Forests: What's in the word? There are dangers when simple definitions are applied.

Defining a forest has far-reaching ecological and social ramifications. Will the current international organisations give short shrift to the mother earth and environment as it comes up with a final definition?

Forests are viewed, defined, assessed, and valued through different lenses. From different vantage points, forests can be seen as a source of timber products, an ecosystem composed of trees along with myriad forms of biological diversity, a home for indigenous people, a repository for carbon storage, a source of multiple ecosystem services, and as social-ecological systems, or as all of the above. Forests are globally important in regulating climate and locally important in sustaining communities and supporting biodiversity. But they, and the people who depend on them, are under increasing pressure.

Borigumma block Koraput, Odisha: Photo by Arun Kashyap

Great quantities of carbon and other environmental values will be lost when natural forests are severely degraded or replaced by plantations but technically remain “forests.” Acknowledge monocultural fast wood plantations for the industry cannot be compared to old-growth natural forests, and that a statistic that lumps them together under the term ‘forest’ is misleading. I recommend that natural forest be differentiated from plantations and that for defining “forest” the lower height limit defining “trees” be set at more than 18 feet tall at maturity in and area of > 6 - 9 ha with the minimum cover of trees be set at more than 45%. At he same time I don't underestimate the function of nature in making every natural element balanced and complete in its individuality and in connection with many other. A diverse set of forest definitions is needed to capture this forest concept in all its dimensions. Therefore it's suggested to not overrule the inclusion of safeguard diverse habitats to enhance the nature conservation value of all our forests to become as real forest. Only 13% of the world’s forests are formally protected for biodiversity conservation, and most of the remaining forest area is used for wood production and other commodities (FAO, 2016). Indeed, the currently broad definition of forest can be used as a smokescreen for hiding the environmentally significant change that only serves humans in their private sector goals, rather than those of the local, national or international communities and other living species diversity.

The NGOs request a change of forest definition to one that matches the positive public image of forests as a storehouse of biodiversity and provider of a range of ‘ecosystem services’, such as pest control, carbon sequestration, soil enhancement, erosion control, improved hydrology and many more. Such a change, however, would not be particularly welcomed by the primary clients and stakeholders of the FAO as an international organization: the ministries of Forestry and similar government bodies of the constituent nations.

Or there cannot be any uniform criteria to define forest which can be applicable to all forest types” in all countries and states.

Given the variety of ways that forests are perceived and valued, the adopted definitions are likely to vary among countries and could include a variety of components, but explicit and appropriate definitions are nonetheless of paramount importance at the country level. From the ‘‘land cover’’ perspective, forests are viewed as ecosystems or vegetation types supporting unique assemblages of plants and animals. But from the ‘‘land use’’ perspective, forests are landholdings that are legally designated as forest, regardless of their current vegetation.

Created Relevance for pleasing the statistics, reports and the parties.

Many scientists have commented on the lack of correspondence between these two concepts, with ‘trees outside forests’ and ‘forests without trees’ as a consequence. Nobody cared much about this discrepancy, however, until the climate change debate started to single out forests for special treatment among the many types of land cover change. Forest institutions saw their chance to get global attention – but only if they could keep the lid on the debate of what is (not) a forest. For example, the estimate of global forest area increased by 300 million ha (approximately 10 %) between 1990 and 2000 simply because the FRA (Forest Resources Assessment) changed its global definition of forest, reducing the minimum height from 7 to 5 m, reducing the minimum area from 1.0 to 0.5 hectares (ha) and reducing minimum crown cover from 20 to 10 % (FAO 2000). In Australia, where trees often occur in open vegetation formations, this reclassification led to the acquisition of an additional 118 million ha of forest (Matthews 2001).

Why definition Matters and should be questioned?

There is simplistic relation between forests, Eco-balance and environmental benefits to the society and mean much to the lives and livelihoods of the communities living in and around them, and also provide tangible and intangible ecosystem services to all those living away. Forests regulate the climate (FAO and UNEP 2020), absorb carbon from the atmosphere (−15.6 ± 49  gigatons of CO2 equivalent [GtCO2e] gross annually, between 2001 and 2019) (Harris et al. 2021), and provide habitat for 80 percent, 75 percent and 68 percent of all amphibian, bird and mammal species, respectively (Vié, Hilton-Taylor and Stuart 2009). They contribute to precipitation, regulate streamflow and foster groundwater recharge (FAO 2019), providing drinking water to one-third of the world’s largest cities (HLPE 2017). Food, shelter, energy, medicines and around 86 million associated jobs come from forest products (FAO 2018; FAO 2014).

---

Reference:

LINKS

• http://blog.worldagroforestry.org/index.php/2015/03/16/forests-whats-in-a-name/

• https://www.iucn.org/theme/forests