“Wood is made from trees. Trees grow in forests and deforestation is bad.”
_-
While all of the above statements can be generally stated as “true”, it is vitally important for us to look closer at what each of those words even mean. Depending on who you’re talking to, the words “tree”, “forest”, and “deforestation” can mean a great many different things. A forestry professional will say one thing. A logger might say another. Lastly, many NGO’s and conservation groups have their own set of definitions that they must use in assessing places of crisis…and yet all of these definitions rarely come to a consensus. In the worlds of ecology, materials manufacture and conservation even basic nouns can’t be taken for granted.
-

_
_
TREES
First let’s start with the word “tree”. It actually isn’t a scientific term at all. In fact, the word “tree” is an entirely man-made concept, and is used simply to denote any plant which grows a long singular trunk of a considerable height with a slow reproductive pattern and a longer life span (average 100 years). In certain climates many species generally considered to be “trees” will remain only low-lying “shrubs”, while in other places they tower over us like behemoths. What’s more, many dense hanging jungle vines (lianas) can acquire trunks of substantial girth, and yet we don’t consider them to be “trees”. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the designation of “tree” is a “human concept based on visual criteria” and is “an artificial category”. No wonder the Lorax had so much trouble: one can’t very easily “speak for the trees” when you don’t even really know what a “tree” is.

Forests:
Ok. So trees are a made up concept. Well, what about forests? It’s easy to spot a forest, right? It seems like an obvious answer, but the definition for the word “forest”, according to many forestry and conservation groups, is a difficult entity to pin down. Just how many “trees” does it take to make a forest? How large must the land be, and can it be used simultaneously for anything else? Must it contain exclusively native animal and plant species or can it simply be a collection of replanted trees devoid of any animal life? Once all of these factors are taken into consideration it becomes obvious that a forest is a great deal more than just potential lumber. In fact, according to some sources there are nearly 250 standing definitions for the word forest. This is getting complicated.
_
Here’s where the professionals come in. Maybe they can sort this out:
-
Many orgnanizations such as the UNFAO, the UNEP/CBD and the UNFCCC define forests based on their percentage of canopy cover as well as other parameters. Here are their definitions:
-
UNFAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization): “Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly under agriculture or urban use.”
-
UNEP/CBD 2001: (United Nations Environmental Program/ Center for Biological Diversity) “Forest is a land area of more than 0.5 ha, with a tree canopy cover of more than 10 percent, which is not primarily under agriculture or other specific non-forest land use. In the case of young forest or regions where tree growth is climatically suppressed, the trees should be capable of reaching a height of 5 m in situ, and of meeting the canopy cover requirement.”
-
UNFCCC, 2001: (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) “Forest is a minimum area of land of 0.05-1.0 hectares with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10-30 per cent with trees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2-5 metres at maturity in situ. A forest may consist either of closed forest formations where trees of various storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground or open forest. Young natural stands and all plantations which have yet to reach a crown density of 10-30 per cent or tree height of 2-5 metres are included under forest, as are areas normally forming part of the forest area which are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest.”
_-
As you can see, there are some factors within these definitions that are common: a canopy cover of 10-30%, at least .5-1 hectare in surface area, a minimum height of 5 meters, but the controversy over these definitions comes in, particularly in the case of the UNFCCC, with the second half of the definition: “Young natural stands and all plantations which have yet to reach a crown density of 10-30 per cent or tree height of 2-5 metres are included under forest, as are areas normally forming part of the forest area which are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest.”
_-
Uh…Plantations are not natural forest growth. They do not contain the diverse ecosystem which is supported and cultivated within a natural forest. Also, this definition means that land which has been clear cut but is expected to reforest (with no indication of when or how) can still be classified as “forests”. According to many non-profit and conservation groups, this leaves areas such as the African Congo, South America and Southeast Asia with far too much wiggle room.
-

Is this a forest?
-

Is this a forest?
-

How much of this is forest?
-
Seeing forests as multi-functional, biologically vital cornerstones of our global ecology (and economy) is a broad and complex issue. Knowing what is “the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time” in forest management is a multidisciplinary practice which includes the knowledge and input of botanists, biologists, zoologists, foresters, silviculturalists, arborists, wood specialists, wood and paper manufacturers, environmentally minded not for profits, international organizations…and us. So let’s get our words straight, can we?