14–16.Mayaux, P., Holmgren, P., Achard, F., Hugh, E., Stibig, H-J. & Branthomme, A.2005. Tropical forest cover change in the 1990s and options for future monitoring.Royal Society, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 360(1454): 373–384.MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing:synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. (Also available at www.millenniumassessment.org/).Mortsch, L.D. 2006. Impact of climate change on agriculture, forestry and wetlands.In: Bhatti, J., Lal, R., Apps, M. & Price, M., eds. Climate change and managedecosystems, pp. 45–67. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Taylor & Francis, CRC Press.State Forestry Administration. 2008. Blizzard damage on forestry in China.Translation of report prepared by State Forestry Administration, China.Sunderlin, W.D., Hatcher, J. & Liddle, M. 2008. From exclusion to ownership?Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI).Teague, B., McClead, R. & Pascoe, S. 2009. 2009 Victorian Bushfire Royal CommissionInterim Report. Australia: Government Printer for the State of Victoria.UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2007. Global environmentoutlook 4: environment for development. (Also available at http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/).UNGA. 2008. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the SecondCommittee (A/62/419 (Part I))] 62/98. Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Typesof Forests. A/RES/62/98. (Also available at www.fao.org/forestry/14717-1-0.pdf).United Nations. 2008. Official list of MDG indicators. New York, USA: UnitedNations Statistics Division. (Available at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Host.aspx?Content=Indicators/OfficialList.htm).United Nations. 2010a. Countries or areas, codes and abbreviations. (Available at:http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm).United Nations. 2010b. Millennium development goal indicators database. A-RES-55-2. New York, USA: United Nations Statistics Division. (Available at: http://millenniumindicators.un.org/).United Nations Population Division (UNPD). 2010. World Population Prospects:The 2008 Revision. Data for 2008. (Available at: http://data.un.org/Explorer.aspx?d=PopDiv).United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD). 2010. National accounts data. (Availableat: http://data.un.org/Explorer.aspx?d=SNAAMA).WDPA. 2010. Regional and global stats for 1990–2009 from the MDG 2010 analysis.(Available at: http://www.wdpa.org/Statistics.aspx).Whiteman, A., Broadhead, J. & Bahdon, J. 2002. The revision of woodfuel estimatesin FAOSTAT. Unasylva, 211: 41–45. (Available at: www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4450E/y4450e13.htm).

198Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010World Bank. 2010. World Development Indicators database. Data for 2008 (Availableat: http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do?Step=12&id=4&CNO=2).Xu, W., Wang, X., Ouyang, Z., Zhang, J., Li, Z., Xiao, Y. & Zheng, H. 2009.Conservation of giant panda habitat in South Minshan, China, after the May2008 earthquake. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(7): 353–358.Zomer, R.J., Trabucco, A., Coe R. & Place, F. 2009. Trees on farm: Analysis ofglobal extent and geographical patterns of agroforestry. ICRAF Working PaperNo. 89. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre.

199Annex 1ContributorsFRA ADVISORY GROUPC. Bahamondez (Chile); T. Christophersen (CBD); P. Csoka (UNFF); P. Drichi(Uganda); A. Filipchuk (Russian Federation); S. Gueye (Senegal); S. Johnson(ITTO); T. Kajarlainen (Finland); V. Kapos (UNEP-WCMC); R. Keenan (Australia);A. Korotkov (ex-UNECE); L. Laestadius (WRI); M. Lobovikov (INBAR);S. Maginnis (IUCN); R. Michalak (UNECE); E. Rametsteiner (Austria); J.K. Rawat(India); G. Reams (United States of America); R. Ridder (United States of America);H. Santoso (Indonesia); M. Sanz-Sanchez (UNFCCC); G. Vildanova (Uzbekistan)NATIONAL CORRESPONDENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THE COUNTRYREPORTS 36AlbaniaB. Doçi, N. Dragoti, S. Dule, G. Fierza, B. Hate, G. Hoxhaj,S. Karadumi, K. Koncani, J. Shtino, K. Starja, E. Toromani,F. Zadrima, H. ZotoAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAngolaArgentinaArmeniaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelizeBeninBelgiumD. El Achi, N. RahmaniJ. DonneganT.P. Caetano, N. Rodrigues, A.M. SimãoC. Annunziata, R. Banchs, J. Bocchio, S. Brandan,M. Burghi, L. Corinaldesi, N. Esper, N. Irigoin,A. Larroulet, E. Manghi, C. Montenegro, M.G. Parmuchi,R. VillaverdeA. Gevorgyan, A. Ghulijanyan, R. PetrosyanS. Davey, R. Dillon, G. Dunn, C. Howell, R. Keenan,M. Parsons, R. WaterworthR. Büchsenmeister, A. Freudenschuss, J. Hangler,C. Mayer, J. Prem, G. Steyrer, P. Weiss, B. WolfslehnerC. RussellI.U. Ahmad, Y. Ali, H. Banik, R.M. Chowdhury,M. Islam, A. Latif, M.A. Motaleb, A.K.M. ShamsuddinK. Ward, M. WilsonV.L. Krasouski, D. Krasouski, V.G. ShatravkoP. Cho, D. NoveloF. Ahononga, S. Akouehou, J. Médézo, T. YehouenouW. Buysse, C. Laurent, H. Lecomte, C. de Schepper,S. Vanwijnsberghe, M. Waterinckx36Listed in alphabetical order and including participants at Expert Consultations and other meetingsrelated to the FRA 2010 reporting process. For a list of national correspondents by country, seehttp://www.fao.org/forestry/42756/en/

200Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010BhutanBolivia (PlurinationalState of)BotswanaBrazilBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral AfricanRepublicChadChileChinaColombiaCongoCook IslandsComorosD. ThapaE. Magariños, R. Mauricio, D. Medina Ríos, R. RíosK. Kemoreile, R. Kwerepe, M. Mokolwane,S. Motshereganyi, B. Sedi, A. Tema, M.M. Tsuaneng,M. SekgopoP. Arenas, E. Barretto Fernandes, A. Batista Oliveira,I.D. Falcone de Melo, J. Freitas Veloso, G. Gomide,N. Higuchi, A.C. Hummel, J.N. Macedo Silva,Y.M. Malheiros de Oliveira, C.M. Mello Rosa, F. Pareyn,A.V. Rezende, J.E. Rocha Collares, C.R. Sanquetta,R.A. ValgasA. Bibi, A.A. Cheng, A.J. Hjh Jamilah Hj, I. Nor’ain Hj,M. Roslinah Hj, M. Safwan, M. Yussof Hj, B. Zaiedi HjS. Balov, A. Bobeva, A. Dimitrova, V. Konstantinov,Z. Ljuben, N. Mihaylova, A. Mineva, M. Popova,V. Stefanova, E. TsankovaS. CoulibalyA. Bararwandika, V. Barindogo, E. Ndereyimana,S. Ndonse, O. NtakarutimanaP. Chealy, L. Chivin, L. HornL.C. Martin Nkie, J.C. Ndo NkoumouM. Brady, P. Englefield, J. Frappier, M. Fullerton,M. Gillis, E. Han, G. Hargrove, R. Jacques, W. Kurz,A. Larabie, T. Lynham, C. Rochon, N. VinceD. Barros GonçalvesM. Cottam, G. DigginsL. Dimanche, A. MedinA. Agala, D. Bardoum, A. DjimramadjiA. Baldini, M.V. Oyarzun, V. SandovalA. Ao, X. Chen, X. Chen, G. Huang, Y. Hui, S. Li, Q. Li,Z. Li, J. Liu, X.Wang, H. Wu, M. Zhang, Z. Zhang, C. Xia,J. ZhouG. Arango, L.M. Arévalo Sánchez, A.P. Barbosa Herrera,M.C. Cardona Ruiz, M. Cuellar Buraglia, S. Cruz Arguello,R. Léon Cruz, M.P. Léon Poveda, C.P. Olarte Villanueva,G. Paredes, F. SalazarJ.C. Banzouzi, G.C. Boundzanga, J. Kimbembe,G. Lembe, P. TatyN. Aratangi, N. Mataio, N. Tokari, O. TangianauA. Abdallah, A. Youssouf

Annex 1: Contributors 201Costa RicaCôte d’IvoireCroatiaCubaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDemocratic Republicof the CongoDemocratic People’sRepublic of KoreaDominicaDjiboutiDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaroe IslandsFalkland Islands(Malvinas)FijiFinlandFranceM.I. Chavarría Espinoza, L. Noches FernándezA. Marcellin Yao, V. Tie Bi Tra IrieB. Bel ˘c íc, S. Gospo ˘c íc, V. Grgasovi ć, D. Janeš, S. Juri ˘c íc,G. Kova ˘c, T. Kruzic, A. Milinkovi ć, D. Motik, R. Ojurovi ć,I. Pešut, G. Videc, V. Vorkapi ćI. Diago Urfé, C. Díaz Maza, I. García Corona,J.M. Garea Alonso, E. Linares Landa, M. Moronta Leyva,L. Palenzuela Díaz, A.I. Zulueta AcostaA. Charalampos, A. Christou, A. Christodoulou,A. Horattas, L. Loizou, K. Papageorgiou, A. SarrisV. Henzlik, J. KubistaA. Bastrup-Birk, V.K. Johannsen, T. Nord-LarsenG. Zasy NgisakoC. Pak, H.Yong RiT. Brandeis, M. Burton, R. CharlesY. Daher Robleh, M. Mohamed MoussaR. Días Birth, T. Disla, B. Mañon Rossi,E.R. Martínez MenaE. Arias Calderón, G. Galindo, E. Rosero, M. Trellez,C. VelascoM. Abd ElSattar, S. Fathy, G. Madboully, M. MohamedAhmedA. Flores Bonilla, J.M. Guardado Rodríguez,R.A. Herrera GuzmánA. Abaga, J. Esi Bakale, D. Obiang, D. Sima NdongB.M. EstifanosV. Adermann, T. Denks, H. Õunap, M. ValgepeaS. Getahun, M. Hailesellassie, S. NuneA. Bastrup-Birk, V. Johannsen, V. Kvist, T. Leivsson,T. Nord-LarsenS. GillamL. Delai, I. Koroi, S. Lagataki, A. Lewai, V. Tupua,J. WakoloM. Aarne, A. Ihalainen, M. Kokkonen, K.T. Korhonen,M. Mustonen, T. Tuomainen, E. YlitaloP. Amiranoff, F. Caroulle, A. Chaudron, A. Colin,E. Van De Maele, J.L. Flot, N. Hamza, M.P. Morel,C. Vidal

202Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010French GuianaFrench PolynesiaGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHondurasHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaO. Brunaux, S. Guitet, N. Lecoeur, O. SouleresS. DefranouxV. Mbouma, J.C. Matiba, E. NgavoussaL. Bojang, L. Ceesay, S. Ebrima, M. Jaiteh, J. MalangN. Iordanishvili, P. TorchinavaH. Englert, K. Oehmichen, H. Polley, A. Requardt,F. Schmitz, T.W. Schneider, J. SchumacherK. Affum-Baffoe, H. BrownM. Fenner, S. GillamM. ChatziioannouA. Bastrup-Birk, A. Forteau, A. Jeremiah, V.K. Johannsen,T. Nord-LarsenA. Forteau, A. JeremiahM. Rossi, O. SouleresJ. DonneganR. RodasG. Diggins, A. McCutcheonA. Bangoura, L. Camara, D. DiawaraL. Besna Iala, A. Gomes Da SilvaP. Bholanath, E. Goberdhan, A. Mohase, J. SinghR. Eugene, B. Louijamé, C. Viciere BrownJ. Avila Avila, A. Duarte, A. Maurillo, R. OqueliP. Debreceni, L. Kolozs, P. Kottek, A. SzepesiP. Eysteinsson, A. SnorrasonS. Ashutosh, D. Pandey, R.D. Jakati, R. Kumar,P. Lakhchaura, G.K. PrasadK. Dwipayana, H.H. Indrabudi, B. Harto,F.X. Herwirawan, Netty, I.R. Permana, L.R. Siregar,A.N. Tosiani, W. WardoyoS.A. Khalilpour, R. SohrabiS. Saleim Al-Kawaz, J.M.J. Al-BeatiK. Black, M. Boyd, P. Dunne, J. O’Neill, J. RedmondG. Diggins, P. WilliamsonD. Brand, I. Haitin, R. Talmor, I. TauberL. Colletti, P. Gasparini, A. Macrì, A. Mariano,F. de Natale, E. Pompei, R. Romano, V. Sambucini,R. Visentin, M. VitulloU. Edwards, O. Evelyn, M. Headley

Annex 1: Contributors 203JapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKyrgyzstanLao People’sDemocratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaK. Nakajima, T. WatanabeM. Freeman, G. DigginsA.A. Al Abbady, L. Al-RahahlehI.A. KovalS. Ihure, M.C.O. Ogilo, K.M. WamichweB. Ata, T. Conchitta, T. Iete, T.R. Nenenteiti, B. Rimon,C. Tatireta, N. Tearimawa, T. Teboranga, E. Tiaontin,T. Turang, I. Ub’aitoiA. Burhanov, A. Davletkeldiev, A. Kysanov, C. YakupovaL. Khamdy, S. SanontyA. Budreiko, L. Pamovska, N. StruveJ. StephanR. Hilbert, H. Matsipa, E.S. SekaleliB. Dagbe, V.Y. Dolo, A.B.M. Johnson, E.K. ZowuluLibyan Arab Jamahiriya N. Bashir, A.A.B. Al-HasoumiLithuaniaLuxembourgMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoA. Butkus, A. Kasperavi ˘cius, A. Kuliesis, D. VizlenskasG. Kugener, M. WagnerE. Rabenasolo Solofoniaina, J.N. RakotoarisoaK. Chirambo, B. Mtambo, W.T. MitembeA.W. Bujang, Y.Y. Hwai, A. Ibrahim, P.L. Lohuji,M.Y. Maimon, A.A. Mohammed, A.A. Mohamad Bohari,B. Mohd Nor, K. Mohd Nor, A. Noraini, I. Parlan,R.H. Rosli, M.H. YasinH. Faisal, A. Maqsoom, A.N. Moosa, A. NajaathG. Diallo, M. Komota, K.F. Konè, N.O. TangaraJ. DonneganO. Docquier, J.B. Schneider, O. SoulèresS.M. Cheikh Ould, B. Ethmane Ould, S. Meimine OuldV. Balloo, P. Khurun, D. Rama, V. TezooD. LaybourneE.M. Barba Robert, R. Castro Miguel, E.S. Díaz PonceDávalos, J.D. Etchevers Barra, J. Fernández Medina,R. Flores Hernández, B.H.J. De Jong, T.A. Limón Magaña,O.S. Magaña Torres, A. Nolasco Morales, M. OlguínÁlvarez, R. Orozco Gálvez, R. Palafox Rivas, F. Paz Pellat,A. Rodríguez Aguilar, V. Silva Mascorro, A.R. SolorioGonzález, F. Takaki Takaki, M.E. Vargas Amado, M.B.Vargas Llamas, E.A. Victoria Hernández, J. Villa Castillo

204Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Micronesia (FederatedStates of)MongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorthern MarianaIslandsNorwayOmanPalauPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalPuerto RicoRepublic of KoreaRepublic of MoldovaJ. Donnegan, M. Falanruw, I. Lebehn, S. Mikel, I. Penno,F. Ruegorong, B. Sigrah, T. Sulog, A. Takesy, E. WagukD. Ulzibayar, H. YkhanbaiD. MarinovicG. Gray, M. LloydA. LefhailiI. Ahabri, R. Bandeira, C. Cuambe, A. Issufo, E. Manhiça,O. Manso, A. Maocha, M. Mausse, C. Sousa, R. TimaneT. Maung Maung, O. MyintN. Kanime, J. KamwiK.P. Narayan, S.M. ShresthaR. Busink, M. Van den Ham, J. OldenburgerV. D. Dang, A. OddiL. Bulman, A. Brandon, G. Cameron, B. Geard, P. Lane,J. Novis, J. Stanley, S. Wakelin, E. WrightA. Cuadra Cruz, J. Canales, M. Cuadra, R. Rivas Palma,W. Schwartz, M. Sujo, L.Wing, S. ZamoraI. Adamou, I. Boureima, H. GarbaO.S. Adedoyin, J.B. Adesina, O.O. AmosunB. TauasiJ. DonneganG. Hylen, T.A. Steinset, S.M. TomterA.N. Ahmed, A.A. Said Bin HamedJ. Donnegan, T. Holm, L. MamisM. Hurtado, N. Cubas Pérez, C. Melgarejo Villalobos,C. Pimentel MarínV. Ambia, C. Bigol, G. Gamoga, L. Saega, R. TuriaM. Álvarez, D. MannB. Dapozzo Ibañez, R. Malleux HernaniR.T. Acosta, N. Andin, N.A. Bambalan, C.P. Consolacion,J.E. Flores, M.D. MendozaM. Jabłoński, G. WojciechJ. Buxo, J. Eira, P. Godinho-Ferreira, J. Moreira, J. Pinho,C. Santos, J. UvaT. BrandeisH.K. Cho, S.H. KimG. Grubii

Annex 1: Contributors 205RéunionRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaSamoaSaint Helena,Ascension and Tristanda CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Pierre andMiquelonSaint Vincent andGrenadineSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard andJan Mayen IslandsB. Navez, O. SouleresA. Biri˛s Iovu, F. D ănescu, T. Fulicea, M. Jablonski,C. Pahontu, T.A. Steinset, S.M. Tomter, C. ZaharescuA. Filipchuk, B. MoiseevC. Habimana, F. MunyansangaN.T. LeuteleD.G. DuncanB. PaulG. Donatian, J. Lyndon, A. MichaelF. UrtizbéréaS. Harry, C. RichardsI.M. Aref, A.A. El Khouly, K.N. Al Mosa,A.G. Al ShareefL. Bodian Mamadou, S. Gueye, I. Ndiaye,T. Ndiaye CheikhI. Grujicic, G. Ivanovic, V. Jovanovic, V. Jovanovic,D. Jovic, B. Seratlic, A. Tarjan TobolkaB. EstherG. KokerG. Davison, H.K. LuaB. Konôpka, M. Koval ˘cík, R. Longauer, V. Longauerová,J. Mecko, M. Morav ˘cík, T. Priwitzer, Z. Sarvašová,R. Svitok, J. Tutka,V. VakulaJ. Zafran, T. RemicJ. Irokete WanefaiaD. Aabi, J.A. OsmanS. Boqo, J. MatshateR. Vallejo Bombín, G. Fernández Centeno, C. Viejo TéllezS. Kulatunga, A. SathurusingheT.D. Abdel Magid, N. Dawelbait, S. El Mahi, A. Gaafar,H. Hassan ElAmin, H. Ibrahim, S. Khalil, D. Lutana,S.Y. Mohammed, L. MohamadeinF. Abdul, S. Crebbe, M. Rewiechand, D. Roel Lemen,R. SomopawiroS.M. Tomter

206Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010SwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTajikistanThailandThe former YugoslavRepublic of MacedoniaTimor-LesteTongaTogoTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurks and CaicosIslandsUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited Republic ofTanzaniaUnited States ofAmericaUnited States VirginIslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuF.F. MagagulaP. Christensen, S. Claesson, K. Duvemo, J. Fridman,A. Hildingsson, S. Karlsson, E. Karltun, J.O. Loman,B. Merkell, B. Westerlund, S. WulffM. Abegg, U. Brandly, P. Brassel, M. Büchel, P. Camin,A. Lanz, T. Pasi, B. Röösli, H.P. Schaffer, S. Schmid,E. Thuerig, U. UlmerZ. Al Jebawi, M.R. Al LehhamH. Ahmadov, E. Ahmadov, M. Akhunov, Z. Imamkulova,R. KumalovaS. Kanjanakunchorn, A. SukhotanangJ. Jovanovska, M. Miladinovik, S. Naceski, N. Nikolov,K. Sokolovska, K. Sotirovski, S. Teneva, N. Velkovski,J. ZdravkovskiM. Mendes, M. Da SilvaT. Faka’osiB. Sama, K. Trévé TengueS. RamnarineR. Aini, S. BedhiefU. Adiguzel, U. Asan, R. Bali, Y. Firat, Y. Gunes,M. Kol, B. Ors, A. Temerit, M. YurdaerW. Clerveaux, G. DigginsJ. Diisi, P. Drichi, D. Elungat Odeke, E. SenyonjoI. Buksha, V.F. RomanovskyiA.S. Ali, A. Almoalla, M. Makkawi, B.F. Mobarak,A.A. SalahudeenG. Diggins, S. Gillam, J. Taylor, S. WardA. Akida Bohero, P. Akitanda, N. Chamuya,G.J. Kamwenda, E. Nssoko, J. OtienoS.J. Alexander, T. Brandeis, T.W. Clark, J. Donnegan,L. Heath, J. Howard, P.L. Miles, S. Oswalt, F. Sapio,K. Skog, J. Smith, W.B. Smith, B.M. TkaczT. Brandeis, M. ChakroffR. Echeverría, D. San RománA. Ahadov, E. Marat, G. Murat, G. Reshetnikova,A. Shukurov, G. VildanovaE. George, P. Kamasteia

Annex 1: Contributors 207Venezuela (BolivarianRepublic of)A. Catalán, L. Lugo, A. Páez, J. RojasViet NamWallis and FutunaIslandsYemenN. Hong Quang, D. Huu Khanh, G. Le Truong, L. Lugo,T.H. Minh, V.T. Ngo, V.N. Sinh, N. Vu ThanhJ. Boutet, F. Perinet, M. Sautot-VialJ. Abdulsamad Al-Emad, O.A. Gazem GhanemZambia J. Mwelwa Mukosha, Y. NyirendaZimbabweD. Duwa, A.S. MvududuFAO/UNECE STAFF, CONSULTANTS AND VOLUNTEERSM. Achouri, G. Allard, I. Amsallem, P. Barlolomei, J. Blanchez, F. Bojang, M. Boscolo,A. Branthomme, J. Carle, C.M. Carneiro, J. Cedegren, R. Czudek, R. D’Annunzio, P. Durst,C. Eckelmann, E. Foti, M. Garzuglia, M. Gauthier, A. Gerrand, S. Grouwels, M. Grylle,T. Hamid Omran, N. Hart, V. Heymell, T. Hofer, J. Heino, R. Johansson, O. Jonsson,F. Kafeero, K. Kamelarczyk, M. Kashio, W. Killman, W. Kollert, P.D. Kone, M. Laverdière,A. Lebedys, E. Lindquist, M. Lobovikov, F. Lucci, Q. Ma, M. Malagnoux, L. Marinaro,L. Marklund, M. Martin, A. Mathias, M. Mengarelli, R. Michalak, B. Moore, E. Muller,M. Okabayashi, H. Ortiz Chour, M. Otsuka, M. Palermo, E. Pepke, A. Perlis, C. Prins,J.A. Prado, D. Radwan, E. Rametsteiner, E. Rojas, F. Romano, L. Russo, F. Salinas, P. So,O. Souvannavon, L. Travertino, P. Van Lierop, P. Vantomme, P. Vuorinen, A.Whiteman,D. Wiell, M.L. Wilkie, Y. Xie.INTERNATIONAL ORGANIzATIONS AND INSTITUTIONSAmazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO); Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD); Dry Forests Asia Process; European Forestry Institute (EFI); FinnishForest Research Institute (Metla); Joint Research Centre of the European Commission(JRC); International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR); International TropicalTimber Organization (ITTO); International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN);International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO); Ministerial Conferenceon the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE – now Forest Europe); MontréalProcess (Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and SustainableManagement of Temperate and Boreal Forests); South Dakota State University, UnitedStates of America (SDSU); Tarapoto Process; United Nations Economic Commission forEurope (UNECE); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); United NationsForum on Forests (UNFF); United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC); World Bank (WB); United Nations Environment ProgrammeWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC); World Agroforestry Centre(ICRAF); World Resources Institute (WRI).

209Annex 2Terms and definitions used in FRA 2010ExTEnT oF FoREsT And oThER woodEd lAndCategoryForestOther wooded landOther landOther land withtree cover(sub-category of“Other land”)Inland water bodiesdefinitionLand spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and acanopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholdsin situ. It does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural orurban land use.Land not classified as “Forest”, spanning more than 0.5 hectares; with treeshigher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of 5–10 percent, or trees able toreach these thresholds in situ; or with a combined cover of shrubs, bushes andtrees above 10 percent. It does not include land that is predominantly underagricultural or urban land use.All land that is not classified as “Forest” or “Other wooded land”.Land classified as “Other land”, spanning more than 0.5 hectares with acanopy cover of more than 10 percent of trees able to reach a height of5 meters at maturity.Inland water bodies generally include major rivers, lakes and water reservoirs.FoREsT ownERshipTermForest ownershipManagement rightsof public forestsCategoryPublic ownershipPrivate ownershipIndividuals(sub-category ofPrivate ownership)definitionGenerally refers to the legal right to freely and exclusively use, control,transfer, or otherwise benefit from a forest. Ownership can be acquiredthrough transfers such as sales, donations, and inheritance.Refers to the right to manage and use publicly owned forests for a specificperiod of time.definitionForest owned by the State; or administrative units of the Public Administration;or by institutions or corporations owned by the Public Administration.Forest owned by individuals, families, communities, private co-operatives,corporations and other business entities, private religious and educationalinstitutions, pension or investment funds, NGOs, nature conservationassociations and other private institutions.Forest owned by individuals and families.

210Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Private businessentities andinstitutions(sub-category ofPrivate ownership)Local communities(sub-category ofPrivate ownership)Indigenous / tribalcommunities(sub-category ofPrivate ownership)Other types ofownershipForest owned by private corporations, co-operatives, companies and otherbusiness entities, as well as private organizations such as NGOs, natureconservation associations, and private religious and educational institutions,etc.Forest owned by a group of individuals belonging to the same communityresiding within or in the vicinity of a forest area. The community membersare co-owners that share exclusive rights and duties, and benefits contributeto the community development.Forest owned by communities of indigenous or tribal people.Other kinds of ownership arrangements not covered by the categories above.Also includes areas where ownership is unclear or disputed.CATEgoRiEs RElATEd To ThE holdER oF mAnAgEmEnT RighTs oF publiC FoREsTREsouRCEsPublicadministrationIndividuals/householdsPrivate institutionsCommunitiesOther form ofmanagement rightsThe public administration (or institutions or corporations owned by thepublic administration) retains management rights and responsibilities withinthe limits specified by the legislation.Forest management rights and responsibilities are transferred from thepublic administration to individuals or households through long-term leasesor management agreements.Forest management rights and responsibilities are transferred from the publicadministration to corporations, other business entities, private co-operatives,private non-profit institutions and associations, etc., through long-termleases or management agreements.Forest management rights and responsibilities are transferred from thepublic administration to local communities (including indigenous and tribalcommunities) through long-term leases or management agreements.Forests for which the transfer of management rights does not belong to anyof the categories mentioned above.FoREsT dEsignATionTermPrimary designatedfunctionProtected areasdefinitionThe primary function or management objective assigned to a managementunit either by legal prescription, documented decision of the landowner/manager, or evidence provided by documented studies of forest managementpractices and customary use.Areas especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biologicaldiversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managedthrough legal or other effective means.

Annex 2: Terms and definitions used in FRA 2010 211CategoryProductionProtection of soiland waterConservation ofbiodiversitySocial servicesMultiple useOtherNo/unknowndefinitionForest area designated primarily for production of wood, fibre, bio-energyand/or non-wood forest products.Forest area designated primarily for protection of soil and water.Forest area designated primarily for conservation of biological diversity.Includes but is not limited to areas designated for biodiversity conservationwithin the protected areas.Forest area designated primarily for social services.Forest area designated primarily for more than one purpose and where noneof these alone is considered as the predominant designated function.Forest areas designated primarily for a function other than production,protection, conservation, social services or multiple use.No or unknown designation.spECiAl dEsignATion And mAnAgEmEnT CATEgoRiEsArea of permanentforest estate (PFE)Forest area withinprotected areasForest area undersustainable forestmanagementForest area withmanagement planForest area that is designated to be retained as forest and may not beconverted to other land use.Forest area within formally established protected areas independently of thepurpose for which the protected areas were established.To be defined and documented by the country.Forest area that has a long-term (ten years or more) documented managementplan, aiming at defined management goals, which is periodically revised.FoREsT ChARACTERisTiCsTermNaturallyregenerated forestIntroduced speciesCategoryPrimary forestOther naturallyregenerated forestdefinitionForest predominantly composed of trees established through naturalregeneration.A species, subspecies or lower taxon, occurring outside its natural range (pastor present) and dispersal potential (i.e. outside the range it occupies naturallyor could occupy without direct or indirect introduction or care by humans).definitionNaturally regenerated forest of native species, where there are no clearlyvisible indications of human activities and the ecological processes are notsignificantly disturbed.Naturally regenerated forest where there are clearly visible indications ofhuman activities.

212Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Other naturallyregenerated forestof introducedspecies (subcategory)Planted forestPlanted forest ofintroduced species(sub-category)Other naturally regenerated forest where the trees are predominantly ofintroduced species.Forest predominantly composed of trees established through planting and/or deliberate seeding.Planted forest, where the planted/seeded trees are predominantly ofintroduced species.spECiAl CATEgoRiEsCategoryRubber plantationsMangrovesBamboodefinitionForest area with rubber tree plantations.Area of forest and other wooded land with mangrove vegetation.Area of forest and other wooded land with predominant bamboo vegetation.FoREsT EsTAblishmEnT And REFoREsTATionTermAfforestationReforestationNatural expansionof forestdefinitionEstablishment of forest through planting and/or deliberate seeding on landthat, until then, was not classified as forest.Re-establishment of forest through planting and/or deliberate seeding onland classified as forest.Expansion of forests through natural succession on land that, until then, wasunder another land use (e.g. forest succession on land previously used foragriculture).gRowing sToCkCategoryGrowing stockGrowing stock ofcommercial speciesdefinitionVolume over bark of all living trees more than X cm in diameter at breastheight (or above buttress if these are higher). Includes the stem from groundlevel or stump height up to a top diameter of Y cm, and may also includebranches to a minimum diameter of W cm.Growing stock (see def. above) of commercial species.biomAss sToCkCategoryAbove-groundbiomassdefinitionAll living biomass above the soil including stem, stump, branches, bark,seeds, and foliage.

Annex 2: Terms and definitions used in FRA 2010 213Below-groundbiomassDead woodAll biomass of live roots. Fine roots of less than 2mm diameter are excludedbecause these often cannot be distinguished empirically from soil organicmatter or litter.All non-living woody biomass not contained in the litter, either standing,lying on the ground, or in the soil. Dead wood includes wood lying on thesurface, dead roots, and stumps larger than or equal to 10 cm in diameter orany other diameter used by the country.CARbon sToCkCategoryCarbon in abovegroundbiomassCarbon in belowgroundbiomassCarbon in deadwoodCarbon in litterSoil carbondefinitionCarbon in all living biomass above the soil, including stem, stump, branches,bark, seeds, and foliage.Carbon in all biomass of live roots. Fine roots of less than 2 mm diameter areexcluded, because these often cannot be distinguished empirically from soilorganic matter or litter.Carbon in all non-living woody biomass not contained in the litter, eitherstanding, lying on the ground, or in the soil. Dead wood includes woodlying on the surface, dead roots, and stumps larger than or equal to 10 cm indiameter or any other diameter used by the country.Carbon in all non-living biomass with a diameter less than the minimumdiameter for dead wood (e.g. 10 cm), lying dead in various states ofdecomposition above the mineral or organic soil.Organic carbon in mineral and organic soils (including peat) to a specifieddepth chosen by the country and applied consistently through the time series.FoREsT FiREsCategoryNumber of firesdefinitionNumber of vegetation fires per year.Area affected by fire Area affected by vegetation fires per year.Vegetation fire(supplementaryterm)WildfirePlanned fireAny vegetation fire regardless of ignition source, damage or benefit.Any unplanned and/or uncontrolled vegetation fire.A vegetation fire regardless of ignition source that burns according tomanagement objectives and requires limited or no suppression action.disTuRbAnCEs AFFECTing FoREsT hEAlTh And viTAliTyTermdefinitionDisturbanceDamage caused by any factor (biotic or abiotic) that adversely affects thevigour and productivity of the forest and which is not a direct result ofhuman activities.

214Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Invasive speciesCategoryDisturbance byinsectsDisturbance bydiseasesDisturbance byother biotic agentsDisturbance causedby abiotic factorsSpecies that are non-native to a particular ecosystem and whose introductionand spread cause, or are likely to cause, socio-cultural, economic orenvironmental harm or harm to human health.definitionDisturbance caused by insect pests.Disturbance caused by diseases attributable to pathogens, such as bacteria,fungi, phytoplasma or virus.Disturbance caused by biotic agents other than insects or diseases, such aswildlife browsing, grazing, physical damage by animals, etc.Disturbances caused by abiotic factors, such as air pollution, snow, storm,drought, etc.wood REmovAlsCategoryIndustrialroundwoodremovalsWoodfuel removalsdefinitionThe wood removed (volume of roundwood over bark) for production ofgoods and services other than energy production (woodfuel).The wood removed for energy production purposes, regardless whether forindustrial, commercial or domestic use.non wood FoREsT pRoduCTs And vAluETermNon-wood forestproduct (NWFP)Value of NWFPremovalsdefinitionGoods derived from forests that are tangible and physical objects ofbiological origin other than wood.For the purpose of this table, value is defined as the market value at the siteof collection or forest border.EmploymEnTCategoryFull-timeequivalents (FTE)EmploymentPaid employmentSelf-employmentdefinitionA measurement equal to one person working full-time during a specifiedreference period.Includes all persons in paid employment or self-employment.Persons who during a specified reference period performed some work forwage or salary in cash or in kind.Persons who during a specified reference period performed some workfor profit or family gain in cash or in kind (e.g. employers, own-accountworkers, members of producers’ cooperatives, contributing family workers).

Annex 2: Terms and definitions used in FRA 2010 215CategoryEmployment inprimary productionof goods 37Employment inmanagement ofprotected areasdefinitionEmployment in activities related to production of goods derived fromforests.Employment in activities related to the management of protected areas withforests.poliCy And lEgAl FRAmEwoRkTermForest policyForest policystatementNational forestprogramme (NFP)Law (Act or Code)on forestdefinitionA set of orientations and principles of actions adopted by public authoritiesin harmony with national socio-economic and environmental policies in agiven country to guide future decisions in relation to the management, useand conservation of forest and tree resources for the benefit of society.A document that describes the objectives, priorities and means forimplementation of the forest policy.A generic expression that refers to a wide range of approaches towardsforest policy formulation, planning and implementation at national and subnationallevels. The national forest programme provides a framework andguidance for country-driven forest sector development with participationof all stakeholders and in consistence with policies of other sectors andinternational policies.A set of rules enacted by the legislative authority of a country regulating theaccess, management, conservation and use of forest resources.insTiTuTionAl FRAmEwoRkTermMinisterresponsible forforest policymakingHead of ForestryLevel ofsubordinationUniversity degreedefinitionMinister holding the main responsibility for forest issues and the formulationof the forest policy.The Head of Forestry is the government officer responsible for implementingthe mandate of the public administration related to forests.Number of administrative levels between the Head of Forestry and theMinister.Qualification provided by a university after a minimum of 3 years of postsecondary education.37This category corresponds to the ISIC/NACE Rev. 4 activity A02 (Forestry, logging and related service activities)with the exception of the activities “growing of Christmas trees” and “growing of rubber trees” which are included inthe FRA definition but excluded in the ISIC activity A02.

216Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010EduCATion And REsEARChTermForest-relatededucationDoctor’s degree(Ph.D.)Master’s degree(M.Sc.) orequivalentBachelor’sdegree (B.Sc.) orequivalentTechniciancertificate ordiplomaPublicly fundedforest researchcentresdefinitionPost-secondary education programme with focus on forests and relatedsubjects.University (or equivalent) education with a total duration of about 8 years.University (or equivalent) education with a total duration of about 5 years.University (or equivalent) education with a duration of about 3 years.Qualification issued from a technical education institution consisting of 1 to3 years post secondary education.Research centres primarily implementing research programmes on forestmatters. Funding is mainly public or channelled through public institutions.publiC REvEnuE And CollECTion oF ExpEndiTuRECategorydefinitionForest revenuePublic expenditureOperationalexpenditure (subcategoryof Publicexpenditure)Transfer payments(sub-category ofPublic expenditure)Domestic fundingExternal fundingAll government revenue collected from the domestic production and tradeof forest products and services. For this purpose, forest products include:roundwood; sawnwood; wood-based panels; pulp and paper; and non-woodforest products. As far as possible, this should include revenue collected byall levels of government (i.e. central, regional/provincial and municipal level),but it should exclude the income of publicly owned business entities.All government expenditure on forest related activities (further definedbelow).All government expenditure on public institutions solely engaged in theforest sector. Where the forest administration is part of a larger public agency(e.g. department or ministry), this should only include the forest sectorcomponent of the agency’s total expenditure. As far as possible, this shouldalso include other institutions (e.g. in research, training and marketing)solely engaged in the forest sector, but it should exclude the expenditure ofpublicly owned business entities.All government expenditure on direct financial incentives paid to nongovernmentand private-sector institutions, enterprises communities orindividuals operating in the forest sector to implement forest related activities.Public expenditure funded from domestic public financial resources,including: retained forest revenue; forest-related funds; and allocations fromthe national budget (i.e. from non-forest sector public revenue sources).Public expenditure funded from grants and loans from donors, nongovernmentalorganisations, international lending agencies and internationalorganisations, where such funds are channelled through national publicinstitutions.

217Annex 3Global tablesNOTESCountry nomenclature and regional groups used in the tablesThe names of countries and areas used in these tables follow standard UN practiceregarding nomenclature. The regional groups used in these tables represent FAO’sstandardized regional breakdown of the world according to geographical criteria.Data sourceUnless otherwise stated, the information provided in these tables is derived fromofficially validated country reports. These reports contain detailed information on datasources, original data and an explanation of how the reported figures were calculated, aswell as explanatory notes for each of the tables. All the reports are available on the FAOweb site www.fao.org/forestry/fra2010) in English, French or Spanish.DefinitionsAnnex 2 contains the terms and definitions for all variables listed in the tables.TotalsNumbers may not tally because of rounding. Global and regional totals are omittedin those cases where the sum of the reported values would not give a correct estimatebecause of incomplete data sets.Abbreviationsn.s. = not significant, indicating a very small value– = data not availableFTE = full-time equivalentNWFP = non wood forest productCONTENTS1. Basic data on countries and areas 2182. Extent of forest and other wooded land 2010 2243. Trends in extent of forest 1990–2010 2294. Forest ownership and management rights 2005 2345. Primary designated functions of forest 2010 2406. Forest management and legal status 2010 2457. Forest characteristics 2010 2508. Trends in extent of primary forest 1990–2010 2569. Trends in extent of planted forests 1990–2010 26110. Growing stock in forest and other wooded land 2010 26611. Trends in carbon stock in living forest biomass 1990–2010 27212. Area of forest affected by fire and other disturbances 2005 27713. Trends in removals of wood products 1990–2005 28314. Value of wood and NWFP removals 2005 28915. Employment in forestry 1990–2005 29416. Forest policy and legal framework 2008 29917. Human resources within public forest institutions 2000–2008 30418. Forest education and research 2008 30919. Forest revenue and public expenditure on forestry 2005 31520. Status of ratification of international conventions and agreements asof 1 January 2010 321

218Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaLand area a(1 000 ha)TAble 1Basic data on countries and areasTotal(1 000)Population 2008 bDensity(Population/km 2 )Annualgrowth rate(%)Rural(% oftotal)Per capita(PPP)(US$)GDP 2008 cAnnualgrowth rate(%)Angola 124 670 18 021 14 2.7 43 5 820 13.2botswana 56 673 1 921 3 1.5 40 13 574 2.9Comoros 186 850 457 2.4 72 1 170 1.0Djibouti 2 318 849 37 1.8 13 2 138 3.9eritrea 10 100 4 927 49 3.1 79 642 2.0ethiopia ** 109 631 80 713 74 2.6 83 869 11.3Kenya 56 914 38 765 68 2.7 78 1 551 1.7lesotho 3 035 2 049 68 0.8 75 1 564 3.9Madagascar 58 154 19 111 33 2.7 71 1 054 7.3Malawi 9 408 14 846 158 2.8 81 805 9.7Mauritius 203 1 280 631 0.7 58 12 356 4.5Mayotte 37 189 505 2.7 – 4 900 –Mozambique 78 638 22 383 28 2.4 63 838 6.8Namibia 82 329 2 130 3 2.0 63 6 398 2.9Réunion 250 817 327 1.4 7 – –Seychelles 46 84 183 1.2 45 21 392 2.8Somalia 62 734 8 926 14 2.2 64 600 2.6South Africa 121 447 49 668 41 1.0 39 10 116 3.1Swaziland 1 720 1 168 68 1.5 75 4 927 2.4Uganda 19 710 31 657 161 3.3 87 1 166 9.5United Republic of Tanzania 88 580 42 484 48 2.9 75 1 301 7.5Zambia 74 339 12 620 17 2.5 65 1 357 6.0Zimbabwe 38 685 12 463 32 0.1 63 200 -14.1Eastern and Southern Africa 999 807 367 921 37 2.4 69 2 660 4.8Algeria 238 174 34 373 14 1.5 35 8 036 3.0egypt 99 545 81 527 82 1.8 57 5 425 7.2libyan Arab Jamahiriya 175 954 6 294 4 2.0 23 16 208 3.8Mauritania 103 070 3 215 3 2.4 59 2 100 2.2Morocco 44 630 31 606 71 1.2 44 4 263 5.6Sudan 237 600 41 348 17 2.3 57 2 155 8.3Tunisia 15 536 10 169 65 1.0 34 7 956 4.5Western Sahara 26 600 497 2 3.5 19 2 500 –Northern Africa 941 109 209 029 22 1.7 49 5 422 5.5benin 11 062 8 662 78 3.2 59 1 473 5.1burkina Faso 27 360 15 234 56 3.5 81 1 160 4.5burundi 2 568 8 074 314 3.0 90 383 4.5Cameroon 47 271 19 088 40 2.3 43 2 195 3.9Cape Verde 403 499 124 1.4 40 3 202 2.8Central African Republic 62 300 4 339 7 1.9 62 741 2.2Chad 125 920 10 914 9 2.7 73 1 337 -0.2Congo 34 150 3 615 11 1.8 39 3 949 5.6Côte d’Ivoire 31 800 20 591 65 2.3 51 1 652 2.2Democratic Republic of the Congo 226 705 64 257 28 2.8 66 314 6.2equatorial Guinea 2 805 659 23 2.6 61 33 899 11.3Gabon 25 767 1 448 6 1.8 15 14 575 2.3Gambia 1 000 1 660 166 2.7 44 1 363 5.9Ghana 22 754 23 351 103 2.1 50 1 463 7.3

Annex 3: Global tables 219Country/areaLand area a(1 000 ha)TAble 1 (continued)Basic data on countries and areasTotal(1 000)Population 2008 bDensity(Population/km 2 )Annualgrowth rate(%)Rural(% oftotal)Per capita(PPP)(US$)GDP 2008 cAnnualgrowth rate(%)Guinea 24 572 9 833 40 2.3 66 1 056 4.7Guinea-bissau 2 812 1 575 56 2.2 70 537 3.3liberia 9 632 3 793 39 4.6 40 388 7.1Mali 122 019 12 706 10 2.4 68 1 129 5.0Niger 126 670 14 704 12 4.0 84 683 9.5Nigeria 91 077 151 212 166 2.4 52 2 099 6.0Rwanda 2 467 9 721 394 2.8 82 1 027 11.2Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan 31 5 16 n.s. 60 2 500 –da Cunha **Sao Tome and Principe 96 160 167 1.3 39 1 748 5.8Senegal 19 253 12 211 63 2.7 58 1 793 3.3Sierra leone 7 162 5 560 78 2.6 62 782 5.5Togo 5 439 6 459 119 2.5 58 830 1.1Western and Central Africa 1 033 095 410 330 40 2.6 59 1 559 5.4Africa 2 974 011 987 280 33 2.3 61 2 787 5.2China ** 942 530 1 344 919 143 0.6 57 5 971 9.0Democratic People’s Republic of 12 041 23 819 198 0.4 37 1 800 3.7KoreaJapan 36 450 127 293 349 -0.1 34 34 129 -0.7Mongolia 156 650 2 641 2 1.1 43 3 557 8.9Republic of Korea 9 873 48 152 488 0.4 19 27 658 2.2East Asia 1 157 544 1 546 824 134 0.5 53 8 895 2.3bangladesh 13 017 160 000 1 229 1.4 73 1 335 6.2bhutan 4 700 687 15 1.6 66 4 759 13.8brunei Darussalam 527 392 74 1.8 25 51 300 -1.5Cambodia 17 652 14 562 82 1.7 79 1 951 6.7India 297 319 1 181 412 397 1.4 71 2 946 6.1Indonesia 181 157 227 345 125 1.2 49 3 994 6.1lao People’s Democratic Republic 23 080 6 205 27 1.9 69 2 124 7.5Malaysia 32 855 27 014 82 1.7 30 14 215 4.6Maldives 30 305 1 017 1.3 62 5 597 5.2Myanmar 65 755 49 563 75 0.9 67 1 200 4.0Nepal 14 300 28 810 201 1.8 83 1 104 5.3Pakistan 77 088 176 952 230 2.2 64 2 538 2.0Philippines 29 817 90 348 303 1.8 35 3 513 3.8Singapore 69 4615 6 698 2.9 0 49 321 1.1Sri lanka 6 463 20 061 310 0.9 85 4 564 6.0Thailand 51 089 67 386 132 0.6 67 8 086 2.5Timor-leste 1 487 1 098 74 3.2 73 802 13.2Viet Nam 31 008 87 096 281 1.1 72 2 787 6.2South and Southeast Asia 847 413 2 143 851 253 1.4 66 3 274 4.9Afghanistan 65 209 27 208 42 3.5 76 1 103 2.3Armenia 2 820 3 077 109 0.2 36 6 075 6.8Azerbaijan 8 263 8 731 106 1.1 48 8 771 10.8bahrain 71 776 1 093 2.1 12 34 899 6.3Cyprus 924 862 93 0.9 30 26 919 3.6Georgia 6 949 4 307 62 -1.2 47 4 966 2.0Iran (Islamic Republic of) 162 855 73 312 45 1.2 32 11 666 5.6

220Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaLand area a(1 000 ha)TAble 1 (continued)Basic data on countries and areasTotal(1 000)Population 2008 bDensity(Population/km 2 )Annualgrowth rate(%)Rural(% oftotal)Per capita(PPP)(US$)GDP 2008 cAnnualgrowth rate(%)Iraq 43 737 30 096 69 2.1 34 3 200 9.5Israel 2 164 7 051 326 1.7 8 27 905 4.0Jordan 8 824 6 136 70 3.3 22 5 474 7.9Kazakhstan 269 970 15 521 6 0.7 42 11 323 3.2Kuwait 1 782 2 919 164 2.4 2 57 500 6.3Kyrgyzstan 19 180 5 414 28 1.3 64 2 193 7.6lebanon 1 023 4 194 410 0.8 13 11 777 8.5Occupied Palestinian Territory 602 4 147 689 3.2 28 2 900 2.0Oman 30 950 2 785 9 2.2 28 20 200 7.8Qatar 1 100 1 281 116 12.6 4 111 000 16.4Saudi Arabia ** 200 000 25 201 13 2.1 18 23 991 4.4Syrian Arab Republic 18 378 21 227 116 3.5 46 4 583 5.2Tajikistan 13 996 6 836 49 1.6 74 1 907 7.9Turkey 76 963 73 914 96 1.2 31 13 417 0.9Turkmenistan 46 993 5 044 11 1.3 51 6 625 9.8United Arab emirates 8 360 4 485 54 2.8 22 44 600 7.4Uzbekistan 42 540 27 191 64 1.1 63 2 658 9.0Yemen 52 797 22 917 43 2.9 69 2 416 3.9Western and Central Asia 1 086 450 384 632 35 1.8 40 10 560 3.4Asia 3 091 407 4 075 307 132 1.1 59 6 095 2.9Albania 2 740 3 143 115 0.4 53 7 293 6.0Andorra 45 84 187 1.2 11 42 500 3.6Austria 8 245 8 337 101 0.4 33 37 912 1.8belarus 20 748 9 679 47 -0.5 27 12 278 10.0belgium 3 028 10 590 350 0.6 3 35 238 1.1bosnia and Herzegovina 5 120 3 773 74 -0.1 53 8 095 5.4bulgaria 10 864 7 593 70 -0.6 29 11 792 6.0Croatia 5 592 4 423 79 -0.1 43 17 663 2.4Czech Republic 7 726 10 319 134 0.5 27 24 643 2.5Denmark 4 243 5 458 129 0.2 13 36 845 -1.1estonia 4 239 1 341 32 -0.1 31 20 651 -3.6Faroe Islands 140 50 36 2.0 58 31 000 –Finland 30 409 5 304 17 0.4 37 36 195 0.9France 55 010 62 036 113 0.5 23 33 058 0.4Germany 34 877 82 264 236 -0.1 26 35 374 1.3Gibraltar 1 31 3 100 n.s. 0 38 200 –Greece 12 890 11 137 86 0.2 39 29 356 2.9Guernsey 8 66 846 0.2 69 44 600 –Holy See * n.s. 1 1 877 n.s. 0 – –Hungary 8 961 10 012 112 -0.2 33 19 789 0.6Iceland 10 025 315 3 2.3 8 36 902 0.3Ireland 6 888 4 437 64 1.9 39 41 850 -3.0Isle of Man 57 80 140 n.s. 49 35 000 –Italy 29 411 59 604 203 0.5 32 31 283 -1.0Jersey * 12 92 767 0.2 69 57 000 –latvia 6 229 2 259 36 -0.4 32 16 357 -4.6liechtenstein 16 36 225 2.9 86 118 000 1.8

Annex 3: Global tables 221Country/areaLand area a(1 000 ha)TAble 1 (continued)Basic data on countries and areasTotal(1 000)Population 2008 bDensity(Population/km 2 )Annualgrowth rate(%)Rural(% oftotal)Per capita(PPP)(US$)GDP 2008 cAnnualgrowth rate(%)lithuania 6 268 3 321 53 -1.0 33 17 753 3.0luxembourg 259 481 186 1.3 18 78 922 -0.9Malta 32 407 1 272 0.2 6 24 600 2.1Monaco * n.s. 33 16 483 n.s. 0 30 000 10.0Montenegro 1 345 622 46 0.2 40 13 385 8.1Netherlands 3 388 16 528 488 0.4 18 40 961 2.1Norway 30 427 4 767 16 1.0 23 58 714 2.1Poland 30 633 38 104 124 -0.1 39 17 275 4.9Portugal ** 9 068 10 677 118 0.3 41 23 254 0.0Republic of Moldova 3 287 3 633 111 -0.9 58 2 979 7.2Romania 22 998 21 361 93 -0.4 46 13 449 9.4Russian Federation 1 638 139 141 394 9 -0.4 27 15 923 5.6San Marino 6 31 517 n.s. 7 41 900 1.9Serbia ** 8 746 9 839 112 0.1 48 10 554 1.2Slovakia 4 810 5 400 112 0.1 44 22 138 6.2Slovenia 2 014 2 015 100 0.2 52 27 866 3.5Spain 49 919 44 486 89 1.0 23 31 674 1.2Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands * 6 100 2 n.s. n.s. – – –Sweden 41 033 9 205 22 0.5 16 36 961 -0.2Switzerland 4 000 7 541 189 0.4 27 42 415 1.8The former Yugoslav Republic of 2 543 2 041 80 n.s. 33 9 337 5.0MacedoniaUkraine 57 938 45 992 79 -0.6 32 7 277 2.1United Kingdom ** 24 250 61 461 253 0.5 10 35 468 0.7Europe 2 214 726 731 805 33 0.1 28 25 585 1.1Anguilla 9 15 165 7.1 0 8 800 15.3Antigua and barbuda 44 87 198 1.2 69 20 970 2.5Aruba 18 105 583 1.0 53 21 800 -1.6bahamas 1 001 338 34 1.2 16 30 700 1.0barbados 43 255 593 n.s. 60 18 900 0.2bermuda 5 65 1 300 n.s. 0 69 900 4.4british Virgin Islands 15 23 153 n.s. 61 38 500 2.5Cayman Islands 26 56 215 1.8 0 43 800 3.2Cuba 10 982 11 205 102 n.s. 24 9 500 4.3Dominica 75 67 89 n.s. 25 8 706 4.3Dominican Republic ** 4 839 9 953 206 1.4 31 8 125 5.3Grenada 34 104 306 1.0 69 8 882 2.1Guadeloupe ** 161 464 288 0.4 2 – –Haiti 2 756 9 876 358 1.6 53 1 124 1.3Jamaica 1 083 2 708 250 0.4 47 7 716 -1.3Martinique 106 403 380 0.2 2 – –Montserrat 10 6 58 n.s. 83 3 400 11.8Netherlands Antilles 80 195 244 1.6 7 16 000 2.2Puerto Rico 887 3 965 447 0.4 2 17 800 0.2Saint Kitts and Nevis 26 51 196 2.0 69 16 467 8.2Saint lucia 61 170 279 0.6 72 9 836 0.5Saint Martin (French part)* 5 30 548 – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 39 109 279 n.s. 53 8 998 -1.1

222Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaLand area a(1 000 ha)TAble 1 (continued)Basic data on countries and areasTotal(1 000)Population 2008 bDensity(Population/km 2 )Annualgrowth rate(%)Rural(% oftotal)Per capita(PPP)(US$)GDP 2008 cAnnualgrowth rate(%)Saint barthélemy * 2 7 355 – – – –Trinidad and Tobago 513 1 333 260 0.4 87 25 173 3.5Turks and Caicos Islands 43 33 77 3.1 9 11 500 12.9United States Virgin Islands 35 110 318 n.s. 6 14 500 –Caribbean 22 898 41 733 182 0.8 34 8 647 3.3belize 2 281 301 13 2.0 48 6 743 3.8Costa Rica 5 106 4 519 89 1.3 37 11 232 2.6el Salvador 2 072 6 134 296 0.4 39 6 799 2.5Guatemala 10 843 13 686 126 2.5 52 4 760 4.0Honduras 11 189 7 319 65 2.0 52 3 932 4.0Nicaragua 12 140 5 667 47 1.3 43 2 689 3.5Panama 7 443 3 399 46 1.7 27 12 498 9.2Central America 51 074 41 025 80 1.7 45 6 000 4.3Canada 909 351 33 259 4 1.0 20 39 078 0.4Greenland 41 045 57 n.s. n.s. 16 20 000 0.3Mexico 194 395 108 555 56 1.0 23 14 570 1.8Saint Pierre and Miquelon 23 6 26 n.s. 17 7 000 –United States of America 916 193 311 666 34 1.0 18 46 350 0.4North America 2 061 007 453 543 22 1.0 19 38 206 0.5North and Central America 2 134 979 536 301 25 1.0 23 33 443 0.5American Samoa 20 66 330 1.5 8 8 000 –Australia ** 768 228 21 074 3 1.1 11 38 784 3.7Cook Islands 24 20 83 n.s. 25 9 100 2.9Fiji 1 827 844 46 0.6 48 4 358 0.2French Polynesia 366 266 73 1.5 49 18 000 2.6Guam 55 176 320 1.7 7 – –Kiribati 81 97 120 2.1 56 2 426 3.0Marshall Islands 18 61 339 3.4 30 2 500 1.5Micronesia (Federated States of) 70 110 157 n.s. 78 3 091 -2.9Nauru 2 10 500 n.s. 0 5 000 -12.1New Caledonia 1 828 246 13 1.2 35 15 000 0.6New Zealand 26 771 4 230 16 0.9 14 27 260 -1.1Niue 26 2 8 n.s. 50 5 800 –Norfolk Island 4 2 59 n.s. – – –Northern Mariana Islands 46 85 185 1.2 9 12 500 –Palau 46 20 43 n.s. 20 8 100 -1.0Papua New Guinea 45 286 6 577 15 2.4 88 2 180 6.6Pitcairn 4 n.s. 1 n.s. 100 – –Samoa 283 179 63 n.s. 77 4 555 -3.4Solomon Islands 2 799 511 18 2.6 82 2 613 6.9Tokelau 1 1 100 n.s. 100 1 000 –Tonga 72 104 144 1.0 75 3 837 0.8Tuvalu 3 10 333 n.s. 50 1 600 2.0Vanuatu 1 220 234 19 2.6 75 3 935 6.6Wallis and Futuna Islands 14 15 107 n.s. 100 3 800 –Oceania 849 094 34 940 4 1.3 30 27 630 3.2

Annex 3: Global tables 223Country/areaLand area a(1 000 ha)Total(1 000)Population 2008 bDensity(Population/km 2 )Annualgrowth rate(%)Rural(% oftotal)Per capita(PPP)(US$)GDP 2008 cAnnualgrowth rate(%)Argentina 273 669 39 883 15 1.0 8 14 303 6.8bolivia (Plurinational State of) 108 438 9 694 9 1.8 34 4 277 6.1brazil ** 832 512 191 972 23 1.0 14 10 304 5.1Chile 74 880 16 804 22 1.0 12 14 436 3.2Colombia 110 950 45 012 41 1.5 26 8 797 2.5ecuador 27 684 13 481 49 1.0 34 8 014 6.5Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 1 217 3 n.s. n.s. 0 35 400 –French Guiana ** 8 220 220 3 2.8 24 – –Guyana 19 685 763 4 -0.1 72 3 064 3.0Paraguay 39 730 6 238 16 1.8 40 4 704 5.8Peru 128 000 28 837 23 1.2 29 8 509 9.8Suriname 15 600 515 3 1.0 25 7 401 5.1Uruguay 17 502 3 349 19 0.3 8 12 744 8.9Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) 88 205 28 121 32 1.7 7 12 818 4.8South America 1 746 292 384 892 22 1.2 17 10 446 5.4World d 13 010 509 6 750 525 52 1.2 50 10 394 1.7abcdTAble 1 (continued)Basic data on countries and areasTotal area of the country excluding inland water bodies. The figures are from FAOSTAT (FAO, 2008) unless otherwise indicated.* = Source CIA (2010). ** = Country estimate.General Source: FAOSTAT-PopSTAT (http://faostat.fao.org/site/550/default.aspx#ancor).Source for Mayotte, Holy See and Isle of Man: UNPD (2010).Source for Guernsey, Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands, Saint Martin (French part), Pitcairn: CIA (2010).Per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is expressed at purchasing power parity (PPP).General source: World bank (2010).Complementary sources: IMF (2010); UNSD (2010); CIA (2010).World totals correspond to the sum of the reporting units. About 35 million hectares of land in Antarctica, some Arctic and Antarctic islandsand some other small islands are not included.

224Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 2Extent of forest and other wooded land 2010Country/area Land area InlandForest Other wooded land Other landwater(1 000 ha)(1 000 ha)1 000 ha % ofland area1 000 ha % ofland areaTotalof which withtree coverCountryarea(1 000 ha)Angola 58 480 47 0 0 66 190 – 0 124 670botswana 11 351 20 34 791 61 10 531 – 1 500 58 173Comoros 3 2 0 0 183 – 0 186Djibouti 6 n.s. 220 9 2 092 – 2 2 320eritrea 1 532 15 7 153 71 1 415 – 1 660 11 760ethiopia 12 296 11 44 650 41 52 685 – 799 110 430Kenya 3 467 6 28 650 50 24 797 10 385 1 123 58 037lesotho 44 1 97 3 2 894 – 0 3 035Madagascar 12 553 22 15 688 27 29 913 – 550 58 704Malawi 3 237 34 0 0 6 171 – 2 440 11 848Mauritius 35 17 12 6 156 – 1 204Mayotte 14 37 n.s. 1 23 – 0 37Mozambique 39 022 50 14 566 19 25 050 – 1 300 79 938Namibia 7 290 9 8 290 10 66 749 – 100 82 429Réunion 88 35 51 20 111 – 1 251Seychelles 41 88 0 0 5 – 0 46Somalia 6 747 11 0 0 55 987 – 1 032 63 766South Africa 9 241 8 24 558 20 87 648 30 462 121 909Swaziland 563 33 427 25 730 – 16 1 736Uganda 2 988 15 3 383 17 13 339 – 4 394 24 104United Republic of Tanzania 33 428 38 11 619 13 43 533 – 6 150 94 730Zambia 49 468 67 6 075 8 18 796 – 922 75 261Zimbabwe 15 624 40 0 0 23 061 – 391 39 076Eastern and Southern Africa 267 517 27 200 231 20 532 059 10 415 22 843 1 022 650Algeria 1 492 1 2 685 1 233 997 – 0 238 174egypt 70 n.s. 20 n.s. 99 455 36 600 100 145libyan Arab Jamahiriya 217 n.s. 330 n.s. 175 407 – 0 175 954Mauritania 242 n.s. 3 060 3 99 768 – 0 103 070Morocco 5 131 11 631 1 38 868 1 600 25 44 655Sudan 69 949 29 50 224 21 117 427 – 12 981 250 581Tunisia 1 006 6 300 2 14 230 2 204 825 16 361Western Sahara 707 3 0 0 25 893 – 0 26 600Northern Africa 78 814 8 57 250 6 805 045 3 840 14 431 955 540benin 4 561 41 2 889 26 3 612 289 200 11 262burkina Faso 5 649 21 5 009 18 16 702 5 902 40 27 400burundi 172 7 722 28 1 674 – 215 2 783Cameroon 19 916 42 12 715 27 14 640 – 273 47 544Cape Verde 85 21 0 0 318 – 0 403Central African Republic 22 605 36 10 122 16 29 573 – 0 62 300Chad 11 525 9 8 847 7 105 548 – 2 480 128 400Congo 22 411 66 10 513 31 1 226 – 50 34 200Côte d’Ivoire 10 403 33 2 590 8 18 807 436 446 32 246Democratic Republic of the Congo 154 135 68 11 513 5 61 057 – 7 781 234 486equatorial Guinea 1 626 58 8 n.s. 1 171 – 0 2 805Gabon 22 000 85 0 0 3 767 – 1 000 26 767Gambia 480 48 103 10 417 – 130 1 130Ghana 4 940 22 0 0 17 814 – 1 100 23 854Guinea 6 544 27 5 850 24 12 178 – 14 24 586Guinea-bissau 2 022 72 230 8 560 – 800 3 612liberia 4 329 45 0 0 5 303 – 1 505 11 137

Annex 3: Global tables 225TAble 2 (continued)Extent of forest and other wooded land 2010Country/area Land area InlandForest Other wooded land Other landwater(1 000 ha)(1 000 ha)1 000 ha % ofland area1 000 ha % ofland areaTotalof which withtree coverCountryarea(1 000 ha)Mali 12 490 10 8 227 7 101 302 – 2 000 124 019Niger 1 204 1 3 440 3 122 026 8 000 30 126 700Nigeria 9 041 10 4 088 4 77 948 245 1 300 92 377Rwanda 435 18 61 2 1 971 – 167 2 634Saint Helena, Ascension and2 6 0 0 29 – 0 31Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe 27 28 29 30 40 10 0 96Senegal 8 473 44 4 911 26 5 869 1 174 419 19 672Sierra leone 2 726 38 189 3 4 247 9 12 7 174Togo 287 5 1 246 23 3 906 – 240 5 679Western and Central Africa 328 088 32 93 302 9 611 705 16 065 20 202 1 053 297Africa 674 419 23 350 783 12 1 948 809 30 320 57 476 3 031 487China 206 861 22 102 012 11 633 658 – 17 470 960 000Democratic People’s Republic of 5 666 47 0 0 6 375 – 13 12 054KoreaJapan 24 979 69 0 0 11 471 – 1 341 37 791Mongolia 10 898 7 1 947 1 143 805 0 0 156 650Republic of Korea 6 222 63 0 0 3 651 – 53 9 926East Asia 254 626 22 103 959 9 798 960 0 18 877 1 176 421bangladesh 1 442 11 289 2 11 286 2 209 1 383 14 400bhutan 3 249 69 613 13 838 – 0 4 700brunei Darussalam 380 72 50 9 97 – 50 577Cambodia 10 094 57 133 1 7 425 – 452 18 104India 68 434 23 3 267 1 225 618 1 528 31 407 328 726Indonesia 94 432 52 21 003 12 65 722 – 9 300 190 457lao People’s Democratic Republic 15 751 68 4 834 21 2 495 – 600 23 680Malaysia 20 456 62 0 0 12 399 – 119 32 974Maldives 1 3 0 0 29 – 0 30Myanmar 31 773 48 20 113 31 13 869 – 1 903 67 658Nepal 3 636 25 1 897 13 8 767 – 418 14 718Pakistan 1 687 2 1 455 2 73 946 – 2 522 79 610Philippines 7 665 26 10 128 34 12 024 – 183 30 000Singapore 2 3 0 0 67 0 1 70Sri lanka 1 860 29 0 0 4 603 – 98 6 561Thailand 18 972 37 0 0 32 117 – 223 51 312Timor-leste 742 50 0 0 745 – 0 1 487Viet Nam 13 797 44 1 124 4 16 087 – 1 924 32 932South and Southeast Asia 294 373 35 64 906 8 488 134 3 737 50 583 897 996Afghanistan 1 350 2 29 471 45 34 388 – 0 65 209Armenia 262 9 45 2 2 513 – 160 2 980Azerbaijan 936 11 54 1 7 273 – 397 8 660bahrain 1 1 n.s. n.s. 70 – 0 71Cyprus 173 19 214 23 537 26 1 925Georgia 2 742 39 51 1 4 156 – 21 6 970Iran (Islamic Republic of) 11 075 7 5 340 3 146 440 83 11 660 174 515Iraq 825 2 259 1 42 653 70 95 43 832Israel 154 7 33 2 1 977 1 43 2 207Jordan 98 1 51 1 8 676 222 54 8 878Kazakhstan 3 309 1 16 479 6 250 182 3 2 520 272 490Kuwait 6 n.s. 0 0 1 776 – 0 1 782Kyrgyzstan 954 5 390 2 17 836 – 810 19 990

226Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 2 (continued)Extent of forest and other wooded land 2010Country/area Land area InlandForest Other wooded land Other landwater(1 000 ha)(1 000 ha)1 000 ha % ofland area1 000 ha % ofland areaTotalof which withtree coverCountryarea(1 000 ha)lebanon 137 13 106 10 780 114 17 1 040Occupied Palestinian Territory 9 2 0 0 593 – 19 621Oman 2 n.s. 1 303 4 29 645 50 0 30 950Qatar 0 0 1 n.s. 1 100 – 0 1 100Saudi Arabia 977 n.s. 1 117 1 197 906 705 0 200 000Syrian Arab Republic 491 3 35 n.s. 17 852 231 140 18 518Tajikistan 410 3 142 1 13 444 102 259 14 255Turkey 11 334 15 10 368 13 55 261 2 553 1 393 78 356Turkmenistan 4 127 9 0 0 42 866 – 1 817 48 810United Arab emirates 317 4 4 n.s. 8 038 188 0 8 360Uzbekistan 3 276 8 874 2 38 391 344 2 200 44 740Yemen 549 1 1 406 3 50 842 500 0 52 797Western and Central Asia 43 513 4 67 743 6 975 194 5 191 21 606 1 108 056Asia 592 512 19 236 607 8 2 262 287 8 928 91 066 3 182 473Albania 776 28 255 9 1 709 – 135 2 875Andorra 16 36 0 0 29 – 0 45Austria 3 887 47 119 1 4 239 – 142 8 387belarus 8 630 42 520 3 11 598 – 12 20 760belgium 678 22 28 1 2 322 – 25 3 053bosnia and Herzegovina 2 185 43 549 11 2 386 – 1 5 121bulgaria 3 927 36 0 0 6 937 45 236 11 100Croatia 1 920 34 554 10 3 118 205 62 5 654Czech Republic 2 657 34 0 0 5 069 92 161 7 887Denmark 544 13 47 1 3 652 6 67 4 310estonia 2 217 52 133 3 1 889 – 284 4 523Faroe Islands n.s. n.s. 0 0 140 – 0 140Finland 22 157 73 1 112 4 7 140 183 3 433 33 842France 15 954 29 1 618 3 37 438 263 140 55 150Germany 11 076 32 0 0 23 801 1 400 828 35 705Gibraltar 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1Greece 3 903 30 2 636 20 6 351 – 306 13 196Guernsey n.s. 3 0 0 8 0 0 8Holy See 0 0 0 0 n.s. 0 0 n.s.Hungary 2 029 23 0 0 6 932 103 342 9 303Iceland 30 n.s. 86 1 9 909 10 275 10 300Ireland 739 11 50 1 6 099 – 138 7 026Isle of Man 3 6 0 0 54 0 n.s. 57Italy 9 149 31 1 767 6 18 495 – 723 30 134Jersey 1 5 0 0 11 0 n.s. 12latvia 3 354 54 113 2 2 762 29 230 6 459liechtenstein 7 43 1 3 9 – 0 16lithuania 2 160 34 80 1 4 028 63 262 6 530luxembourg 87 33 1 1 171 – 0 259Malta n.s. 1 0 0 32 – 0 32Monaco 0 0 0 0 n.s. n.s. 0 n.s.Montenegro 543 40 175 13 627 – 36 1 381Netherlands 365 11 0 0 3 023 0 765 4 153Norway 10 065 33 2 703 9 17 659 – 1 953 32 380Poland 9 337 30 0 0 21 296 – 636 31 269

Annex 3: Global tables 227TAble 2 (continued)Extent of forest and other wooded land 2010Country/area Land area InlandForest Other wooded land Other landwater(1 000 ha)(1 000 ha)1 000 ha % ofland area1 000 ha % ofland areaTotalof which withtree coverCountryarea(1 000 ha)Portugal 3 456 38 155 2 5 457 – 144 9 212Republic of Moldova 386 12 70 2 2 831 – 97 3 384Romania 6 573 29 160 1 16 265 – 841 23 839Russian Federation 809 090 49 73 220 4 755 829 5 650 71 685 1 709 824San Marino 0 0 0 0 6 – 0 6Serbia 2 713 31 410 5 5 623 75 90 8 836Slovakia 1 933 40 0 0 2 877 275 93 4 903Slovenia 1 253 62 21 1 740 28 13 2 027Spain 18 173 36 9 574 19 22 171 342 618 50 537Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands 0 0 0 0 6 100 0 40 6 140Sweden 28 203 69 3 044 7 9 786 530 3 996 45 029Switzerland 1 240 31 71 2 2 689 – 128 4 128The former Yugoslav Republic of 998 39 143 6 1 402 – 28 2 571MacedoniaUkraine 9 705 17 41 n.s. 48 192 907 2 417 60 355United Kingdom 2 881 12 20 n.s. 21 349 22 167 24 417Europe 1 005 001 45 99 477 4 1 110 249 10 228 91 549 2 306 276Anguilla 6 60 0 0 4 – 0 9Antigua and barbuda 10 22 16 35 19 – 0 44Aruba n.s. 2 0 0 18 – 0 18bahamas 515 51 36 4 450 – 387 1 388barbados 8 19 1 2 34 – 0 43bermuda 1 20 0 0 4 – 0 5british Virgin Islands 4 24 2 11 10 – 0 15Cayman Islands 13 50 0 0 13 – n.s. 26Cuba 2 870 26 299 3 7 813 – 104 11 086Dominica 45 60 n.s. n.s. 30 – 0 75Dominican Republic 1 972 41 436 9 2 431 414 35 4 874Grenada 17 50 1 4 16 n.s. 0 34Guadeloupe 64 39 3 2 95 – 2 163Haiti 101 4 0 0 2 655 – 19 2 775Jamaica 337 31 188 17 558 83 16 1 099Martinique 49 46 1 1 56 5 4 110Montserrat 3 24 2 16 6 – 0 10Netherlands Antilles 1 1 33 41 46 – 0 80Puerto Rico 552 62 0 0 335 – 8 895Saint Kitts and Nevis 11 42 2 8 13 n.s. 0 26Saint lucia 47 77 0 0 14 n.s. 1 62Saint Martin (French part) 1 19 1 19 3 – n.s. 5Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 27 68 0 0 12 3 0 39Saint barthélemy 0 0 1 24 2 – 0 2Trinidad and Tobago 226 44 84 16 203 37 0 513Turks and Caicos Islands 34 80 0 0 9 – 0 43United States Virgin Islands 20 58 0 0 14 – 0 35Caribbean 6 933 30 1 103 5 14 862 543 576 23 474belize 1 393 61 113 5 775 – 16 2 297Costa Rica 2 605 51 12 n.s. 2 489 – 4 5 110el Salvador 287 14 204 10 1 581 180 32 2 104Guatemala 3 657 34 1 672 15 5 514 139 46 10 889Honduras 5 192 46 1 475 13 4 522 – 20 11 209

228Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 2 (continued)Extent of forest and other wooded land 2010Country/area Land area InlandForest Other wooded land Other landwater(1 000 ha)(1 000 ha)1 000 ha % ofland area1 000 ha % ofland areaTotalof which withtree coverCountryarea(1 000 ha)Nicaragua 3 114 26 2 219 18 6 807 – 860 13 000Panama 3 251 44 821 11 3 371 760 109 7 552Central America 19 499 38 6 516 13 25 059 1 079 1 087 52 161Canada 310 134 34 91 951 10 507 266 – 89 116 998 467Greenland n.s. n.s. 8 n.s. 41 037 0 0 41 045Mexico 64 802 33 20 181 10 109 412 – 2 043 196 438Saint Pierre and Miquelon 3 13 0 0 20 – 1 24United States of America 304 022 33 14 933 2 597 238 26 993 47 011 963 204North America 678 961 33 127 073 6 1 254 973 26 993 138 171 2 199 178North and Central America 705 393 33 134 692 6 1 294 895 28 615 139 834 2 274 813American Samoa 18 89 0 0 2 – 0 20Australia 149 300 19 135 367 18 483 561 – 5 892 774 120Cook Islands 16 65 0 0 9 – 0 24Fiji 1 014 56 78 4 735 66 0 1 827French Polynesia 155 42 0 0 211 50 34 400Guam 26 47 0 0 29 – 0 55Kiribati 12 15 0 0 69 65 0 81Marshall Islands 13 70 0 0 5 – 0 18Micronesia (Federated States of) 64 92 0 0 6 – n.s. 70Nauru 0 0 0 0 2 – 0 2New Caledonia 839 46 371 20 618 – 30 1 858New Zealand 8 269 31 2 557 10 15 945 – 0 26 771Niue 19 72 0 0 7 – 0 26Norfolk Island n.s. 12 0 0 4 – 0 4Northern Mariana Islands 30 66 0 0 16 – 0 46Palau 40 88 0 0 6 – 0 46Papua New Guinea 28 726 63 4 474 10 12 086 – 998 46 284Pitcairn 4 83 1 12 n.s. 0 0 4Samoa 171 60 22 8 90 63 1 284Solomon Islands 2 213 79 129 5 457 – 91 2 890Tokelau 0 0 0 0 1 – 0 1Tonga 9 13 0 0 63 57 3 75Tuvalu 1 33 0 0 2 – 0 3Vanuatu 440 36 476 39 304 – 0 1 220Wallis and Futuna Islands 6 42 2 11 7 5 0 14Oceania 191 384 23 143 476 17 514 234 306 7 049 856 143Argentina 29 400 11 61 471 22 182 798 – 4 371 278 040bolivia (Plurinational State of) 57 196 53 2 473 2 48 769 – 1 420 109 858brazil 519 522 62 43 772 5 269 218 – 18 975 851 487Chile 16 231 22 14 658 20 43 991 0 783 75 663Colombia 60 499 55 22 727 20 27 724 – 3 225 114 175ecuador 9 865 36 1 519 5 16 300 – 672 28 356Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 0 0 0 0 1 217 0 0 1 217French Guiana 8 082 98 0 0 138 0 176 8 396Guyana 15 205 77 3 580 18 900 – 1 812 21 497Paraguay 17 582 44 0 0 22 148 – 945 40 675Peru 67 992 53 22 132 17 37 876 700 522 128 522Suriname 14 758 95 0 0 842 0 727 16 327Uruguay 1 744 10 4 n.s. 15 754 13 120 17 622Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) 46 275 52 7 317 8 34 613 – 3 000 91 205South America 864 351 49 179 653 10 702 288 713 36 748 1 783 040World 4 033 060 31 1 144 687 9 7 832 762 79 110 423 723 13 434 232

Annex 3: Global tables 229Country/areaTAble 3Trends in extent of forest 1990–2010Forest area(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % a 1 000 ha/yr % a 1 000 ha/yr % aAngola 60 976 59 728 59 104 58 480 -125 -0.21 -125 -0.21 -125 -0.21botswana 13 718 12 535 11 943 11 351 -118 -0.90 -118 -0.96 -118 -1.01Comoros 12 8 5 3 n.s. -3.97 -1 -8.97 n.s. -9.71Djibouti 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0eritrea 1 621 1 576 1 554 1 532 -5 -0.28 -4 -0.28 -4 -0.28ethiopia 15 114 13 705 13 000 12 296 -141 -0.97 -141 -1.05 -141 -1.11Kenya 3 708 3 582 3 522 3 467 -13 -0.35 -12 -0.34 -11 -0.31lesotho 40 42 43 44 n.s. 0.49 n.s. 0.47 n.s. 0.46Madagascar 13 692 13 122 12 838 12 553 -57 -0.42 -57 -0.44 -57 -0.45Malawi 3 896 3 567 3 402 3 237 -33 -0.88 -33 -0.94 -33 -0.99Mauritius 39 39 35 35 n.s. -0.03 -1 -2.05 n.s. 0.06Mayotte 18 16 15 14 n.s. -1.15 n.s. -1.26 n.s. -1.35Mozambique 43 378 41 188 40 079 39 022 -219 -0.52 -222 -0.54 -211 -0.53Namibia 8 762 8 032 7 661 7 290 -73 -0.87 -74 -0.94 -74 -0.99Réunion 87 87 85 88 0 0 n.s. -0.46 1 0.70Seychelles 41 41 41 41 0 0 0 0 0 0Somalia 8 282 7 515 7 131 6 747 -77 -0.97 -77 -1.04 -77 -1.10South Africa 9 241 9 241 9 241 9 241 0 0 0 0 0 0Swaziland 472 518 541 563 5 0.93 5 0.87 4 0.80Uganda 4 751 3 869 3 429 2 988 -88 -2.03 -88 -2.39 -88 -2.72United Republic of Tanzania 41 495 37 462 35 445 33 428 -403 -1.02 -403 -1.10 -403 -1.16Zambia 52 800 51 134 50 301 49 468 -167 -0.32 -167 -0.33 -167 -0.33Zimbabwe 22 164 18 894 17 259 15 624 -327 -1.58 -327 -1.79 -327 -1.97Eastern and Southern Africa 304 312 285 906 276 679 267 517 -1 841 -0.62 -1 845 -0.65 -1 832 -0.67Algeria 1 667 1 579 1 536 1 492 -9 -0.54 -9 -0.55 -9 -0.58egypt 44 59 67 70 2 2.98 2 2.58 1 0.88libyan Arab Jamahiriya 217 217 217 217 0 0 0 0 0 0Mauritania 415 317 267 242 -10 -2.66 -10 -3.37 -5 -1.95Morocco 5 049 5 017 5 081 5 131 -3 -0.06 13 0.25 10 0.20Sudan 76 381 70 491 70 220 69 949 -589 -0.80 -54 -0.08 -54 -0.08Tunisia 643 837 924 1 006 19 2.67 17 2.0 16 1.72Western Sahara 707 707 707 707 0 0 0 0 0 0Northern Africa 85 123 79 224 79 019 78 814 -590 -0.72 -41 -0.05 -41 -0.05benin 5 761 5 061 4 811 4 561 -70 -1.29 -50 -1.01 -50 -1.06burkina Faso 6 847 6 248 5 949 5 649 -60 -0.91 -60 -0.98 -60 -1.03burundi 289 198 181 172 -9 -3.71 -3 -1.78 -2 -1.01Cameroon 24 316 22 116 21 016 19 916 -220 -0.94 -220 -1.02 -220 -1.07Cape Verde 58 82 84 85 2 3.58 n.s. 0.36 n.s. 0.36Central African Republic 23 203 22 903 22 755 22 605 -30 -0.13 -30 -0.13 -30 -0.13Chad 13 110 12 317 11 921 11 525 -79 -0.62 -79 -0.65 -79 -0.67Congo 22 726 22 556 22 471 22 411 -17 -0.08 -17 -0.08 -12 -0.05Côte d’Ivoire 10 222 10 328 10 405 10 403 11 0.10 15 0.15 n.s. n.s.Democratic Republic of the Congo 160 363 157 249 155 692 154 135 -311 -0.20 -311 -0.20 -311 -0.20equatorial Guinea 1 860 1 743 1 685 1 626 -12 -0.65 -12 -0.67 -12 -0.71Gabon 22 000 22 000 22 000 22 000 0 0 0 0 0 0Gambia 442 461 471 480 2 0.42 2 0.43 2 0.38Ghana 7 448 6 094 5 517 4 940 -135 -1.99 -115 -1.97 -115 -2.19Guinea 7 264 6 904 6 724 6 544 -36 -0.51 -36 -0.53 -36 -0.54Guinea-bissau 2 216 2 120 2 072 2 022 -10 -0.44 -10 -0.46 -10 -0.49liberia 4 929 4 629 4 479 4 329 -30 -0.63 -30 -0.66 -30 -0.68Mali 14 072 13 281 12 885 12 490 -79 -0.58 -79 -0.60 -79 -0.62

230Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 3 (continued)Trends in extent of forest 1990–2010Forest area(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % a 1 000 ha/yr % a 1 000 ha/yr % aNiger 1 945 1 328 1 266 1 204 -62 -3.74 -12 -0.95 -12 -1.00Nigeria 17 234 13 137 11 089 9 041 -410 -2.68 -410 -3.33 -410 -4.00Rwanda 318 344 385 435 3 0.79 8 2.28 10 2.47Saint Helena, Ascension and2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe 27 27 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0Senegal 9 348 8 898 8 673 8 473 -45 -0.49 -45 -0.51 -40 -0.47Sierra leone 3 118 2 922 2 824 2 726 -20 -0.65 -20 -0.68 -20 -0.70Togo 685 486 386 287 -20 -3.37 -20 -4.50 -20 -5.75Western and Central Africa 359 803 343 434 335 770 328 088 -1 637 -0.46 -1 533 -0.45 -1 536 -0.46Africa 749 238 708 564 691 468 674 419 -4 067 -0.56 -3 419 -0.49 -3 410 -0.50China 157 141 177 000 193 044 206 861 1 986 1.20 3 209 1.75 2 763 1.39Democratic People’s Republic of 8 201 6 933 6 299 5 666 -127 -1.67 -127 -1.90 -127 -2.10KoreaJapan 24 950 24 876 24 935 24 979 -7 -0.03 12 0.05 9 0.04Mongolia 12 536 11 717 11 308 10 898 -82 -0.67 -82 -0.71 -82 -0.74Republic of Korea 6 370 6 288 6 255 6 222 -8 -0.13 -7 -0.11 -7 -0.11East Asia 209 198 226 815 241 841 254 626 1 762 0.81 3 005 1.29 2 557 1.04bangladesh 1 494 1 468 1 455 1 442 -3 -0.18 -3 -0.18 -3 -0.18bhutan 3 035 3 141 3 195 3 249 11 0.34 11 0.34 11 0.34brunei Darussalam 413 397 389 380 -2 -0.39 -2 -0.41 -2 -0.47Cambodia 12 944 11 546 10 731 10 094 -140 -1.14 -163 -1.45 -127 -1.22India 63 939 65 390 67 709 68 434 145 0.22 464 0.70 145 0.21Indonesia 118 545 99 409 97 857 94 432 -1 914 -1.75 -310 -0.31 -685 -0.71lao People’s Democratic Republic 17 314 16 532 16 142 15 751 -78 -0.46 -78 -0.48 -78 -0.49Malaysia 22 376 21 591 20 890 20 456 -79 -0.36 -140 -0.66 -87 -0.42Maldives 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Myanmar 39 218 34 868 33 321 31 773 -435 -1.17 -309 -0.90 -310 -0.95Nepal 4 817 3 900 3 636 3 636 -92 -2.09 -53 -1.39 0 0Pakistan 2 527 2 116 1 902 1 687 -41 -1.76 -43 -2.11 -43 -2.37Philippines 6 570 7 117 7 391 7 665 55 0.80 55 0.76 55 0.73Singapore 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Sri lanka 2 350 2 082 1 933 1 860 -27 -1.20 -30 -1.47 -15 -0.77Thailand 19 549 19 004 18 898 18 972 -55 -0.28 -21 -0.11 15 0.08Timor-leste 966 854 798 742 -11 -1.22 -11 -1.35 -11 -1.44Viet Nam 9 363 11 725 13 077 13 797 236 2.28 270 2.21 144 1.08South and Southeast Asia 325 423 301 143 299 327 294 373 -2 428 -0.77 -363 -0.12 -991 -0.33Afghanistan 1 350 1 350 1 350 1 350 0 0 0 0 0 0Armenia 347 304 283 262 -4 -1.31 -4 -1.42 -4 -1.53Azerbaijan 936 936 936 936 0 0 0 0 0 0bahrain n.s. n.s. n.s. 1 n.s. 5.56 n.s. 3.84 n.s. 3.26Cyprus 161 172 173 173 1 0.63 n.s. 0.14 n.s. 0.04Georgia 2 779 2 768 2 755 2 742 -1 -0.04 -3 -0.09 -3 -0.09Iran (Islamic Republic of) 11 075 11 075 11 075 11 075 0 0 0 0 0 0Iraq 804 818 825 825 1 0.17 1 0.17 0 0Israel 132 153 155 154 2 1.49 n.s. 0.26 n.s. -0.13Jordan 98 98 98 98 0 0 0 0 0 0Kazakhstan 3 422 3 365 3 337 3 309 -6 -0.17 -6 -0.17 -6 -0.17Kuwait 3 5 6 6 n.s. 3.46 n.s. 2.73 n.s. 2.40Kyrgyzstan 836 858 869 954 2 0.26 2 0.26 17 1.87lebanon 131 131 137 137 0 0 1 0.83 n.s. 0.06

Annex 3: Global tables 231Country/areaTAble 3 (continued)Trends in extent of forest 1990–2010Forest area(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % a 1 000 ha/yr % a 1 000 ha/yr % aOccupied Palestinian Territory 9 9 9 9 0 0 n.s. 0.20 0 0Oman 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Qatar 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Saudi Arabia 977 977 977 977 0 0 0 0 0 0Syrian Arab Republic 372 432 461 491 6 1.51 6 1.31 6 1.27Tajikistan 408 410 410 410 n.s. 0.05 0 0 0 0Turkey 9 680 10 146 10 740 11 334 47 0.47 119 1.14 119 1.08Turkmenistan 4 127 4 127 4 127 4 127 0 0 0 0 0 0United Arab emirates 245 310 312 317 7 2.38 n.s. 0.13 1 0.34Uzbekistan 3 045 3 212 3 295 3 276 17 0.54 17 0.51 -4 -0.12Yemen 549 549 549 549 0 0 0 0 0 0Western and Central Asia 41 489 42 207 42 880 43 513 72 0.17 135 0.32 127 0.29Asia 576 110 570 164 584 048 592 512 -595 -0.10 2 777 0.48 1 693 0.29Albania 789 769 782 776 -2 -0.26 3 0.34 -1 -0.15Andorra 16 16 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0Austria 3 776 3 838 3 862 3 887 6 0.16 5 0.12 5 0.13belarus 7 780 8 273 8 436 8 630 49 0.62 33 0.39 39 0.46belgium 677 667 673 678 -1 -0.15 1 0.16 1 0.15bosnia and Herzegovina 2 210 2 185 2 185 2 185 -3 -0.11 0 0 0 0bulgaria 3 327 3 375 3 651 3 927 5 0.14 55 1.58 55 1.47Croatia 1 850 1 885 1 903 1 920 4 0.19 4 0.19 3 0.18Czech Republic 2 629 2 637 2 647 2 657 1 0.03 2 0.08 2 0.08Denmark 445 486 534 544 4 0.89 10 1.90 2 0.37estonia 2 090 2 243 2 252 2 217 15 0.71 2 0.08 -7 -0.31Faroe Islands n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 0 0 0Finland 21 889 22 459 22 157 22 157 57 0.26 -60 -0.27 0 0France 14 537 15 353 15 714 15 954 82 0.55 72 0.47 48 0.30Germany 10 741 11 076 11 076 11 076 34 0.31 0 0 0 0Gibraltar 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Greece 3 299 3 601 3 752 3 903 30 0.88 30 0.82 30 0.79Guernsey n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 0 0 0Holy See 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Hungary 1 801 1 907 1 983 2 029 11 0.57 15 0.78 9 0.46Iceland 9 18 25 30 1 7.78 1 6.66 1 3.32Ireland 465 635 695 739 17 3.16 12 1.82 9 1.24Isle of Man 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0Italy 7 590 8 369 8 759 9 149 78 0.98 78 0.92 78 0.88Jersey 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0latvia 3 173 3 241 3 297 3 354 7 0.21 11 0.34 11 0.34liechtenstein 7 7 7 7 n.s. 0.60 0 0 0 0lithuania 1 945 2 020 2 121 2 160 8 0.38 20 0.98 8 0.37luxembourg 86 87 87 87 n.s. 0.11 0 0 0 0Malta n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 0 0 0Monaco 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Montenegro 543 543 543 543 0 0 0 0 0 0Netherlands 345 360 365 365 2 0.43 1 0.28 0 0Norway 9 130 9 301 9 683 10 065 17 0.19 76 0.81 76 0.78Poland 8 881 9 059 9 200 9 337 18 0.20 28 0.31 27 0.30Portugal 3 327 3 420 3 437 3 456 9 0.28 3 0.10 4 0.11Republic of Moldova 319 324 363 386 1 0.16 8 2.30 5 1.24Romania 6 371 6 366 6 391 6 573 -1 -0.01 5 0.08 36 0.56

232Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 3 (continued)Trends in extent of forest 1990–2010Forest area(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % a 1 000 ha/yr % a 1 000 ha/yr % aRussian Federation 808 950 809 269 808 790 809 090 32 n.s. -96 -0.01 60 0.01San Marino 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Serbia 2 313 2 460 2 476 2 713 15 0.62 3 0.13 47 1.85Slovakia 1 922 1 921 1 932 1 933 n.s. -0.01 2 0.11 n.s. 0.01Slovenia 1 188 1 233 1 243 1 253 5 0.37 2 0.16 2 0.16Spain 13 818 16 988 17 293 18 173 317 2.09 61 0.36 176 1. 0Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Sweden 27 281 27 389 28 203 28 203 11 0.04 163 0.59 0 0Switzerland 1 151 1 194 1 217 1 240 4 0.37 5 0.38 5 0.38The former Yugoslav Republic of 912 958 975 998 5 0.49 3 0.35 5 0.47MacedoniaUkraine 9 274 9 510 9 575 9 705 24 0.25 13 0.14 26 0.27United Kingdom 2 611 2 793 2 845 2 881 18 0.68 10 0.37 7 0.25Europe 989 471 998 239 1 001 150 1 005 001 877 0.09 582 0.06 770 0.08Anguilla 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0Antigua and barbuda 10 10 10 10 n.s. -0.30 n.s. -0.40 0 0Aruba n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 0 0 0bahamas 515 515 515 515 0 0 0 0 0 0barbados 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0bermuda 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0british Virgin Islands 4 4 4 4 n.s. -0.11 n.s. -0.05 n.s. -0.11Cayman Islands 13 13 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0Cuba 2 058 2 435 2 697 2 870 38 1.70 52 2.06 35 1.25Dominica 50 47 46 45 n.s. -0.55 n.s. -0.57 n.s. -0.59Dominican Republic 1 972 1 972 1 972 1 972 0 0 0 0 0 0Grenada 17 17 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0Guadeloupe 67 65 64 64 n.s. -0.30 n.s. -0.31 n.s. -0.28Haiti 116 109 105 101 -1 -0.62 -1 -0.74 -1 -0.77Jamaica 345 341 339 337 n.s. -0.11 n.s. -0.10 n.s. -0.12Martinique 49 49 49 49 0 0 0 0 0 0Montserrat 4 3 3 3 n.s. -3.31 0 0 0 0Netherlands Antilles 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Puerto Rico 287 464 508 552 18 4.92 9 1.83 9 1.68Saint Kitts and Nevis 11 11 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0Saint lucia 44 47 47 47 n.s. 0.64 n.s. 0.13 0 0Saint Martin (French part) 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 25 26 26 27 n.s. 0.27 n.s. 0.23 n.s. 0.30Saint barthélemy 0 b 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Trinidad and Tobago 241 234 230 226 -1 -0.30 -1 -0.31 -1 -0.32Turks and Caicos Islands 34 34 34 34 0 0 0 0 0 0United States Virgin Islands 24 22 21 20 n.s. -0.73 n.s. -0.78 n.s. -0.81Caribbean 5 902 6 434 6 728 6 933 53 0.87 59 0.90 41 0.60belize 1 586 1 489 1 441 1 393 -10 -0.63 -10 -0.65 -10 -0.68Costa Rica 2 564 2 376 2 491 2 605 -19 -0.76 23 0.95 23 0.90el Salvador 377 332 309 287 -5 -1.26 -5 -1.43 -4 -1.47Guatemala 4 748 4 208 3 938 3 657 -54 -1.20 -54 -1.32 -56 -1.47Honduras 8 136 6 392 5 792 5 192 -174 -2.38 -120 -1.95 -120 -2.16Nicaragua 4 514 3 814 3 464 3 114 -70 -1.67 -70 -1.91 -70 -2.11Panama 3 792 3 369 3 310 3 251 -42 -1.18 -12 -0.35 -12 -0.36Central America 25 717 21 980 20 745 19 499 -374 -1.56 -247 -1.15 -249 -1.23

Annex 3: Global tables 233Country/areaTAble 3 (continued)Trends in extent of forest 1990–2010Forest area(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % a 1 000 ha/yr % a 1 000 ha/yr % aCanada 310 134 310 134 310 134 310 134 0 0 0 0 0 0Greenland n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 0 0 0Mexico 70 291 66 751 65 578 64 802 -354 -0.52 -235 -0.35 -155 -0.24Saint Pierre and Miquelon 3 3 3 3 n.s. -0.60 n.s. -1.28 n.s. -0.68United States of America 296 335 300 195 302 108 304 022 386 0.13 383 0.13 383 0.13North America 676 764 677 083 677 823 678 961 32 n.s. 148 0.02 228 0.03North and Central America 708 383 705 497 705 296 705 393 -289 -0.04 -40 -0.01 19 n.s.American Samoa 18 18 18 18 n.s. -0.19 n.s. -0.19 n.s. -0.19Australia 154 500 154 920 153 920 149 300 42 0.03 -200 -0.13 -924 -0.61Cook Islands 15 16 16 16 n.s. 0.40 0 0 0 0Fiji 953 980 997 1 014 3 0.29 3 0.34 3 0.34French Polynesia 55 b 105 130 155 5 6.68 5 4.36 5 3.58Guam 26 26 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0Kiribati 12 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0Marshall Islands 13 13 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0Micronesia (Federated States of) 64 64 64 64 n.s. 0.04 n.s. 0.04 n.s. 0.04Nauru 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –New Caledonia 839 839 839 839 0 0 0 0 0 0New Zealand 7 720 8 266 8 311 8 269 55 0.69 9 0.11 -8 -0.10Niue 21 20 19 19 n.s. -0.50 n.s. -0.52 n.s. -0.53Norfolk Island n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 0 0 0Northern Mariana Islands 34 32 31 30 n.s. -0.50 n.s. -0.52 n.s. -0.53Palau 38 40 40 40 n.s. 0.37 n.s. 0.36 0 0Papua New Guinea 31 523 30 133 29 437 28 726 -139 -0.45 -139 -0.47 -142 -0.49Pitcairn 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0Samoa 130 171 171 171 4 2.78 0 0 0 0Solomon Islands 2 324 2 268 2 241 2 213 -6 -0.24 -5 -0.24 -6 -0.25Tokelau 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Tonga 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0Tuvalu 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Vanuatu 440 440 440 440 0 0 0 0 0 0Wallis and Futuna Islands 6 6 6 6 n.s. 0.03 n.s. 0.07 n.s. 0.03Oceania 198 744 198 381 196 745 191 384 -36 -0.02 -327 -0.17 -1 072 -0.55Argentina 34 793 31 861 30 599 29 400 -293 -0.88 -252 -0.81 -240 -0.80bolivia (Plurinational State of) 62 795 60 091 58 734 57 196 -270 -0.44 -271 -0.46 -308 -0.53brazil 574 839 545 943 530 494 519 522 -2 890 -0.51 -3 090 -0.57 -2 194 -0.42Chile 15 263 15 834 16 043 16 231 57 0.37 42 0.26 38 0.23Colombia 62 519 61 509 61 004 60 499 -101 -0.16 -101 -0.16 -101 -0.17ecuador 13 817 11 841 10 853 9 865 -198 -1.53 -198 -1.73 -198 -1.89Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –French Guiana 8 188 8 118 8 100 8 082 -7 -0.09 -4 -0.04 -4 -0.04Guyana 15 205 15 205 15 205 15 205 0 0 0 0 0 0Paraguay 21 157 19 368 18 475 17 582 -179 -0.88 -179 -0.94 -179 -0.99Peru 70 156 69 213 68 742 67 992 -94 -0.14 -94 -0.14 -150 -0.22Suriname 14 776 14 776 14 776 14 758 0 0 0 0 -4 -0.02Uruguay 920 1 412 1 520 1 744 49 4.38 22 1.48 45 2.79Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) 52 026 49 151 47 713 46 275 -288 -0.57 -288 -0.59 -288 -0.61South America 946 454 904 322 882 258 864 351 -4 213 -0.45 -4 413 -0.49 -3 581 -0.41World 4 168 399 4 085 168 4 060 964 4 033 060 -8 323 -0.20 -4 841 -0.12 -5 581 -0.14abRate of gain or loss in percent of the remaining forest area each year within the given period.FAO estimates based on information provided by these two countries for 2000 and 2005.

234Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 4Forest ownership and management rights 2005 (%)Country/area Ownership pattern Private ownership Holder of management rights of public forestsPublicowner shipPrivateowner shipOther Indi viduals Businessentities andinstitutionsLocal,indigenousand tribalcommunitiesPublic Indi vidualsadministrationBusiness Com munitiesentities andInsti tutionsAngola 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0botswana 24 5 71 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Comoros 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –Djibouti 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0eritrea – – – – – – – – – – –ethiopia 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Kenya 39 61 0 n.s. 4 96 100 0 0 0 0lesotho 14 0 86 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Madagascar 98 2 0 92 0 8 96 0 2 2 0Malawi – – – – – – – – – – –Mauritius 58 42 0 – – 0 100 0 0 0 0Mayotte 61 39 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Mozambique 100 n.s. 0 – – – 98 0 2 0 0Namibia – – – – – – – – – – –Réunion 76 24 0 100 0 0 98 0 0 2 0Seychelles 77 23 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Somalia – – – – – – – – – – –South Africa 60 40 0 – – – 96 0 4 0 0Swaziland 78 22 n.s. – – – 100 0 0 0 0Uganda 32 68 0 – – – – – – – –United Republic of Tanzania 100 n.s. 0 – – – 37 0 0 0 63Zambia 100 0 0 – – – 24 7 3 61 4Zimbabwe 63 37 0 – – – 52 0 4 25 18Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – – – – – –Algeria 76 24 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0egypt 50 50 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0libyan Arab Jamahiriya – – – – – – – – – – –Mauritania 97 3 0 100 – – 99 0 0 1 0Morocco 99 1 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Sudan 91 9 0 96 2 2 100 0 0 0 0Tunisia 94 6 0 100 – – 100 0 0 0 0Western Sahara – – – – – – – – – – –Northern Africa – – – – – – – – – – –benin 99 1 0 59 – – 100 0 0 0 0burkina Faso 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0burundi 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Cameroon 100 0 0 – – – 56 0 41 3 0Cape Verde 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Central African Republic 91 0 9 – – – 1 0 15 0 84Chad 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Congo 100 0 0 – – – 42 0 58 0 0Côte d’Ivoire 99 1 0 – – – – – – – –Democratic Republic of the 100 0 0 – – – 90 0 10 0 0Congoequatorial Guinea 100 0 0 – – – 87 1 9 3 0Gabon 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Gambia 94 6 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0Other

Annex 3: Global tables 235Country/area Ownership pattern Private ownership Holder of management rights of public forestsPublicowner shipTAble 4 (continued)Forest ownership and management rights 2005 (%)Privateowner shipOther Indi viduals Businessentities andinstitutionsLocal,indigenousand tribalcommunitiesPublic Indi vidualsadministrationBusiness Com munitiesentities andInsti tutionsGhana 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –Guinea 99 1 0 1 – 99 100 0 0 n.s. 0Guinea-bissau 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –liberia 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –Mali 100 n.s. 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0Niger 100 n.s. 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0Nigeria 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –Rwanda 79 21 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0Saint Helena, Ascension and – – – – – – – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe – – – – – – – – – – –Senegal 100 n.s. 0 18 82 0 100 0 n.s. n.s. 0Sierra leone 14 86 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0Togo 27 73 0 100 0 0 – – – – –Western and Central Africa – – – – – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – – – – – –China 68 32 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Democratic People’s Republic of 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –KoreaJapan 41 59 0 98 – – 86 0 0 14 0Mongolia 100 0 0 – – – 97 0 1 2 0Republic of Korea 31 69 0 – – – 97 n.s. 1 1 n.s.East Asia – – – – – – – – – – –bangladesh 62 36 2 33 0 67 – – – – –bhutan 100 n.s. 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0brunei Darussalam 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Cambodia 100 0 0 – – – – – – 2 –India 86 14 0 – – – 63 0 0 37 0Indonesia 91 9 0 – – – 43 n.s. 57 n.s. 0lao People’s Democratic100 0 0 – – – – – – – –RepublicMalaysia 98 2 0 – – – 90 0 10 0 0Maldives – – – – – – – – – – –Myanmar 100 n.s. 0 0 0 100 – – – – –Nepal 100 n.s. 0 – – – 66 0 1 33 0Pakistan 66 34 0 – – – – – – – –Philippines 85 15 0 – – – 32 n.s. 20 47 0Singapore 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Sri lanka 93 7 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Thailand 88 12 0 – – – – – – – –Timor-leste 33 67 0 – – – 0 0 0 100 0Viet Nam 72 24 4 – – – – – – – –South and Southeast Asia – – – – – – – – – – –Afghanistan 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –Armenia 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –Azerbaijan 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –bahrain 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –Cyprus 69 31 0 – – 0 100 0 0 0 0Other

236Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/area Ownership pattern Private ownership Holder of management rights of public forestsPublicowner shipTAble 4 (continued)Forest ownership and management rights 2005 (%)Privateowner shipOther Indi viduals Businessentities andinstitutionsLocal,indigenousand tribalcommunitiesPublic Indi vidualsadministrationBusiness Com munitiesentities andInsti tutionsGeorgia 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Iran (Islamic Republic of) 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –Iraq 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Israel 98 2 0 67 33 0 100 0 0 0 0Jordan 89 11 0 – – – 99 0 1 0 0Kazakhstan 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –Kuwait 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –Kyrgyzstan 100 0 0 – – – 99 0 0 1 0lebanon 27 72 1 49 36 16 100 0 0 0 0Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – – – – – – –Oman 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Qatar – – – – – – – – – – –Saudi Arabia 98 2 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Syrian Arab Republic 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Tajikistan 88 0 12 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Turkey 100 n.s. n.s. 95 5 n.s. 97 3 0 n.s. n.s.Turkmenistan 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –United Arab emirates 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Uzbekistan 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Yemen 5 95 0 84 16 0 100 0 0 0 0Western and Central Asia – – – – – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – – – – – –Albania 98 2 0 100 0 0 72 0 0 28 0Andorra – – – – – – – – – – –Austria 19 81 0 68 20 12 100 0 0 0 0belarus 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0belgium 44 56 0 85 15 0 100 0 0 0 0bosnia and Herzegovina 79 21 0 – – – – – – – –bulgaria 89 11 0 93 7 0 87 0 0 13 0Croatia 73 27 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0Czech Republic 76 24 0 86 14 0 100 0 0 0 0Denmark 30 69 1 64 36 0 100 0 0 0 0estonia 40 43 17 80 20 0 100 n.s. 0 0 0Faroe Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Finland 32 68 0 84 16 0 100 0 0 0 0France 26 74 0 84 16 0 38 0 0 62 0Germany 53 44 4 – – 0 100 0 0 0 0Gibraltar – – – – – – – – – – –Greece 77 23 0 – – – – – – – –Guernsey – – – – – – – – – – –Holy See – – – – – – – – – – –Hungary 58 42 n.s. 67 17 16 100 0 0 0 0Iceland 30 70 0 73 27 0 100 0 0 0 0Ireland 58 42 0 – – – 99 0 1 0 0Isle of Man – – – – – – – – – – –Italy 34 66 0 88 12 0 – – – – –Jersey – – – – – – – – – – –Other

Annex 3: Global tables 237Country/area Ownership pattern Private ownership Holder of management rights of public forestsPublicowner shipTAble 4 (continued)Forest ownership and management rights 2005 (%)Privateowner shipOther Indi viduals Businessentities andinstitutionsLocal,indigenousand tribalcommunitiesPublic Indi vidualsadministrationBusiness Com munitiesentities andInsti tutionslatvia 54 46 n.s. 90 10 0 100 0 0 0 0liechtenstein 93 7 0 – – – – – – – –lithuania 66 34 0 100 n.s. 0 100 0 0 0 0luxembourg 47 53 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Malta 100 0 0 – – – – – – – –Monaco – – – – – – – – – – –Montenegro 67 33 0 – – – – – – – –Netherlands 49 51 0 – – 0 100 0 0 0 0Norway 14 86 0 89 8 3 98 0 0 2 0Poland 83 17 0 94 2 4 100 0 0 0 0Portugal 2 98 0 89 5 5 100 0 0 0 0Republic of Moldova 100 n.s. 0 – – – 91 0 0 9 0Romania 80 20 0 53 47 0 100 0 0 0 0Russian Federation 100 0 0 – – – 83 0 17 0 0San Marino – – – – – – – – – – –Serbia 51 49 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0Slovakia 52 43 6 33 8 58 100 0 0 0 0Slovenia 26 74 0 96 0 4 100 0 0 0 0Spain 29 66 5 97 0 3 100 0 0 0 0Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Sweden 24 76 0 63 29 8 100 0 0 0 0Switzerland 68 32 0 87 13 0 7 0 15 72 7The former Yugoslav Republic of 90 10 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0MacedoniaUkraine 100 n.s. 0 100 0 0 91 0 0 n.s. 9United Kingdom 35 65 0 76 24 n.s. 100 0 0 0 0Europe – – – – – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – – – – – – –bahamas 80 20 0 – – – – – – – –barbados 1 99 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0bermuda – – – – – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Cuba 95 3 2 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0Dominica – – – – – – – – – – –Dominican Republic – – – – – – – – – – –Grenada – – – – – – – – – – –Guadeloupe 53 47 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Haiti 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Jamaica 28 65 7 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Martinique 33 67 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Montserrat 33 64 3 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Netherlands Antilles – – – – – – – – – – –Puerto Rico – – – – – – – – – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Other

238Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/area Ownership pattern Private ownership Holder of management rights of public forestsPublicowner shipTAble 4 (continued)Forest ownership and management rights 2005 (%)Privateowner shipOther Indi viduals Businessentities andinstitutionsLocal,indigenousand tribalcommunitiesPublic Indi vidualsadministrationBusiness Com munitiesentities andInsti tutionsSaint lucia – – – – – – – – – – –Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the– – – – – – – – – – –GrenadinesSaint barthélemy – – – – – – – – – – –Trinidad and Tobago 76 24 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Caribbean – – – – – – – – – – –belize – – – – – – – – – – –Costa Rica 45 55 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0el Salvador 31 69 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Guatemala 42 52 5 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Honduras 62 38 0 84 0 16 100 0 0 0 0Nicaragua 11 88 2 41 2 56 – – – – –Panama 98 2 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0Central America – – – – – – – – – – –Canada 92 8 n.s. 84 16 0 100 0 0 0 0Greenland 100 0 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Mexico 4 26 70 – – – – – – – –Saint Pierre and Miquelon 97 3 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0United States of America 43 57 0 69 31 0 100 0 0 0 0North America – – – – – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – – – – – –American Samoa – – – – – – – – – – –Australia 74 24 1 – – – 38 0 62 0 0Cook Islands 0 100 0 0 13 87 – – – – –Fiji 5 95 0 6 0 94 100 0 0 0 0French Polynesia 15 85 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0Guam – – – – – – – – – – –Kiribati 70 30 0 5 – – – – – – –Marshall Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Micronesia (Federated States of) – – – – – – – – – – –Nauru – – – – – – – – – – –New Caledonia 57 43 0 37 – – 100 0 0 0 0New Zealand 64 36 0 – 16 – 100 0 0 0 0Niue – – – – – – – – – – –Norfolk Island – – – – – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Palau – – – – – – – – – – –Papua New Guinea 3 97 0 0 0 100 96 0 4 0 0Pitcairn – – – – – – – – – – –Samoa 21 79 0 – – – – – – – –Solomon Islands n.s. 100 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Tokelau – – – – – – – – – – –Tonga 56 44 0 – – – 80 0 20 0 0Tuvalu – – – – – – – – – – –Other

Annex 3: Global tables 239Country/area Ownership pattern Private ownership Holder of management rights of public forestsPublicowner shipTAble 4 (continued)Forest ownership and management rights 2005 (%)Privateowner shipOther Indi viduals Businessentities andinstitutionsLocal,indigenousand tribalcommunitiesPublic Indi vidualsadministrationBusiness Com munitiesentities andInsti tutionsVanuatu – – – – – – – – – – –Wallis and Futuna Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Oceania – – – – – – – – – – –Argentina – – – – – – – – – – –bolivia (Plurinational State of) 100 n.s. 0 – – – 85 2 10 1 1brazil 81 19 0 – – – 63 0 0 37 0Chile 25 75 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Colombia 22 67 11 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0ecuador 15 2 83 – – – – – – – –Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – – – – – – – – – – –French Guiana 100 n.s. 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Guyana 80 20 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Paraguay 39 61 0 – – – 100 0 0 0 0Peru 62 18 20 – – – 40 0 0 0 60Suriname 99 1 0 – – 0 85 2 8 3 1Uruguay 1 99 0 – – 0 0 0 0 0 100Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) 100 0 0 – – – 96 0 4 0 0South America – – – – – – – – – – –World – – – – – – – – – – –Other

240Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTotal forestarea(1 000 ha)TAble 5Primary designated functions of forest 2010ProductionProtectionof soiland waterPrimary designated function(%)ConservationofbiodiversitySocialservicesMultipleuseAngola 58 480 4 0 3 0 0 0 93botswana 11 351 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Comoros 3 33 67 0 0 0 0 0Djibouti 6 0 0 0 0 100 0 0eritrea 1 532 2 1 5 0 1 0 91ethiopia 12 296 4 0 0 0 96 0 0Kenya 3 467 6 94 0 0 0 0 0lesotho 44 24 0 0 0 76 0 0Madagascar 12 553 26 1 38 0 34 0 0Malawi 3 237 37 0 23 0 0 0 40Mauritius 35 30 42 19 7 2 0 0Mayotte 14 0 31 0 0 0 0 69Mozambique 39 022 67 22 11 0 0 0 0Namibia 7 290 0 0 9 0 22 0 69Réunion 88 5 3 28 1 38 0 25Seychelles 41 1 16 5 0 14 0 64Somalia 6 747 n.s. 0 0 0 100 0 0South Africa 9 241 19 0 10 0 71 0 0Swaziland 563 25 0 0 0 0 0 75Uganda 2 988 12 0 36 15 0 0 37United Republic of Tanzania 33 428 71 0 6 0 24 0 0Zambia 49 468 24 0 22 0 17 0 37Zimbabwe 15 624 10 3 5 0 82 0 0Eastern and Southern Africa 267 517 27 5 10 n.s. 27 0 31Algeria 1 492 35 53 12 n.s. 0 0 0egypt 70 2 49 3 0 46 0 0libyan Arab Jamahiriya 217 0 100 0 0 0 0 0Mauritania 242 0 7 20 0 73 0 0Morocco 5 131 21 0 12 0 67 0 0Sudan 69 949 50 3 17 0 0 0 30Tunisia 1 006 24 41 4 0 32 0 0Western Sahara 707 – – – – – – –Northern Africa 78 814 47 5 16 n.s. 5 0 27benin 4 561 31 0 28 n.s. 40 0 0burkina Faso 5 649 11 0 6 n.s. 84 0 0burundi 172 9 0 0 0 0 0 91Cameroon 19 916 73 3 17 1 6 n.s. 0Cape Verde 85 80 9 11 0 0 0 0Central African Republic 22 605 21 0 1 0 78 0 0Chad 11 525 90 n.s. 10 0 0 0 0Congo 22 411 88 0 4 0 7 0 0Côte d’Ivoire 10 403 89 3 8 n.s. 0 0 0Democratic Republic of the Congo 154 135 5 0 17 0 0 0 78equatorial Guinea 1 626 5 0 36 3 53 3 0Gabon 22 000 45 0 18 n.s. 36 0 0Gambia 480 n.s. 12 9 0 5 0 73Ghana 4 940 23 7 1 1 0 0 68Guinea 6 544 2 9 46 0 7 0 36Guinea-bissau 2 022 29 12 55 3 0 0 0liberia 4 329 25 0 4 0 0 0 71OtherNone orunknown

Annex 3: Global tables 241Country/areaTAble 5 (continued)Primary designated functions of forest 2010Total forestarea(1 000 ha)ProductionProtectionof soiland waterPrimary designated function(%)ConservationofbiodiversitySocialservicesMultipleuseMali 12 490 47 6 32 0 15 0 0Niger 1 204 1 n.s. 18 0 81 0 0Nigeria 9 041 29 0 28 0 0 0 43Rwanda 435 74 12 0 0 14 0 0Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan 2 – – – – – – –da CunhaSao Tome and Principe 27 – – – – – – –Senegal 8 473 60 n.s. 18 n.s. 22 0 0Sierra leone 2 726 9 0 7 0 0 0 84Togo 287 68 16 16 0 0 0 0Western and Central Africa 328 088 29 1 16 n.s. 13 n.s. 42Africa 674 419 30 3 14 n.s. 17 n.s. 35China 206 861 41 29 4 2 24 0 0Democratic People’s Republic of 5 666 86 0 14 0 0 0 0KoreaJapan 24 979 17 70 0 13 0 0 0Mongolia 10 898 7 45 47 1 0 0 0Republic of Korea 6 222 77 5 1 9 7 0 0East Asia 254 626 39 33 6 3 19 0 0bangladesh 1 442 49 8 17 1 25 0 0bhutan 3 249 16 46 27 0 0 0 11brunei Darussalam 380 58 5 21 1 0 0 15Cambodia 10 094 33 5 39 1 4 0 17India 68 434 25 16 29 0 30 0 0Indonesia 94 432 53 24 16 0 0 0 7lao People’s Democratic Republic 15 751 23 58 19 n.s. 0 0 0Malaysia 20 456 62 13 10 0 15 0 0Maldives 1 – – – – – – –Myanmar 31 773 62 4 7 0 27 0 0Nepal 3 636 10 12 14 0 23 0 40Pakistan 1 687 32 0 13 0 55 0 0Philippines 7 665 76 8 16 0 0 0 0Singapore 2 0 0 100 0 0 0 0Sri lanka 1 860 9 1 30 0 60 0 0Thailand 18 972 14 7 47 1 0 0 32Timor-leste 742 33 42 25 0 0 0 0Viet Nam 13 797 47 37 16 0 0 0 0South and Southeast Asia 294 373 42 19 21 n.s. 12 0 6Afghanistan 1 350 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Armenia 262 24 46 0 0 30 0 0Azerbaijan 936 0 92 8 0 0 0 0bahrain 1 0 100 0 0 0 0 0Cyprus 173 24 0 2 8 28 0 38Georgia 2 742 0 79 8 13 0 0 0Iran (Islamic Republic of) 11 075 14 0 1 0 85 0 0Iraq 825 0 80 20 0 0 0 0Israel 154 0 15 18 3 64 0 0Jordan 98 0 98 1 1 0 0 0Kazakhstan 3 309 0 0 16 13 71 0 0Kuwait 6 0 100 0 0 0 0 0Kyrgyzstan 954 0 75 9 1 15 0 0OtherNone orunknown

242Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTotal forestarea(1 000 ha)TAble 5 (continued)Primary designated functions of forest 2010ProductionProtectionof soiland waterPrimary designated function(%)ConservationofbiodiversitySocialservicesMultipleuselebanon 137 6 25 3 0 66 0 0Occupied Palestinian Territory 9 – – – – – – –Oman 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0Qatar 0 – – – – – – –Saudi Arabia 977 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Syrian Arab Republic 491 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Tajikistan 410 5 11 84 0 0 0 0Turkey 11 334 70 17 8 n.s. 6 0 0Turkmenistan 4 127 0 97 3 0 0 0 0United Arab emirates 317 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Uzbekistan 3 276 n.s. 93 6 0 0 0 0Yemen 549 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Western and Central Asia 43 513 22 31 6 2 38 0 n.s.Asia 592 512 39 26 13 2 17 0 3Albania 776 79 17 4 0 0 0 0Andorra 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 100Austria 3 887 60 37 3 1 0 0 0belarus 8 630 50 19 14 18 0 0 0belgium 678 0 15 31 0 55 0 0bosnia and Herzegovina 2 185 56 0 1 0 0 0 43bulgaria 3 927 73 12 1 6 8 0 0Croatia 1 920 82 4 3 2 9 0 0Czech Republic 2 657 75 9 13 3 0 0 0Denmark 544 55 0 7 0 27 0 11estonia 2 217 66 12 9 0 13 0 0Faroe Islands n.s. – – – – – – –Finland 22 157 87 0 9 n.s. 4 0 0France 15 954 75 2 1 n.s. 22 0 0Germany 11 076 0 0 26 0 74 0 0Gibraltar 0 – – – – – – –Greece 3 903 92 0 4 0 0 0 4Guernsey n.s. – – – – – – –Holy See 0 – – – – – – –Hungary 2 029 64 14 21 1 0 0 0Iceland 30 20 13 n.s. 19 44 4 0Ireland 739 43 0 11 n.s. 0 0 46Isle of Man 3 – – – – – – –Italy 9 149 45 20 36 n.s. 0 0 0Jersey 1 – – – – – – –latvia 3 354 79 4 15 2 0 0 0liechtenstein 7 32 40 20 8 0 0 0lithuania 2 160 71 10 9 3 8 0 0luxembourg 87 33 0 0 0 68 0 0Malta n.s. 0 0 100 0 0 0 0Monaco 0 – – – – – – –Montenegro 543 64 10 5 0 0 0 21Netherlands 365 1 0 25 0 74 0 0Norway 10 065 60 27 2 0 11 0 0Poland 9 337 40 20 5 11 1 5 18Portugal 3 456 59 7 5 0 30 0 0Republic of Moldova 386 0 10 17 26 47 0 0OtherNone orunknown

Annex 3: Global tables 243Country/areaTotal forestarea(1 000 ha)TAble 5 (continued)Primary designated functions of forest 2010ProductionProtectionof soiland waterPrimary designated function(%)ConservationofbiodiversitySocialservicesMultipleuseRomania 6 573 48 39 5 6 0 3 0Russian Federation 809 090 51 9 2 2 10 26 0San Marino 0 – – – – – – –Serbia 2 713 89 7 5 n.s. n.s. 0 0Slovakia 1 933 7 18 4 12 59 0 0Slovenia 1 253 31 6 46 6 11 0 0Spain 18 173 20 20 12 2 46 0 0Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands 0 – – – – – – –Sweden 28 203 74 n.s. 10 0 15 0 0Switzerland 1 240 40 1 7 5 0 40 7The former Yugoslav Republic of 998 81 0 0 0 0 0 19MacedoniaUkraine 9 705 46 31 4 19 0 0 0United Kingdom 2 881 32 n.s. 5 4 55 0 4Europe 1 005 001 52 9 4 2 11 21 n.s.Anguilla 6 – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda 10 – – – – – – –Aruba n.s. – – – – – – –bahamas 515 – – – – – – –barbados 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 96bermuda 1 – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands 4 – – – – – – –Cayman Islands 13 – – – – – – –Cuba 2 870 31 47 21 n.s. 0 0 0Dominica 45 – – – – – – –Dominican Republic 1 972 – – – – – – –Grenada 17 1 3 14 0 0 0 82Guadeloupe 64 4 0 n.s. 0 49 0 46Haiti 101 54 0 4 0 0 0 42Jamaica 337 2 4 21 0 6 0 66Martinique 49 3 5 12 0 n.s. 13 67Montserrat 3 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Netherlands Antilles 1 – – – – – – –Puerto Rico 552 – – – – – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis 11 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Saint lucia 47 0 0 5 0 19 0 76Saint Martin (French part) 1 – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 27 – – – – – – –Saint barthélemy 0 – – – – – – –Trinidad and Tobago 226 34 23 9 4 32 0 0Turks and Caicos Islands 34 – – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands 20 – – – – – – –Caribbean 6 933 28 38 19 1 4 n.s. 10belize 1 393 0 0 43 0 0 0 57Costa Rica 2 605 14 11 24 4 15 0 32el Salvador 287 24 5 11 0 60 0 0Guatemala 3 657 28 0 63 0 0 0 9Honduras 5 192 21 22 44 13 0 0 0Nicaragua 3 114 20 6 65 0 2 1 7Panama 3 251 14 2 41 0 43 0 0Central America 19 499 19 9 47 4 10 n.s. 11OtherNone orunknown

244Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTotal forestarea(1 000 ha)TAble 5 (continued)Primary designated functions of forest 2010ProductionProtectionof soiland waterPrimary designated function(%)ConservationofbiodiversitySocialservicesMultipleuseCanada 310 134 1 0 5 0 87 0 7Greenland n.s. 0 0 0 0 0 100 0Mexico 64 802 5 0 13 0 82 0 0Saint Pierre and Miquelon 3 0 0 0 0 100 0 0United States of America 304 022 30 0 25 0 46 0 0North America 678 961 14 0 15 0 68 n.s. 3North and Central America 705 393 14 n.s. 16 n.s. 66 n.s. 4American Samoa 18 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Australia 149 300 1 0 15 0 39 44 1Cook Islands 16 0 7 0 0 93 0 0Fiji 1 014 17 9 9 0 65 0 0French Polynesia 155 4 2 5 0 0 0 90Guam 26 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Kiribati 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 98Marshall Islands 13 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Micronesia (Federated States of) 64 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Nauru 0 – – – – – – –New Caledonia 839 2 15 9 7 0 0 67New Zealand 8 269 24 1 76 0 0 0 0Niue 19 – – – – – – –Norfolk Island n.s. – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands 30 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Palau 40 0 0 0 0 100 0 0Papua New Guinea 28 726 25 0 5 0 5 0 66Pitcairn 4 – – – – – – –Samoa 171 47 20 17 4 5 0 7Solomon Islands 2 213 17 28 22 n.s. 0 0 33Tokelau 0 – – – – – – –Tonga 9 11 7 82 0 0 0 0Tuvalu 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100Vanuatu 440 – – – – – – –Wallis and Futuna Islands 6 5 87 8 0 0 0 0Oceania 191 384 6 n.s. 16 n.s. 32 34 11Argentina 29 400 5 0 4 0 9 0 83bolivia (Plurinational State of) 57 196 0 0 19 0 81 0 n.s.brazil 519 522 7 8 9 23 4 0 49Chile 16 231 46 29 14 0 11 0 0Colombia 60 499 13 1 14 0 0 0 72ecuador 9 865 2 24 49 0 21 0 4Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 0 – – – – – – –French Guiana 8 082 0 0 30 0 52 0 18Guyana 15 205 97 0 1 2 0 0 0Paraguay 17 582 n.s. n.s. 11 n.s. 0 0 89Peru 67 992 37 n.s. 27 n.s. 26 0 10Suriname 14 758 27 0 15 0 4 0 55Uruguay 1 744 64 21 15 0 0 0 0Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) 46 275 49 17 34 0 0 0 0South America 864 351 14 7 13 14 11 0 41World 4 033 060 30 8 12 4 24 7 16OtherNone orunknown

Annex 3: Global tables 245TAble 6Forest management and legal status 2010Country/area Permanent forest estate Forest within protected areas Forest with management plan1 000 ha % of forest area 1 000 ha % of forest area 1 000 ha % of forest areaAngola 58 480 100 1 862 3 0 0botswana 420 4 – – – –Comoros – – 0 0 – –Djibouti 6 100 0 0 – –eritrea 0 0 55 4 41 3ethiopia – – – – – –Kenya 1 364 39 – – 824 24lesotho 6 14 1 2 3 7Madagascar 3 476 28 4 752 38 2 n.s.Malawi 1 526 47 757 23 – –Mauritius 0 0 0 0 8 23Mayotte 5 36 4 31 n.s. 4Mozambique – – 4 143 11 901 2Namibia 136 2 689 9 596 8Réunion 65 74 68 77 54 61Seychelles – – 2 5 – –Somalia – – – – – –South Africa 1 463 16 947 10 2 106 23Swaziland – – – – 107 19Uganda 1 900 64 731 24 – –United Republic of Tanzania 13 000 39 2 000 6 28 577 85Zambia 3 244 7 10 680 22 11 479 23Zimbabwe 909 6 801 5 909 6Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – –Algeria 1 492 100 173 12 1 325 89egypt 70 100 20 28 4 6libyan Arab Jamahiriya – – – – – –Mauritania 48 20 – – 5 2Morocco 5 131 100 376 7 985 19Sudan 59 400 85 13 346 19 14 855 21Tunisia 1 006 100 71 7 518 51Western Sahara – – – – – –Northern Africa – – – – – –benin 2 700 59 1 263 28 1 741 38burkina Faso 3 800 67 – – 600 11burundi 76 44 40 23 – –Cameroon 18 048 91 9 105 46 7 847 39Cape Verde – – 9 11 – –Central African Republic 5 073 22 247 1 3 730 17Chad 1 153 10 – – – –Congo 15 203 68 986 4 5 417 24Côte d’Ivoire 8 535 82 808 8 2 087 20Democratic Republic of the Congo – – 16 297 11 6 591 4equatorial Guinea 1 626 100 586 36 0 0Gabon 10 000 45 3 434 16 7 500 34Gambia 34 7 43 9 75 16Ghana 4 543 92 43 1 971 20Guinea 1 186 18 242 4 322 5Guinea-bissau – – – – 150 7liberia 1 411 33 194 4 265 6Mali 5 200 42 3 900 31 589 5

246Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 6 (continued)Forest management and legal status 2010Country/area Permanent forest estate Forest within protected areas Forest with management plan1 000 ha % of forest area 1 000 ha % of forest area 1 000 ha % of forest areaNiger – – 220 18 220 18Nigeria 4 105 45 2 509 28 3 730 41Rwanda – – 62 14 – –Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe – – – – – –Senegal 4 424 52 1 532 18 500 6Sierra leone 285 10 187 7 75 3Togo – – – – – –Western and Central Africa – – – – – –Africa – – – – – –China 206 861 100 24 671 12 128 500 62Democratic People’s Republic of– – 780 14 – –KoreaJapan 13 149 53 13 149 53 24 979 100Mongolia 10 898 100 5 152 47 400 4Republic of Korea – – – – 3 041 49East Asia – – – – – –bangladesh 1 225 85 247 17 871 60bhutan 1 949 60 883 27 318 10brunei Darussalam 322 85 19 5 – –Cambodia 10 094 100 3 092 31 – –India 46 194 68 19 774 29 30 597 45Indonesia 77 067 82 37 811 40 – –lao People’s Democratic Republic – – – – – –Malaysia 14 301 70 4 640 23 18 941 93Maldives – – – – – –Myanmar – – 2 081 7 31 273 98Nepal – – 526 14 1 500 41Pakistan – – – – – –Philippines – – 1 804 24 2 250 29Singapore – – – – – –Sri lanka – – – – – –Thailand 16 381 86 9 426 50 16 381 86Timor-leste – – – – – –Viet Nam – – – – – –South and Southeast Asia – – – – – –Afghanistan – – – – – –Armenia – – – – – –Azerbaijan – – – – – –bahrain – – – – – –Cyprus 107 62 95 55 107 62Georgia 0 0 551 20 58 2Iran (Islamic Republic of) – – – – – –Iraq 825 100 – – – –Israel 80 52 28 18 120 78Jordan 98 100 35 35 – –Kazakhstan – – – – – –Kuwait – – – – – –Kyrgyzstan 850 89 80 8 850 89lebanon 20 15 4 3 0 0Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 247TAble 6 (continued)Forest management and legal status 2010Country/area Permanent forest estate Forest within protected areas Forest with management plan1 000 ha % of forest area 1 000 ha % of forest area 1 000 ha % of forest areaOman – – – – – –Qatar – – – – – –Saudi Arabia – – – – – –Syrian Arab Republic 491 100 100 20 250 51Tajikistan 344 84 44 11 22 5Turkey 11 334 100 269 2 11 334 100Turkmenistan – – – – – –United Arab emirates 317 100 – – 0 0Uzbekistan 3 276 100 210 6 3 276 100Yemen 549 100 31 6 0 0Western and Central Asia – – – – – –Asia – – – – – –Albania 776 100 162 21 776 100Andorra – – – – – –Austria 3 887 100 659 17 1 944 50belarus 8 630 100 1 208 14 8 630 100belgium – – 209 31 360 53bosnia and Herzegovina – – – – – –bulgaria 3 927 100 313 8 3 927 100Croatia 1 920 100 54 3 1 489 78Czech Republic 2 657 100 740 28 2 657 100Denmark 485 89 40 7 254 47estonia 694 31 213 10 1 530 69Faroe Islands – – – – – –Finland – – 1 925 9 14 497 65France 15 954 100 313 2 6 826 43Germany 10 568 95 2 754 25 7 528 68Gibraltar – – – – – –Greece – – 164 4 – –Guernsey – – – – – –Holy See – – – – – –Hungary 2 029 100 424 21 2 029 100Iceland 0 0 n.s. n.s. 23 77Ireland 739 100 58 8 570 77Isle of Man – – – – – –Italy 9 030 99 3 265 36 – –Jersey – – – – – –latvia 1 737 52 610 18 3 354 100liechtenstein – – 4 60 7 100lithuania 2 160 100 433 20 2 160 100luxembourg 87 100 – – – –Malta – – n.s. 100 n.s. 100Monaco – – – – – –Montenegro – – 13 2 – –Netherlands 3 1 83 23 226 62Norway 421 4 167 2 4 727 47Poland 9 337 100 187 2 8 382 90Portugal 1 281 37 700 20 1 081 31Republic of Moldova – – 64 17 – –Romania 6 573 100 1 746 27 5 210 79Russian Federation 180 697 22 17 572 2 809 090 100

248Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 6 (continued)Forest management and legal status 2010Country/area Permanent forest estate Forest within protected areas Forest with management plan1 000 ha % of forest area 1 000 ha % of forest area 1 000 ha % of forest areaSan Marino – – – – – –Serbia 2 713 100 452 17 2 252 83Slovakia 1 933 100 1 104 57 1 933 100Slovenia – – 241 19 1 253 100Spain 18 173 100 2 499 14 3 487 19Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands – – – – – –Sweden – – 1 435 5 28 203 100Switzerland 1 240 100 90 7 618 50The former Yugoslav Republic of 918 92 – – 918 92MacedoniaUkraine 9 705 100 – – 8 900 92United Kingdom 2 881 100 145 5 1 870 65Europe – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – –bahamas – – – – – –barbados – – n.s. 4 – –bermuda – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – –Cuba 2 870 100 634 22 2 344 82Dominica – – – – – –Dominican Republic – – – – – –Grenada – – 2 14 – –Guadeloupe 34 54 14 23 34 53Haiti – – 4 4 – –Jamaica 118 35 118 35 – –Martinique 16 33 2 5 10 20Montserrat 1 46 1 46 – –Netherlands Antilles – – – – – –Puerto Rico – – – – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – –Saint lucia – – 2 5 – –Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – – – – – –Saint barthélemy – – – – – –Trinidad and Tobago 143 63 – – 143 63Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands – – – – n.s. 2Caribbean – – – – – –belize – – – – – –Costa Rica – – – – – –el Salvador – – 32 11 3 1Guatemala – – – – – –Honduras – – 2 335 45 1 076 21Nicaragua – – 2 018 65 100 3Panama 164 5 2 116 65 68 2Central America – – – – – –Canada 285 587 92 24 859 8 – –Greenland n.s. 100 – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 249TAble 6 (continued)Forest management and legal status 2010Country/area Permanent forest estate Forest within protected areas Forest with management plan1 000 ha % of forest area 1 000 ha % of forest area 1 000 ha % of forest areaMexico – – 8 488 13 – –Saint Pierre and Miquelon 3 100 0 0 n.s. 11United States of America 133 014 44 30 225 10 206 084 68North America – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – –American Samoa – – – – – –Australia 31 781 21 26 621 18 31 781 21Cook Islands – – – – – –Fiji 0 0 92 9 6 1French Polynesia – – 7 5 – –Guam – – – – – –Kiribati – – – – n.s. 2Marshall Islands – – – – – –Micronesia (Federated States of) – – – – – –Nauru – – – – – –New Caledonia – – – – – –New Zealand 5 003 61 3 607 44 6 938 84Niue – – – – – –Norfolk Island – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands – – – – – –Palau – – – – – –Papua New Guinea 63 n.s. 313 1 – –Pitcairn – – – – – –Samoa – – – – – –Solomon Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0Tokelau – – – – – –Tonga 7 74 – – 2 22Tuvalu – – – – – –Vanuatu – – – – – –Wallis and Futuna Islands n.s. 2 0 0 n.s. 2Oceania – – – – – –Argentina – – 1 160 4 – –bolivia (Plurinational State of) 38 611 68 10 680 19 10 400 18brazil 242 986 47 89 541 17 30 543 6Chile 13 634 84 3 992 25 2 n.s.Colombia – – – – – –ecuador 9 221 93 – – – –Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – – – – – –French Guiana 6 598 82 2 418 30 2 222 27Guyana 12 222 80 – – 5 525 36Paraguay – – – – – –Peru 18 821 28 – – 61 427 90Suriname 6 689 45 2 015 14 – –Uruguay 752 43 – – – –Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) – – – – – –South America – – – – – –World – – – – – –

250Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 7Forest characteristics 2010Country/area Primary forest Other naturally regenerated forest Planted Forest1 000 ha % offorestarea1 000 ha % offorestarea% of whichintroducedspecies1 000 ha % offorestareaAngola 0 0 58 352 100 – 128 n.s. –botswana 0 0 11 351 100 – 0 0 –% of whichintroducedspeciesComoros 0 0 2 67 0 1 33 100Djibouti 0 0 6 100 – 0 0 –eritrea 0 0 1 498 98 0 34 2 90ethiopia 0 0 11 785 96 – 511 4 –Kenya 654 19 2 616 75 – 197 6 100lesotho 0 0 34 76 – 10 24 100Madagascar 3 036 24 9 102 73 – 415 3 100Malawi 934 29 1 938 60 – 365 11 100Mauritius 0 0 20 58 – 15 42 –Mayotte 1 5 12 87 – 1 7 80Mozambique 0 0 38 960 100 0 62 n.s. 100Namibia 0 0 7 290 100 – n.s. n.s. –Réunion 55 63 28 32 29 5 6 80Seychelles 2 5 34 83 – 5 12 –Somalia 0 0 6 744 100 – 3 n.s. –South Africa 947 10 6 531 71 0 1 763 19 100Swaziland 0 0 423 75 – 140 25 –Uganda 0 0 2 937 98 – 51 2 100United Republic of Tanzania 0 0 33 188 99 – 240 1 –Zambia 0 0 49 406 100 – 62 n.s. –Zimbabwe 801 5 14 715 94 0 108 1 100Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – – –Algeria 0 0 1 088 73 – 404 27 –egypt 0 0 0 0 – 70 100 83libyan Arab Jamahiriya 0 0 0 0 – 217 100 –Mauritania 0 0 221 91 – 21 9 –Morocco 0 0 4 510 88 – 621 12 33Sudan 13 990 20 49 891 71 – 6 068 9 n.s.Tunisia 0 0 316 31 – 690 69 30Western Sahara 0 0 707 100 0 0 0 –Northern Africa – – – – – – – –benin 0 0 4 542 100 – 19 n.s. 100burkina Faso 0 0 5 540 98 – 109 2 80burundi 40 23 63 37 – 69 40 100Cameroon – – – – – – – –Cape Verde 0 0 0 0 – 85 100 100Central African Republic 2 370 10 20 233 90 – 2 n.s. 100Chad 184 2 11 324 98 – 17 n.s. 94Congo 7 436 33 14 900 66 – 75 n.s. –Côte d’Ivoire 625 6 9 441 91 – 337 3 –Democratic Republic of the Congo – – – – – 59 n.s. –equatorial Guinea 0 0 1 626 100 0 n.s. n.s. 0Gabon 14 334 65 7 636 35 0 30 n.s. –Gambia 1 n.s. 478 100 – 1 n.s. –Ghana 395 8 4 285 87 – 260 5 –

Annex 3: Global tables 251Country/area Primary forest Other naturally regenerated forest Planted Forest1 000 ha % offorestareaTAble 7 (continued)Forest characteristics 20101 000 ha % offorestarea% of whichintroducedspecies1 000 ha % offorestarea% of whichintroducedspeciesGuinea 63 1 6 388 98 – 93 1 80Guinea-bissau 0 0 2 021 100 – 1 n.s. –liberia 175 4 4 146 96 – 8 n.s. 100Mali 0 0 11 960 96 0 530 4 90Niger 220 18 836 69 17 148 12 –Nigeria 0 0 8 659 96 0 382 4 44Rwanda 7 2 55 13 – 373 86 –Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe 11 41 16 59 – 0 0 –Senegal 1 553 18 6 456 76 – 464 5 53Sierra leone 113 4 2 599 95 – 15 1 –Togo 0 0 245 85 – 42 15 –Western and Central Africa – – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – – –China 11 632 6 118 071 57 5 77 157 37 28Democratic People’s Republic of 780 14 4 104 72 – 781 14 –KoreaJapan 4 747 19 9 906 40 – 10 326 41 –Mongolia 5 152 47 5 601 51 – 145 1 –Republic of Korea 2 957 48 1 443 23 – 1 823 29 67East Asia – – – – – – – –bangladesh 436 30 769 53 – 237 16 17bhutan 413 13 2 833 87 – 3 n.s. –brunei Darussalam 263 69 114 30 – 3 1 18Cambodia 322 3 9 703 96 – 69 1 –India 15 701 23 42 522 62 – 10 211 15 13Indonesia 47 236 50 43 647 46 – 3 549 4 –lao People’s Democratic Republic 1 490 9 14 037 89 – 224 1 –Malaysia 3 820 19 14 829 72 0 1 807 9 –Maldives – – – – – – – –Myanmar 3 192 10 27 593 87 – 988 3 –Nepal 526 14 3 067 84 13 43 1 23Pakistan 0 0 1 347 80 – 340 20 –Philippines 861 11 6 452 84 – 352 5 99Singapore 2 100 0 0 – 0 0 –Sri lanka 167 9 1 508 81 – 185 10 –Thailand 6 726 35 8 261 44 – 3 986 21 –Timor-leste 0 0 699 94 – 43 6 –Viet Nam 80 1 10 205 74 – 3 512 25 –South and Southeast Asia – – – – – – – –Afghanistan – – – – – – – –Armenia 13 5 228 87 – 21 8 –Azerbaijan 400 43 516 55 – 20 2 –bahrain 0 0 0 0 – 1 100 –Cyprus 13 8 129 75 0 31 18 5Georgia 500 18 2 059 75 0 184 7 0Iran (Islamic Republic of) 200 2 10 031 91 – 844 8 –

252Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/area Primary forest Other naturally regenerated forest Planted Forest1 000 ha % offorestareaTAble 7 (continued)Forest characteristics 20101 000 ha % offorestarea% of whichintroducedspecies1 000 ha % offorestareaIraq 0 0 810 98 – 15 2 –% of whichintroducedspeciesIsrael 0 0 66 43 1 88 57 30Jordan 0 0 51 52 – 47 48 –Kazakhstan 0 0 2 408 73 – 901 27 –Kuwait 0 0 0 0 – 6 100 –Kyrgyzstan 269 28 628 66 – 57 6 –lebanon 0 0 126 92 0 11 8 74Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – – – –Oman 0 0 0 0 – 2 100 0Qatar 0 – 0 – – 0 – –Saudi Arabia 360 37 617 63 – 0 0 –Syrian Arab Republic 0 0 198 40 0 294 60 17Tajikistan 297 72 12 3 – 101 25 4Turkey 973 9 6 943 61 – 3 418 30 2Turkmenistan 104 3 4 023 97 – 0 0 –United Arab emirates 0 0 0 0 – 317 100 0Uzbekistan 72 2 2 569 78 – 635 19 –Yemen 0 0 549 100 – 0 0 –Western and Central Asia – – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – – –Albania 85 11 598 77 0 94 12 8Andorra – – – – – – – –Austria – – – – – – – –belarus 400 5 6 373 74 0 1 857 22 n.s.belgium 0 0 282 42 8 396 58 75bosnia and Herzegovina 2 n.s. 1 184 54 – 999 46 –bulgaria 338 9 2 774 71 6 815 21 5Croatia 7 n.s. 1 843 96 3 70 4 39Czech Republic 9 n.s. 13 n.s. – 2 635 99 –Denmark 25 5 112 21 31 407 75 47estonia 964 43 1 085 49 0 168 8 1Faroe Islands – – – – – – – –Finland 0 0 16 252 73 0 5 904 27 n.s.France 30 n.s. 14 291 90 4 1 633 10 36Germany 0 0 5 793 52 – 5 283 48 8Gibraltar 0 – 0 – – 0 – –Greece 0 0 3 763 96 – 140 4 –Guernsey – – – – – – – –Holy See 0 – 0 – – 0 – –Hungary 0 0 417 21 48 1 612 79 41Iceland 0 0 3 10 0 27 90 78Ireland 0 0 82 11 18 657 89 76Isle of Man – – – – – – – –Italy 93 1 8 435 92 3 621 7 15Jersey – – – – – – – –latvia 15 n.s. 2 711 81 0 628 19 n.s.liechtenstein 2 22 5 74 – n.s. 4 –

Annex 3: Global tables 253Country/area Primary forest Other naturally regenerated forest Planted Forest1 000 ha % offorestareaTAble 7 (continued)Forest characteristics 20101 000 ha % offorestarea% of whichintroducedspecies1 000 ha % offorestarea% of whichintroducedspecieslithuania 26 1 1 613 75 0 521 24 1luxembourg 0 0 59 68 – 28 33 –Malta 0 0 0 0 – n.s. 100 –Monaco 0 – 0 – – 0 – –Montenegro – – – – – – – –Netherlands 0 0 0 0 – 365 100 25Norway 223 2 8 367 83 0 1 475 15 18Poland 54 1 394 4 – 8 889 95 n.s.Portugal 24 1 2 583 75 6 849 25 99Republic of Moldova 0 0 384 99 – 2 1 –Romania 300 5 4 827 73 – 1 446 22 –Russian Federation 256 482 32 535 618 66 0 16 991 2 0San Marino 0 – 0 – – 0 – –Serbia 1 n.s. 2 532 93 – 180 7 –Slovakia 24 1 950 49 3 959 50 2Slovenia 109 9 1 112 89 0 32 3 –Spain 0 0 15 493 85 3 2 680 15 37Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands 0 – 0 – – 0 – –Sweden 2 609 9 21 981 78 0 3 613 13 18Switzerland 40 3 1 028 83 n.s. 172 14 2The former Yugoslav Republic of0 0 893 89 – 105 11 –MacedoniaUkraine 59 1 4 800 49 – 4 846 50 –United Kingdom 0 0 662 23 0 2 219 77 64Europe – – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – – – –bahamas 0 0 515 100 – 0 0 –barbados 0 0 8 99 – n.s. 1 100bermuda – – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – – – –Cuba 0 0 2 384 83 0 486 17 28Dominica 27 60 18 40 – n.s. n.s. –Dominican Republic – – – – – – – –Grenada 2 14 14 85 – n.s. 1 –Guadeloupe 15 23 45 70 – 4 7 98Haiti 0 0 73 72 – 28 28 –Jamaica 88 26 242 72 5 7 2 100Martinique 0 0 46 95 0 2 5 100Montserrat 0 0 3 100 0 0 0 –Netherlands Antilles – – – – – – – –Puerto Rico 0 0 552 100 – 0 0 –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – – – –Saint lucia 12 24 34 73 – 1 3 –Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0 0 27 100 – n.s. n.s. –

254Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/area Primary forest Other naturally regenerated forest Planted Forest1 000 ha % offorestareaTAble 7 (continued)Forest characteristics 20101 000 ha % offorestarea% of whichintroducedspecies1 000 ha % offorestareaSaint barthélemy 0 – 0 – – 0 – –% of whichintroducedspeciesTrinidad and Tobago 62 28 146 64 0 18 8 83Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands 0 0 20 100 0 0 0 –Caribbean – – – – – – – –belize 599 43 792 57 – 2 n.s. –Costa Rica 623 24 1 741 67 – 241 9 –el Salvador 5 2 267 93 0 15 5 91Guatemala 1 619 44 1 865 51 – 173 5 –Honduras 457 9 4 735 91 – 0 0 –Nicaragua 1 179 38 1 861 60 – 74 2 –Panama 0 0 3 172 98 – 79 2 79Central America – – – – – – – –Canada 165 448 53 135 723 44 – 8 963 3 –Greenland 0 0 0 0 – n.s. 100 100Mexico 34 310 53 27 289 42 – 3 203 5 –Saint Pierre and Miquelon 0 0 3 100 0 0 0 –United States of America 75 277 25 203 382 67 n.s. 25 363 8 2North America – – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – – –American Samoa – – – – – – – –Australia 5 039 3 142 359 95 0 1 903 1 53Cook Islands 0 0 14 93 – 1 7 –Fiji 449 44 388 38 0 177 17 100French Polynesia 40 26 105 68 – 10 6 –Guam – – – – – – – –Kiribati 0 0 12 100 0 0 0 –Marshall Islands 8 65 0 0 – 4 35 –Micronesia (Federated States of) 48 75 2 2 – 14 22 –Nauru 0 – 0 – – 0 – –New Caledonia 431 51 398 47 – 10 1 94New Zealand 2 144 26 4 313 52 – 1 812 22 100Niue 6 30 13 68 0 n.s. 2 100Norfolk Island – – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands 8 27 0 0 – 22 73 –Palau – – – – – – – –Papua New Guinea 26 210 91 2 430 8 – 86 n.s. –Pitcairn – – – – – – – –Samoa n.s. n.s. 139 81 – 32 19 –Solomon Islands 1 105 50 1 081 49 0 27 1 66Tokelau 0 – 0 – – 0 – –Tonga 4 44 4 44 – 1 11 100Tuvalu – – – – – – – –Vanuatu – – – – – – – –Wallis and Futuna Islands – – – – – 1 9 –Oceania – – – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 255Country/area Primary forest Other naturally regenerated forest Planted Forest1 000 ha % offorestareaTAble 7 (continued)Forest characteristics 20101 000 ha % offorestarea% of whichintroducedspecies1 000 ha % offorestarea% of whichintroducedspeciesArgentina 1 738 6 26 268 89 0 1 394 5 98bolivia (Plurinational State of) 37 164 65 20 012 35 – 20 n.s. 100brazil 476 573 92 35 532 7 – 7 418 1 96Chile 4 439 27 9 408 58 – 2 384 15 100Colombia 8 543 14 51 551 85 – 405 1 –ecuador 4 805 49 4 893 50 – 167 2 100Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 0 – 0 – – 0 – –French Guiana 7 690 95 391 5 0 1 n.s. 100Guyana 6 790 45 8 415 55 – 0 0 –Paraguay 1 850 11 15 684 89 0 48 n.s. –Peru 60 178 89 6 821 10 – 993 1 –Suriname 14 001 95 744 5 0 13 n.s. 54Uruguay 306 18 460 26 – 978 56 100Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) – – – – – – – –South America – – – – – – – –World – – – – – – – –Note: Due to the structure of the table on forest characteristics, a reported zero for primary forest may be due to lack of data rather than a complete lack ofprimary forest.

256Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 8Trends in extent of primary forest 1990–2010Area of primary forest(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %Angola 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –botswana 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Comoros 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Djibouti 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –eritrea 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –ethiopia 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Kenya 694 674 664 654 -2 -0.29 -2 -0.30 -2 -0.30lesotho 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Madagascar 3 367 3 214 3 137 3 036 -15 -0.46 -15 -0.48 -20 -0.65Malawi 1 727 1 330 1 132 934 -40 -2.58 -40 -3.17 -40 -3.77Mauritius 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Mayotte 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Mozambique 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Namibia 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Réunion 55 55 55 55 0 0 0 0 0 0Seychelles 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Somalia 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –South Africa 947 947 947 947 0 0 0 0 0 0Swaziland 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Uganda 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –United Republic of Tanzania 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Zambia 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Zimbabwe 801 801 801 801 0 0 0 0 0 0Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – – – – –Algeria 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –egypt 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –libyan Arab Jamahiriya 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Mauritania 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Morocco 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Sudan 15 276 14 098 14 044 13 990 -118 -0.80 -11 -0.08 -11 -0.08Tunisia 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Western Sahara 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Northern Africa – – – – – – – – – –benin 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –burkina Faso 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –burundi 110 40 40 40 -7 -9.62 0 0 0 0Cameroon – – 0 – – – – – – –Cape Verde 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Central African Republic 3 900 3 135 2 752 2 370 -77 -2.16 -77 -2.57 -76 -2.94Chad 209 196 190 184 -1 -0.64 -1 -0.62 -1 -0.64Congo 7 548 7 492 7 464 7 436 -6 -0.07 -6 -0.07 -6 -0.08Côte d’Ivoire 625 625 625 625 0 0 0 0 0 0Democratic Republic of the Congo – – – – – – – – – –equatorial Guinea 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Gabon 20 934 17 634 15 984 14 334 -330 -1.70 -330 -1.95 -330 -2.16Gambia 1 1 1 1 0 0 n.s. -3.58 n.s. -4.36Ghana 395 395 395 395 0 0 0 0 0 0Guinea 63 63 63 63 0 0 0 0 0 0Guinea-bissau 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –liberia 175 175 175 175 0 0 0 0 0 0

Annex 3: Global tables 257Country/areaTAble 8 (continued)Trends in extent of primary forest 1990–2010Area of primary forest(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %Mali 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Niger 220 220 220 220 0 0 0 0 0 0Nigeria 1 556 736 326 n.s. -82 -7.21 -82 -15.03 -65 –Rwanda 7 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – – – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe 11 11 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0Senegal 1 759 1 653 1 598 1 553 -11 -0.62 -11 -0.67 -9 -0.57Sierra leone 224 157 133 113 -7 -3.49 -5 -3.26 -4 -3.21Togo 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Western and Central Africa – – – – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – – – – –China 11 646 11 632 11 632 11 632 -1 -0.01 0 0 0 0Democratic People’s Republic of 1 129 954 867 780 -18 -1.67 -17 -1.89 -17 -2.09KoreaJapan 3 764 4 054 4 449 4 747 29 0.74 79 1.88 60 1.31Mongolia 6 043 5 539 5 346 5 152 -50 -0.87 -39 -0.71 -39 -0.74Republic of Korea – 4 277 3 617 2 957 – – -132 -3.30 -132 -3.95East Asia – – – – – – – – – –bangladesh 436 436 436 436 0 0 0 0 0 0bhutan 413 413 413 413 0 0 0 0 0 0brunei Darussalam 313 288 275 263 -3 -0.83 -3 -0.92 -2 -0.89Cambodia 766 456 322 322 -31 -5.05 -27 -6.72 0 0India 15 701 15 701 15 701 15 701 0 0 0 0 0 0Indonesia – 49 270 47 750 47 236 – – -304 -0.62 -103 -0.22lao People’s Democratic Republic 1 490 1 490 1 490 1 490 0 0 0 0 0 0Malaysia 3 820 3 820 3 820 3 820 0 0 0 0 0 0Maldives – – – – – – – – – –Myanmar 3 192 3 192 3 192 3 192 0 0 0 0 0 0Nepal 391 548 526 526 16 3.43 -4 -0.82 0 0Pakistan 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Philippines 861 861 861 861 0 0 0 0 0 0Singapore 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Sri lanka 257 197 167 167 -6 -2.62 -6 -3.25 0 0Thailand 6 726 6 726 6 726 6 726 0 0 0 0 0 0Timor-leste 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Viet Nam 384 187 85 80 -20 -6.94 -20 -14.59 -1 -1.21South and Southeast Asia – – – – – – – – – –Afghanistan – – – – – – – – – –Armenia 17 15 14 13 n.s. -1.24 n.s. -1.37 n.s. -1.47Azerbaijan 400 400 400 400 0 0 0 0 0 0bahrain 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Cyprus 13 13 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0Georgia 500 500 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0Iran (Islamic Republic of) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0Iraq 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Israel 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Jordan – – 0 0 – – – – 0 –Kazakhstan 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Kuwait 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Kyrgyzstan 237 240 241 269 n.s. 0.10 n.s. 0.11 6 2.23

258Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 8 (continued)Trends in extent of primary forest 1990–2010Area of primary forest(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %lebanon – – 0 0 – – – – 0 –Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – – – – – –Oman 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Qatar 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Saudi Arabia 360 360 360 360 0 0 0 0 0 0Syrian Arab Republic 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Tajikistan 297 297 297 297 0 0 0 0 0 0Turkey 739 897 922 973 16 1.96 5 0.55 10 1.08Turkmenistan 104 104 104 104 0 0 0 0 0 0United Arab emirates 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Uzbekistan 57 57 57 72 0 0 0 0 3 4.78Yemen 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Western and Central Asia – – – – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – – – – –Albania 85 85 85 85 0 0 0 0 0 0Andorra – – – – – – – – – –Austria – – – – – – – – – –belarus 400 400 400 400 0 0 0 0 0 0belgium 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –bosnia and Herzegovina 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0bulgaria 157 270 304 338 11 5.57 7 2.40 7 2.14Croatia 7 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0Czech Republic 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0Denmark 21 23 25 25 n.s. 0.91 n.s. 1.68 0 0estonia – 976 980 964 – – 1 0.08 -3 -0.33Faroe Islands – – – – – – – – – –Finland 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –France 30 30 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0Germany 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Gibraltar 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Greece 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Guernsey – – – – – – – – – –Holy See 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Hungary 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Iceland 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Isle of Man – – – – – – – – – –Italy 93 93 93 93 0 0 0 0 0 0Jersey – – – – – – – – – –latvia 17 17 16 15 0 0 n.s. -1.21 n.s. -1.28liechtenstein 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0lithuania 20 21 26 26 n.s. 0.49 1 4.36 0 0luxembourg 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Malta 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Monaco 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Montenegro – – – – – – – – – –Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Norway 223 223 223 223 0 0 0 0 0 0Poland 30 51 54 54 2 5.45 1 1.15 0 0Portugal – 24 24 24 – – 0 0 0 0

Annex 3: Global tables 259Country/areaTAble 8 (continued)Trends in extent of primary forest 1990–2010Area of primary forest(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %Republic of Moldova 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Romania 300 300 300 300 0 0 0 0 0 0Russian Federation a 241 726 258 131 255 470 256 482 1 641 0.66 -532 -0.21 202 0.08San Marino 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Serbia 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Slovakia 24 24 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0Slovenia 63 95 111 109 3 4.19 3 3.16 n.s. -0.36Spain 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Sweden 2 609 2 609 2 609 2 609 0 0 0 0 0 0Switzerland 40 40 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0The former Yugoslav Republic of 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –MacedoniaUkraine 59 59 59 59 0 0 0 0 0 0United Kingdom 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Europe – – – – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – – – – – –bahamas 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –barbados 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –bermuda – – – – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – – – – – –Cuba 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Dominica 28 28 27 27 n.s. -0.30 n.s. -0.31 n.s. -0.31Dominican Republic – – – – – – – – – –Grenada 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Guadeloupe 15 15 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0Haiti 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Jamaica 89 88 88 88 n.s. -0.07 n.s. -0.07 n.s. -0.07Martinique 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Montserrat 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Netherlands Antilles – – – – – – – – – –Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – – – – – –Saint lucia 10 10 10 12 0 0 0 0 n.s. 2.03Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – 0 0 0 – – 0 – 0 –Saint barthélemy 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Trinidad and Tobago 62 62 62 62 0 0 0 0 0 0Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Caribbean – – – – – – – – – –belize 599 599 599 599 0 0 0 0 0 0Costa Rica 623 623 623 623 0 0 0 0 0 0el Salvador 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0Guatemala 2 359 2 091 1 957 1 619 -27 -1.20 -27 -1.32 -68 -3.72Honduras – – 457 457 – – – – 0 0Nicaragua – – 1 315 1 179 – – – – -27 -2.16Panama 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –

260Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 8 (continued)Trends in extent of primary forest 1990–2010Area of primary forest(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %Central America – – – – – – – – – –Canada 165 448 165 448 165 448 165 448 0 0 0 0 0 0Greenland 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Mexico 39 492 35 469 34 531 34 310 -402 -1.07 -188 -0.53 -44 -0.13Saint Pierre and Miquelon 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –United States of America 69 980 72 878 74 075 75 277 290 0.41 239 0.33 240 0.32North America – – – – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – – – – –American Samoa – – – – – – – – – –Australia – – 5 233 5 039 – – – – -39 -0.75Cook Islands 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Fiji 490 445 448 449 -4 -0.94 1 0.14 n.s. 0.04French Polynesia – – 40 40 – – – – 0 0Guam – – – – – – – – – –Kiribati 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Marshall Islands 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0Micronesia (Federated States of) 40 44 46 48 n.s. 1.06 n.s. 0.98 n.s. 0.93Nauru 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –New Caledonia 431 431 431 431 0 0 0 0 0 0New Zealand – – 2 144 2 144 – – – – 0 0Niue – – – 6 – – – – – –Norfolk Island – – – – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands 10 9 9 8 n.s. -0.97 n.s. -1.04 n.s. -1.10Palau – – – – – – – – – –Papua New Guinea 31 329 29 534 28 344 26 210 -180 -0.59 -238 -0.82 -427 -1.55Pitcairn – – – – – – – – – –Samoa – n.s. n.s. n.s. – – 0 0 0 0Solomon Islands 1 105 1 105 1 105 1 105 0 0 0 0 0 0Tokelau 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Tonga 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0Tuvalu – – – – – – – – – –Vanuatu – – – – – – – – – –Wallis and Futuna Islands – – – – – – – – – –Oceania – – – – – – – – – –Argentina 1 738 1 738 1 738 1 738 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0bolivia (Plurinational State of) 40 804 39 046 38 164 37 164 -176 -0.44 -176 -0.46 -200 -0.53brazil 530 041 501 926 488 254 476 573 -2 812 -0.54 -2 734 -0.55 -2 336 -0.48Chile 4 631 4 536 4 488 4 439 -10 -0.21 -10 -0.21 -10 -0.22Colombia 8 828 8 685 8 614 8 543 -14 -0.16 -14 -0.16 -14 -0.17ecuador – 4 682 4 743 4 805 – – 12 0.26 12 0.26Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –French Guiana 8 006 7 816 7 738 7 690 -19 -0.24 -16 -0.20 -10 -0.12Guyana – 6 790 6 790 6 790 – – 0 0 0 0Paraguay 1 850 1 850 1 850 1 850 0 0.0 0 0 0 0Peru 62 910 62 188 61 065 60 178 -72 -0.12 -225 -0.36 -177 -0.29Suriname 14 208 14 137 14 093 14 001 -7 -0.05 -9 -0.06 -18 -0.13Uruguay 288 297 302 306 1 0.31 1 0.33 1 0.26Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) – – – – – – – – – –South America – – – – – – – – – –World – – – – – – – – – –aThe figures for the Russian Federation are affected by a change to the forest classification system in 1995.

Annex 3: Global tables 261Country/areaTAble 9Trends in extent of planted forests 1990–2010Area of planted forest(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %Angola 140 134 131 128 -1 -0.44 -1 -0.45 -1 -0.46botswana 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Comoros 2 2 1 1 0 0 n.s. -12.94 0 0Djibouti 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –eritrea 10 21 28 34 1 7.75 1 5.67 1 3.86ethiopia 491 491 491 511 0 0 0 0 4 0.80Kenya 238 212 202 197 -3 -1.15 -2 -0.96 -1 -0.50lesotho 6 8 9 10 n.s. 3.17 n.s. 2.55 n.s. 2.26Madagascar 231 272 290 415 4 1.65 4 1.29 25 7.43Malawi 132 197 285 365 7 4.09 18 7.67 16 5.07Mauritius 15 15 15 15 n.s. -0.07 n.s. -0.41 n.s. 0.27Mayotte n.s. n.s. 1 1 n.s. 4.89 n.s. 11.06 n.s. 7.15Mozambique 38 38 24 62 0 0.0 -3 -8.78 8 20.90Namibia 0 0 n.s. n.s. 0 – n.s. – n.s. 34.76Réunion 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0Seychelles 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0Somalia 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0South Africa 1 626 1 724 1 750 1 763 10 0.59 5 0.30 3 0.15Swaziland 160 150 145 140 -1 -0.64 -1 -0.68 -1 -0.70Uganda 34 32 31 51 n.s. -0.60 n.s. -0.63 4 10.47United Republic of Tanzania 150 200 230 240 5 2.92 6 2.83 2 0.85Zambia 60 60 60 62 0 0.0 0 0.0 n.s. 0.66Zimbabwe 154 120 108 108 -3 -2.46 -2 -2.09 0 0Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – – – – –Algeria 333 345 370 404 1 0.35 5 1.41 7 1.77egypt 44 59 67 70 2 2.98 2 2.58 1 0.88libyan Arab Jamahiriya 217 217 217 217 0 0 0 0 0 0Mauritania 5 13 17 21 1 10.03 1 5.51 1 4.32Morocco 478 523 561 621 5 0.90 8 1.41 12 2.05Sudan 5 424 5 639 5 854 6 068 22 0.39 43 0.75 43 0.72Tunisia 293 519 606 690 23 5.88 17 3.15 17 2.63Western Sahara 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Northern Africa – – – – – – – – – –benin 10 13 15 19 n.s. 2.66 n.s. 2.90 1 4.84burkina Faso 7 58 78 109 5 24.23 4 6.26 6 6.84burundi 0 86 78 69 9 – -2 -1.93 -2 -2.42Cameroon – – 84 – – – – – – –Cape Verde 58 82 84 85 2 3.58 n.s. 0.36 n.s. 0.36Central African Republic 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Chad 11 14 15 17 n.s. 2.44 n.s. 1.39 n.s. 2.53Congo 51 51 51 75 0 0 0 0 5 8.02Côte d’Ivoire 154 261 337 337 11 5.42 15 5.24 0 0Democratic Republic of the Congo 56 57 57 59 n.s. 0.18 n.s. 0.18 n.s. 0.55equatorial Guinea 0 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. – 0 0 0 0Gabon 3 03 030 30 0 0 0 0 0 0Gambia 1 1 1 1 n.s. 0.74 0 0 0 0Ghana 50 60 160 260 1 1.84 20 21.67 20 10.20Guinea 60 72 82 93 1 1.84 2 2.64 2 2.55Guinea-bissau n.s. n.s. 1 1 n.s. 5.58 n.s. 7.85 n.s. 5.63liberia 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0Mali 5 55 205 530 5 27.10 30 30.10 65 20.92

262Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 9 (continued)Trends in extent of planted forests 1990–2010Area of planted forest(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %Niger 48 73 110 148 3 4.28 7 8.55 8 6.11Nigeria 251 316 349 382 7 2.33 7 2.01 7 1.82Rwanda 248 282 323 373 3 1.29 8 2.75 10 2.92Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – – – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Senegal 205 306 407 464 10 4.09 20 5.87 11 2.66Sierra leone 7 8 11 15 n.s. 1.66 1 7.23 1 5.30Togo 24 34 38 42 1 3.54 1 2.25 1 2.02Western and Central Africa – – – – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – – – – –China 41 950 54 394 67 219 77 157 1 244 2.63 2 565 4.33 1 988 2.80Democratic People’s Republic of 1 130 955 868 781 -18 -1.67 -17 -1.89 -17 -2.09KoreaJapan 10 287 10 331 10 324 10 326 4 0.04 -1 -0.01 n.s. n.s.Mongolia 25 76 116 145 5 11.76 8 8.83 6 4.56Republic of Korea – 1 738 1 781 1 823 – – 9 0.49 8 0.47East Asia – – – – – – – – – –bangladesh 239 271 278 237 3 1.26 1 0.51 -8 -3.14bhutan 1 2 2 3 n.s. 7.18 0 0 n.s. 8.45brunei Darussalam 1 1 2 3 n.s. 6.93 n.s. 8.42 n.s. 6.51Cambodia 67 79 74 69 1 1.66 -1 -1.30 -1 -1.39India 5 716 7 167 9 486 10 211 145 2.29 464 5.77 145 1.48Indonesia – 3 672 3 699 3 549 – – 5 0.15 -30 -0.82lao People’s Democratic Republic 3 99 224 224 10 41.86 25 17.74 0 0.0Malaysia 1 956 1 659 1 573 1 807 -30 -1.63 -17 -1.06 47 2.81Maldives – – – – – – – – – –Myanmar 394 696 849 988 30 5.85 31 4.05 28 3.08Nepal 40 42 43 43 n.s. 0.49 n.s. 0.47 0 0.0Pakistan 234 296 318 340 6 2.38 4 1.44 4 1.35Philippines 302 327 340 352 3 0.80 3 0.78 2 0.70Singapore 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Sri lanka 242 221 195 185 -2 -0.90 -5 -2.47 -2 -1.05Thailand 2 668 3 111 3 444 3 986 44 1.55 67 2.05 108 2.97Timor-leste 29 43 43 43 1 4.02 0 0 0 0Viet Nam 967 2 050 2 794 3 512 108 7.80 149 6.39 144 4.68South and Southeast Asia – – – – – – – – – –Afghanistan – – – – – – – – – –Armenia 14 11 10 21 n.s. -2.38 n.s. -1.89 2 16.00Azerbaijan 20 20 20 20 0 0.0 0 0 0 0bahrain n.s. n.s. n.s. 1 n.s. 5.56 n.s. 3.84 n.s. 3.26Cyprus 24 28 29 31 n.s. 1.25 n.s. 1.33 n.s. 0.73Georgia 54 60 61 184 1 1.06 n.s. 0.17 25 24.86Iran (Islamic Republic of) 844 844 844 844 0 0.0 0 0 0 0Iraq 15 15 15 15 0 0.0 0 0 0 0Israel 66 88 88 88 2 2.92 0 0 0 0Jordan – – 47 47 – – – – 0 0Kazakhstan 1 034 1 056 909 901 2 0.21 -29 -2.95 -2 -0.18Kuwait 3 5 6 6 n.s. 3.46 n.s. 2.73 n.s. 2.40Kyrgyzstan 46 59 66 57 1 2.68 1 2.23 -2 -3.05lebanon – – 10 11 – – – – n.s. 0.78

Annex 3: Global tables 263Country/areaTAble 9 (continued)Trends in extent of planted forests 1990–2010Area of planted forest(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – – – – – –Oman 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Qatar 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Saudi Arabia 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Syrian Arab Republic 175 234 264 294 6 2.98 6 2.42 6 2.16Tajikistan 99 101 101 101 n.s. 0.20 0 0 0 0Turkey 1 778 2 344 2 620 3 418 57 2.80 55 2.25 160 5.46Turkmenistan 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –United Arab emirates 245 310 312 317 7 2.38 n.s. 0.13 1 0.34Uzbekistan 203 464 594 635 26 8.62 26 5.06 8 1.34Yemen 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Western and Central Asia – – – – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – – – – –Albania 103 96 98 94 -1 -0.69 n.s. 0.37 -1 -0.87Andorra – – – – – – – – – –Austria – – – – – – – – – –belarus 1 518 1 692 1 757 1 857 17 1.09 13 0.76 20 1.11belgium 446 408 395 396 -4 -0.89 -3 -0.62 n.s. 0.01bosnia and Herzegovina 1 047 999 999 999 -5 -0.47 0 0.0 0 0.0bulgaria 1 032 933 874 815 -10 -1.00 -12 -1.30 -12 -1.39Croatia 92 81 76 70 -1 -1.27 -1 -1.27 -1 -1.63Czech Republic 2 610 2 616 2 626 2 635 1 0.02 2 0.08 2 0.07Denmark 331 361 397 407 3 0.87 7 1.92 2 0.50estonia – 170 170 168 – – 0 0.0 n.s. -0.24Faroe Islands – – – – – – – – – –Finland 4 393 4 956 5 904 5 904 56 1.21 190 3.56 0 0.0France 1 539 1 593 1 608 1 633 5 0.35 3 0.19 5 0.31Germany 5 121 5 283 5 283 5 283 16 0.31 0 0.0 0 0.0Gibraltar 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Greece 118 129 134 140 1 0.90 1 0.76 1 0.88Guernsey – – – – – – – – – –Holy See 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Hungary 1 453 1 509 1 566 1 612 6 0.38 11 0.74 9 0.58Iceland 6 15 22 27 1 10.45 1 7.78 1 3.73Ireland 383 553 612 657 17 3.74 12 2.05 9 1.43Isle of Man – – – – – – – – – –Italy 547 584 602 621 4 0.66 4 0.61 4 0.62Jersey – – – – – – – – – –latvia 724 709 691 628 –2 –0.21 –4 –0.51 –13 –1.89liechtenstein n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 4.14 0 0.0 0 0.0lithuania 411 461 491 521 5 1.15 6 1.27 6 1.19luxembourg 28 28 28 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Malta n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Monaco 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Montenegro – – – – – – – – – –Netherlands 345 360 365 365 2 0.43 1 0.28 0 0.0Norway 1 089 1 325 1 400 1 475 24 1.98 15 1.11 15 1.05Poland 8 511 8 645 8 767 8 889 13 0.16 24 0.28 24 0.28Portugal – 776 812 849 – – 7 0.91 7 0.90Republic of Moldova 1 1 1 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 n.s. 14.87

264Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 9 (continued)Trends in extent of planted forests 1990–2010Area of planted forest(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %Romania 1 402 1 401 1 406 1 446 n.s. -0.01 1 0.07 8 0.56Russian Federation 12 651 15 360 16 963 16 991 271 1.96 320 2.00 6 0.03San Marino 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Serbia 39 39 39 180 0 0 0 0 28 35.78Slovakia 960 958 965 959 n.s. -0.02 1 0.15 -1 -0.12Slovenia 34 36 37 32 n.s. 0.57 n.s. 0.55 -1 -2.86Spain 2 038 2 505 2 550 2 680 47 2.09 9 0.36 26 1.00Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Sweden 2 328 3 557 3 613 3 613 123 4.33 11 0.31 0 0.0Switzerland 159 165 168 172 1 0.37 1 0.36 1 0.47The former Yugoslav Republic of 105 105 105 105 0 0 0 0 0 0MacedoniaUkraine 4 637 4 755 4 787 4 846 12 0.25 6 0.13 12 0.25United Kingdom 1 965 2 145 2 189 2 219 18 0.88 9 0.41 6 0.27Europe – – – – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – – – – – –bahamas 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –barbados n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 n.s. 7.03 n.s. 6.54bermuda – – – – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – – – – – –Cuba 347 342 388 486 -1 -0.15 9 2.56 20 4.61Dominica 0 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. – 0 0 0 0Dominican Republic – – – – – – – – – –Grenada n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 0 0 0Guadeloupe 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0Haiti 12 20 24 28 1 5.24 1 3.71 1 3.13Jamaica 9 8 8 7 n.s. -0.82 0 0 n.s. -2.30Martinique 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Montserrat 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Netherlands Antilles – – – – – – – – – –Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – – – – – –Saint lucia 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – n.s. n.s. n.s. – – 0 0 0 0Saint barthélemy 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Trinidad and Tobago 15 16 17 18 n.s. 0.65 n.s. 1.22 n.s. 1.15Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Caribbean – – – – – – – – – –belize 2 2 2 2 n.s. 0.45 0 0 n.s. 0.85Costa Rica 295 203 222 241 -9 -3.67 4 1.78 4 1.66el Salvador 10 13 14 15 n.s. 2.36 n.s. 2.00 n.s. 1.68Guatemala 51 93 101 173 4 6.19 2 1.66 14 11.36Honduras – – 0 0 – – – – 0 –Nicaragua – – 74 74 – – – – 0 0Panama 13 44 62 79 3 13.31 4 7.12 3 5.03Central America – – – – – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 265Country/areaTAble 9 (continued)Trends in extent of planted forests 1990–2010Area of planted forest(1 000 ha)Annual change rate1990 2000 2005 2010 1990–2000 2000–2005 2005–20101 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr % 1 000 ha/yr %Canada 1 357 5 820 8 048 8 963 446 15.67 446 6.70 183 2.18Greenland n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 0 0 0Mexico 0 1 058 2 394 3 203 106 – 267 17.74 162 6.00Saint Pierre and Miquelon 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –United States of America 17 938 22 560 24 425 25 363 462 2.32 373 1.60 188 0.76North America – – – – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – – – – –American Samoa – – – – – – – – – –Australia 1 023 1 176 1 628 1 903 15 1.40 90 6.72 55 3.17Cook Islands 1 1 1 1 n.s. 8.20 0 0 0 0Fiji 92 130 153 177 4 3.53 5 3.31 5 2.84French Polynesia – 9 9 10 – – 0 0 n.s. 2.13Guam – – – – – – – – – –Kiribati 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Marshall Islands 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0Micronesia (Federated States of) 20 17 16 14 n.s. -1.60 n.s. -1.82 n.s. -2.00Nauru 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –New Caledonia 9 10 10 10 n.s. 0.85 n.s. 0.52 n.s. 0.57New Zealand 1 261 1 809 1 854 1 812 55 3.67 9 0.49 -8 -0.46Niue – – – n.s. – – – – – –Norfolk Island – – – – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands 24 23 22 22 n.s. -0.31 n.s. -0.31 n.s. -0.32Palau – – – – – – – – – –Papua New Guinea 63 82 92 86 2 2.75 2 2.30 -1 -1.38Pitcairn – – – – – – – – – –Samoa – 3 232 32 – – 0 0 0 0Solomon Islands 44 28 27 27 -2 -4.64 n.s. -0.51 0 0Tokelau 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Tonga 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Tuvalu – – – – – – – – – –Vanuatu – – – – – – – – – –Wallis and Futuna Islands n.s. n.s. n.s. 1 n.s. 6.35 n.s. 3.99 n.s. 3.33Oceania – – – – – – – – – –Argentina 766 1 076 1 203 1 394 31 3.46 25 2.26 38 2.99bolivia (Plurinational State of) 20 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0brazil 4 984 5 176 5 765 7 418 19 0.38 118 2.18 331 5.17Chile 1 707 1 936 2 063 2 384 23 1.27 25 1.28 64 2.93Colombia 137 255 330 405 12 6.41 15 5.29 15 4.18ecuador – 161 165 167 – – 1 0.49 n.s. 0.24Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 0 –French Guiana 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Guyana – 0 0 0 – – 0 – 0 –Paraguay 23 36 43 48 1 4.58 1 3.62 1 2.22Peru 263 715 754 993 45 10.52 8 1.07 48 5.66Suriname 1 31 313 13 0 0 0 0 0 0Uruguay 201 669 766 978 47 12.78 19 2.74 42 5.01Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) – – – – – – – – – –South America – – – – – – – – – –World – – – – – – – – – –

266Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 10Growing stock in forest and other wooded land 2010Total(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Growing stock ain forestConiferous(million m 3 )Broadleaved(million m 3 )% commercialspeciesGrowing stock aon other wooded landTotal(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Angola 2 266 39 – – 12 – –botswana 760 67 0 760 – – –Comoros 1 213 1 0 100 – –Djibouti n.s. 32 – – – – –eritrea – – – – – – –ethiopia 264 21 – – 25 103 2Kenya 629 181 60 569 9 458 16lesotho 3 65 – – – 1 10Madagascar 2 146 171 – – 28 706 45Malawi 354 109 – – – – –Mauritius 3 85 1 2 62 n.s. 28Mayotte – – – – – – –Mozambique 1 420 36 – – 14 287 20Namibia 175 24 – – – 43 5Réunion 17 195 n.s. 17 3 1 20Seychelles 3 74 – – – – –Somalia 169 25 – – – – –South Africa 670 73 – – 36 491 20Swaziland 19 34 – – 56 5 12Uganda 131 44 4 127 3 24 7United Republic of Tanzania 1 237 37 – – – 116 10Zambia 2 755 56 – – 12 58 10Zimbabwe 596 38 7 589 2 – –Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – –Algeria 114 76 76 38 100 10 4egypt 8 120 n.s. 8 0 n.s. 11libyan Arab Jamahiriya 8 36 – – 0 4 13Mauritania 5 20 0 5 – 31 10Morocco 187 36 56 131 71 1 2Sudan 972 14 – – – 402 8Tunisia 26 26 12 14 2 1 4Western Sahara 26 37 0 26 – 0 –Northern Africa – – – – – – –benin 161 35 0 161 67 – –burkina Faso 237 42 – – – 75 15burundi 20 117 – – – – –Cameroon 6 141 308 0 6 141 18 244 19Cape Verde 12 145 – – 100 – –Central African Republic 3 776 167 0 3 776 28 – –Chad 211 18 – – 38 65 7Congo 4 539 203 – – 30 479 46Côte d’Ivoire 2 632 253 – – – – –Democratic Republic of the Congo 35 473 230 – – – – –equatorial Guinea 268 165 0 268 – – –Gabon 4 895 223 0 4 895 8 – –Gambia 18 37 – – – 2 20Ghana 291 59 – – – – –Guinea 506 77 – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 267Country/areaTAble 10 (continued)Growing stock in forest and other wooded land 2010Total(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Growing stock ain forestConiferous(million m 3 )Broadleaved(million m 3 )% commercialspeciesGrowing stock aon other wooded landTotal(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Guinea-bissau 61 30 – – 34 1 3liberia 684 158 – – – – –Mali 246 20 0 246 30 62 8Niger 12 10 – – 100 11 3Nigeria 1 161 128 0 1 161 14 – –Rwanda 79 182 – – 95 2 30Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe 5 167 – – 100 – –Senegal 316 37 0 316 75 23 5Sierra leone 109 40 – – 25 3 15Togo – – – – – – –Western and Central Africa – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – –China 14 684 71 6 901 7 782 31 1 112 11Democratic People’s Republic of 360 64 – – – 0 –KoreaJapan – – – – – – –Mongolia 1 426 131 1 336 90 – 2 1Republic of Korea 605 97 324 281 66 0 –East Asia – – – – – – –bangladesh 70 48 0 70 62 – –bhutan 650 200 406 244 40 – –brunei Darussalam 72 190 0 72 84 1 26Cambodia 959 95 – – – – –India 5 489 80 550 4 940 26 – –Indonesia 11 343 120 – – – – –lao People’s Democratic Republic 929 59 – – – 34 7Malaysia 4 239 207 – – – – –Maldives – – – – – 0 –Myanmar 1 430 45 – – 28 – –Nepal 647 178 – – – 67 35Pakistan 160 95 138 22 – – –Philippines 1 278 167 42 1 237 – 223 22Singapore – – – – – 0 –Sri lanka 39 21 – – – – –Thailand 783 41 – – – – –Timor-leste – – – – – 0 –Viet Nam 870 63 22 848 32 – –South and Southeast Asia – – – – – – –Afghanistan 21 16 – – – – –Armenia 33 126 – – – 1 18Azerbaijan 127 136 – – – – –bahrain – – – – – – –Cyprus 9 51 9 n.s. 89 – –Georgia 467 170 126 341 – – –Iran (Islamic Republic of) 536 48 – – – – –Iraq – – – – – – –

268Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 10 (continued)Growing stock in forest and other wooded land 2010Total(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Growing stock ain forestConiferous(million m 3 )Broadleaved(million m 3 )% commercialspeciesGrowing stock aon other wooded landTotal(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Israel 6 38 3 3 3 – –Jordan 3 30 – – 0 – –Kazakhstan 364 110 239 125 0 12 1Kuwait – – – – – 0 –Kyrgyzstan 45 47 32 13 0 – –lebanon 5 37 4 1 29 1 5Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – 0 –Oman – – – – – – –Qatar 0 – 0 0 – – –Saudi Arabia 8 8 3 5 0 6 5Syrian Arab Republic – – – – – – –Tajikistan 5 13 – – 0 1 4Turkey 1 526 135 1 001 524 71 91 9Turkmenistan 15 4 – – 0 – –United Arab emirates 16 49 – – 0 n.s. 25Uzbekistan 26 8 7 19 n.s. – –Yemen 5 9 – – 0 12 8Western and Central Asia – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – –Albania 75 97 19 57 100 7 29Andorra – – – – – – –Austria 1 135 292 905 230 100 – –belarus 1 580 183 1 061 519 100 – –belgium 168 248 87 81 100 – –bosnia and Herzegovina 358 164 135 223 100 – –bulgaria 656 167 287 369 100 – –Croatia 410 213 51 359 100 6 10Czech Republic 769 290 634 136 100 0 –Denmark 108 199 51 58 100 1 23estonia 449 203 253 197 100 6 44Faroe Islands – – – – – – –Finland 2 189 99 1 756 433 98 10 9France 2 584 162 937 1 647 100 – –Germany 3 492 315 – – – – –Gibraltar 0 – 0 0 – 0 –Greece 185 47 79 106 – – –Guernsey – – – – – 0 –Holy See 0 – 0 0 – 0 –Hungary 359 177 55 305 94 0 –Iceland n.s. 15 n.s. n.s. – 1 9Ireland 74 101 63 12 98 – –Isle of Man – – – – – 0 –Italy 1 384 151 504 880 100 64 36Jersey – – – – – 0 –latvia 633 189 335 298 100 2 17liechtenstein 2 254 – – – – –lithuania 470 218 274 196 100 2 30luxembourg 26 299 8 18 100 – –

Annex 3: Global tables 269Country/areaTAble 10 (continued)Growing stock in forest and other wooded land 2010Total(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Growing stock ain forestConiferous(million m 3 )Broadleaved(million m 3 )% commercialspeciesGrowing stock aon other wooded landTotal(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Malta n.s. 231 – – – 0 –Monaco 0 – 0 0 – 0 –Montenegro 72 133 30 43 – – –Netherlands 70 192 36 34 100 0 –Norway 987 98 753 234 100 25 9Poland 2 049 219 1 599 450 100 0 –Portugal 186 54 91 95 83 2 12Republic of Moldova 48 123 1 47 – 4 51Romania 1 390 212 417 973 100 – –Russian Federation 81 523 101 61 570 19 952 100 1 775 24San Marino 0 – 0 0 – 0 –Serbia 415 153 50 365 84 – –Slovakia 514 266 234 280 100 – –Slovenia 416 332 187 228 100 1 62Spain 912 50 523 390 96 2 n.s.Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands 0 – 0 0 – 0 –Sweden 3 358 119 2 740 618 100 11 4Switzerland 428 345 290 139 100 – –The former Yugoslav Republic of76 77 8 69 100 – –MacedoniaUkraine 2 119 218 1 122 997 100 – –United Kingdom 379 132 281 98 100 1 50Europe – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – 0 –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – 0 –bahamas – – – – – – –barbados – – – – – – –bermuda – – – – – 0 –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – 0 –Cuba 258 90 32 227 100 – –Dominica – – – – – – –Dominican Republic 122 62 – – – – –Grenada 1 45 – – – – –Guadeloupe 26 409 n.s. 26 3 n.s. 8Haiti 7 65 2 5 – – –Jamaica 52 154 n.s. 51 2 24 129Martinique 15 311 0 15 3 – –Montserrat – – – – – – –Netherlands Antilles – – – – – – –Puerto Rico 19 35 0 19 – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – – –Saint lucia – – – – – 0 –Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – – – – – 0 –Saint barthélemy 0 – 0 0 – – –Trinidad and Tobago 24 105 1 23 87 2 19

270Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 10 (continued)Growing stock in forest and other wooded land 2010Total(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Growing stock ain forestConiferous(million m 3 )Broadleaved(million m 3 )% commercialspeciesGrowing stock aon other wooded landTotal(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – 0 –United States Virgin Islands n.s. 16 0 n.s. – – –Caribbean – – – – – – –belize 226 162 – – – – –Costa Rica 272 104 – – – – –el Salvador – – – – – – –Guatemala 596 163 – – 17 53 32Honduras 629 121 174 456 – – –Nicaragua 461 148 14 447 17 – –Panama 664 204 4 660 – 13 16Central America – – – – – – –Canada 32 983 106 25 336 7 647 – – –Greenland – – – – – – –Mexico 2 870 44 997 1 873 – 36 2Saint Pierre and Miquelon – – – – – 0 –United States of America 47 088 155 34 282 12 805 92 – –North America – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – –American Samoa 2 104 0 2 – 0 –Australia – – – – – – –Cook Islands – – – – – 0 –Fiji – – – – – – –French Polynesia – – – – – – –Guam 2 64 0 2 – 0 –Kiribati – – – – – 0 –Marshall Islands 2 162 0 2 – 0 –Micronesia (Federated States of) 17 272 0 17 – 0 –Nauru 0 – 0 0 – 0 –New Caledonia 53 64 – – – – –New Zealand 3 586 434 968 2 618 14 258 101Niue – – – – – 0 –Norfolk Island – – – – – 0 –Northern Mariana Islands 1 48 0 1 – 0 –Palau 8 190 0 8 – 0 –Papua New Guinea 2 726 95 0 2 726 – 70 16Pitcairn – – – – – – –Samoa – – – – – – –Solomon Islands 208 94 – – 51 – –Tokelau 0 – 0 0 – 0 –Tonga 1 156 – – 43 0 –Tuvalu – – – – – 0 –Vanuatu – – – – – – –Wallis and Futuna Islands – – – – – – –Oceania – – – – – – –Argentina 2 931 100 504 2 427 69 858 14bolivia (Plurinational State of) 4 242 74 0 4 242 – – –brazil 126 221 243 345 125 876 35 – –

Annex 3: Global tables 271Country/areaTAble 10 (continued)Growing stock in forest and other wooded land 2010Total(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Growing stock ain forestConiferous(million m 3 )Broadleaved(million m 3 )% commercialspeciesGrowing stock aon other wooded landTotal(million m 3 )Per hectare(m 3 )Chile 2 997 185 334 2 663 63 – –Colombia 8 982 148 – – – – –ecuador – – – – – – –Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 0 – 0 0 – 0 –French Guiana 2 829 350 0 2 829 – 0 –Guyana 2 206 145 0 2 206 – – –Paraguay – – – – – – –Peru 8 159 120 – – – – –Suriname 3 389 230 0 3 389 – – –Uruguay 125 72 1 124 8 – –Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) – – – – – – –South America – – – – – – –World – – – – – – –aGrowing stock refers to volume over bark of all living trees.

272Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 11Trends in carbon stock in living forest biomass 1990–2010Carbon stock in living forest biomass(million tonnes)1990 2000 2005 2010 Per hectare2010(tonnes)1990–2000Annual change(1 000 t/yr)2000–20052005–2010Annual change perhectare (t/ha/yr)Angola 4 573 4 479 4 432 4 385 75 -9 -9 -9 n.s. n.s. n.s.botswana 680 663 655 646 57 -2 -2 -2 n.s. n.s. n.s.Comoros 2 1 1 n.s. 117 n.s. n.s. n.s. 0.7 n.s. -5.5Djibouti n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 41 0 0 0 0 0 0eritrea – – – – – – – – – – –ethiopia 289 254 236 219 18 -4 -4 -3 n.s. n.s. n.s.Kenya 525 503 489 476 137 -2 -3 -3 n.s. n.s. n.s.lesotho 2 2 2 2 53 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Madagascar 1 778 1 691 1 663 1 626 130 -9 -6 -7 n.s. n.s. n.s.Malawi 173 159 151 144 44 -1 -2 -1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Mauritius 3 3 2 2 65 n.s. n.s. 0 n.s. n.s. n.s.Mayotte – – – – – – – – – – –Mozambique 1 878 1 782 1 733 1 692 43 -10 -10 -8 n.s. n.s. n.s.Namibia 253 232 221 210 29 -2 -2 -2 n.s. n.s. n.s.Réunion 6 6 6 6 68 0 n.s. n.s. 0 n.s. n.s.Seychelles 4 4 4 4 88 0 0 0 0 0 0Somalia 482 439 415 394 58 -4 -5 -4 n.s. n.s. n.s.South Africa 807 807 807 807 87 0 0 0 0 0 0Swaziland 23 22 22 22 39 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Uganda 171 140 124 109 36 -3 -3 -3 n.s. n.s. n.s.United Republic of Tanzania 2 505 2 262 2 139 2 019 60 -24 -25 -24 n.s. n.s. n.s.Zambia 2 579 2 497 2 457 2 416 49 -8 -8 -8 n.s. n.s. n.s.Zimbabwe 697 594 543 492 31 -10 -10 -10 n.s. n.s. n.s.Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – – – – – –Algeria 78 74 72 70 47 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.egypt 4 6 7 7 99 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.libyan Arab Jamahiriya 6 6 6 6 28 0 0 0 0 0 0Mauritania 13 10 8 7 30 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Morocco 190 212 224 223 43 2 2 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Sudan 1 521 1 403 1 398 1 393 20 -12 -1 -1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Tunisia 6 8 8 9 9 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Western Sahara 33 33 33 33 46 0 0 0 0 0 0Northern Africa – – – – – – – – – – –benin 332 291 277 263 58 -4 -3 -3 n.s. n.s. n.s.burkina Faso 355 323 308 292 52 -3 -3 -3 n.s. n.s. n.s.burundi 25 19 18 17 96 -1 n.s. n.s. 1.0 n.s. n.s.Cameroon 3 292 2 993 2 844 2 696 135 -30 -30 -30 n.s. n.s. n.s.Cape Verde 3 5 5 5 58 n.s. 0 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Central African Republic 2 936 2 898 2 879 2 861 127 -4 -4 -4 n.s. n.s. n.s.Chad 722 677 655 635 55 -5 -4 -4 n.s. n.s. n.s.Congo 3 487 3 461 3 448 3 438 153 -3 -3 -2 n.s. n.s. n.s.Côte d’Ivoire 1 811 1 832 1 847 1 842 177 2 3 -1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Democratic Republic of the Congo 20 433 20 036 19 838 19 639 127 -40 -40 -40 n.s. n.s. n.s.equatorial Guinea 232 217 210 203 125 -1 -1 -1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Gabon 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 123 0 0 0 0 0 0Gambia 29 30 31 32 66 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Ghana 564 465 423 381 77 -10 -8 -8 n.s. n.s. n.s.Guinea 687 653 636 619 95 -3 -3 -3 n.s. n.s. n.s.Guinea-bissau 106 101 98 96 47 -1 -1 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.liberia 666 625 605 585 135 -4 -4 -4 n.s. n.s. n.s.1990–20002000–20052005–2010

Annex 3: Global tables 273Country/areaTAble 11 (continued)Trends in carbon stock in living forest biomass 1990–2010Carbon stock in living forest biomass(million tonnes)1990 2000 2005 2010 Per hectare2010(tonnes)1990–2000Annual change(1 000 t/yr)2000–20052005–2010Annual change perhectare (t/ha/yr)Mali 317 300 291 282 23 -2 -2 -2 n.s. n.s. n.s.Niger 60 41 38 37 31 -2 -1 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Nigeria 2 016 1 550 1 317 1 085 120 -47 -47 -46 n.s. n.s. n.s.Rwanda 35 18 35 39 91 -2 3 1 -6.0 7.7 n.s.Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – – – – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe 4 4 4 4 141 0 0 0 0 0 0Senegal 377 357 348 340 40 -2 -2 -2 n.s. n.s. n.s.Sierra leone 247 232 224 216 79 -2 -2 -2 n.s. n.s. n.s.Togo – – – – – – – – – – –Western and Central Africa – – – – – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – – – – – –China 4 414 5 295 5 802 6 203 30 88 101 80 n.s. n.s. n.s.Democratic People’s Republic of 239 207 190 171 30 -3 -3 -4 n.s. n.s. n.s.KoreaJapan 1 159 1 381 1 526 – – 22 29 – 0.9 1.1 –Mongolia 671 626 605 583 53 -5 -4 -4 n.s. n.s. n.s.Republic of Korea 109 181 224 268 43 7 9 9 1.2 1.4 1.5East Asia – – – – – – – – – – –bangladesh 84 82 82 80 55 n.s. 0 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.bhutan 296 313 324 336 103 2 2 2 n.s. n.s. n.s.brunei Darussalam 81 76 74 72 188 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Cambodia 609 537 495 464 46 -7 -8 -6 n.s. n.s. n.s.India 2 223 2 377 2 615 2 800 41 15 48 37 n.s. n.s. n.s.Indonesia 16 335 15 182 14 299 13 017 138 -115 -177 -256 1.5 -1.3 -1.7lao People’s Democratic Republic 1 186 1 133 1 106 1 074 68 -5 -5 -6 n.s. n.s. n.s.Malaysia 2 822 3 558 3 362 3 212 157 74 -39 -30 3.9 -0.8 -0.8Maldives – – – – – – – – – – –Myanmar 2 040 1 814 1 734 1 654 52 -23 -16 -16 n.s. n.s. n.s.Nepal 602 520 485 485 133 -8 -7 0 0.8 n.s. 0Pakistan 330 271 243 213 126 -6 -6 -6 n.s. n.s. n.s.Philippines 641 655 660 663 87 1 1 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6Singapore – – – – – – – – – – –Sri lanka 90 74 66 61 33 -2 -2 -1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Thailand 908 881 877 880 46 -3 -1 1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Timor-leste – – – – – – – – – – –Viet Nam 778 927 960 992 72 15 7 6 n.s. -1.1 n.s.South and Southeast Asia – – – – – – – – – – –Afghanistan 38 38 38 38 28 0 0 0 0 0 0Armenia 17 15 14 13 48 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Azerbaijan 54 54 54 54 58 0 0 0 0 0 0bahrain – – – – – – – – – – –Cyprus 3 3 3 3 18 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Georgia 192 203 207 212 77 1 1 1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Iran (Islamic Republic of) 249 249 254 258 23 n.s. 1 1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Iraq – – – – – – – – – – –Israel 5 5 5 5 31 n.s. n.s. n.s. -0.7 n.s. n.s.Jordan 2 2 2 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 0Kazakhstan 137 137 137 137 41 n.s. n.s. 0 n.s. n.s. n.s.Kuwait – – – – – – – – – – –Kyrgyzstan 27 34 37 56 59 1 1 4 0.7 0.7 3.21990–20002000–20052005–2010

274Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 11 (continued)Trends in carbon stock in living forest biomass 1990–2010Carbon stock in living forest biomass(million tonnes)1990 2000 2005 2010 Per hectare2010(tonnes)1990–2000Annual change(1 000 t/yr)2000–20052005–2010Annual change perhectare (t/ha/yr)lebanon – – 2 2 13 – – n.s. – – n.s.Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – – – – – – –Oman – – – – – – – – – – –Qatar 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 – – –Saudi Arabia 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0Syrian Arab Republic – – – – – – – – – – –Tajikistan 3 3 3 3 7 n.s. 0 0 n.s. 0 0Turkey 686 743 782 822 73 6 8 8 n.s. n.s. n.s.Turkmenistan 11 11 12 12 3 0 n.s. 0 0 n.s. 0United Arab emirates 12 15 16 16 50 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Uzbekistan 8 14 18 19 6 1 1 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Yemen 5 5 5 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0Western and Central Asia – – – – – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – – – – – –Albania 49 49 48 49 63 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Andorra – – – – – – – – – – –Austria 339 375 399 393 101 4 5 –1 0.8 1.1 n.s.belarus 386 482 540 611 71 10 12 14 0.9 1.2 1.3belgium 50 61 63 64 95 1 n.s. n.s. 1.7 0.5 n.s.bosnia and Herzegovina 96 118 118 118 54 2 0 0 1.1 0 0bulgaria 127 161 182 202 51 3 4 4 1.0 n.s. n.s.Croatia 190 221 237 253 132 3 3 3 1.5 1.4 1.4Czech Republic 287 322 339 356 134 4 3 3 1.3 1.2 1.1Denmark 22 26 36 37 68 n.s. 2 n.s. n.s. 3.1 n.s.estonia – 168 167 165 74 – n.s. n.s. – n.s. n.s.Faroe Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Finland 721 802 832 832 38 8 6 0 n.s. n.s. 0France 965 1 049 1 165 1 208 76 8 23 9 n.s. 1.2 n.s.Germany 981 1 193 1 283 1 405 127 21 18 24 1.6 1.6 2.2Gibraltar 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 – – –Greece 67 73 76 79 20 1 1 1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Guernsey – – – – – – – – – – –Holy See 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 – – –Hungary 117 130 136 142 70 1 1 1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Iceland n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 9 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Ireland 16 18 20 23 31 n.s. n.s. 1 –0.5 n.s. n.s.Isle of Man – – – – – – – – – – –Italy 375 467 512 558 61 9 9 9 0.6 0.5 n.s.Jersey – – – – – – – – – – –latvia 193 234 244 272 81 4 2 5 1.1 n.s. 1.4liechtenstein n.s. 1 1 1 74 n.s. 0 0 n.s. 0 0lithuania 134 146 151 153 71 1 1 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.luxembourg 7 9 9 9 108 n.s. 0 0 2.2 0 0Malta n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 173 0 0 0 0 0 0Monaco 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 – – –Montenegro 33 33 33 33 61 0 0 0 0 0 0Netherlands 21 24 26 28 76 n.s. n.s. n.s. 0.7 0.7 1.2Norway 280 323 360 395 39 4 7 7 n.s. n.s. n.s.Poland 691 807 887 968 104 12 16 16 1.1 1.5 1.5Portugal – – 102 102 30 – – n.s. – – n.s.1990–20002000–20052005–2010

Annex 3: Global tables 275Country/areaTAble 11 (continued)Trends in carbon stock in living forest biomass 1990–2010Carbon stock in living forest biomass(million tonnes)1990 2000 2005 2010 Per hectare2010(tonnes)1990–2000Annual change(1 000 t/yr)2000–20052005–2010Annual change perhectare (t/ha/yr)Republic of Moldova 22 26 28 29 75 n.s. n.s. n.s. 1.1 -1.0 n.s.Romania 600 599 601 618 94 n.s. n.s. 3 n.s. n.s. n.s.Russian Federation 32 504 32 157 32 210 32 500 40 -35 11 58 n.s. n.s. n.s.San Marino 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 – – –Serbia 122 138 147 240 88 2 2 19 n.s. 0.6 5.8Slovakia 163 190 202 211 109 3 3 2 1.4 1.2 0.9Slovenia 116 141 159 178 142 2 4 4 1.6 2.8 2.8Spain 289 396 400 422 23 11 1 4 n.s. n.s. n.s.Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 – – –Sweden 1 178 1 183 1 219 1 255 45 n.s. 7 7 n.s. n.s. n.s.Switzerland 126 136 139 143 115 1 1 1 n.s. n.s. n.s.The former Yugoslav Republic of 60 62 60 60 61 n.s. n.s. 0 n.s. -0.6 n.s.MacedoniaUkraine 499 662 712 761 78 16 10 10 1.6 0.9 0.8United Kingdom 120 119 128 136 47 n.s. 2 2 n.s. n.s. n.s.Europe – – – – – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – – – – – – –bahamas – – – – – – – – – – –barbados – – – – – – – – – – –bermuda – – – – – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Cuba 113 180 212 226 79 7 6 3 1.9 0.9 n.s.Dominica – – – – – – – – – – –Dominican Republic 114 114 114 114 58 0 0 0 0 0 0Grenada 1 1 1 1 63 0 n.s. n.s. 0 -5.6 2.8Guadeloupe 13 13 13 12 195 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Haiti 6 6 6 5 54 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Jamaica 48 48 48 48 141 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Martinique – 8 8 8 173 – 0 0 – 0 0Montserrat – – – – – – – – – – –Netherlands Antilles – – – – – – – – – – –Puerto Rico 14 23 26 28 51 1 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – – – – – – –Saint lucia – – – – – – – – – – –Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – – – – – – – – – – –Saint barthélemy 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 – – –Trinidad and Tobago 21 20 20 19 85 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands 1 1 1 1 27 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Caribbean – – – – – – – – – – –belize 195 184 178 171 123 -1 -1 -1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Costa Rica 233 217 227 238 91 -2 2 2 n.s. n.s. n.s.el Salvador – – – – – – – – – – –Guatemala 365 324 303 281 77 -4 -4 -4 n.s. n.s. n.s.Honduras 517 407 368 330 64 -11 -8 -8 n.s. n.s. n.s.Nicaragua 506 428 389 349 112 -8 -8 -8 n.s. n.s. n.s.Panama 429 381 374 367 113 -5 -1 -1 n.s. n.s. n.s.1990–20002000–20052005–2010

276Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 11 (continued)Trends in carbon stock in living forest biomass 1990–2010Carbon stock in living forest biomass(million tonnes)1990 2000 2005 2010 Per hectare2010(tonnes)1990–2000Annual change(1 000 t/yr)2000–20052005–2010Annual change perhectare (t/ha/yr)Central America – – – – – – – – – – –Canada a 14 284 14 317 14 021 13 908 45 3 -59 -23 n.s. n.s. n.s.Greenland – – – – – – – – – – –Mexico 2 186 2 111 2 076 2 043 32 -8 -7 -7 n.s. n.s. n.s.Saint Pierre and Miquelon – – – – – – – – – – –United States of America 16 951 17 998 18 631 19 308 64 105 127 135 n.s. n.s. n.s.North America – – – – – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – – – – – –American Samoa 2 2 2 2 110 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Australia 6 724 6 702 6 641 – – -2 -12 – n.s. n.s. –Cook Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Fiji – – – – – – – – – – –French Polynesia – – – 21 132 – – – – – –Guam 2 2 2 2 69 0 0 0 0 0 0Kiribati – – – – – – – – – – –Marshall Islands 2 2 2 2 183 0 0 0 0 0 0Micronesia (Federated States of) 20 20 20 20 318 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Nauru 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 – – –New Caledonia 60 60 60 60 72 0 0 0 0 0 0New Zealand – – 1 263 1 292 156 – – 6 – – 0.9Niue – – – – – – – – – – –Norfolk Island – – – – – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands 3 3 3 3 100 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Palau 10 10 11 11 264 n.s. n.s. 0 n.s. n.s. 0Papua New Guinea 2 537 2 423 2 365 2 306 80 -11 -11 -12 n.s. n.s. n.s.Pitcairn – – – – – – – – – – –Samoa – – – – – – – – – – –Solomon Islands 191 186 184 182 82 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Tokelau 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 – – –Tonga 1 1 1 1 114 0 0 0 0 0 0Tuvalu – – – – – – – – – – –Vanuatu – – – – – – – – – – –Wallis and Futuna Islands – – – – – – – – – – –Oceania – – – – – – – – – – –Argentina 3 414 3 236 3 143 3 062 104 -18 -19 -16 n.s. n.s. n.s.bolivia (Plurinational State of) 4 877 4 666 4 561 4 442 78 -21 -21 -24 n.s. n.s. n.s.brazil 68 119 65 304 63 679 62 607 121 -282 -325 -214 n.s. n.s. n.s.Chile 1 294 1 328 1 338 1 349 83 3 2 2 n.s. n.s. n.s.Colombia 7 032 6 918 6 862 6 805 112 -11 -11 -11 n.s. n.s. n.s.ecuador – – – – – – – – – – –Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 – – –French Guiana 1 672 1 657 1 654 1 651 204 -2 -1 -1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Guyana 1 629 1 629 1 629 1 629 107 0 0 0 0 0 0Paraguay – – – – – – – – – – –Peru 8 831 8 713 8 654 8 560 126 -12 -12 -19 n.s. n.s. n.s.Suriname 3 168 3 168 3 168 3 165 214 0 0 -1 0 0 n.s.Uruguay – – – – – – – – – – –Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) – – – – – – – – – – –South America – – – – – – – – – – –World – – – – – – – – – – –1990–20002000–20052005–2010aData for Canada only cover forests classified as “Managed Forest” as defined by the UNFCCC, not the total forest area

Annex 3: Global tables 277TAble 12Area of forest affected by fire and other disturbances 2005 aCountry/area Forest fire Insects(1 000 ha)Diseases(1 000 ha)Other bioticagents(1 000 ha)Abioticfactors(1 000 ha)Total(excluding fire) b1 000 ha % wild fire 1 000 ha % of forestarea in 2005Angola – – – – – – – –botswana 399 – – – – – – –Comoros 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 0Djibouti – – – – – – – –eritrea – – – – – – – –ethiopia – – – – – – – –Kenya 2 100 – – – – – –lesotho – – – – – – – –Madagascar 16 100 0 0 0 – – –Malawi – – – – – – – –Mauritius n.s. 100 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Mayotte – – 0 0 0 0 0 0Mozambique – 100 – – – – – –Namibia – – – – – – – –Réunion n.s. 100 – – – – – –Seychelles – 100 – – – – – –Somalia – – – – – – – –South Africa – – – – – – – –Swaziland – – – – – – – –Uganda – – – – – – – –United Republic of Tanzania 15 100 – – – – – –Zambia – – – – – – – –Zimbabwe 20 – – – – – – –Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – – –Algeria 12 100 217 – – – 217 14egypt 0 – 1 n.s. n.s. 0 1 2libyan Arab Jamahiriya – – – – – – – –Mauritania 1 100 – – – – – –Morocco 4 100 33 – 16 – 49 1Sudan – 100 – – – – – –Tunisia n.s. 100 10 0 0 n.s. 10 1Western Sahara – – – – – – – –Northern Africa – – – – – – – –benin 47 40 – – – – – –burkina Faso – – – – – – – –burundi – – – – – – – –Cameroon 497 83 – – – – – –Cape Verde n.s. – – – – – – –Central African Republic – – – – – – – –Chad 5 794 100 – – – – – –Congo – – – – – – – –Côte d’Ivoire – – 0 0 – – – –Democratic Republic of the Congo – – – – – – – –equatorial Guinea – – – – – – – –Gabon – – – – – – – –Gambia – 100 0 0 283 – – –Ghana 500 80 2 2 – – – –Guinea – 100 – – – – – –

278Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 12 (continued)Area of forest affected by fire and other disturbances 2005 aCountry/area Forest fire Insects(1 000 ha)Diseases(1 000 ha)Other bioticagents(1 000 ha)Abioticfactors(1 000 ha)Total(excluding fire) b1 000 ha % wild fire 1 000 ha % of forestarea in 2005Guinea-bissau – – – – – – – –liberia – – – – – – – –Mali 168 68 – – – – – –Niger 27 0 – 2 – – – –Nigeria – – – – – – – –Rwanda – – – – – – – –Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe – – – – – – – –Senegal 816 14 – – – – – –Sierra leone – 90 – – – – – –Togo – – – – – – – –Western and Central Africa – – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – – –China 221 11 3 152 348 749 – 4 250 2Democratic People’s Republic of 46 – – – – – – –KoreaJapan 1 100 n.s. 1 6 19 26 n.s.Mongolia 280 100 611 – – – – –Republic of Korea 1 100 315 0 – – 315 5East Asia – – – – – – – –bangladesh – – 146 – – – – –bhutan 7 100 n.s. n.s. – n.s. n.s. n.s.brunei Darussalam – – – – – – – –Cambodia – – – – – – – –India 1 605 100 839 0 25 499 4 383 29 882 44Indonesia 5 100 – – – – – –lao People’s Democratic Republic – – – – – – – –Malaysia 2 100 – – – – – –Maldives – – – – – – – –Myanmar 218 – – – – – – –Nepal – – – – – – – –Pakistan – 100 – – – – – –Philippines 2 100 n.s. n.s. 0 n.s. n.s. n.s.Singapore 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 0Sri lanka – – – – – – – –Thailand 21 – – – – – – –Timor-leste – – – – – – – –Viet Nam – – – – – – – –South and Southeast Asia – – – – – – – –Afghanistan – – – – – – – –Armenia n.s. 100 46 8 – – 54 19Azerbaijan n.s. – 5 5 – – – –bahrain – – – – – – – –Cyprus n.s. 100 6 0 4 0 10 6Georgia – 100 – – – – – –Iran (Islamic Republic of) – – – – – – – –Iraq – – – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 279TAble 12 (continued)Area of forest affected by fire and other disturbances 2005 aCountry/area Forest fire Insects(1 000 ha)Diseases(1 000 ha)Other bioticagents(1 000 ha)Abioticfactors(1 000 ha)Total(excluding fire) b1 000 ha % wild fire 1 000 ha % of forestarea in 2005Israel 1 100 3 n.s. 0 n.s. 3 2Jordan 1 100 – – – – – –Kazakhstan 35 – – – – – – –Kuwait – – – – – – – –Kyrgyzstan n.s. 100 29 1 – – 30 3lebanon 2 100 1 1 0 2 4 3Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – – – –Oman 0 – – – – – – –Qatar 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 –Saudi Arabia 5 – 4 3 – – 7 1Syrian Arab Republic n.s. 100 1 – – – – –Tajikistan 1 100 20 4 – – 24 6Turkey 5 100 172 12 – 11 195 2Turkmenistan – – – – – – – –United Arab emirates 0 – 5 0 0 0 5 2Uzbekistan n.s. 100 16 9 – – 25 1Yemen – – – – – – – –Western and Central Asia – – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – – –Albania 6 100 1 1 101 n.s. – –Andorra – – – – – – – –Austria n.s. 100 53 112 – 29 195 5belarus 1 100 41 164 n.s. 6 212 3belgium n.s. 100 20 25 40 – – –bosnia and Herzegovina – – – – – – – –bulgaria 11 100 82 32 1 7 122 3Croatia 7 100 27 10 8 19 65 3Czech Republic 1 100 13 48 1 24 87 3Denmark n.s. 100 4 2 15 34 55 10estonia 1 100 1 3 2 12 18 1Faroe Islands – – – – – – – –Finland 1 100 1 2 10 6 18 n.s.France 25 – – – – n.s. – –Germany 1 100 269 – – 26 – –Gibraltar 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 –Greece – – – – – – – –Guernsey – – – – – – – –Holy See 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 –Hungary 2 100 155 25 28 30 245 12Iceland 0 – n.s. – – – – –Ireland 1 100 0 0 0 n.s. n.s. n.s.Isle of Man – – – – – – – –Italy 29 100 347 591 323 584 1 845 21Jersey – – – – – – – –latvia 1 100 n.s. n.s. n.s. 5 5 n.s.liechtenstein 0 – – – – – – –lithuania n.s. 100 29 23 12 38 102 5luxembourg 0 – – n.s. – – – –

280Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 12 (continued)Area of forest affected by fire and other disturbances 2005 aCountry/area Forest fire Insects(1 000 ha)Diseases(1 000 ha)Other bioticagents(1 000 ha)Abioticfactors(1 000 ha)Total(excluding fire) b1 000 ha % wild fire 1 000 ha % of forestarea in 2005Malta 0 – – – – – – –Monaco 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 –Montenegro – – – – – – – –Netherlands n.s. 100 0 0 0 – 0 0Norway 1 100 17 14 49 35 103 1Poland 8 100 118 49 61 248 – –Portugal 104 100 604 143 44 51 843 25Republic of Moldova n.s. – 42 42 – – – –Romania 1 100 1 266 56 10 231 1 563 24Russian Federation 991 100 1 668 1 132 – 1 351 4 152 1San Marino 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 –Serbia 4 100 118 – – – 118 5Slovakia 1 99 10 9 1 16 34 2Slovenia 1 100 1 n.s. n.s. 1 2 n.s.Spain 55 – – – – – – –Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 –Sweden 2 100 42 314 1 777 1 233 3 366 12Switzerland n.s. 100 3 – – 0 – –The former Yugoslav Republic of 4 100 44 3 – – – –MacedoniaUkraine 5 100 148 117 n.s. 7 272 3United Kingdom 1 100 1 0 3 6 10 n.s.Europe – – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – – – –bahamas – – – – – – – –barbados – 100 0 0 0 0 0 0bermuda – – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – – – –Cuba 9 100 n.s. n.s. – 2 2 n.s.Dominica – – – – – – – –Dominican Republic 3 – – – – – – –Grenada n.s. – 0 0 0 0 0 0Guadeloupe 0 – 2 – – – – –Haiti – – – – – – – –Jamaica – – 0 0 0 n.s. n.s. n.s.Martinique – – – – – – – –Montserrat 0 – – – – – – –Netherlands Antilles – – – – – – – –Puerto Rico – – – – – – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – – – –Saint lucia – – – – – – – –Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – – – – – – – –Saint barthélemy 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 –Trinidad and Tobago 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Annex 3: Global tables 281TAble 12 (continued)Area of forest affected by fire and other disturbances 2005 aCountry/area Forest fire Insects(1 000 ha)Diseases(1 000 ha)Other bioticagents(1 000 ha)Abioticfactors(1 000 ha)Total(excluding fire) b1 000 ha % wild fire 1 000 ha % of forestarea in 2005Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands – – – – – – – –Caribbean – – – – – – – –belize – – – – – – – –Costa Rica 7 – – – – – – –el Salvador – – 1 – – – 1 n.s.Guatemala – – 1 n.s. – – – –Honduras 33 95 5 – – – – –Nicaragua 63 100 – – – – – –Panama 3 – – – – – – –Central America – – – – – – – –Canada 1 230 100 17 273 – – – – –Greenland 0 – – – – – – –Mexico 38 92 38 19 4 – 61 n.s.Saint Pierre and Miquelon – – n.s. 0 3 – 3 100United States of America 2 169 66 5 640 – – – – –North America – – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – – –American Samoa – – – – – – – –Australia 3 903 78 – – – – – –Cook Islands – – – – – – – –Fiji – – – – – – – –French Polynesia – – – – – – – –Guam – – – – – – – –Kiribati 0 – – – – – – –Marshall Islands – – – – – – – –Micronesia (Federated States of) – – – – – – – –Nauru 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 –New Caledonia – – 0 0 – 0 – –New Zealand n.s. 100 40 320 140 27 – –Niue – – – – – – – –Norfolk Island – – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands – – – – – – – –Palau – – – – – – – –Papua New Guinea – 100 – – – – – –Pitcairn – – – – – – – –Samoa – – – – – – – –Solomon Islands – – – – – – – –Tokelau 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 –Tonga 0 – – – – – – –Tuvalu – – – – – – – –Vanuatu – – – – – – – –Wallis and Futuna Islands – – – – – – – –Oceania – – – – – – – –Argentina 305 98 409 – – – – –bolivia (Plurinational State of) – – – – – – – –brazil – 100 – – – – – –

282Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 12 (continued)Area of forest affected by fire and other disturbances 2005 aCountry/area Forest fire Insects(1 000 ha)Diseases(1 000 ha)Other bioticagents(1 000 ha)Abioticfactors(1 000 ha)Total(excluding fire) b1 000 ha % wild fire 1 000 ha % of forestarea in 2005Chile 16 100 310 110 15 – 435 3Colombia – – – – – – – –ecuador – – n.s. – – – n.s. n.s.Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 –French Guiana 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 0Guyana – – – – – – – –Paraguay – – – – – – – –Peru 12 – 8 3 – – – –Suriname – – – – – – – –Uruguay – – – – – – – –Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) – – – – – – – –South America – – – – – – – –World – – – – – – – –abFive year average for 2003–2007.The total area affected by disturbances is not necessarily the sum of the individual disturbances as these may be overlapping.

Annex 3: Global tables 283TAble 13Trends in removals of wood products 1990–2005Country/area Industrial roundwood WoodfuelTotal volumeof which from(1 000 m 3 over bark) a forest 2005(%)Total volume(1 000 m 3 over bark) a of which fromforest 2005(%)1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Angola 974 1 253 1 260 100 2 693 3 629 4 108 100botswana 76 – – – 695 731 759 100Comoros 8 8 9 100 160 185 197 100Djibouti – – – – – – – –eritrea – 2 1 100 – 2 549 1 475 100ethiopia – 2 812 3 368 100 – 100 376 108 548 100Kenya 2 003 2 213 1 646 100 19 381 22 631 27 359 100lesotho – – n.s. 100 1 771 2 227 2 362 100Madagascar 928 155 238 100 8 155 11 084 12 812 100Malawi 476 595 598 100 5 873 5 702 5 919 100Mauritius 16 11 10 100 14 12 7 100Mayotte – n.s. n.s. 70 37 29 27 77Mozambique 1 070 1 511 1 507 – 17 104 19 233 19 233 –Namibia – – – – – – – –Réunion 5 5 6 100 3 3 2 100Seychelles 4 8 10 100 6 4 3 100Somalia – – – – – – 7 922 –South Africa 15 477 16 746 21 077 100 13 570 13 800 13 800 100Swaziland 1 170 379 379 100 644 644 848 100Uganda 2 044 3 620 3 651 – 33 865 39 316 42 310 –United Republic of Tanzania 2 294 2 653 2 661 100 21 552 23 984 24 970 100Zambia 764 680 1 179 100 7 309 9 106 10 002 100Zimbabwe 771 1 205 1 001 100 7 199 9 278 9 473 100Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – – –Algeria 80 136 73 100 50 56 77 100egypt – 75 80 – – 110 120 –libyan Arab Jamahiriya 122 133 133 – 616 616 787 –Mauritania 6 7 5 – 1 321 1 643 1 865 –Morocco 508 470 580 100 504 427 367 100Sudan 2 036 2 489 2 499 57 18 648 19 226 20 347 57Tunisia 93 111 242 100 116 125 57 100Western Sahara 4 7 7 100 3 6 6 100Northern Africa – – – – – – – –benin 317 380 404 100 6 396 4 132 4 284 100burkina Faso 3 5 5 – 6 336 7 243 7 333 –burundi 58 372 383 100 6 663 7 845 9 815 100Cameroon 3 606 3 138 3 306 – 11 255 14 742 16 561 –Cape Verde – – – – – – 14 –Central African Republic 496 1 108 765 100 3 231 2 300 2 300 –Chad 404 424 435 67 8 084 8 486 8 696 67Congo 1 117 1 189 1 450 100 942 1 235 1 317 100Côte d’Ivoire – 2 282 2 175 100 8 826 9 855 10 004 100Democratic Republic of the Congo 367 918 205 – 51 451 74 592 81 580 –equatorial Guinea 200 689 634 100 514 514 514 100Gabon 75 606 1 098 100 521 591 858 100Gambia 80 130 130 100 522 653 744 100Ghana 1 382 1 298 1 508 81 14 833 23 780 23 780 100

284Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 13 (continued)Trends in removals of wood products 1990–2005Country/area Industrial roundwood WoodfuelTotal volumeof which from(1 000 m 3 over bark) a forest 2005(%)Total volume(1 000 m 3 over bark) a of which fromforest 2005(%)1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Guinea 626 748 749 100 10 787 12 431 13 441 100Guinea-bissau 20 7 7 – 22 33 35 –liberia 609 856 370 100 3 843 5 226 6 678 100Mali 402 473 474 100 4 559 5 439 5 778 100Niger 454 579 701 – 9 089 11 572 14 023 –Nigeria 9 321 10 831 10 831 100 59 095 68 172 70 427 100Rwanda 133 472 569 40 4 823 6 831 7 801 90Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe 10 10 10 – – – – –Senegal 8 15 43 91 4 687 5 115 5 276 67Sierra leone 152 142 142 100 5 383 6 070 6 242 100Togo – 3 684 3 320 100 – 3 370 3 012 100Western and Central Africa – – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – – –China 64 814 55 502 63 882 100 63 600 75 948 63 676 100Democratic People’s Republic of 690 1 725 1 725 100 5 055 6 318 6 626 100KoreaJapan 30 765 18 601 17 803 100 365 242 160 100Mongolia 584 100 50 100 624 472 574 70Republic of Korea 1 204 1 570 2 278 100 402 266 293 100East Asia – – – – – – – –bangladesh 240 249 253 – 562 865 1 016 –bhutan 170 195 216 100 143 95 93 100brunei Darussalam 97 119 128 – – n.s. n.s. –Cambodia 625 182 4 – 94 0 1 –India 35 055 41 173 45 957 6 213 169 245 837 260 752 20Indonesia 25 485 17 792 14 428 100 144 680 101 098 86 396 –lao People’s Democratic Republic 477 682 292 – 6 488 6 742 6 825 –Malaysia 48 428 21 946 26 706 – 4 613 3 831 3 557 –Maldives – – – – – – – –Myanmar 3 397 3 604 3 880 – 35 687 37 104 39 180 –Nepal 28 81 152 100 91 64 41 100Pakistan 2 434 2 345 2 301 – 24 740 29 315 31 603 –Philippines 2 568 628 791 100 123 116 349 100Singapore 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 –Sri lanka 772 766 763 – 8 583 6 780 6 476 –Thailand 176 45 11 100 534 6 7 100Timor-leste – – – – – 1 300 1 300 –Viet Nam 3 446 2 376 2 703 100 26 534 26 685 26 240 100South and Southeast Asia – – – – – – – –Afghanistan 1 698 2 019 2 024 – 797 1 449 1 681 –Armenia 9 8 11 100 79 66 76 100Azerbaijan – 31 4 – – 31 4 –bahrain – – – – – – – –Cyprus 43 20 9 – 13 7 5 –Georgia 103 91 111 100 248 299 666 100Iran (Islamic Republic of) 1 256 2 050 2 448 – 425 55 20 –

Annex 3: Global tables 285TAble 13 (continued)Trends in removals of wood products 1990–2005Country/area Industrial roundwood WoodfuelTotal volumeof which from(1 000 m 3 over bark) a forest 2005(%)Total volume(1 000 m 3 over bark) a of which fromforest 2005(%)1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Iraq – – – – – – – –Israel 76 81 22 100 2 2 5 100Jordan – – – – 9 2 5 –Kazakhstan 2 024 189 535 – 577 483 231 –Kuwait – – – – – – – –Kyrgyzstan 7 13 9 100 – 32 16 100lebanon 0 0 0 – – – 18 70Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – – – –Oman – – – – – – – –Qatar – – – – – – – –Saudi Arabia 0 0 0 – – – 8 –Syrian Arab Republic – – – – – – – –Tajikistan 0 0 0 – 6 7 7 100Turkey 9 946 11 514 11 905 72 15 680 11 116 9 722 87Turkmenistan 0 0 0 – 10 10 10 –United Arab emirates 0 0 0 – – – – –Uzbekistan 3 5 9 100 46 24 21 100Yemen – – – – 205 347 422 –Western and Central Asia – – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – – –Albania 244 43 27 100 561 167 164 67Andorra – – – – – – – –Austria 11 535 12 019 15 488 100 3 002 3 316 4 414 100belarus 5 479 4 876 6 571 100 822 951 1 074 100belgium 3 852 2 957 3 789 100 500 500 600 100bosnia and Herzegovina 3 791 3 259 3 006 100 982 1 067 1 337 100bulgaria 2 457 2 799 3 772 100 943 979 1 938 100Croatia – 2 646 3 077 100 – 961 1 181 100Czech Republic 11 874 14 836 16 786 100 1 156 1 023 1 487 100Denmark 1 498 1 456 1 231 100 451 644 1 080 100estonia – 8 975 4 565 98 – 2 194 1 590 98Faroe Islands – – – – – – – –Finland 43 840 55 721 55 152 100 3 371 5 112 5 933 100France 35 389 38 028 33 295 100 36 700 31 251 29 099 74Germany 37 043 47 265 58 788 100 7 646 12 497 16 548 100Gibraltar – – – – – – – –Greece 1 168 681 689 – 1 811 1 540 1 195 –Guernsey – – – – – – – –Holy See – – – – – – – –Hungary 4 129 3 860 3 452 100 2 615 2 322 2 943 100Iceland n.s. n.s. 1 100 n.s. n.s. n.s. 100Ireland 1 618 2 710 2 890 100 50 57 25 –Isle of Man – – – – – – – –Italy 4 982 4 031 3 499 100 4 895 6 000 6 542 100Jersey – – – – – – – –latvia 2 781 12 288 13 129 100 2 165 2 194 3 230 78liechtenstein 16 16 21 – 5 5 5 –

286Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 13 (continued)Trends in removals of wood products 1990–2005Country/area Industrial roundwood WoodfuelTotal volumeof which from(1 000 m 3 over bark) a forest 2005(%)Total volume(1 000 m 3 over bark) a of which fromforest 2005(%)1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005lithuania 2 779 4 665 5 446 100 872 1 506 1 452 100luxembourg – 333 226 100 – 1 14 100Malta 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 –Monaco – – – – – – – –Montenegro – – 221 – – – 305 –Netherlands 1 363 949 934 100 154 187 343 100Norway 11 300 8 854 8 877 100 1 175 1 450 1 582 100Poland 22 783 29 598 35 572 99 4 338 3 382 4 635 91Portugal 12 662 10 958 12 578 100 627 732 732 100Republic of Moldova 43 38 41 – 270 277 299 –Romania – – – – – – – –Russian Federation 268 396 104 546 134 870 100 68 131 47 770 50 905 100San Marino – – – – – – – –Serbia 1 149 946 1 002 100 1 761 1 189 1 306 90Slovakia 5 073 5 819 8 260 100 472 331 406 100Slovenia 2 701 2 058 2 368 100 277 489 868 100Spain 14 794 14 828 15 827 – 2 947 2 045 1 760 –Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands – – – – – – – –Sweden 56 476 64 729 75 539 100 3 602 6 726 10 826 100Switzerland 4 406 5 154 4 544 100 843 1 144 1 250 100The former Yugoslav Republic of – 129 132 – – 520 480 –MacedoniaUkraine 8 577 7 814 11 387 100 5 013 4 417 5 290 100United Kingdom 6 901 8 452 9 149 100 256 259 352 100Europe – – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – – – –bahamas 132 20 20 – – – – –barbados – – – – – – – –bermuda – – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – – – –Cuba 577 687 639 – 2 512 1 746 1 588 –Dominica – – – – – – – –Dominican Republic 7 7 32 – 639 639 732 –Grenada n.s. n.s. n.s. – – – – –Guadeloupe 1 1 n.s. 100 17 17 25 100Haiti 275 275 275 100 1 890 2 257 2 300 100Jamaica – 1 4 91 – – – –Martinique – 5 3 100 – – – –Montserrat – – – – – – – –Netherlands Antilles – – – – – – – –Puerto Rico – – – – – – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – – – –Saint lucia – – – – – – – –Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – – – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 287TAble 13 (continued)Trends in removals of wood products 1990–2005Country/area Industrial roundwood WoodfuelTotal volumeof which from(1 000 m 3 over bark) a forest 2005(%)Total volume(1 000 m 3 over bark) a of which fromforest 2005(%)1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Saint barthélemy – – – – – – – –Trinidad and Tobago 52 59 54 100 46 42 40 100Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands – – – – – – – –Caribbean – – – – – – – –belize 71 71 59 – 145 145 270 –Costa Rica 1 198 776 1 006 75 – 468 468 –el Salvador 162 760 784 – 4 343 5 196 4 814 –Guatemala – 594 800 – – 396 533 –Honduras 887 968 1 001 – 9 798 10 008 9 984 –Nicaragua – 112 216 100 – 11 33 –Panama 123 60 157 – 1 606 1 468 1 385 –Central America – – – – – – – –Canada 188 753 212 012 214 057 – 7 112 3 292 3 251 –Greenland – – – – – – – –Mexico 7 653 7 662 6 055 100 451 547 688 100Saint Pierre and Miquelon 0 0 0 – – – 1 100United States of America 499 193 495 740 481 006 100 97 725 51 779 51 101 67North America – – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – – –American Samoa – – – – – – – –Australia 16 791 23 035 26 672 100 3 540 5 547 – –Cook Islands 0 6 6 100 – – – –Fiji 318 287 506 – 17 22 190 –French Polynesia – – 1 100 – – – –Guam – – – – – – – –Kiribati – – – – – – – –Marshall Islands – – – – – – – –Micronesia (Federated States of) – – – – – – – –Nauru – – – – – – – –New Caledonia 7 10 13 100 – – – –New Zealand 13 842 21 280 23 734 100 – – – –Niue – – – – – – – –Norfolk Island – – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands – – – – – – – –Palau – – – – – – – –Papua New Guinea 1 785 2 136 2 832 100 – – – –Pitcairn – – – – – – – –Samoa 70 70 70 – 81 81 81 –Solomon Islands 371 761 1 151 – 158 159 159 –Tokelau – – – – – – – –Tonga 2 2 1 58 50 50 45 67Tuvalu – – – – – – – –Vanuatu 45 39 32 – 28 89 105 –Wallis and Futuna Islands 0 0 0 – – – – –Oceania – – – – – – – –

288Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 13 (continued)Trends in removals of wood products 1990–2005Country/area Industrial roundwood WoodfuelTotal volumeof which from(1 000 m 3 over bark) a forest 2005(%)Total volume(1 000 m 3 over bark) a of which fromforest 2005(%)1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Argentina 8 221 8 300 11 046 100 3 509 3 570 4 489 100bolivia (Plurinational State of) – 581 871 – – 34 38 –brazil 115 254 92 102 117 048 100 162 348 120 552 122 573 100Chile 16 455 28 862 36 032 100 8 744 13 057 14 240 100Colombia 4 021 2 541 2 106 – 7 798 10 772 11 225 –ecuador 3 673 2 200 1 306 – 3 577 5 844 5 027 –Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – – – – – – – –French Guiana 91 60 62 100 0 0 0 –Guyana – 363 395 100 – 29 21 100Paraguay 3 691 4 615 4 651 100 – – – –Peru 1 090 1 625 2 051 – 6 586 8 127 7 243 –Suriname 116 177 181 100 n.s. n.s. 2 100Uruguay 849 1 530 3 243 – 3 086 2 389 1 863 –Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) – 1 034 1 321 18 – 24 6 –South America – – – – – – – –World – – – – – – – –aFive year averages for 1988–1992, 1998-2002 and 2003–2007 respectively.

Annex 3: Global tables 289Country/areaTAble 14Value of wood and NWFP removals 2005Value of removals(million US$)Industrial Woodfuel a NWFP Totalroundwood aValueper ha forest(US$)Angola – – – – –botswana – 10 – – –Comoros 2 2 – – –Djibouti – – – – –eritrea n.s. 24 – – –ethiopia – – – – –Kenya – – – – –lesotho n.s. 8 – – –Madagascar 5 8 – – –Malawi 4 17 – – –Mauritius 1 n.s. 25 26 1Mayotte – – – – –Mozambique 261 – – – –Namibia – – – – –Réunion n.s. n.s. – – –Seychelles – – – – –Somalia – 156 – – –South Africa 763 167 – – n.s.Swaziland – – – – –Uganda – – – – –United Republic of Tanzania 12 217 9 237 n.s.Zambia n.s. n.s. – – –Zimbabwe – – – – –Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – –Algeria 2 n.s. – – –egypt 5 5 1 11 n.s.libyan Arab Jamahiriya – – – – –Mauritania – 2 – – –Morocco 30 6 13 49 n.s.Sudan b – – – – –Tunisia 5 n.s. 6 11 n.s.Western Sahara n.s. – – – –Northern Africa – – – – –benin – – – – –burkina Faso n.s. 63 – – –burundi 2 13 – – –Cameroon 618 – – – –Cape Verde – 1 – – –Central African Republic 153 – – – –Chad 76 152 – – –Congo 232 21 – – –Côte d’Ivoire 299 – – – –Democratic Republic of the Congo – – – – –equatorial Guinea 52 1 n.s. 53 n.s.Gabon 194 – – – –Gambia – – – – –Ghana 53 – – – –Guinea – – – – –Guinea-bissau – – – – –liberia – – – – –

290Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 14 (continued)Value of wood and NWFP removals 2005Value of removals(million US$)Industrial Woodfuel a NWFP Totalroundwood aValueper ha forest(US$)Mali n.s. n.s. – – –Niger 3 57 – – –Nigeria 124 456 – – –Rwanda 3 27 – – –Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe – – – – –Senegal 2 16 5 24 n.s.Sierra leone – – – – –Togo – – – – –Western and Central Africa – – – – –Africa – – – – –China 4 140 – 4 735 – –Democratic People’s Republic of– – – – –KoreaJapan 1 998 – 202 – –Mongolia n.s. n.s. – – –Republic of Korea 334 43 1 859 2 237 n.s.East Asia – – – – –bangladesh – – – – –bhutan 5 n.s. n.s. 5 n.s.brunei Darussalam 28 n.s. – – –Cambodia – – – – –India 6 253 7 095 133 13 481 n.s.Indonesia – – – – –lao People’s Democratic Republic 18 – 5 – –Malaysia 2 706 – 43 – –Maldives n.s. – – – –Myanmar 765 812 – – –Nepal 34 – 1 – –Pakistan 113 1 381 – – –Philippines 119 2 2 123 n.s.Singapore – – – – –Sri lanka 46 39 – – –Thailand n.s. n.s. – – –Timor-leste – – – – –Viet Nam 473 116 n.s. 589 n.s.South and Southeast Asia – – – – –Afghanistan – – – – –Armenia 1 1 – – –Azerbaijan – – – – –bahrain – – – – –Cyprus 1 n.s. n.s. 1 n.s.Georgia – – – – –Iran (Islamic Republic of) 114 n.s. – – –Iraq – – – – –Israel 2 n.s. – – –Jordan – n.s. – – –Kazakhstan – – – – –Kuwait – – – – –Kyrgyzstan n.s. n.s. – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 291Country/areaTAble 14 (continued)Value of wood and NWFP removals 2005Value of removals(million US$)Industrial Woodfuel a NWFP Totalroundwood aValueper ha forest(US$)lebanon 0 5 – – –Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – –Oman – – – – –Qatar – – – – –Saudi Arabia – 8 – – –Syrian Arab Republic – – – – –Tajikistan – n.s. n.s. – –Turkey 995 254 2 1 251 n.s.Turkmenistan 0 n.s. – – –United Arab emirates – – – – –Uzbekistan 1 n.s. 2 3 n.s.Yemen – 26 – – –Western and Central Asia – – – – –Asia – – – – –Albania 1 n.s. n.s. 1 n.s.Andorra – – – – –Austria 1 233 297 144 1 674 n.s.belarus – – – – –belgium 160 9 – – –bosnia and Herzegovina – – – – –bulgaria 132 43 4 179 n.s.Croatia 186 28 2 216 n.s.Czech Republic 850 21 165 1 037 n.s.Denmark 62 32 – – –estonia 215 26 – – –Faroe Islands – – – – –Finland 2 632 88 133 2 853 n.s.France 1 872 1 362 – – –Germany 2 589 238 563 3 390 n.s.Gibraltar – – – – –Greece – – – – –Guernsey – – – – –Holy See – – – – –Hungary 195 108 – – –Iceland n.s. n.s. n.s. 1 n.s.Ireland 163 – – – –Isle of Man – – – – –Italy 209 335 329 873 n.s.Jersey – – – – –latvia – – – – –liechtenstein – – – – –lithuania 206 22 19 247 n.s.luxembourg 7 n.s. – – –Malta – – – – –Monaco – – – – –Montenegro – – – – –Netherlands 36 9 – – –Norway 394 52 – – –Poland 1 264 66 – – –Portugal 383 15 420 818 n.s.

292Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 14 (continued)Value of wood and NWFP removals 2005Value of removals(million US$)Industrial Woodfuel a NWFP Totalroundwood aValueper ha forest(US$)Republic of Moldova – – – – –Romania – – 14 – –Russian Federation 2 861 234 5 139 8 234 n.s.San Marino – – – – –Serbia 68 53 37 158 n.s.Slovakia 386 7 14 408 n.s.Slovenia 108 21 12 142 n.s.Spain 915 29 514 1 459 n.s.Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands – – – – –Sweden 2 933 273 120 3 326 n.s.Switzerland 248 44 – – –The former Yugoslav Republic of9 19 – – –MacedoniaUkraine – – – – –United Kingdom 367 9 111 487 n.s.Europe – – – – –Anguilla – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – –Aruba – – – – –bahamas – – – – –barbados – – – – –bermuda – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – –Cuba 108 16 1 125 n.s.Dominica – – – – –Dominican Republic – – – – –Grenada n.s. – – – –Guadeloupe n.s. – – – –Haiti – – – – –Jamaica n.s. – – – –Martinique n.s. – – – –Montserrat – – – – –Netherlands Antilles – – – – –Puerto Rico – – – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – –Saint lucia – – – – –Saint Martin (French part) – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – – – – –Saint barthélemy – – – – –Trinidad and Tobago 6 – n.s. – –Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – –United States Virgin Islands – – – – –Caribbean – – – – –belize – – – – –Costa Rica 178 – 24 – –el Salvador – – 12 – –Guatemala 42 – – – –Honduras – – n.s. – –Nicaragua 17 n.s. – – –Panama – – – – –Central America – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 293aCountry/areaTAble 14 (continued)Value of wood and NWFP removals 2005Value of removals(million US$)Industrial Woodfuel a NWFP Totalroundwood aValueper ha forest(US$)Canada 13 425 – 264 – –Greenland – – – – –Mexico 607 25 30 662 n.s.Saint Pierre and Miquelon – – – – –United States of America 22 599 312 1 327 24 238 n.s.North America – – – – –North and Central America – – – – –American Samoa – – – – –Australia 1 255 – 288 – –Cook Islands – – – – –Fiji 24 1 – – –French Polynesia n.s. – – – –Guam – – – – –Kiribati – – 83 – –Marshall Islands – – – – –Micronesia (Federated States of) – – – – –Nauru – – – – –New Caledonia 1 – – – –New Zealand 1 447 – 28 – –Niue – – – – –Norfolk Island – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands – – – – –Palau – – – – –Papua New Guinea 9 – – – –Pitcairn – – – – –Samoa – – – – –Solomon Islands – – – – –Tokelau – – – – –Tonga n.s. 2 – – –Tuvalu – – – – –Vanuatu – – – – –Wallis and Futuna Islands 0 – – – –Oceania – – – – –Argentina 200 228 14 441 n.s.bolivia (Plurinational State of) 55 n.s. – – –brazil 2 559 1 259 279 4 097 n.s.Chile 1 320 238 47 1 606 n.s.Colombia n.s. – 153 – –ecuador 90 33 – – –Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – – – – –French Guiana 1 0 – – –Guyana 99 – n.s. – –Paraguay 189 – – – –Peru 3 – – – –Suriname 17 n.s. 114 131 n.s.Uruguay 2 – – – –Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) 121 – – – –South America – – – – –World – – – – –Five year average for 2003–2007.bAlthough data on value of wood removals were provided by Sudan it was not possible to convert the figures to US$ due to thehighly fluctuating exchange rate.

294Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 15Employment in forestry 1990–2005 (1 000 FTE)Country/area Total In primary production of goods In management of protected areas1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Angola – – – 1 – – – – –botswana – – – – – – – – –Comoros – – – – – – – – –Djibouti – – – – – – – – –eritrea – – – – – – – – –ethiopia – – – – – – – – –Kenya – – – 2 2 2 – – –lesotho – – – n.s. n.s. 2 – – –Madagascar – – – – 48 – – – –Malawi – – – 1 1 1 – – –Mauritius 3 3 3 2 2 2 n.s. 1 1Mayotte n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 n.s. n.s. n.s.Mozambique – – – – – – – – –Namibia – – – – – – – – –Réunion – 1 1 – n.s. n.s. – 1 1Seychelles – – – – – – – – –Somalia – – – 2 2 3 – – –South Africa – – – – 66 121 – – –Swaziland – – – – – – – – –Uganda – – – 1 2 – – – –United Republic of Tanzania – – – 4 4 3 – – –Zambia 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1Zimbabwe 16 17 16 14 15 13 2 3 3Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – – – –Algeria 49 50 97 48 49 96 1 1 1egypt – 11 13 – 10 12 – 1 1libyan Arab Jamahiriya – – – – – – – – –Mauritania – – – – – – – – –Morocco – – – 38 38 58 – – –Sudan – – – – – – – – –Tunisia – – – 32 42 38 – – –Western Sahara – – – – – – – – –Northern Africa – – – – – – – – –benin – – – – – – – n.s. n.s.burkina Faso – – – – 2 – – – –burundi – – – – – – – – –Cameroon – – – 23 20 – – – –Cape Verde – – – – – n.s. – – –Central African Republic 4 5 7 3 4 6 1 1 1Chad – 1 1 – 1 1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Congo – – – – – – – – –Côte d’Ivoire – – – – 34 – – – –Democratic Republic of the Congo – – – – – – – – –equatorial Guinea 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0Gabon – – 10 – 7 10 – – n.s.Gambia n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Ghana – – – 3 2 3 – – –Guinea – – – – – – – – –Guinea-bissau – – – – – – – – –liberia – 4 2 5 4 2 – n.s. n.s.Mali 137 137 137 135 135 135 2 2 2Niger – 8 8 2 8 8 – n.s. n.s.Nigeria 11 11 12 9 10 10 1 1 2

Annex 3: Global tables 295TAble 15 (continued)Employment in forestry 1990–2005 (1 000 FTE)Country/area Total In primary production of goods In management of protected areas1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Rwanda – – 1 – – n.s. – – n.s.Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe – – – – – – – – –Senegal 9 13 14 9 12 14 n.s. n.s. n.s.Sierra leone – n.s. n.s. – n.s. n.s. – n.s. n.s.Togo – – – – – – – – –Western and Central Africa – – – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – – – –China 1 870 1 521 1 322 1 863 1 462 1 203 7 59 120Democratic People’s Republic of – – – – – – – – –KoreaJapan – – – 108 67 47 – – –Mongolia – – – – – – – – –Republic of Korea – – – – 12 24 – – –East Asia – – – – – – – – –bangladesh – – – 78 93 93 – – –bhutan – – – 1 3 5 – – –brunei Darussalam – – – – – – – – –Cambodia – – – 19 16 16 – – –India 6 385 6 078 6 213 6 360 6 053 6 188 25 25 25Indonesia – 42 20 – 39 17 – 3 3lao People’s Democratic Republic – – – – – – – – –Malaysia 78 68 127 76 66 125 2 2 2Maldives – – – – – – – – –Myanmar – – – – – – n.s. n.s. –Nepal 145 111 115 138 96 105 7 14 10Pakistan 33 30 – 30 27 – 3 3 –Philippines 18 19 24 18 18 23 1 1 1Singapore n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 0 n.s. n.s. n.s.Sri lanka 3 5 5 2 5 5 n.s. 1 1Thailand – – – – – – – – –Timor-leste – – – – – – – – –Viet Nam – – 246 80 198 239 – – 7South and Southeast Asia – – – – – – – – –Afghanistan – – – – – – – – –Armenia – 3 2 5 2 2 – 1 n.s.Azerbaijan – – – 5 4 2 – – –bahrain – – – – – – – – –Cyprus n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Georgia – – – 12 4 3 – – –Iran (Islamic Republic of) – – – 63 86 – – – –Iraq – – – – – – – – –Israel – – – 4 3 1 – – –Jordan – – – n.s. 1 1 – – –Kazakhstan – – 16 14 14 14 – – 3Kuwait – – – – – – – – –Kyrgyzstan – 5 3 3 4 3 – n.s. n.s.lebanon – – 7 – – 2 – – 5Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – – – – –Oman – – – – – – – – –Qatar – – – – – – – – –Saudi Arabia 1 1 1 1 1 1 n.s. n.s. n.s.

296Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 15 (continued)Employment in forestry 1990–2005 (1 000 FTE)Country/area Total In primary production of goods In management of protected areas1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Syrian Arab Republic – 2 2 – 1 2 – n.s. n.s.Tajikistan 4 5 6 4 5 6 n.s. n.s. n.s.Turkey 101 48 43 101 48 42 n.s. 1 1Turkmenistan – – – 2 2 2 – – –United Arab emirates – – – – – – – – –Uzbekistan 5 7 7 4 6 6 1 1 1Yemen – – – – – – – – –Western and Central Asia – – – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – – – –Albania – – – 2 n.s. n.s. – – –Andorra – – – – – – – – –Austria – – – 31 19 18 – – –belarus – 34 35 22 33 33 – 1 1belgium – – 3 4 3 3 – – n.s.bosnia and Herzegovina – – – – – – – – –bulgaria – 110 119 – 26 21 – 84 98Croatia – – – 14 10 9 – – –Czech Republic – – – 53 31 22 – – –Denmark 4 4 4 4 4 4 n.s. n.s. n.s.estonia 10 10 6 10 10 6 n.s. n.s. n.s.Faroe Islands – – – – – – – – –Finland 39 24 23 39 24 23 n.s. n.s. n.s.France – – – 53 38 31 – – –Germany – – – – – 49 – – –Gibraltar – – – – – – – – –Greece – – – – – – – – –Guernsey – – – – – – – – –Holy See – – – – – – – – –Hungary 38 37 36 37 32 31 1 5 5Iceland n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0 0 0Ireland – – – – – – – – –Isle of Man – – – – – – – – –Italy – – 47 56 36 41 – – 6Jersey – – – – – – – – –latvia – – 35 15 19 35 – – n.s.liechtenstein – – – – – – – – –lithuania – – 10 15 14 10 – – n.s.luxembourg – – – – – – – – –Malta – – – – – – – – –Monaco – – – – – – – – –Montenegro – – – 3 2 1 – – –Netherlands – – – – – – – – –Norway – 8 7 – 8 7 – n.s. n.s.Poland 132 – – 131 60 48 1 – –Portugal – – – 16 11 8 – – –Republic of Moldova – – – 5 3 4 – – –Romania 79 71 60 79 71 60 0 0 n.s.Russian Federation – – 448 900 474 444 – – 4San Marino – – – – – – – – –Serbia – – 7 12 8 7 – – 1Slovakia – 25 24 36 25 24 – n.s. n.s.Slovenia – – – 6 6 7 – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 297TAble 15 (continued)Employment in forestry 1990–2005 (1 000 FTE)Country/area Total In primary production of goods In management of protected areas1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Spain – – 36 – 35 31 – – 5Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands – – – – – – – – –Sweden – – – 34 17 20 – – –Switzerland – – – 8 6 5 – – –The former Yugoslav Republic of 4 3 3 4 3 3 n.s. n.s. n.s.MacedoniaUkraine 64 108 102 62 105 98 2 3 4United Kingdom 20 11 10 18 9 8 2 2 2Europe – – – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – – – – –bahamas – – – – – – – – –barbados – – – – – n.s. – – –bermuda – – – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – – – – –Cuba – – 45 – – 38 – – 7Dominica – – – – – – – – –Dominican Republic – – – – – – – – –Grenada n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Guadeloupe – – n.s. – – n.s. – – n.s.Haiti – – – – – – – – –Jamaica 4 1 1 4 1 1 n.s. n.s. n.s.Martinique – – n.s. – – n.s. – – n.s.Montserrat – – – – – – – – –Netherlands Antilles – – – – – – – – –Puerto Rico – – – – – – – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – – – – –Saint lucia – – – – – – – – –Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – – – – – – – – –Saint barthélemy – – – – – – – – –Trinidad and Tobago – – – 1 1 1 – – –Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands – – – – – – – – –Caribbean – – – – – – – – –belize – – – – – – – – –Costa Rica – – – – 7 5 – – –el Salvador 8 8 9 7 8 9 n.s. n.s. n.s.Guatemala – – – – – 39 – – –Honduras – – – 18 26 33 – – –Nicaragua – – – 15 30 35 – – –Panama – – – – – – – – –Central America – – – – – – – – –Canada – – – 73 87 70 – – –Greenland – – – – – – – – –Mexico – – – – – – – – –Saint Pierre and Miquelon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0United States of America – – 169 – 164 160 – – 9North America – – – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – – – –

298Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 15 (continued)Employment in forestry 1990–2005 (1 000 FTE)Country/area Total In primary production of goods In management of protected areas1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005American Samoa – – – – – – – – –Australia – – – 11 14 11 – – –Cook Islands – – – – – – – – –Fiji – – – – – – – – –French Polynesia – – – – – – – – –Guam – – – – – – – – –Kiribati – – – – – – – – –Marshall Islands – – – – – – – – –Micronesia (Federated States of) – – – – – – – – –Nauru – – – – – – – – –New Caledonia – – – – n.s. n.s. – – –New Zealand 7 8 9 6 7 8 1 1 2Niue – – – – – – – – –Norfolk Island – – – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands – – – – – – – – –Palau – – – – – – – – –Papua New Guinea – – – – – – – – –Pitcairn – – – – – – – – –Samoa – – – – – – – – –Solomon Islands – – – – – – – – –Tokelau – – – – – – – – –Tonga n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Tuvalu – – – – – – – – –Vanuatu – – – – – – – – –Wallis and Futuna Islands – – n.s. – – n.s. 0 0 0Oceania – – – – – – – – –Argentina – 32 – – 32 – 1 1 1bolivia (Plurinational State of) – – – – 14 14 – – –brazil – 66 109 – 65 108 – 1 1Chile – – – – – – – – –Colombia – – – – – – – – –ecuador – 23 23 – 23 23 – n.s. n.s.Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – – – – – – – – –French Guiana n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Guyana – – – – – 24 – – –Paraguay – – – 5 4 4 – – –Peru – – 13 – 10 12 – – n.s.Suriname 3 3 5 2 3 5 1 n.s. n.s.Uruguay – – – 1 6 5 – – –Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) – – – – 2 – – – –South America – – – – – – – – –World – – – – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 299TAble 16Forest policy and legal framework 2008Country/area Policy National forest programme Forest lawNationalNationalSubnationalSubnationalExists Year Exists Exists Year Status Type Year ExistsAngola No – Yes Yes – In formulation Specific forest law 1955 Yesbotswana No – No No – – Specific forest law 1968 NoComoros – – – – – – – – –Djibouti – – – – – – – – –eritrea No – No Yes 2008 In implementation Specific forest law 2006 Noethiopia Yes 2007 Yes Yes 2008 In formulation No national forest law – NoKenya Yes 2006 No Yes 2007 Temporarily suspended Specific forest law 2005 Nolesotho Yes 2008 No Yes 2009 Temporarily suspended Specific forest law 1998 YesMadagascar Yes 1997 No No – – Specific forest law 1997 NoMalawi Yes 1996 No Yes 2001 In implementation Specific forest law 1997 NoMauritius Yes 2006 No Yes 2006 In formulation Specific forest law 1983 NoMayotte No – Yes No – – No national forest law – YesMozambique Yes 1999 – Yes 1998 Under revision Specific forest law 1999 –Namibia Yes 1996 Yes No – – Specific forest law 2001 YesRéunion Yes 2007 No Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 2001 NoSeychelles Yes 2000 – No – – Specific forest law 1955 –Somalia – – – – – – – – –South Africa Yes 1996 No Yes 1997 Under revision Specific forest law 1998 NoSwaziland Yes 2002 No Yes 2002 Temporarily suspended Incorporated in other law 2002 NoUganda Yes 2001 No Yes 2002 In implementation Specific forest law 2003 NoUnited Republic of Tanzania Yes 1998 No Yes – In implementation Specific forest law 2002 NoZambia Yes 1998 No Yes 1996 Temporarily suspended Specific forest law 1973 NoZimbabwe No – No Yes – In formulation Specific forest law 1949 NoEastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – – – –Algeria No – No No – – Specific forest law 1984 Noegypt No – No – 2000 In implementation Incorporated in other law – Nolibyan Arab Jamahiriya – – – – – – – – –Mauritania Yes 2001 No No – – Specific forest law 2007 NoMorocco Yes 2006 No Yes 1999 In implementation Specific forest law 1917 NoSudan Yes 2005 Yes Yes 1986 In implementation Specific forest law 2002 YesTunisia Yes 1988 No Yes 1988 In implementation Specific forest law 1966 NoWestern Sahara – – – – – – – – –Northern Africa – – – – – – – – –benin Yes 1994 No Yes 2007 In implementation Specific forest law 1993 Noburkina Faso Yes 1995 Yes Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 1997 Yesburundi Yes 2006 No Yes – In implementation Specific forest law 1985 NoCameroon Yes 1993 No Yes 2005 In implementation Specific forest law 1994 NoCape Verde – – – – – – – – –Central African Republic Yes 2003 No Yes 1994 Temporarily suspended Specific forest law 2008 NoChad Yes 2000 No Yes 1972 In implementation Incorporated in other law 2008 NoCongo Yes 2002 No Yes – In formulation Specific forest law 2000 NoCôte d’Ivoire Yes 1988 – – – – Specific forest law 1965 –Democratic Republic of the Congo No – No Yes 2009 In implementation Specific forest law 2002 Noequatorial Guinea Yes 1997 No Yes 2000 In formulation – 1997 NoGabon Yes 2004 – Yes 1993 Temporarily suspended Specific forest law 2001 –Gambia Yes 1995 No Yes 2000 Under revision Specific forest law 1998 NoGhana Yes 1994 – Yes 1993 Under revision Specific forest law 1998 –Guinea Yes 1991 No Yes 1989 In implementation Specific forest law 1989 NoGuinea-bissau Yes 1992 No Yes 1992 Under revision Specific forest law 1991 Noliberia Yes 2006 No Yes 2008 In implementation Specific forest law 1976 NoMali No – No Yes 2002 In implementation Specific forest law 1995 No

300Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/area Policy National forest programme Forest lawNationalTAble 16 (continued)Forest policy and legal framework 2008NationalSubnationalSubnationalExists Year Exists Exists Year Status Type Year ExistsNiger No – No Yes – In formulation Specific forest law 2004 NoNigeria Yes 2006 No Yes 2002 Under revision No national forest law – YesRwanda Yes 2004 No – – – Specific forest law 1988 NoSaint Helena, Ascension and Yes 2006 No Yes 2007 In implementation Specific forest law 1954 NoTristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe – – – – – – – – –Senegal Yes 2005 No Yes 1992 In implementation Specific forest law 1998 NoSierra leone Yes 2004 No No – – Specific forest law 1988 NoTogo Yes 1998 – Yes – – Specific forest law 2008 –Western and Central Africa – – – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – – – –China Yes 2008 No Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 1979 YesDemocratic People’s Republic of – – – – – – – – –KoreaJapan Yes 2001 Yes Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 1951 NoMongolia No – No Yes 2002 In implementation Specific forest law 2007 YesRepublic of Korea Yes 1972 No Yes 2008 In implementation Specific forest law 1961 NoEast Asia – – – – – – – – –bangladesh Yes 1994 No Yes 1995 In implementation Specific forest law 1927 Nobhutan Yes 1974 No Yes 2008 In implementation Specific forest law 1995 Nobrunei Darussalam Yes 1989 No Yes – In implementation Specific forest law 1934 NoCambodia Yes 2002 No Yes 2007 In formulation Specific forest law 2002 NoIndia Yes 1988 Yes Yes 1999 In implementation Specific forest law 1927 YesIndonesia Yes 2006 No Yes 2000 In implementation Specific forest law 1999 Nolao People’s Democratic Republic Yes 1991 – Yes 2005 – Specific forest law 2006 –Malaysia Yes 1992 Yes Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 1984 YesMaldives No – No No – – Incorporated in other law 1998 NoMyanmar Yes – – Yes 2001 In implementation Specific forest law 1902 –Nepal Yes 1989 No Yes – In implementation Specific forest law 1993 NoPakistan Yes 1955 Yes Yes – In implementation No national forest law – YesPhilippines Yes 1995 No Yes 2003 In implementation Specific forest law 1975 NoSingapore No – No No – – Incorporated in other law 2005 NoSri lanka Yes 1995 No Yes – – Specific forest law 1907 NoThailand Yes 2007 – Yes 1985 In implementation Specific forest law 1941 –Timor-leste Yes 2007 No No – – Specific forest law 2000 NoViet Nam Yes 2003 No Yes 1987 In implementation Specific forest law 1992 NoSouth and Southeast Asia – – – – – – – – –Afghanistan Yes 2005 No No – – Specific forest law – NoArmenia Yes 2005 No Yes – In implementation Specific forest law 2005 NoAzerbaijan No – No No – – Specific forest law 1998 Nobahrain – – – – – – – – –Cyprus Yes 2002 No Yes 2000 In implementation Specific forest law 1967 NoGeorgia No – No Yes 2006 In formulation Specific forest law 1999 NoIran (Islamic Republic of) – – – Yes 1996 In implementation Specific forest law 1967 –Iraq – – – – – – – – –Israel Yes 2006 No No 1995 Under revision Specific forest law 1926 NoJordan No – No No – – Incorporated in other law 1923 NoKazakhstan Yes – No Yes 2004 – Specific forest law 2003 NoKuwait – – – – – – – – –Kyrgyzstan Yes 2004 No Yes 2005 In implementation Specific forest law 1999 Nolebanon No – No No – – Specific forest law 1949 No

Annex 3: Global tables 301Country/area Policy National forest programme Forest lawNationalTAble 16 (continued)Forest policy and legal framework 2008NationalSubnationalSubnationalExists Year Exists Exists Year Status Type Year ExistsOccupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – – – – –Oman Yes 2003 No No – – Specific forest law 2003 NoQatar – – – – – – – – –Saudi Arabia Yes 2005 No Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 2004 NoSyrian Arab Republic No – No Yes 1953 In implementation Specific forest law 1953 NoTajikistan Yes 2000 No Yes 2008 In formulation Specific forest law 1993 NoTurkey Yes 2005 No Yes 2004 In implementation Specific forest law 1956 NoTurkmenistan Yes – – No – – Specific forest law – –United Arab emirates No – No No – – No national forest law – NoUzbekistan No – – Yes 2006 In formulation Specific forest law 1999 –Yemen No – No No – – No national forest law – NoWestern and Central Asia – – – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – – – –Albania Yes 2005 No No – – Specific forest law 2005 NoAndorra – – – – – – – – –Austria Yes 2006 Yes Yes 2003 In implementation Specific forest law 1975 Yesbelarus Yes 1996 No Yes 2007 In implementation Specific forest law 2000 Nobelgium No – Yes No – – No national forest law – Yesbosnia and Herzegovina – – – – – – – – –bulgaria Yes 2006 No Yes 2003 In implementation Specific forest law 1958 NoCroatia No – No Yes 2003 Under revision Specific forest law 2005 NoCzech Republic Yes 1994 No Yes 2008 In implementation Specific forest law 1995 NoDenmark Yes 2002 No Yes 2002 In formulation Specific forest law 2004 Noestonia Yes 1997 No Yes 2002 Under revision Specific forest law 2007 NoFaroe Islands – – – – – – – – –Finland Yes 2008 Yes Yes 2008 In implementation Specific forest law 1996 YesFrance Yes 2007 No Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 2001 NoGermany Yes 2009 Yes Yes 1999 Under revision Specific forest law 1975 YesGibraltar – – – – – – – – –Greece – – – – – – – – –Guernsey No – No No – – No national forest law – NoHoly See – – – – – – – – –Hungary No – No Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 2009 NoIceland No – Yes No – – Specific forest law 1955 NoIreland Yes 1996 No Yes 1996 In implementation Specific forest law 1946 NoIsle of Man Yes 2000 No No – – Specific forest law 1984 NoItaly Yes 2001 Yes Yes 2009 In implementation Specific forest law 2001 YesJersey No – No No – – No national forest law – Nolatvia Yes 1998 No Yes 2006 In formulation Specific forest law 2000 Noliechtenstein – – – – – – – – –lithuania Yes 2002 No Yes 1996 In implementation Specific forest law 1994 Noluxembourg No – No Yes 2004 In implementation Incorporated in other law – NoMalta – – – – – – – – –Monaco – – – – – – – – –Montenegro – – – – – – – – –Netherlands Yes 2001 Yes Yes 2005 In formulation Specific forest law 1962 NoNorway Yes 1998 Yes Yes 1998 In implementation Specific forest law 2005 NoPoland Yes 1997 No Yes 2000 In formulation Specific forest law 1991 NoPortugal Yes 2006 No Yes 1996 In implementation Incorporated in other law 1996 YesRepublic of Moldova Yes 2001 No – – – Specific forest law 1996 No

302Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/area Policy National forest programme Forest lawNationalTAble 16 (continued)Forest policy and legal framework 2008NationalSubnationalSubnationalExists Year Exists Exists Year Status Type Year ExistsRomania Yes 2005 No Yes 2000 In implementation Specific forest law 2008 NoRussian Federation No – No Yes 2003 In implementation Specific forest law 2006 NoSan Marino – – – – – – – – –Serbia Yes 2006 No Yes 2005 In formulation Specific forest law 1991 NoSlovakia Yes 2006 No Yes 2007 In implementation Specific forest law 2005 NoSlovenia Yes 1996 No Yes 2007 In implementation Specific forest law 1993 NoSpain Yes 1999 Yes Yes 2002 Under revision Specific forest law 2003 YesSvalbard and Jan Mayen Islands – – – – – – – – –Sweden Yes 1993 No Yes 2002 In implementation Specific forest law 1979 NoSwitzerland No – No Yes 2004 In implementation Specific forest law 1991 YesThe former Yugoslav Republic of Yes 2006 – Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 2009 –MacedoniaUkraine No – No Yes 2010 In implementation Specific forest law 1994 NoUnited Kingdom No – Yes Yes 2003 Under revision Specific forest law 1967 NoEurope – – – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – – – – –bahamas – – – – – – – – –barbados No – No No – – Incorporated in other law – –bermuda – – – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – – – –Cayman Islands No – No No – – No national forest law – NoCuba Yes 1977 No Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 1998 NoDominica Yes 1949 No No – – Specific forest law 1976 NoDominican Republic Yes 2001 No No – – Incorporated in other law 2000 NoGrenada Yes – No Yes – In implementation Specific forest law 1906 NoGuadeloupe Yes 2007 No Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 2001 NoHaiti No – No Yes – In formulation Specific forest law 1926 NoJamaica Yes 2001 No Yes 2001 Under revision Specific forest law 1996 NoMartinique Yes 2007 No Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 2001 NoMontserrat Yes 1993 No Yes 1992 Under revision Specific forest law 1996 NoNetherlands Antilles – – – – – – – – –Puerto Rico – – – – – – – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – No – – – Incorporated in other law 1987 NoSaint lucia Yes 2008 No Yes 1992 Under revision Specific forest law 1946 NoSaint Martin (French part) – – – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – – – – – – – – –Saint-barthélemy – – – – – – – – –Trinidad and Tobago Yes 2008 No No – – Specific forest law 1918 NoTurks and Caicos Islands No – No No – – No national forest law – NoUnited States Virgin Islands – – – – – – – – –Caribbean – – – – – – – – –belize – – – – – – – – –Costa Rica Yes 2000 No Yes 2001 Under revision Specific forest law 1996 Noel Salvador Yes 2000 No Yes 2003 In implementation Specific forest law 2002 NoGuatemala Yes 1999 No Yes 2003 In implementation Specific forest law 1996 NoHonduras Yes 1971 No Yes 2004 In implementation Specific forest law – NoNicaragua Yes 2008 No Yes 2008 In implementation Specific forest law 2003 YesPanama Yes 2003 No Yes 2008 – Specific forest law 1994 NoCentral America – – – – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 303Country/area Policy National forest programme Forest lawNationalTAble 16 (continued)Forest policy and legal framework 2008NationalSubnationalSubnationalExists Year Exists Exists Year Status Type Year ExistsCanada Yes 2008 Yes No – – No national forest law – YesGreenland – – – – – – – – –Mexico Yes 2001 Yes Yes 2007 In implementation Specific forest law 2003 YesSaint Pierre and Miquelon Yes 2007 No No – – Incorporated in other law 2000 NoUnited States of America Yes 1969 Yes No – – Specific forest law – YesNorth America – – – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – – – –American Samoa – – – – – – – – –Australia Yes 1992 Yes Yes – In implementation Incorporated in other law – YesCook Islands Yes 1997 Yes Yes 1997 Temporarily suspended Incorporated in other law – YesFiji Yes 2007 No No – In formulation Specific forest law 1992 NoFrench Polynesia No – No No – – Specific forest law 1958 NoGuam – – – – – – – – –Kiribati Yes 2011 Yes No – In formulation Incorporated in other law 1999 NoMarshall Islands – – – – – – – – –Micronesia (Federated States of) – – – – – – – – –Nauru – – – – – – – – –New Caledonia No – No No – – Incorporated in other law 1910 YesNew Zealand Yes 1990 No No – – Specific forest law 1993 NoNiue Yes 2000 No Yes – In formulation Specific forest law 2004 NoNorfolk Island – – – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands – – – – – – – – –Palau No – Yes No – – No national forest law – YesPapua New Guinea Yes 1991 No No – – Specific forest law 1991 NoPitcairn – – – – – – – – –Samoa – – – – – – – – –Solomon Islands Yes 2008 No Yes – In implementation Specific forest law – YesTokelau – – – – – – – – –Tonga Yes 2008 No Yes 2005 Under revision Specific forest law 1961 NoTuvalu – – – – – – – – –Vanuatu Yes 1997 Yes Yes 1996 – Specific forest law 1985 YesWallis and Futuna Islands No – No No – – No national forest law – NoOceania – – – – – – – – –Argentina No – No No – – Specific forest law 2007 Yesbolivia (Plurinational State of) Yes 2008 No Yes 2008 In implementation Specific forest law 1996 Nobrazil No – Yes Yes 2000 In implementation Specific forest law 1965 YesChile No – No No – – Specific forest law 1974 NoColombia Yes 1996 No Yes 2000 Under revision Incorporated in other law 1974 Noecuador Yes 2002 No Yes 2002 In implementation Specific forest law 1981 NoFalkland Islands (Malvinas) No – No No – – No national forest law – NoFrench Guiana Yes 2007 Yes Yes 2006 In implementation Specific forest law 2001 YesGuyana Yes 1997 No Yes 2001 In implementation Specific forest law 1953 NoParaguay No – No Yes 1999 In implementation Specific forest law 1973 NoPeru No – Yes Yes 2004 In implementation Specific forest law 2000 NoSuriname Yes 2003 No Yes 2006 In formulation Specific forest law 1992 NoUruguay Yes 1987 No Yes – – Specific forest law 1987 NoVenezuela (bolivarian Republic of) Yes 1999 No No – – Specific forest law 2008 NoSouth America – – – – – – – – –World – – – – – – – – –

304Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 17Human resources within public forest institutions 2000–2008Country/area 2000 2005 2008Number % Female Number % Female Number % FemaleAngola 1 308 18 1 071 14 1 030 15botswana – – 637 21 629 22Comoros – – – – – –Djibouti – – – – – –eritrea 38 9 40 23 45 18ethiopia – – – – 675 –Kenya – – – – 5 351 20lesotho – – 80 10 115 8Madagascar 1 100 – 1 100 – 1 100 –Malawi 3 308 28 5 591 16 6 651 15Mauritius 225 3 197 4 213 6Mayotte – – – – – –Mozambique 88 – 96 – 128 –Namibia – – 600 – 500 –Réunion – – 65 20 76 18Seychelles 174 – 118 – 86 –Somalia – – – – – –South Africa 10 000 – 3 749 – 3 095 45Swaziland 20 10 13 15 14 14Uganda – – – – – –United Republic of Tanzania 1 653 5 1 653 10 1 653 15Zambia 878 37 878 37 908 40Zimbabwe 369 – 557 – 550 –Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – –Algeria 8 400 14 8 662 16 8 655 17egypt 5 000 30 5 700 32 6 500 34libyan Arab Jamahiriya – – – – – –Mauritania – – – – 160 6Morocco – – 5 300 12 5 757 13Sudan 4 876 – 2 988 21 3 100 24Tunisia 509 1 456 1 415 1Western Sahara – – – – – –Northern Africa – – – – – –benin 243 n.s. 573 2 749 5burkina Faso 700 – 787 – 839 –burundi 137 – 231 11 87 11Cameroon – – – – 1 865 20Cape Verde – – – – 27 30Central African Republic 400 8 450 9 462 10Chad 603 2 710 2 789 3Congo – – – – – –Côte d’Ivoire – – – – – –Democratic Republic of the Congo – – – – – –equatorial Guinea 130 6 130 6 155 6Gabon 324 29 364 20 484 21Gambia 185 1 185 1 194 3Ghana 3 495 – 3 549 – 3 576 –Guinea – – – – – –Guinea-bissau 292 11 284 14 263 11liberia 554 10 253 8 296 10Mali – – – – 680 9

Annex 3: Global tables 305TAble 17 (continued)Human resources within public forest institutions 2000–2008Country/area 2000 2005 2008Number % Female Number % Female Number % FemaleNiger 610 – 538 – 877 10Nigeria 10 741 8 11 200 9 13 120 9Rwanda – – – – 213 11Saint Helena, Ascension and– – 39 3 35 3Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe – – – – – –Senegal 568 11 832 13 876 16Sierra leone 210 10 200 9 195 8Togo – – – – – –Western and Central Africa – – – – – –Africa – – – – – –China 817 599 30 717 517 28 719 808 28Democratic People’s Republic of– – – – – –KoreaJapan 26 227 – 20 994 – 19 533 –Mongolia 44 35 44 36 28 30Republic of Korea 5 494 – 6 704 – 6 931 –East Asia – – – – – –bangladesh – – – – 12 000 3bhutan 794 9 1 195 13 1 255 13brunei Darussalam 320 20 326 23 322 23Cambodia 752 – 1 722 8 1 600 8India 180 596 4 179 673 4 179 119 4Indonesia 14 809 13 15 548 18 16 803 18lao People’s Democratic Republic – – – – – –Malaysia 11 000 – 8 400 – 8 600 –Maldives – – – – 2 50Myanmar – – – – 64 858 –Nepal 8 400 3 9 200 3 9 545 3Pakistan – – – – – –Philippines 7 393 27 7 759 28 7 627 28Singapore – – – – – –Sri lanka 2 418 12 2 319 10 2 483 10Thailand 8 030 – 2 338 – 2 329 –Timor-leste – – – – 57 –Viet Nam – – – – – –South and Southeast Asia – – – – – –Afghanistan – – – – – –Armenia – – – – – –Azerbaijan – – 2 552 – – –bahrain – – – – – –Cyprus 459 7 440 7 448 6Georgia – – 2 026 – 650 –Iran (Islamic Republic of) – – – – – –Iraq – – – – – –Israel 1 100 10 800 10 550 10Jordan 443 – 785 – 992 –Kazakhstan – – – – – –Kuwait – – – – – –Kyrgyzstan – – – – 1 877 12lebanon – – 210 9 236 8Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – –

306Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 17 (continued)Human resources within public forest institutions 2000–2008Country/area 2000 2005 2008Number % Female Number % Female Number % FemaleOman – – – – 35 14Qatar – – – – – –Saudi Arabia 1 376 – 1 376 – 1 400 0Syrian Arab Republic 2 564 – 2 787 – 3 057 –Tajikistan 850 20 974 19 1 002 23Turkey 18 897 11 13 972 11 15 957 12Turkmenistan – – – – – –United Arab emirates – – – – – –Uzbekistan 6 639 10 6 720 11 7 102 15Yemen 192 10 192 10 192 10Western and Central Asia – – – – – –Asia – – – – – –Albania 1 221 19 1 103 20 1 148 20Andorra – – – – – –Austria 701 – 492 – 561 2belarus 32 685 14 33 888 15 33 653 16belgium 1 551 – 1 696 15 1 728 16bosnia and Herzegovina – – – – – –bulgaria 9 239 35 7 734 35 1 329 30Croatia 22 36 43 30 169 33Czech Republic – – – – – –Denmark – – – – 434 30estonia 137 23 227 27 241 32Faroe Islands – – – – – –Finland – – – – 1 587 –France 12 347 – 11 413 – 10 977 –Germany – – – – – –Gibraltar – – – – – –Greece – – – – – –Guernsey – – – – – –Holy See – – – – – –Hungary 563 30 531 29 418 23Iceland 54 29 58 24 60 30Ireland 76 42 101 47 135 52Isle of Man – – – – – –Italy 8 304 11 7 940 12 8 374 15Jersey – – – – – –latvia 1 688 27 1 705 37 1 598 37liechtenstein – – – – – –lithuania – – 140 41 155 47luxembourg 121 – 409 6 395 8Malta – – – – – –Monaco – – – – – –Montenegro – – – – – –Netherlands 1 000 – 1 000 20 970 22Norway – – – – 84 27Poland – – – – – –Portugal 1 992 18 2 778 27 1 623 36Republic of Moldova – – – – – –Romania 298 15 301 19 573 13

Annex 3: Global tables 307TAble 17 (continued)Human resources within public forest institutions 2000–2008Country/area 2000 2005 2008Number % Female Number % Female Number % FemaleRussian Federation – – – – – –San Marino – – – – – –Serbia 121 35 98 36 94 37Slovakia – – – – – –Slovenia 835 15 836 15 835 15Spain 9 229 9 9 139 13 10 165 13Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands – – – – – –Sweden 1 000 – 1 329 25 1 006 32Switzerland – – – – 360 15The former Yugoslav Republic of 150 – 153 7 159 8MacedoniaUkraine – – – – 939 –United Kingdom 569 44 1 344 33 1 350 35Europe – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – –bahamas – – – – – –barbados – – – – 24 50bermuda – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – –Cuba – – 458 41 2 619 17Dominica 23 4 23 4 23 4Dominican Republic – – – – – –Grenada 55 15 55 15 55 15Guadeloupe – – – – 118 43Haiti – – – – 20 10Jamaica 141 35 155 31 156 34Martinique – – – – 101 18Montserrat 11 27 11 27 12 27Netherlands Antilles – – – – – –Puerto Rico – – – – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – –Saint lucia – – 72 26 72 25Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – – – – – –Saint barthélemy – – – – – –Trinidad and Tobago 783 15 824 17 946 19Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands – – – – – –Caribbean – – – – – –belize – – – – – –Costa Rica – – 1 225 26 52 53el Salvador 84 24 82 28 84 24Guatemala – – – – 367 27Honduras – – – – 206 44Nicaragua – – – – 332 38Panama – – – – 126 17Central America – – – – – –

308Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 17 (continued)Human resources within public forest institutions 2000–2008Country/area 2000 2005 2008Number % Female Number % Female Number % FemaleCanada – – – – – –Greenland – – – – – –Mexico – – 2 732 11 2 940 12Saint Pierre and Miquelon – – – – – –United States of America – – – – 29 637 38North America – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – –American Samoa – – – – – –Australia – – – – – –Cook Islands – – – – – –Fiji 118 3 163 3 167 6French Polynesia – – 65 2 56 0Guam – – – – – –Kiribati – – 91 20 70 23Marshall Islands – – – – – –Micronesia (Federated States of) – – – – – –Nauru – – – – – –New Caledonia – – – – 81 37New Zealand 1 490 – 1 746 – 1 875 –Niue 8 25 5 20 4 25Norfolk Island – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands – – – – – –Palau – – – – – –Papua New Guinea – – – – 337 25Pitcairn – – – – – –Samoa – – – – – –Solomon Islands – – 59 18 116 25Tokelau – – – – – –Tonga 5 0 3 0 3 0Tuvalu – – – – – –Vanuatu 34 9 21 19 19 26Wallis and Futuna Islands – – – – 4 0Oceania – – – – – –Argentina 99 48 99 49 148 51bolivia (Plurinational State of) 189 15 174 20 184 21brazil – – 619 – 1 080 –Chile – – 1 600 25 1 733 26Colombia – – – – – –ecuador – – – – 389 26Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – – – – – –French Guiana – – 65 20 76 18Guyana 140 39 160 38 242 27Paraguay – – – – 370 13Peru – – – – 532 29Suriname 350 20 350 20 350 20Uruguay – – – – 53 36Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) – – – – 58 57South America – – – – – –World – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 309Country/areaM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTAble 18Forest education and research 2008Graduation of studentsin forest related educationB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTechniciancertificate/diplomaNumber %FemaleProfessionals working in publicly fundedforest research centresPh.D.Number %FemaleM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleAngola 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – –botswana 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Comoros – – – – – – – – – – – –Djibouti – – – – – – – – – – – –eritrea 0 – 33 9 327 11 0 – 2 0 4 0ethiopia 5 – 30 – 60 – 23 10 33 6 15 12Kenya – – – – 81 – 17 – 56 – 14 –lesotho 0 – 0 – 31 23 0 – 0 – 0 –Madagascar – – – – – – – – – – – –Malawi 2 5 051 45 56 21 1 0 3 0 2 0Mauritius 9 11 10 10 109 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Mayotte 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Mozambique 4 50 15 13 – – 1 100 1 0 2 50Namibia 0 – 0 – 1 – 0 – 2 – 2 –Réunion 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 3 33 0 –Seychelles 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Somalia 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –South Africa 0 – 29 17 48 25 34 44 35 49 11 36Swaziland 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Uganda – – – – – – 4 – 12 – 4 –United Republic of Tanzania 115 20 215 40 105 5 3 0 45 5 70 10Zambia 4 0 20 25 36 15 0 – 6 30 24 40Zimbabwe – – – – 25 – 0 – 8 25 16 31Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – – – – – – –Algeria 10 45 40 15 36 8 12 8 47 50 32 40egypt 4 25 24 25 32 40 12 30 15 33 18 33libyan Arab Jamahiriya – – – – – – – – – – – –Mauritania 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 2 0Morocco 21 14 0 – 28 0 9 0 36 11 0 –Sudan 19 37 694 49 – – 112 13 193 26 73 33Tunisia 13 44 9 44 50 66 50 10 1 0 37 –Western Sahara – – – – – – – – – – – –Northern Africa – – – – – – – – – – – –benin 30 0 35 8 0 0 2 0 16 0 0 0burkina Faso – – – – – – – – – – – –burundi 0 – – – 40 5 1 0 3 33 3 33Cameroon – – – – – – – – – – – –Cape Verde 1 100 4 50 1 0 – – – – – –Central African Republic 4 0 – – 10 30 1 0 3 0 – –Chad 1 61 31 90 47 0 – – – – – –Congo – – – – – – – – – – – –Côte d’Ivoire – – – – – – – – – – – –Democratic Republic of the Congo – – – – – – – – – – – –equatorial Guinea 0 – 0 – 2 0 0 – 7 0 7 0Gabon 76 24 179 12 229 27 375 22 129 33 17 35

310Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTAble 18 (continued)Forest education and research 2008Graduation of studentsin forest related educationB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTechniciancertificate/diplomaNumber %FemaleProfessionals working in publicly fundedforest research centresPh.D.Number %FemaleM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleGambia 0 – 0 – 10 0 0 – 0 – 0 –Ghana 37 27 150 33 175 10 19 11 17 35 15 20Guinea 157 16 – – 24 20 1 – 4 – 1 –Guinea-bissau 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –liberia 0 – 9 11 0 – 2 0 23 9 9 22Mali 0 0 13 9 25 20 13 0 9 10 28 4Niger 1 37 – – 34 24 10 0 5 0 0 –Nigeria 180 12 400 12 560 12 20 40 78 23 212 16Rwanda – – – – – – – – – – – –Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – – – – – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe – – – – – – – – – – – –Senegal 81 11 136 10 445 4 4 0 8 50 3 30Sierra leone 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Togo – – – – – – – – – – – –Western and Central Africa – – – – – – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – – – – – – –China 3 926 – 31 850 – 18 563 – 494 – 1 020 – 3 909 –Democratic People’s Republic of – – – – – – – – – – – –KoreaJapan 110 33 435 33 230 – – – – – – –Mongolia 5 30 16 30 0 0 2 – 5 20 2 50Republic of Korea – – 952 51 358 58 192 8 47 15 45 51East Asia – – – – – – – – – – – –bangladesh 75 5 125 5 150 1 10 10 79 14 13 –bhutan 5 2 5 7 29 48 0 0 0 0 0 3 33brunei Darussalam – – – – – – – – – – – –Cambodia – – 2 24 5 – – – – – – – –India 565 55 808 50 3 000 2 394 24 1 002 23 1 289 18Indonesia 1 – 307 47 126 26 42 24 223 35 523 38lao People’s Democratic Republic – – – – – – – – – – – –Malaysia 50 52 640 70 245 49 85 17 126 34 169 64Maldives – – – – – – – – – – – –Myanmar 2 34 – – – – – – – – – –Nepal 34 15 120 16 200 15 7 – 39 15 27 20Pakistan – – – – – – – – – – – –Philippines 17 35 487 50 82 26 47 53 140 60 370 59Singapore 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Sri lanka 10 5 03 62 4 0 0 2 0 3 50 1 0Thailand – – – – – – – – – – – –Timor-leste 2 – 9 – 50 – – – – – – –Viet Nam – – – – – – – – – – – –South and Southeast Asia – – – – – – – – – – – –Afghanistan – – – – – – – – – – – –Armenia 15 30 200 50 – – 4 – 8 5 40 5Azerbaijan – – – – – – – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 311Country/areaM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTAble 18 (continued)Forest education and research 2008Graduation of studentsin forest related educationB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTechniciancertificate/diplomaNumber %FemaleProfessionals working in publicly fundedforest research centresPh.D.Number %FemaleM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %Femalebahrain – – – – – – – – – – – –Cyprus 0 0 0 0 9 33 0 0 0 0 0 0Georgia 13 – 64 – – – 36 22 15 33 1 100Iran (Islamic Republic of) – – – – – – – – – – – –Iraq – – – – – – – – – – – –Israel 10 25 20 40 – – 6 30 0 0 0 0Jordan 0 0 – – 0 0 – – – – – –Kazakhstan – – 325 34 350 21 17 35 4 25 6 17Kuwait – – – – – – – – – – – –Kyrgyzstan 90 – – – 95 – 6 50 20 45 4 50lebanon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – – – – – – – –Oman – – – – – – – – – – – –Qatar – – – – – – – – – – – –Saudi Arabia 16 0 9 0 60 0 20 0 20 5 30 0Syrian Arab Republic – – – – 13 – – – – – 44 54Tajikistan 16 0 – – 28 – 20 4 16 0 – –Turkey 83 24 589 23 67 24 55 38 68 28 73 29Turkmenistan – – – – – – – – – – – –United Arab emirates 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 0Uzbekistan 11 18 248 8 28 – 21 10 24 8 167 10Yemen 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Western and Central Asia – – – – – – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – – – – – – –Albania – – 142 28 0 0 14 14 2 50 – –Andorra – – – – – – – – – – – –Austria 34 32 17 12 61 8 36 6 45 11 0 –belarus 170 24 0 – 334 33 3 0 – – – –belgium 64 45 – – 115 18 20 31 53 32 7 29bosnia and Herzegovina – – – – – – – – – – – –bulgaria 22 9 5 30 7 357 11 – – – – – –Croatia 2 50 75 16 0 – 15 33 10 30 16 50Czech Republic 236 27 351 23 49 29 35 29 29 72 2 100Denmark 23 22 46 24 54 15 92 32 65 65 2 50estonia 15 13 53 17 38 8 30 17 34 32 7 57Faroe Islands – – – – – – – – – – – –Finland 114 47 313 35 – – 197 33 160 38 94 31France 1 3 8 – – 390 12 – – – – – –Germany – – – – – – – – – – – –Gibraltar – – – – – – – – – – – –Greece – – – – – – – – – – – –Guernsey – – – – – – – – – – – –Holy See – – – – – – – – – – – –Hungary 29 20 – – 144 4 27 26 42 29 1 100Iceland 1 100 3 67 3 67 4 0 5 40 3 67

312Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTAble 18 (continued)Forest education and research 2008Graduation of studentsin forest related educationB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTechniciancertificate/diplomaNumber %FemaleProfessionals working in publicly fundedforest research centresPh.D.Number %FemaleM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleIreland 4 0 28 7 11 0 28 21 28 11 29 34Isle of Man – – – – – – – – – – – –Italy 190 41 231 33 75 33 102 41 – – – –Jersey – – – – – – – – – – – –latvia 17 12 18 39 207 15 58 41 57 51 39 54liechtenstein – – – – – – – – – – – –lithuania 31 13 134 16 0 – 28 25 25 60 3 67luxembourg 0 – 0 – 13 39 0 – 0 – 0 –Malta – – – – – – – – – – – –Monaco – – – – – – – – – – – –Montenegro – – – – – – – – – – – –Netherlands 5 25 18 19 5 57 – – – – – – –Norway 13 18 14 8 0 – 59 17 42 21 51 20Poland 392 27 355 27 – – 75 36 55 45 2 50Portugal 1 25 552 57 3 – – – – – – – –Republic of Moldova – – – – – – – – – – – –Romania 647 10 57 12 – – 44 25 281 16 19 31Russian Federation 3 0 0 – 0 – – 9 500 – – – – – – –San Marino – – – – – – – – – – – –Serbia 17 47 204 57 95 5 89 28 75 52 198 37Slovakia 63 25 93 18 223 7 150 23 59 34 1 0Slovenia 4 75 33 30 28 29 34 24 5 0 35 34Spain 357 46 427 43 1 733 21 460 29 414 44 278 41Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands – – – – – – – – – – – –Sweden 90 31 31 10 2 100 155 27 72 40 15 20Switzerland 4 75 59 32 35 3 51 11 119 34 12 0The former Yugoslav Republic of 2 0 84 40 – – 35 20 2 50 3 67MacedoniaUkraine 202 27 477 25 2 884 17 – – – – – –United Kingdom 125 25 65 25 – – 52 37 28 46 44 34Europe – – – – – – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – – – – – – – –bahamas – – – – – – – – – – – –barbados 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 1 100bermuda – – – – – – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – – – – – – – –Cuba 1 06 02 33 4 – – – – – – – –Dominica – – – – – – – – – – – –Dominican Republic – – – – – – – – – – – –Grenada 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Guadeloupe 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Haiti – – – – – – 0 – 0 – 0 –Jamaica 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 2 0

Annex 3: Global tables 313Country/areaM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTAble 18 (continued)Forest education and research 2008Graduation of studentsin forest related educationB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTechniciancertificate/diplomaNumber %FemaleProfessionals working in publicly fundedforest research centresPh.D.Number %FemaleM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleMartinique – – – – – – – – – – – –Montserrat 1 0 1 0 4 0 – – – – – –Netherlands Antilles – – – – – – – – – – – –Puerto Rico – – – – – – – – – – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – – – – – – – –Saint lucia – – – – – – – – – – – –Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – – – – – – – –Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – – – – – – – – – – – –Saint barthélemy – – – – – – – – – – – –Trinidad and Tobago 0 – 0 – 20 45 0 – 2 0 1 100Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – – – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands – – – – – – – – – – – –Caribbean – – – – – – – – – – – –belize – – – – – – – – – – – –Costa Rica 1 0 2 28 7 – – 7 0 8 38 6 66el Salvador 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Guatemala – – – – – – – – – – – –Honduras 15 27 27 26 14 43 – – – – – –Nicaragua – – 2 40 5 41 17 – – – – – –Panama 2 0 5 57 3 0 2 50 5 20 7 14Central America – – – – – – – – – – – –Canada – – – – – – – – – – – –Greenland – – – – – – – – – – – –Mexico 40 38 323 24 688 41 122 8 128 9 46 15Saint Pierre and Miquelon 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –United States of America 955 44 4 172 38 94 19 696 21 499 35 620 37North America – – – – – – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – – – – – – –American Samoa – – – – – – – – – – – –Australia – – 30 – – – – – – – – –Cook Islands 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Fiji 1 – 1 – 18 28 – – 1 – 9 22French Polynesia 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Guam – – – – – – – – – – – –Kiribati 5 60 12 83 49 14 0 – 0 0 6 33Marshall Islands – – – – – – – – – – – –Micronesia (Federated States of) – – – – – – – – – – – –Nauru – – – – – – – – – – – –New Caledonia 0 – – – 0 – 5 0 6 55 0 –New Zealand – – – – – – 54 24 58 29 110 35Niue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Norfolk Island – – – – – – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands – – – – – – – – – – – –Palau – – – – – – – – – – – –Papua New Guinea 1 0 36 29 13 54 0 – 2 0 50 4

314Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTAble 18 (continued)Forest education and research 2008Graduation of studentsin forest related educationB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleTechniciancertificate/diplomaNumber %FemaleProfessionals working in publicly fundedforest research centresPh.D.Number %FemaleM.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemaleB.Sc.orequivalentNumber %FemalePitcairn – – – – – – – – – – – –Samoa – – – – – – – – – – – –Solomon Islands – – – – – – – – – – – –Tokelau – – – – – – – – – – – –Tonga 0 – 0 – 3 67 0 – 0 – 0 –Tuvalu – – – – – – – – – – – –Vanuatu 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Wallis and Futuna Islands 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –Oceania – – – – – – – – – – – –Argentina 8 0 29 18 – – 75 34 141 33 83 38bolivia (Plurinational State of) 0 – – – – – 0 – 0 – 0 –brazil 200 – 1 048 41 253 24 116 35 38 39 54 46Chile 6 15 180 35 0 – 6 33 12 17 48 31Colombia 5 63 2 92 244 1 – – – – – –ecuador – – 6 – – – – – – – – –Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – – – – – – – – – – – –French Guiana 0 0 20 50 0 0 27 25 14 50 6 67Guyana 5 40 12 50 20 50 0 – 0 – 0 –Paraguay – – 13 54 17 0 – – 5 50 7 43Peru – – 144 36 67 28 1 0 26 7 124 10Suriname 0 – 2 50 40 10 1 0 2 50 8 50Uruguay 3 – 1 33 2 – – 4 – 3 – 7 –Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) 4 75 98 48 68 29 29 31 89 34 14 29South America – – – – – – – – – – – –World – – – – – – – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 315Country/areaTAble 19Forest revenue and public expenditure on forestry 2005Forestrevenue1 000 US$ OperationalexpenditurePublic expenditure (1 000 US$)Domestic funding External funding TotalTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentsAngola 71 410 – – – 410 –botswana 111 – – – – – –Comoros – – – – – – –Djibouti – – – – – – –eritrea – – – – – – –ethiopia – – – – – – –Kenya – – – – – – –lesotho – – – – – – –Madagascar – – – – – – –Malawi 1 388 456 – 1 351 – 1 807 –Mauritius 1 214 6 279 0 0 0 6 279 0Mayotte – – – – – – –Mozambique 6 489 – – – – 345 –Namibia 88 – – – – – –Réunion 0 1 492 0 2 238 0 3 731 0Seychelles – – – – – – –Somalia – – – – – – –South Africa 7 349 63 392 2 797 – – – –Swaziland – 388 0 275 0 663 0Uganda – – – – – – –United Republic of Tanzania 11 637 6 489 11 515 26 574 32 774 33 063 44 290Zambia 1 038 – – – – – –Zimbabwe a – – – – – – –Eastern and Southern Africa – – – – – – –Algeria 4 612 102 257 0 9 368 0 111 625 0egypt 11 418 6 057 0 – 0 6 057 0libyan Arab Jamahiriya – – – – – – –Mauritania – 565 – – – 565 –Morocco 76 838 170 675 517 14 255 0 184 930 517Sudan a – – – – – – –Tunisia 11 260 26 976 0 5 395 0 32 371 0Western Sahara – – – – – – –Northern Africa – – – – – – –benin 3 886 2 451 410 15 925 – 18 376 410burkina Faso 607 2 287 – 3 202 – 5 490 –burundi – – – – – – –Cameroon 46 896 – – – – – –Cape Verde – – – – – – –Central African Republic 7 945 – – – – – –Chad 286 666 – 381 – 1 046 –Congo 47 396 – – – – – –Côte d’Ivoire – – – – – – –Democratic Republic of the Congo – – – – – – –equatorial Guinea 11 954 5 032 1 198 0 417 5 032 1 615Gabon 16 478 1 412 2 250 n.s. 4 171 516 178Gambia 90 171 0 8 034 0 8 205 0Ghana – – – – – – –

316Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 19 (continued)Forest revenue and public expenditure on forestry 2005Forestrevenue1 000 US$ OperationalexpenditurePublic expenditure (1 000 US$)Domestic funding External funding TotalTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentsGuinea – – – – – – –Guinea-bissau 121 72 – 48 – 121 –liberia – 633 – – – 633 –Mali 692 3 608 – 17 640 – 21 248 –Niger 1 739 – – – – – –Nigeria – 4 0 – – 4 0Rwanda 359 – – – – – –Saint Helena, Ascension and– – – – – – –Tristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe – – – – – – –Senegal 3 157 6 525 12 323 17 152 15 404 23 677 27 727Sierra leone 648 623 0 467 – 1 090 –Togo 140 – – – – – –Western and Central Africa – – – – – – –Africa – – – – – – –China 311 065 142 909 4 776 996 – – – –Democratic People’s Republic of– – – – – – –KoreaJapan 262 393 – – – – – –Mongolia 658 222 415 33 – 256 415Republic of Korea 485 013 832 474 26 346 0 0 832 474 26 346East Asia – – – – – – –bangladesh – – – – – – –bhutan – – – – – – –brunei Darussalam 501 6 544 – 34 – 6 578 –Cambodia 1 415 1 005 – – – 1 005 –India 341 819 – – – – – –Indonesia 334 766 – – – – – –lao People’s Democratic Republic – – – – – – –Malaysia 424 123 98 547 – – – 98 547 –Maldives – – – – – – –Myanmar 2 041 – – – – – –Nepal 8 449 22 265 340 4 523 0 26 788 340Pakistan – – – – – – –Philippines 2 476 35 988 – – – 35 988 –Singapore – – – – – – –Sri lanka 3 113 3 605 0 3 926 139 7 670 139Thailand 1 137 – – – – – –Timor-leste – 942 – 400 50 1 342 50Viet Nam – 28 690 154 046 0 41 428 28 690 195 474South and Southeast Asia – – – – – – –Afghanistan – – – – – – –Armenia 1 389 – – – – – –Azerbaijan – – – – – – –bahrain – – – – – – –Cyprus 743 38 259 2 98 0 38 357 2Georgia – – – – – – –Iran (Islamic Republic of) – – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 317Country/areaTAble 19 (continued)Forest revenue and public expenditure on forestry 2005Forestrevenue1 000 US$ OperationalexpenditurePublic expenditure (1 000 US$)Domestic funding External funding TotalTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentsIraq – – – – – – –Israel – – – – – 12 701 0Jordan – 4 106 0 – 0 – 0Kazakhstan – – – – – – –Kuwait – – – – – – –Kyrgyzstan 1 005 520 – – – 520 –lebanon 1 004 2 856 528 2 741 1 032 5 597 1 559Occupied Palestinian Territory – – – – – – –Oman – – – – – – –Qatar – – – – – – –Saudi Arabia – 8 273 10 675 – – 8 273 10 675Syrian Arab Republic 752 34 226 0 233 0 34 460 0Tajikistan 1 476 706 1 283 0 0 706 1 283Turkey 653 525 432 172 27 974 434 0 432 607 27 974Turkmenistan – – – – – – –United Arab emirates – – – – – – –Uzbekistan 6 846 4 890 – 0 0 4 890 –Yemen – 37 – 0 0 37 –Western and Central Asia – – – – – – –Asia – – – – – – –Albania 1 054 6 202 2 341 674 371 6 876 2 711Andorra – – – – – – –Austria – 98 119 34 186 0 11 043 98 120 45 230belarus 70 026 65 606 0 0 0 65 606 0belgium 87 920 30 522 8 738 1 926 659 32 448 9 395bosnia and Herzegovina – – – – – – –bulgaria 45 987 42 359 14 834 0 666 42 359 15 500Croatia 0 792 0 0 0 792 0Czech Republic – – 29 418 – 5 717 – 35 133Denmark 34 051 99 851 22 311 0 0 99 851 22 311estonia – – 1 398 – 1 384 – 2 783Faroe Islands – – – – – – –Finland – – – – – – –France – 283 216 99 363 0 54 320 283 216 153 684Germany – – 157 937 – 0 – 157 937Gibraltar – – – – – – –Greece – – – – – – –Guernsey – – – – – – –Holy See – – – – – – –Hungary 20 137 22 582 49 698 3 645 14 377 26 226 64 075Iceland 0 10 338 4 260 61 45 10 399 4 305Ireland – 21 620 50 027 0 73 535 21 620 123 562Isle of Man – – – – – – –Italy – 693 663 560 640 122 821 31 489 816 483 592 128Jersey – – – – – – –latvia – – – – – – –liechtenstein – – – – – – –

318Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaTAble 19 (continued)Forest revenue and public expenditure on forestry 2005Forestrevenue1 000 US$ OperationalexpenditurePublic expenditure (1 000 US$)Domestic funding External funding TotalTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentslithuania 32 222 4 614 72 0 0 4 614 72luxembourg 1 308 – – – – – –Malta – – – – – – –Monaco – – – – – – –Montenegro – – – – – – –Netherlands – 105 042 23 770 – – – –Norway – – – – – – –Poland 42 295 44 336 18 368 0 9 411 44 336 27 778Portugal 15 539 57 379 63 847 880 34 598 58 260 98 446Republic of Moldova – – – – – – –Romania – 30 802 368 2 435 0 33 237 368Russian Federation 1 016 268 – – – – 988 758 –San Marino – – – – – – –Serbia 10 055 1 431 5 891 764 0 2 195 5 891Slovakia 1 900 7 844 6 347 0 2 599 7 844 8 946Slovenia 29 218 22 091 1 061 0 815 22 091 1 876Spain – – – – – – –Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands – – – – – – –Sweden 3 582 354 73 977 140 186 6 396 0 80 374 140 186Switzerland – 2 570 107 936 0 0 2 570 107 936The former Yugoslav Republic of 41 336 – – – – – –MacedoniaUkraine 388 528 331 853 – 7 663 – 339 516 –United Kingdom 0 209 455 65 091 3 636 22 182 213 092 87 273Europe – – – – – – –Anguilla – – – – – – –Antigua and barbuda – – – – – – –Aruba – – – – – – –bahamas – – – – – – –barbados – – – – – – –bermuda – – – – – – –british Virgin Islands – – – – – – –Cayman Islands – – – – – – –Cuba 6 246 145 000 0 0 0 145 000 0Dominica – – – – – – –Dominican Republic – – – – – – –Grenada 4 4 3 0 0 4 3Guadeloupe 110 589 – 260 – 849 –Haiti – – – – – – –Jamaica 23 1 939 0 31 0 1 969 0Martinique 129 897 0 0 0 897 0Montserrat – – – – – – –Netherlands Antilles – – – – – – –Puerto Rico – – – – – – –Saint Kitts and Nevis – – – – – – –Saint lucia 105 – – – – – –Saint Martin (French part) – – – – – – –

Annex 3: Global tables 319Country/areaTAble 19 (continued)Forest revenue and public expenditure on forestry 2005Forestrevenue1 000 US$ OperationalexpenditurePublic expenditure (1 000 US$)Domestic funding External funding TotalTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentsSaint Vincent and the Grenadines – – – – – – –Saint barthélemy – – – – – – –Trinidad and Tobago 1 178 13 870 113 – – 13 870 113Turks and Caicos Islands – – – – – – –United States Virgin Islands – – – – – – –Caribbean – – – – – – –belize – – – – – – –Costa Rica 14 17 12 0 93 17 21el Salvador 43 43 0 400 0 443 0Guatemala 22 828 1 998 – – 13 080 1 998 13 080Honduras 44 286 13 488 – 25 204 – 38 692 –Nicaragua 1 442 1 801 – 1 622 – 3 423 –Panama – – – – – – –Central America – – – – – – –Canada 1 264 886 – – – – – –Greenland – – – – – – –Mexico – 89 007 110 426 2 120 4 099 91 128 114 524Saint Pierre and Miquelon – – – – – – –United States of America – 5 236 549 640 756 – – – –North America – – – – – – –North and Central America – – – – – – –American Samoa – – – – – – –Australia – – – – – – –Cook Islands – – – – – – –Fiji 2 259 5 739 – – – 5 739 –French Polynesia 16 5 – – – 5 –Guam – – – – – – –Kiribati 7 805 – 350 – 1 155 –Marshall Islands – – – – – – –Micronesia (Federated States of) – – – – – – –Nauru – – – – – – –New Caledonia – – – – – – –New Zealand 101 966 – – 0 0 – –Niue – – – – – – –Norfolk Island – – – – – – –Northern Mariana Islands – – – – – – –Palau – – – – – – –Papua New Guinea 41 908 7 552 – – – 7 552 –Pitcairn – – – – – – –Samoa – – – – – – –Solomon Islands – – – – – – –Tokelau – – – – – – –Tonga 26 201 21 15 36 216 57Tuvalu – – – – – – –Vanuatu 45 460 – 247 – 707 –Wallis and Futuna Islands – – – – – – –Oceania – – – – – – –

320Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Country/areaForestrevenue1 000 US$ OperationalexpenditurePublic expenditure (1 000 US$)Domestic funding External funding TotalTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentsOperationalexpenditureTransferpaymentsArgentina – 3 830 9 161 908 0 4 738 9 161bolivia (Plurinational State of) – – – – – – –brazil 3 272 185 41 288 1 628 4 204 583 45 492 2 212Chile 4 752 44 922 49 610 – – 44 922 49 610Colombia – – – – – – –ecuador – 136 – 240 – 376 –Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – – – – – – –French Guiana 1 318 3 999 0 0 1 525 3 999 1 525Guyana 2 552 2 101 0 0 0 2 101 0Paraguay 1 025 982 0 0 0 982 –Peru 6 501 – – – – – –Suriname 1 180 549 – 110 – 659 –Uruguay – – – – – – –Venezuela (bolivarian Republic of) – – – – – – –South America – – – – – – –World – – – – – – –a Although data on forest revenue and expenditure were provided by Sudan and Zimbabwe it was not possible to convert the figures to US$ due to thehighly fluctuating exchange rate.TAble 19 (continued)Forest revenue and public expenditure on forestry 2005

Annex 3: Global tables 321TAble 20Status of ratification of international conventions and agreements as of 1 January 2010UNCCD d ITTA e CITES f Ramsar g WorldCountry/Area CBD a UNFCCC b KyotoProtocol c HeritageConvention hNLBI iAngola X X X X X Xbotswana X X X X X X X XComoros X X X X X X X XDjibouti X X X X X X X Xeritrea X X X X X X Xethiopia X X X X X X XKenya X X X X X X X Xlesotho X X X X X X X XMadagascar X X X X X X X XMalawi X X X X X X X XMauritius X X X X X X X XMayotteMozambique X X X X X X X XNamibia X X X X X X X XRéunionSeychelles X X X X X X X XSomalia X X X X XSouth Africa X X X X X X X XSwaziland X X X X X X XUganda X X X X X X X XUnited Republic of Tanzania X X X X X X X XZambia X X X X X X X XZimbabwe X X X X X X XEastern and Southern Africa 21 21 20 21 0 20 15 20 21Algeria X X X X X X X Xegypt X X X X X X X X Xlibyan Arab Jamahiriya X X X X X X X XMauritania X X X X X X X XMorocco X X X X X X X XSudan X X X X X X X XTunisia X X X X X X X XWestern SaharaNorthern Africa 7 7 7 7 1 7 7 7 7benin X X X X X X X Xburkina Faso X X X X X X X Xburundi X X X X X X X XCameroon X X X X X X X X XCape Verde X X X X X X X XCentral African Republic X X X X X X X X XChad X X X X X X X XCongo X X X X X X X X XCôte d’Ivoire X X X X X X X X XDemocratic Republic of the Congo X X X X X X X X Xequatorial Guinea X X X X X X X XGabon X X X X X X X X XGambia X X X X X X X XGhana X X X X X X X X X

322Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 20 (continued)Status of ratification of international conventions and agreements as of 1 January 2010UNCCD d ITTA e CITES f Ramsar g WorldCountry/Area CBD a UNFCCC b KyotoProtocol c HeritageConvention hNLBI iGuinea X X X X X X X XGuinea-bissau X X X X X X X Xliberia X X X X X X X X XMali X X X X X X X XNiger X X X X X X X XNigeria X X X X X X X X XRwanda X X X X X X X XSaint Helena, Ascension andTristan da CunhaSao Tome and Principe X X X X X X X XSenegal X X X X X X X XSierra leone X X X X X X X XTogo X X X X X X X X XWestern and Central Africa 25 25 25 25 10 25 25 25 25Africa 53 53 52 53 11 52 47 52 53China X X X X X X X X XDemocratic People’s Republic ofKoreaX X X X X XJapan X X X X X X X X XMongolia X X X X X X X XRepublic of Korea X X X X X X X X XEast Asia 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 5bangladesh X X X X X X X Xbhutan X X X X X X Xbrunei Darussalam X X X X X XCambodia X X X X X X X X XIndia X X X X X X X X XIndonesia X X X X X X X X Xlao People’s Democratic Republic X X X X X X X XMalaysia X X X X X X X X XMaldives X X X X X XMyanmar X X X X X X X X XNepal X X X X X X X X XPakistan X X X X X X X XPhilippines X X X X X X X X XSingapore X X X X X XSri lanka X X X X X X X XThailand X X X X X X X X XTimor-leste X X X X XViet Nam X X X X X X X XSouth and Southeast Asia 18 18 18 18 8 16 13 15 18Afghanistan X X X X X XArmenia X X X X X X X XAzerbaijan X X X X X X X Xbahrain X X X X X X XCyprus X X X X X X X XGeorgia X X X X X X X X

Annex 3: Global tables 323TAble 20 (continued)Status of ratification of international conventions and agreements as of 1 January 2010UNCCD d ITTA e CITES f Ramsar g WorldCountry/Area CBD a UNFCCC b KyotoProtocol c HeritageConvention hNLBI iIran (Islamic Republic of) X X X X X X X XIraq X X X X X XIsrael X X X X X X X XJordan X X X X X X X XKazakhstan X X X X X X X XKuwait X X X X X X XKyrgyzstan X X X X X X X Xlebanon X X X X X X XOccupied Palestinian TerritoryOman X X X X X X XQatar X X X X X X XSaudi Arabia X X X X X X XSyrian Arab Republic X X X X X X X XTajikistan X X X X X X XTurkey X X X X X X X XTurkmenistan X X X X X X XUnited Arab emirates X X X X X X X XUzbekistan X X X X X X X XYemen X X X X X X X XWestern and Central Asia 24 24 23 23 0 19 19 24 24Asia 47 47 46 46 11 39 36 44 47Albania X X X X X X X XAndorra X X XAustria X X X X X X X X Xbelarus X X X X X X X Xbelgium X X X X X X X X Xbosnia and Herzegovina X X X X X X X Xbulgaria X X X X X X X XCroatia X X X X X X X XCzech Republic X X X X X X X XDenmark X X X X X X X X Xestonia X X X X X X XFaroe IslandsFinland X X X X X X X X XFrance X X X X X X X X XGermany X X X X X X X X XGibraltarGreece X X X X X X X X XGuernseyHoly SeeXHungary X X X X X X X XIceland X X X X X X X XIreland X X X X X X X X XIsle of ManItaly X X X X X X X X XJersey

324Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 20 (continued)Status of ratification of international conventions and agreements as of 1 January 2010UNCCD d ITTA e CITES f Ramsar g WorldCountry/Area CBD a UNFCCC b KyotoProtocol c HeritageConvention hNLBI ilatvia X X X X X X X Xliechtenstein X X X X X X Xlithuania X X X X X X X Xluxembourg X X X X X X X X XMalta X X X X X X X XMonaco X X X X X X X XMontenegro X X X X X X X XNetherlands X X X X X X X X XNorway X X X X X X X X XPoland X X X X X X X X XPortugal X X X X X X X X XRepublic of Moldova X X X X X X X XRomania X X X X X X X XRussian Federation X X X X X X X XSan Marino X X X X X X XSerbia X X X X X X X XSlovakia X X X X X X X XSlovenia X X X X X X X XSpain X X X X X X X X XSvalbard and Jan Mayen IslandsSweden X X X X X X X X XSwitzerland X X X X X X X X XThe former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedoniaX X X X X X X XUkraine X X X X X X X XUnited Kingdom X X X X X X X X XEurope 42 42 42 42 18 42 41 43 43AnguillaAntigua and barbuda X X X X X X X XArubabahamas X X X X X X Xbarbados X X X X X X X Xbermudabritish Virgin IslandsCayman IslandsCuba X X X X X X X XDominica X X X X X X XDominican Republic X X X X X X X XGrenada X X X X X X XGuadeloupeHaiti X X X X X XJamaica X X X X X X X XMartiniqueMontserratNetherlands AntillesPuerto Rico

Annex 3: Global tables 325TAble 20 (continued)Status of ratification of international conventions and agreements as of 1 January 2010UNCCD d ITTA e CITES f Ramsar g WorldCountry/Area CBD a UNFCCC b KyotoProtocol c HeritageConvention hNLBI iSaint Kitts and Nevis X X X X X X XSaint lucia X X X X X X X XSaint Martin (French part)Saint Vincent and the Grenadines X X X X X X XSaint barthélemyTrinidad and Tobago X X X X X X X X XTurks and Caicos IslandsUnited States Virgin IslandsCaribbean 13 13 13 13 1 12 8 12 13belize X X X X X X X XCosta Rica X X X X X X X Xel Salvador X X X X X X X XGuatemala X X X X X X X X XHonduras X X X X X X X X XNicaragua X X X X X X X XPanama X X X X X X X X XCentral America 7 7 7 7 3 7 7 7 7Canada X X X X X X X X XGreenlandMexico X X X X X X X X XSaint Pierre and MiquelonUnited States of America X X X X X X X XNorth America 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3North and Central America 22 23 23 23 7 22 18 22 23American SamoaAustralia X X X X X X X X XCook Islands X X X X XFiji X X X X X X X X XFrench PolynesiaGuamKiribati X X X X X XMarshall Islands X X X X X X XMicronesia (Federated States of) X X X X X XNauru X X X X XNew CaledoniaNew Zealand X X X X X X X X XNiue X X X X XNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsPalau X X X X X X X XPapua New Guinea X X X X X X X X XPitcairnSamoa X X X X X X X XSolomon Islands X X X X X X XTokelauTonga X X X X X X

326Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010TAble 20 (continued)Status of ratification of international conventions and agreements as of 1 January 2010UNCCD d ITTA e CITES f Ramsar g WorldCountry/Area CBD a UNFCCC b KyotoProtocol c HeritageConvention hNLBI iTuvalu X X X X XVanuatu X X X X X X X XWallis and Futuna IslandsOceania 16 16 16 16 5 8 7 14 14Argentina X X X X X X X Xbolivia (Plurinational State of) X X X X X X X X Xbrazil X X X X X X X X XChile X X X X X X X XColombia X X X X X X X X Xecuador X X X X X X X X XFalkland Islands (Malvinas)French GuianaGuyana X X X X X X X XParaguay X X X X X X X XPeru X X X X X X X X XSuriname X X X X X X X X XUruguay X X X X X X X XVenezuela (bolivarian Republic of) X X X X X X X X XSouth America 12 12 12 12 8 12 11 12 12World 192 193 191 192 60 175 160 187 192Note: Ratification in this table also covers accession, acceptance and approval. Ratification by a country also covers its dependent territories. However, toavoid double-counting these territories appear without an X in the table.Source:aCbD: http://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list/bUNFCCC: http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/items/2352.phpcKyoto Protocol: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.phpdUNCCD: http://www.unccd.int/convention/ratif/doeif.phpeITTA: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/fCITeS: http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/parties/alphabet.shtmlgRamsar: http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-about-parties-contracting-parties-to-23808/main/ramsar/1-36-123%5e23808_4000_0__hWorld Heritage Convention: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/iNlbI: http://www.un.org/en/members/

327Annex 4FRA 2010 Working papersThe key findings of FRA 2010, the country reports and all relevant background documents areavailable on the FAO web site www.fao.org/forestry/fra2010.A complete list of all the working papers prepared by the FRA programme can be found at:www.fao.org/forestry/site/2560/en.This annex lists those FRA Working Papers directly related to FRA 2010. Paper copies canbe requested by e-mail to fra@fao.org, or by ordinary mail to FAO, Forestry Department, FRAProgramme, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.E, F, S, A, R, C refers to the languages English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese and Russian.NumberTitle135 Specification of national reporting tables for FRA 2010 (E, F, S, A, R)142 Forest monitoring and assessment for climate change reporting: partnerships, capacitybuilding and delivery (E)143 Guidelines for country reporting to FRA 2010 (E, F, S, A, R)145 Proc. technical meeting of the national correspondents, Global Forest ResourcesAssessment 2010, 3–7 March 2008, Rome, Italy (E)146 Proc. FRA 2010 regional workshop for national correspondents for the Asian region,13–16 October 2008, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (E)147 Proc. FRA 2010 regional workshops for national correspondents and focal points forthe Pacific Region, 18-20 April 2008, Hanoi, Viet Nam; 19-21 November 2008, Nadi,Fiji (E)148 Proc. FRA 2010 regional workshop for national correspondents for AnglophoneAfrica, 7–9 October 2008, Nairobi, Kenya (E)150 Proc. FRA 2010 regional workshop for national correspondents and focal points forthe Near East region, 13–16 October 2008, Alexandria, Egypt (E)151 Compte-rendu de l’atelier régional FRA 2010 pour les correspondants nationaux etles points focaux des pays francophones de l’Afrique, 10–12 Décembre 2008, Bamako,Mali (F)152 Acta de la reunión regional de FRA 2010 para los corresponsales nacionales de hablahispana, 28–30 de octubre 2008, Brasilia (S)153 Proc. FRA 2010 regional workshop for national correspondents from EnglishspeakingLatin America and the Caribbean countries, 2–4 December 2008, Castries,Saint Lucia (E)154 Towards defining forest degradation: comparative analysis of existing definitions,8–10 September 2009, Rome, Italy, Simula, M. (E, F, S)

328Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010NumberTitle155 FRA 2010 remote sensing survey – An outline of objectives, data, methods andapproach (E)156 Community measurement of carbon stock change for REDD. Case studies onmeasuring and assessing forest degradation Skutsch, M.M, McCall, M.K., Karky,B., Zahabu E. & Peters-Guarin, G. (E)157 Addressing forest degradation in the context of joint forest management inUdaipur, India. Case studies on measuring and assessing forest degradation. Kleine,M., Shahabuddin, G. & Kant, P. (E)158 An operational approach to forest degradation. Case studies on measuring andassessing forest degradation. Bahamóndez, C., Martin, M., Müller-Using, S., Rojas,Y. & Vergara, G. (E)159 Defaunation and forest degradation in Central African logging concessions: how tomeasure the impacts of bush meat hunting on the ecosystem. Case studies on measuringand assessing forest degradation Nasi, R. & van Vliet, N. (E)160 Assessment of forest degradation by local communities: the case study of Ghana.Case studies on measuring and assessing forest degradation. Blay, D., Dwomoh,F.K. & Damnyag, L. (E)161 Integrating forest transects and remote sensing data to quantify carbon loss due toforest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. Case studies on measuring and assessingforest degradation. De Souza, C.M., Cochrane, M.A., Sales, M.H., Monteiro,A.L. & Mollicone, D. (E)162 Monitoring degradation in the scope of REDD. Case studies on measuring andassessing forest degradation Baldauf, T., Plugge, D., Rqibate, A. & Köhl, M. (E)163 Forest degradation in Nepal: review of data and methods. Case studies on measuringand assessing forest degradation. Acharya K.P. & Dangi, R.B. (E)164 Impact of developmental projects in the humid evergreen broad-leaved forest: Wasabipilot project at Lamperi, Western Bhutan. Case studies on measuring and assessingforest degradation Wangda, P., Gyaltshen, D. & Pradhan, R. (E)165 Measuring ecological impacts from logging in natural forests of the eastern Amazôniaas a tool to assess forest degradation. Case studies on measuring and assessing forestdegradation. Lentini, M.W., Zweede, J.C. & Holmes, T.P. (E)166 Global mapping and monitoring the extent of forest alteration: the intact forestlandscapes method. Case studies on measuring and assessing forest degradation.Potapov, P., Laestadius, L., Yaroshenko, A. & Turubanova, S. (E)167 Extrait de l’inventaire forestier des forêts classées autour de Bamako Etudes de cas surl’évaluation de la dégradation des forêts, Tangara, N.O. (F)168 Occupation des sols des forets classées du Niger et l’analyse des dynamiques dechangement Etudes de cas sur l’évaluation de la dégradation des forêts, Adamou, I. etGarba, A. (F)169 La dégradation des forêts en République Démocratique du Congo Etudes de cas surl’évaluation de la dégradation des forêts, Kamungandu, C.M. (F)

Annex 4: FRA 2010 working papers 329NumberTitle170 Surveillance et suivi de la santé des forêts au Maroc Etudes de cas sur l’évaluation de ladégradation des forêts Assali, F. (F)171 Technical meeting on assessment and monitoring of forest degradation 8-10 September2009, Rome, Italy-Summary report (2009) (E, F, S)172 Measuring and monitoring forest degradation through national forest monitoringassessment Case studies on measuring and assessing forest degradation Tavani,R., Saket, M., Piazza, M., Branthomme, A. & Altrell, D. (E)173 Analysis of the normalized differential vegetation index (NDVI) for the detection ofdegradation of forest coverage in Mexico 2008–2009 Case studies on measuring andassessing forest degradation Meneses Tovar, C.L. (E, S)174 “LADA-LOCAL” A local level land degradation assessment approach and a casestudy of its use in Senegal Case studies on measuring and assessing forest degradationBunning, S. & Ndiaye, D.S. (E)175 Results of pathological monitoring in degraded Russian forests Case studies onmeasuring and assessing forest degradation Moiseev, B. (E)176 Forest resources degradation accounting in Mongolia Case studies on measuring andassessing forest degradation Ykhanbai, H. (E)177 Terms and definitions for FRA 2010. Rome, Italy (E, F, S, A, R, C)

331Annex 5FRA 2010 meetings and workshopsVenue and dateRome, Italy17–18 January 2006Kotka, Finland12–16 June 2006Rome, Italy11–12 January 2007Rome, Italy3–7 March 2008Rome, Italy7 March 2008Hanoi, Viet Nam18–20 April 2008Victoria, Canada3–5 June 2008Nairobi, Kenya7–9 October 2008Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia13–16 October 2008Alexandria, Egypt13–16 October 2008Brasilia, Brazil28–30 October 2008Budapest, Hungary3–5 November 2008Name of meetingFifth meeting of the advisory group on global forest resources assessmentExpert consultation on global forest resources assessment: toward FRA2010Sixth meeting of the FAO advisory group on global forest resourceassessmentTechnical meeting of the national correspondents, global forest resourcesassessment 2010Seventh meeting of the advisory group on global forest resourcesassessmentPacific workshop on the global forest resources assessment 2010North American Forestry Commission Working Group on forestinventory, monitoring, and assessmentRegional workshop for national correspondents for Anglophone AfricaRegional workshop for national correspondents for the Asian regionRegional workshop for national correspondents and focal points for theNear East regionReunión regional de FRA 2010 para los corresponsales nacionales de hablahispanaRegional workshop for national correspondents from Russian-speakingEurope and CISDouala, Cameroun10–12 November 2008Nadi, Fiji17–21 November 2008Atelier sous-régional pour l’Afrique centrale sur l’évaluation des ressourcesforestières mondiales 2010FRA 2010 regional workshops for national correspondents and focalpoints for the Pacific regionCastries, Saint Lucia2–4 December 2008Bamako, Mali10–12 December 2008Regional workshop for national correspondents from English-SpeakingLatin America and the Caribbean countriesL’Atelier régional FRA 2010 pour les correspondants nationaux et lespoints focaux des pays francophones de l’Afrique

332Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Venue and dateRome, Italy18 March 2009Buenos Aires,Argentina22 October 2009Name of meetingEighth meeting of the FAO advisory group on global forest resourceassessmentNinth meeting of the FAO advisory group on global forest resourceassessment

333Annex 6Earlier global assessmentsFAO was founded on 16 October 1945. At the first session of the Conference ofFAO, the need for up-to-date information on the forest resources of the world washighlighted. This reflected concern for a possible future lack of timber, not leastdue to the needs for reconstruction after the Second World War and for supportto development in tropical countries. It was recommended, therefore, that a globalforest resources inventory should be undertaken as soon as possible. In May 1946,the Forestry and Forest Products Division was founded and work initiated on FAO’sfirst worldwide assessment of forests, published two years later (FAO, 1948). Afterreviewing the results of this assessment, the sixth session of the FAO Conferencerecommended that the Organization “maintain a permanent capability to provideinformation on the state of forest resources worldwide on a continuing basis” (FAO,1951). Since that time, regional and global surveys have been conducted every five toten years. Each has taken a somewhat different form.Statistics released by FAO on world forest area from 1948 through 1963 werelargely collected through questionnaires sent to the countries. The assessments since1980 have taken a more solid technical form, being based on analysis of countryreferences supported by expert judgements, remote sensing and statistical modelling.FRA 2000 was based on a range of references and information on forest area, thecondition of forests and their management, forest services and NWFPs. FRA 2000 wasalso notable for applying, for the first time, a single definition of forest at the globallevel with common minimum thresholds, including a 10 percent crown cover density.FRA 2005 was the most comprehensive assessment of its time, and encouragedactive participation by reporting countries. More than 800 people were involved inthe process, including 172 officially nominated country correspondents, togetherwith their national teams, the FRA advisory group, FAO and UNECE staff,consultants and volunteers from all around the world. Information was gathered andanalysed for 229 countries at three points in time: 1990, 2000 and 2005. The FAOteam, countries and specialists worked together on the design and implementationof FRA 2005, through expert consultations, training courses, regional meetings andongoing communication. The FRA 2005 process resulted in greater knowledge offorest resources and forestry, facilitated transparent reporting, and enhanced nationalcapacity to collect, analyse and report on more than 40 variables covering the extent,condition, uses and values of forest resources and other wooded land. The findingswere presented according to six main themes and aimed at assessing progress towardssustainable forest management.Statistics from the different assessments do not lend themselves to comparativeanalysis, owing to changes in baseline information, methods and definitions.However, better correlations can be achieved for time series in many countries forcertain assessments, especially with information generated since 1980. Consistentdefinitions of forests were applied for developing countries for subsequent assessments– and for all countries as of FRA 2000.FAO’S GLOBAL AND REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS 1946–2001Forest resources of the world (1948)For the first global survey, Forest resources of the world (FAO, 1948), a questionnairewas sent to all countries, with 101 responding, which represented about 66 percent of

334Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010the world’s forests. Parameters included were forest area (total and productive), typesof forest by accessibility of wood resources, growth and fellings.One of the noteworthy conclusions of the first report was that:“All these investigations made valuable additions to our knowledge, but allsuffered from certain fundamental difficulties. Most important of these were thelack of reliable forest inventory information … and the lack of commonly accepteddefinitions of some of the more important forestry terms. Hence, to the weakness ofsome of the quantitative estimates, there was added doubt as to the real meanings ofsome of the qualitative descriptions” (FAO, 1948).While technical and scientific advances have greatly increased the potential toimprove the information base in countries, many still lack the training, institutionaland financial resources to conduct periodic assessments.Major findings on forest area and forest area change• Total forest area (global): 4.0 billion hectares• Net forest change (global): not reportedWorld forest inventories (1953, 1958 and 1963)World forest inventories were carried out on three occasions during the 1950s and1960s. Lanly (1983) describes these various inventories:...126 countries and territories replied to the 1953 questionnaire representing about73 percent of the world forest area. The picture was completed by information fromthe replies to the 1947 questionnaire for 10 other countries (representing 3 percent ofthe total world forested area) and official statistics for the remaining 57 countries,representing 24 percent of the world forest area. The results were published by FAOin 1955 under the title World forest resources – results of the inventory undertakenin 1953 by the Forestry Division of FAO.The 1958 inventory … (World Forest Inventory 1958 – the third in the quinquennialseries compiled by the Forestry and Forest Products Division of FAO) [FAO, 1960]utilized the replies of the 143 countries or territories, representing 88 percent ofthe world forest area, complemented by the replies to the 1953 questionnaire for13 countries (2 percent) and to the 1947 questionnaire for 5 countries (3 percent).Necessary changes and precisions introduced in the definition of some concepts,more precise definitions of forests and changes in such concepts as forest-in-use andaccessible forests affected comparability with the previous inventories. However,changes in area and other forest characteristics during the 1953-58 period were,for several countries, either reported directly from them or could be derived bycomparison of the replies to both questionnaires (changes in area of permanentforests, in management status ... increase in accessible areas and in forest-in-use,afforested area between 1953 and 1957, etc.).The World Forest Inventory 1963 published by FAO in 1965 witnessed a slightlylower rate of response (105 compared to 130), “at least partly accounted for bytemporary strains on administration in countries gaining their independence” aswas reported in the document. Again comparability with the former enquiries waslimited, and, as pointed out by the authors of the report, “large differences for somecountries (between the results of the 1958 and 1963 enquiries) resulted more frombetter knowledge about the forests, or stricter application of definitions, than fromeffective changes in the forest resources”.The main parameters assessed during the World forest inventory 1963 were forestarea (total, productive and protected), ownership, management status, composition(softwoods and hardwoods), growing stock and removals (FAO, 1966).

Annex 6: Earlier Global Assessments 335Major findings on forest area and forest area change (1963)• Total forest area (global): 3.8 billion hectares• Net forest change: not reportedRegional forest resources assessments (1970s)During the 1970s, FAO did not carry out global surveys. Instead, a series of regionalassessments were conducted, with the intention that each would be more appropriateand specific to the regions. Beginning in the late 1960s, FAO sent out questionnairesto all industrialized countries. The results were published in 1976 as Forest resourcesof the European Region (FAO, 1976b). Questionnaires were also sent to Asia andLatin America, and the results were published in Forest resources in the Asia and FarEast Region (FAO, 1976c) and Appraisal of forest resources of the Latin AmericanRegion (FAO, 1976a). A similar questionnaire was sent to African countries by theDepartment of Forest Survey of the Swedish Royal College of Forestry and the resultspublished in Forest resources of Africa – an approach to international forest resourcesappraisal, Part I: country descriptions (Persson, 1975) and Part II: Regional analyses(Persson, 1977).According to Lanly (1983), the regional assessments of the developing countries hadthe following main features in common:• they were based only in part upon questionnaires, the rest of the informationhaving been collected in another form, in particular through travel to countries ofthe region concerned;• they included more qualitative information (description of forest types, indicationof species planted, quotation of figures on volumes and other stand characteristicsextracted from inventory reports, etc.), while the World Forest Inventoryassessments were essentially statistical;• in addition to regional statistical tables, country notes were prepared regroupingthe quantitative information selected for each country;• since the information provided was not limited to the replies to the questionnaires,the draft country notes were sent back to the national forest institutions for theircomments and suggested amendments.Although FAO did not compile the regional findings into a global synthesis, aglobal survey was done outside FAO and published in World forest resources – reviewof the world’s forest resources in the early 1970s (Persson, 1974). Another FAO study,Attempt at an assessment of the world’s tropical moist forests (Sommer, 1976), provideda summary of findings on the forest situation in all tropical moist forests.FRA 1980FRA 1980 covered 97 percent of the land area of developing countries or 76 tropicalcountries: 37 in Africa, 16 in Asia and 23 in Latin America and the Caribbean. FRA 1980was distinguished by many features. Its breadth was the greatest up to that time, andin many cases remains unmatched by more recent assessments. It is also notable as thefirst assessment to use a definition of forests in which measurable parameters wereindicated – 10 percent canopy cover density, minimum tree height of 7 m and 10 haas the minimum area. Previous assessments had relatively broad definitions, whichcould be interpreted quite differently by different countries. This consistent definitionprovided parameters useful in adjusting country information to a common standard.An adjustment in time was also made, using expert opinion to project the informationto common reference years of 1976, 1980, 1981 and 1985.FRA 1980 relied extensively on existing documentation from countries to formulateits estimates of forest area (status and change), plantation resources and wood volume.

336Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010Existing information from multiple sources in the countries was gathered and analysed.Dialogues with national and international experts on information utility and reliabilityhelped to firm up country estimates. The assessment noted that information wasabundant, but that it was hard to locate and synthesize in the coherent manner neededfor a consistent global survey.Extended narratives, explanatory text and qualitative information complementedthe statistical data set. During the tenure of FRA 1980, FAO was conducting extensivework on forest inventories in tropical countries. Roughly one project existed for everytwo to three countries, and FAO experts in the projects provided valuable input to the1980 assessment results.In major forested areas for which existing information was lacking, the assessmentconducted manual interpretations of satellite imagery (1:1 000 000 scale). This wasdone for six Latin American countries, two African countries, two Asian countries andportions of two other Asian countries. The interpretations covered about 70–99 percentof these countries, using 55 satellite images.The final documentation for FRA 1980 included three volumes of country briefs(one for each developing country region) (FAO, 1981a, b and c), three regionalsummaries and a condensed main report, published as an FAO Forestry Paper (FAO,1982). While the findings were not global, FRA 1980 was used again in 1988 to makean interim global assessment.Major findings on forest area and forest area change• Total forest area (tropical developing countries only) 1980: 2.1 billion hectares(natural forests and plantations)• Net forest change (tropical developing countries only) 1981–1985: -10.2 millionhectares per year• Net forest change (global): not reportedInterim assessment 1988The Interim report on the state of forest resources in the developing countries (FAO,1988) provided information on 129 developing countries (53 more than FRA 1980)as well as on industrialized countries. The report provided information on the stateof forests in the year 1980 and changes over the period 1981–1985. Definitions variedbetween the industrialized and developing countries specifically for crown coverthresholds for forests, which were set at 20 percent for industrialized countries and10 percent for developing ones. Information on the industrialized countries wascollected by UNECE in Geneva, which drew on the report Forest resources of the ECEregion (Europe, the USSR, North America) (UNECE and FAO, 1985). Parametersvaried as well for the two groups of countries. Thus a global synthesis of core elementswas needed in order to achieve a uniform global data set.Elements of the global synthesis included forest, operable forest, inoperable forest,other wooded land, broad-leaved forest and coniferous forest.Major findings on forest area and forest area change• Total forest area (global) 1980: 3.6 billion hectares• Net forest change (tropical developing countries) 1981–1985: -11.4 millionhectares per year• Net forest change (global): not reportedFRA 1990FRA 1990 (FAO, 1995) covered all developing and industrialized countries andwas distinguished by two innovations: the development and use of a computerized‘deforestation model’, which was applied to the developing country data in order to

Annex 6: Earlier Global Assessments 337project forest area statistics to a common reference year; and an independent, pantropicalremote sensing survey of forest change based on high-resolution remotesensing data.FRA 1990 sought to improve estimates by eliminating the bias in expert opinionsthrough a statistical model for predicting forest area loss (and thus deforestation rates).The model was based on forest area change derived from the few comparable multidateassessments available. Deforestation rates were then regressed against independentvariables to determine the rate of forest loss relative to changes in population densitieswithin specific ecological zones. Forest area change rates were obtained by applyingthe model to available baseline statistics for the countries.The advantages of the 1990 method were the near-uniformity achieved by applyingthe model equally to almost all developing countries and the ability to streamlinethe production of statistics using computer routines. 38 The disadvantages of the 1990method were the low number of variables used in the deforestation algorithm and thelow number of observations used to construct the model, introducing a relatively highrandom error (i.e. low precision) in country estimates.Because of the many uncertainties involved in working with existing national data,FRA 1990 implemented a remote sensing survey to provide a quality-controlled set ofstatistics on forest resources. The use of statistical sampling combined with a uniformdata source (satellite imagery) and standard data-collection methods were importanttools in providing a set of statistics to compare with the country data.The survey relied on statistical sampling (10 percent) of the world’s tropical foreststhrough 117 sample units distributed throughout the tropics. Based on the sampling,estimates were produced of the status of and changes in tropical forests at regional,ecological and pan-tropical levels (but not at the national level). Each of the sampleunits consisted of multi-date, Landsat satellite images, which provided the rawmaterial for producing statistics on forest and other land cover changes from 1980to 1990.FAO used an interdependent, manual interpretation of satellite scenes at a scaleof 1:250 000, conducted by local professionals, where possible, and internationallyexperienced professionals in other areas. Multi-date image interpretations weremanually compared to one another. Ground information was incorporated into about50 percent of the interpretations. In some areas, ground truthing was not necessary,owing to the large and consistent amount of forest. In other locations, especially wherethe composition of the landscape was highly differentiated, it was found to be veryvaluable.The principal output of the remote sensing survey was a change matrix thatillustrated and quantified how the forest and landscape change over time. The forestand land cover classification scheme of the remote sensing survey was linked closely tothe FRA classes for global reporting by countries.Different definitions of forests for developing and industrialized countries limitedthe utility of the final global synthesis, as did the absence of change information onforests in industrialized countries. Only changes in the area of forest, combined withother wooded land, were assessed (the definition of forest was again set at 20 percentcrown cover density for industrialized countries and 10 percent for developingcountries).The assessment covered the parameters of volume, biomass, annual harvesting(tropics) and plantations. Brief summaries were also prepared on conservation, forest38Two different models were used – one for the tropics and one for subtropical areas. Other differencesamong countries included the lack of: baseline data in some countries, a uniform ecological map andcomparable multi-date observations.

338Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010management and biological diversity. Unfortunately, the country briefs prominent inFRA 1980 were discontinued.Major findings on forest area and forest area change• Total forest area (global) 1990: 3.4 billion hectares• Net forest change (tropical developing countries) 1980–1990: -13.6 millionhectares per year• Net forest change (global) 1980–1990: -9.9 million hectares per year (forest andother wooded land combined)Interim 1995 assessmentAn interim 1995 assessment was published in State of the World’s Forests 1997 (FAO,1997). This report published new statistics on forest area status and change for allcountries with a reference year of 1995, and a change interval from 1991–1995. Thedefinition of forest set canopy closure thresholds at 20 percent for industrializedcountries and 10 percent for developing countries.The baseline information set was drawn, with a minimum of updating, fromFRA 1990 data and had an average reference year of 1983. Although FAO contacted alldeveloping countries and requested their latest inventory reports, updated informationwas submitted and used only for Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines and Sierra Leone.The FRA 1990 deforestation model was used to adjust developing country statisticsto standard reference years (1991 and 1995). No adjustments to standard referenceyears were made for industrialized country statistics. Consequently, the industrializedand developing country data were not harmonized in terms of their definitions orreference year.Major findings on forest area and forest area change• Total forest area (global) 1995: 3.4 billion hectares• Net forest change (tropical developing countries) 1990–1995: -12.7 millionhectares per year• Net forest change (global): -11.3 million hectares per year (total forests)FRA 2000FRA 2000 improved on previous assessments in several ways. It covered more countriesand parameters and used a single global definition of forest. The average nationalinventory year for information was closer to the global reporting year than in previousassessments. More support than in the past was given to country capacity-building;and new technologies, such as remote sensing, were used extensively. Reliability of theresults was thus greatly enhanced, but there were still many information gaps.In FRA 2000, a uniform definition of forest – 10 percent canopy cover – was usedfor all regions of the world. Revised estimates were made for the area of temperate andboreal forests in 1990 using the definition and methodology adopted in 2000.An independent remote sensing survey used the same 117 sample units used inFRA 1990 and added recent Landsat satellite images, which made the productionof statistics possible on forest and other land cover changes from 1980 to 2000. Theresulting change matrix illustrated and quantified changes in the forest and landscapeover time. The survey showed different patterns among regions within the tropics,which may have reflected general land-use patterns and policies. In Latin America,large-scale, direct conversion of forests dominated. Direct conversions also dominatedin Africa, but on a smaller scale. In Asia, the area of gradual conversions (intensificationof shifting agriculture) was equal to the direct conversions from forests to other land

Annex 6: Earlier Global Assessments 339uses. At the global level, direct conversions dominated the picture, accounting forabout three-quarters of the converted area. Most tropical deforestation was thus aresult of rapid, planned or large-scale conversion to other land uses, mainly agriculture.Efforts were made to increase the transparency and availability of backgroundinformation. Many working papers were published in order to provide details onkey countries and topics. Statistics, together with their underlying analyses andassumptions, were published on the FAO website. Countries were officially requestedto confirm their key statistics before publication. As a follow-up, a dedicated issue ofUnasylva (FAO, 2002) reviewed forest resources assessment processes at global andnational levels. The Kotka IV expert consultation in 2002 also reviewed the FRA 2000process and results (Luhtala and Varjo, 2003).Major findings on forest area and forest area change• Total forest area (global) 2000: Nearly 3.9 billion hectares, of which 95 percentwas natural forest and 5 percent forest plantations• Net forest change (global) 1990–2000: -9.4 million hectares per year (forest)• Global deforestation 1990–2000: 14.6 million hectares per year• Global increase in forest area due to afforestation and natural expansion of forestsduring the same period: average of 5.2 million hectares per year• Net forest change (tropical countries) 1990–2000: -12.3 million hectares per year• Net forest change (non-tropical countries) 1990–2000: +2.9 million hectares peryearFRA 2005The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 (FRA 2005) involved more than800 people including national correspondents and their teams, an advisory group,international experts, FAO and UNECE staff, consultants and volunteers from aroundthe world.Information was collected and analysed for 229 countries and areas for three pointsin time: 1990, 2000 and 2005. FAO worked closely with countries and specialistsin the design and implementation of FRA 2005 – through regular contact, expertconsultations, training for national correspondents and ten regional and subregionalworkshops. This process represented a truly global partnership that resulted inimproved knowledge of the world’s forests and forestry, a more transparent reportingprocess, and enhanced capacity in data analysis and reporting.FRA 2005 examined the status and recent trends for more than 40 variables coveringthe extent, condition, uses and values of forests and other wooded land, with the aimof assessing the benefits derived from forest resources. The results were presentedaccording to six themes representing important elements of sustainable forestmanagement:• extent of forest resources;• biological diversity;• forest health and vitality;• productive functions of forest resources;• protective functions of forest resources;• socio-economic functions.Major findings on forest area and forest area change• Total forest area (global) 2005: Just over 3.95 billion hectares, of which primaryforest accounted for 36 percent, modified natural forest accounted for 53 percent,semi-natural forest accounted for 7 percent, productive plantations for 3 percentand protective plantations 0.8 percent

340Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010• Net forest change (global) 1990–2000: -8.9 million hectares per year (forest)• Net forest change (global) 2000–2005: -7.3 million hectares per year (forest)• Global deforestation 1990–2005: 13 million hectares per year with no significantchange over time• Global increase in forest area due to afforestation and natural expansion of forests:an average of 4.1 million hectares per year during 1990–2000 and 5.7 millionhectares per year during 2000–2005

163FAO FORESTRY PAPERGlobal Forest ResourcesAssessment 2010Main reportThe Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 (FRA 2010) isthe most comprehensive assessment of the world’s forestsever. It covers 233 countries and areas for the period 1990 to2010. This publication, the main report of FRA 2010, containscountry data, contributed by national correspondents andreviewed and collated by FAO, for more than 90 keyvariables related to the extent, condition, uses and values offorests. Seven core chapters evaluate the status and trendsfor key aspects of sustainable forest management: extent offorest resources; forest biological diversity; forest health andvitality; productive functions of forest resources; protectivefunctions of forest resources; socio-economic functions offorests; and the legal, policy and institutional frameworkguiding the conservation, management and use of theworld’s forests. Based on these results, the report analysesprogress being made towards sustainable forestmanagement over the past 20 years, with a series of “trafficlights” indicating where there is cause for optimism andwhere there is cause for alarm. This report is an essentialreference for anyone interested in the status of the world’sforests and will support policies, decisions and negotiationsin all matters where forests and forestry play a part.ISBN 978-92-5-106654-6 ISSN 0258-61509 7 8 9 2 5 1 0 6 6 5 4 6I1757E/1/09.10

Global Forest Resources - Member States Portal

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?