Summary 10

Gilbert N. Forest definition comes under fire. Nature [Internet]. 2009 Aug 19 [cited 2009 Sept 17]; doi:10.1038/news.2009.842 . Available from: http://www.nature.com.mutex.gmu.edu/news/2009/090819/full/news.2009.842.html

A study published in the journal Conservation Letters, by Harvard ecologist, Sasaki, says that the health of the world’s forests could be in trouble if the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change doesn’t change the definition of the word “forest”. As it stands now the term forest can be designated by individual countries within a fairly loose framework. A forest must be 0.05 to 1 hectare minimum, at least 10 to 30 percent of the area is covered in a tree canopy, and the minimum size of trees must be 2 to 5 meters. This means that in some countries, a forest is 0.05 hectares, 10 percent is covered by a canopy, and the trees are 2 meters tall. The big problem here is that this allows the larger trees to be removed by lumber companies and have the area still be considered a forest. The larger trees are the ones that handle 70 percent of carbon storage so those are the ones that need to be maintained.
Sasaki suggests that the law be changed so that the minimum canopy cover should be 40 percent. He also feels that the minimum tree height needs to be 5 meters so that deforestation is discouraged. In the current plan, plantations are not differentiated from natural forests; this too is a problem that needs to be resolved. Some scientists say that while Sasaki’s ideas are common sense, there is not enough research to prove his theories. Lawmakers will decide either way at Copenhagen this year.