Forest resources of the industrialized countries: An ECE/FAO assessment

A. V. Korotkov and T.J. Peck

Alexandre V. Korotkov and Tim J. Peck are, respectively, Economic Affairs Officer and former Director of the United Nations' Joint ECE/FAO Agriculture and Timber Division, Geneva.

Today, forest inventories are expected to provide an increasingly wide range of information about forest resources for people in many different disciplines, including legislators, policy-makers, the media, special interest groups (especially those concerned with the environment) and the general public. These new demands are being placed on national and regional as well as global inventories. This article summarizes the results of the latest assessment of the forest resources in the industrialized countries, undertaken in 1990 by the Joint Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) and FAO Agriculture and Timber Division (for main data summaries, see Tables 3a, 3b and 4).

A plot of plantation spruce in Scotland prior to commercial thinning

The 1990 assessment

The 1990 assessment of the industrialized countries' forest resources was implemented by means of a detailed enquiry (as were previous versions). The inquiry, including terms, definitions and a questionnaire covering the most important forestry inventory information, was circulated to all countries in Europe, the former USSR, Canada, the United States, Japan, Australia and New Zealand in the spring of 1990. Work on the assessment was coordinated by the ECE/FAO Agriculture and Timber Division in Geneva, supported by the Forestry Department of FAO in Rome. The main report, The forest resources of the temperate zones: the UN-ECE/FAO 1990 forest resource assessment, is published in two volumes (ECE/FAO, 1992; ECE/FAO, in press).

Compared with previous assessments, which date back to 1947, the new study contains more data of generally better quality and covering a wider range of aspects of the resource. It soon became clear, however, even before the report of the assessment was published, that the information it contained would still not fully satisfy present-day needs. By the time this issue of Unasylva appears, an ECE/FAO meeting of experts will have been held (during May 1993 in Kotka, Finland) to discuss information needs for the next global assessment, the extent to which countries may be able to develop their inventory systems to collect such data and the international agencies concerned to provide the structure for collating and analysing them.

Definitions · Forests are defined as land with a tree crown cover (stand density) of more than about 20 percent of the area. This includes both closed forest formations, where trees of various storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground, and open forest formations with a continuous grass layer in which tree synusia cover at least 10 percent of the ground. · Other wooded land has some forestry characteristics but is not forest as defined above. It includes open woodland and scrub, shrub and brushland, whether or not it is used for pasture or range. It excludes land occupied by trees outside the forest (e.g. trees as permanent boundaries on arable land, land under permanent tree crops such as orchards and trees in urban areas).

Forest area

For the industrialized countries in aggregate, the combined area of forest and other wooded land (see Box, Definitions) is 2.06 billion ha or 39 percent of the land area. However, the share of forest and other wooded land in total land varies widely at the country level, ranging from 68 percent in Japan and 77 percent in Finland down to 20 percent in Belgium and less than 10 percent in the United Kingdom.

The largest concentration of forests and other wooded land is in the countries constituting the former USSR (942 million ha), followed by North America (749 million ha), Europe (195 million ha) and other industrialized regions (178 million ha).

Based on an estimated population of 1.27 billion in the industrialized countries, there is on average about 1.6 ha of forest and other wooded land per caput in the industrialized regions. Here again, country variations are enormous. Canada, for example, has over 17 ha per caput while the former USSR and Sweden have 3.3 ha per caput. At the other end of the scale, Germany, Italy and Japan have 0.2 ha or less of forest land and other wooded land per caput and the Netherlands and the United Kingdom only 0.02 and 0.04 ha, respectively.

The number of forest reserves and protected areas in Europe seems destined to continue increasing

Ownership structure Ownership structure of forests and other wooded land varies from country to country according to historical, social, political and other factors. For Europe as a whole, half the area of forest and other wooded land at present is privately owned and the other half publicly owned. Among the market economy countries, Portugal, Norway and Austria have the highest shares in private ownership (91, 83 and 82 percent, respectively), while Turkey and Greece have the lowest (1 and 17 percent, respectively). Perhaps, in the coming years the ownership pattern in the countries of central and eastern Europe that are moving towards a market-oriented economy will change from virtually 100 percent state ownership (as is also the case in the former USSR) towards a more mixed pattern, comparable to Western Europe, but it is too early to predict how far this shift will go. In North America there is a marked contrast between Canada where 94 percent of forests are publicly owned, mainly by the provinces, and the United States where 72 percent are private, with the forest industries owning large areas. In Australia, between 70 and 75 percent of forest lands (not including other wooded lands) are publicly owned.

TABLE 1. Estimated subdivision of forest into exploitable and unexploitable areas in temperate regions

Region	Exploitable forest		Unexploitable forest
	(million ha)	(% of total)	(million ha)
Europe	133.0	89.1	16.3
Former USSR	414.0	54.8	340.9
Canada	112.1	45.3	135.1
United States	195.6	93.3	14.0
Australia	17.0	42.7	22.8

The assessment distinguishes between exploitable and unexploitable portions. Table 1 compares exploitable forest land with total forest area. Although part of the areas of other wooded land in the industrialized countries are also classified as exploitable, they are a relatively small portion of the total and there are some problems of definition. Therefore, they are excluded from Table 1. Exploitable forest is defined as forest where there are no legal, technical or economic restrictions on wood production. The term "exploitable" is intended to convey the idea of forest (or other wooded land) that is either in use as a source of wood or which is available and accessible, even if not yet being so used. Unexploitable forest is defined as areas where there are restrictions on wood production either for reasons of protection, as in national parks and nature reserves, or because physical productivity is too low or production costs too high to warrant regular wood harvesting.

Standing volume and growing stock

The difference between standing volume and growing stock is the volume of dead trees. Not all countries were able to provide comprehensive data covering either dead trees or all categories of forest and tree resources. Therefore, the estimate of 170 billion m³ over bark (o.b.) for the total standing volume of forest and tree resources in industrialized countries is approximate and almost certainly errs on the low side.

On the other hand, figures relating to exploitable forest are much more reliable. For instance, the total volume of growing stock on exploitable forests in the industrialized countries is estimated to be 112 billion m³ o.b.

Averages of growing stock per hectare of exploitable forest at the subregional level reveal the wide differences that one would expect to result from variations in growing conditions, management regimes and age class distribution. For example, in the countries of central-eastern Europe it is 204 m³ o.b./ha, in the former USSR (excluding Belarus and the Ukraine) 121 m³ o.b./ha and, on the Iberian peninsular only 70 m³ o.b./ha.

Species distribution

Species distribution can be shown better by the growing stock data than by area, because of the difficulties of finding common definitions of "coniferous forests" and "broad-leaved forests" based on area. Of the total growing stock of 112 billion m³ o.b. in exploitable forest of the industrialized countries, 75.5 billion m³ o.b. or almost two-thirds are coniferous. Largely as a result of the growing conditions, but to some extent influenced by management and use, the share of species varies appreciably from region to region. Coniferous species predominate in the Nordic countries, Canada and the former USSR. Only in southeastern Europe and Oceania do broad-leaved species predominate in the growing stock. However, there are a number of individual countries within predominantly coniferous regions where broad-leaved species form the larger portion; for example, in France 62 percent of the growing stock on exploitable forest is broadleaf.

Annual increment

A distinction is made in the assessment between gross annual increment and net annual increment (NAI), the difference being natural losses. The NAI figure is of particular value because it provides an indication of the productivity of the forest and also allows a direct comparison with the wood "drain" on the forest. Similar to statistics on growing stock, the most reliable figures for increment are generally those relating to exploitable forests; however, data could not be obtained for all countries.

The total NAI on exploitable forest in Europe amounted to 577 million m³ o.b. and, in the former USSR, to 700 million m³ o.b. For the United States and Canada these data are estimated by the joint ECE/FAO division to be at around 640 million m³ end 210 million m³, respectively. On a per hectare basis, the average NAI for Europe as a whole is 4.3 m³ o.b. while estimates for the former USSR are 1.7 m³ o.b., for the United States 3.9 m³ o.b. and for Canada 1.9 m³ o.b.

Figure 1. Estimated total fallings in industrialized regions around 1990

Figure 2. Net annual increment and fellings in exploitable forest, by subregions

Fellings and removals

A distinction is made between fellings and removals, the difference being the volume of felled timber that is not extracted from the forest. Total fellings in the industrialized countries around 1990 are estimated to have been 1.86 billion m³ o.b. (Fig. 1 gives a regional breakdown). The statistics on fellings (o.b.) are important because their comparison with the NAI figures gives an indication of the forest balance, i.e. whether growing stock volume is rising or falling.

As can be seen in Figure 2, the volume of fellings in exploitable forest in Europe in 1990 was significantly less than the NAI. Therefore, there was a net expansion of the growing stock. Unfortunately, a lack of data prevents a similar comparison for North America.

Changes over time - A comparison with previous assessments

Interest in the way and extent to which the forest resources of the industrialized countries have been changing has increased considerably in recent years, partly as a reaction to the evidence of serious declines in the area of tropical forests. The questionnaire for the 1990 assessment was modified and simplified with respect to the 1980 version in the aim of improving the possibility of analysing changes in forest resources over time. However, this aim has only been partly fulfilled: the information received is still not comprehensive; it has not been possible to retain exactly the same classifications and definitions used in the previous surveys, while the quality, coverage, accuracy and comprehensiveness of the data have been variable over time.

Changes in forest area

One parameter for which quite a number of countries found difficulty in providing reliable information was changes over time in the area of forest and other wooded land. No exact figures can be presented for the industrialized countries as a whole; however, it seems that there was a slight increase in total forest area between 1980 and 1990. In the case of Europe, it can be categorically stated that the area of forest increased between 1980 and 1990, a continuation of the trend since 1950. A tentative balance of changes over the decade (making assumptions about developments in countries that supplied incomplete or no data) is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Estimated changes in the area of Europe's forest and other wooded land between 1980 and 1990

In the industrialized countries, surplus agricultural land is being allowed to return to forest

While the total area of forest and other wooded land in Europe increased by an estimated 2 million ha between 1980 and 1990, it appears that the area of exploitable forest did not change significantly. It also appears that increases through afforestation or natural extension and conversion from other categories of forest and other wooded land have been offset by withdrawals into the unexploitable category - for instance, through designation as national parks, nature reserves or other protected areas or conversion to other land uses.

The former USSR officially reported a net gain of 22.6 million ha of forest and other wooded land between 1980 and 1990. Other non-official but generally reliable sources have estimated a much smaller increase of 10.6 million ha between 1978 and 1988, comprising an increase in forest area of 21.7 million ha, partly offset by a decrease of 11.1 million ha in other wooded land. Today, in view of the global importance of the Russian Federation's forests, there is an urgent need to obtain clarification of these figures.

No data on change over time were received from Canada and, for the same reason, it will be important to discover the trends in its forest resources. The United States and Japan were the only temperate zone countries to report reductions in the area of forest and other wooded land. In Japan there was a small net loss of 48 000 ha between 1980 and 1990; in the United States the net loss amounted to nearly 3.2 million ha between 1977 and 1987.

TABLE 2. Summary of replies to the inquiry on the importance of forest functions, by area

Region/function	Level of importance
	High	Medium	Low
	(Percentage of total area)1
Europe²
Wood production	54	24	22
Protection	11	17	72
Water	9	17	74
Grazing (range)	10	15	75
Hunting	27	55	18
Nature conservation	4	37	59
Recreation	12	39	49
Former USSR
Wood production	0	18	82
Protection	9	15	76
Water	7	17	76
Nature conservation	0	19	81
Recreation	2	11	87
United States
Wood production	36	41	23
Protection	36	30	34
Water	16	79	5
Grazing (range)	16	17	67
Hunting	9	45	46
Nature conservation	8	42	50
Recreation	19	33	48

¹ Public and private forest combined.
² Aggregate of replies received from 26 countries accounting for between 83 percent (for grazing) and 98 percent (for wood production, protection and hunting) of Europe's forest area covered by the enquiry.

Changes in growing stock, volume and fellings

Fellings in the industrialized countries have been expanding over the past four decades, with growth in industrial wood more than offsetting the declining trend - at least up to the mid-1970s - in fuelwood. After the first oil shock, fuelwood fellings started to recover before levelling off again during the 1980s, but they still account for only a minor share of the total in the industrialized countries. Despite the fact that fellings have been rising in those countries, the volumes involved in almost all of them were less than those of the NAI, which have also been expanding over the long term. As a result, therefore, one of the principal findings of the 1990 assessment is that, in terms of growing stock volume, there has been continuing expansion of the forest resource in the industrialized countries. This finding has considerable implications for forest policy in the long term.

It is noteworthy that changes related to forest damage and forest decline and various threats to the ecosystems of the temperate and boreal forests have not been explicitly dealt with in the 1990 assessment. These aspects, which have more potential impact on standing volume and quality than on area, are monitored in other ECE/FAO efforts, such as the annual surveys of forest decline and forest fires.

Benefits and functions of the forest

It was mentioned earlier that the widening circle of users of forest resource information is interested not only in the physical description of the resource but more and more in the role that it plays, or is capable of playing, in providing a range of functions. The 1980 ECE/FAO assessment of the forest resources of the ECE region was a first attempt at the international level to collect and publish information on the role of the forest in supplying environmental and other non-wood goods and services. This experiment, despite its shortcomings, was considered successful enough to be repeated in the 1990 assessment, although some changes in the approach were introduced.

In the 1990 assessment, countries were asked to divide the area of forest and other wooded land according to the level of importance (high, medium, low) they accorded to each of the following functions: wood production; protection; water; grazing (range); hunting (and trapping); nature conservation; and recreation.

Most of the industrialized countries were able to give estimates for each of the seven functions for public and private forests, but relatively few for other wooded land. Not at all surprisingly, there was considerable variation between countries in the levels of importance attached to the different functions, which to some extent could be seen to be related to such factors as the extent of forest cover, topography, climate, population density and standards of living. Care should therefore be taken in interpreting aggregated data (see Table 2). Notwithstanding the cautionary statement made above, the assessment clearly demonstrates that wood production remains the single most important function in practically all the industrialized countries.

TABLE 3a. Summary of the main statistics on forest resources in the industrialized countries: forest and wooded land

Counties	Years covered	Forest	Other wooded land	Net change in forest and other wooded land 1980-1990
	('000 ha)
Albania	1990	1 449	1 046	1
Austria	1986-1990	3 877	3 877	142
Belgium	1980	620	620	19
Bulgaria	1990	3 683	3 386	78
Cyprus	1990	280	140	21
Former Czechoslovakia	1988	4 491	4 491	20
Denmark	1979	466	466	10
Finland	1980-1989	23 373	20 112	55
France	1976-1988	14 155	13 110	30
Germany	1987-1989	10 7351	10 4901	-
of which:
- former Dem. Rep.	1988-1989	2 981	2 938	33
- former Fed. Rep.	1987-1989	7 754	7 552	436
Greece	1964-1987	6 032	2 512	9
Hungary	1990	1 675	1 675	82
Iceland	1970-1985	13 4	11	-
Ireland	1989	429	396	48
Israel	1989-1990	-	102	-
Italy	1988	8 550	6 750	-
Luxembourg	1989	87	85	1
Netherlands	1982-1985	334	334	10
Norway	1980-1986	9 565	8 697	0
Poland	1989	8 672	8 672	50
Portugal	1980-1986	3 102	2 755	138
Romania	1990	6 265	6 190	2
Spain	1990	25 622	8 388	9
Sweden	1985-1989	28 015	24 437	0
Switzerland	1983-1985	1 186	1 130	66
Turkey	1990	20 199	8 856	31
United Kingdom	1988-1989	2 380	2 207	242
Former Yugoslavia, SFR	1987-1988	9 453²	8 370	345
Total Europe		194 953	149 305	1 909
Former USSR	1988	941 530	754 958	22 600
of which:
- Belarus	1988	6 256	6 016	273
- Ukraine	1988	9 239	9 213	240
Canada	1986	453 300	247 164	-
United States	1987	295 9891	209 573	-3 165
Total North America		749 289	456 737	-
Japan	1985	24 718	24 158	-48
Australia	1990	145 613³	39 837	6
New Zealand	1987-1989	7 472	7 472	-
of which:
- plantations	1989	1 244	1 244	-
- natural forest	1987	6 228	6 228	-
Total other		177 8031	71 467	-42
GRAND TOTAL		2 063 5751	1 432 467	-

¹ UN-ECE/FAO secretariat estimates.
² No survey of other wooded land and trees outside the forest.
³ Pastures.

The assessment also included a question on the past and future changes in emphasis in countries' policies towards the functions of the forest, both over the preceding decade and during the 1990s. The replies suggest that, in the industrialized countries, increasing policy emphasis is being placed on protection, water, nature conservation and recreation.

Forest products other than wood

Information on non-wood forest products revealed the large number of such products being collected, some of them on a commercial scale. Among food products most frequently mentioned in the replies were berries and nuts of different kinds, mushrooms, game meat and honey. Of the non-food products, the main ones reported were Christmas trees, aromatic and medicinal herbs, foliage (greenery for decoration), resin and fodder. There are a few products of major commercial importance locally, an obvious example being cork and its importance for Portugal.

Some countries have made good progress in quantifying the production and harvest of some non-wood products and even in putting a value on them; to the extent that it could be provided, this information is being published in Volume II of the assessment (ECE/FAO, in press). We are still far, however, from being able to apply methodologies for the different functions or products of the forest which would give results that allow their relative importance to be assessed, whether in monetary terms or some other unit. This remains a major challenge for researchers.

TABLE 3b. Summary of the main statistics on forest resources in the industrialized countries: exploitable forest

Country	Exploitable forest
	Area	Growing stock		Net annual increment	Feelings
	('000 ha)	Total	Conifer
		(million m³ over bark)		('000 m³ over bark)
Albania	910	73	15	1 001	1 629
Austria	3 330	953	788	21 980	17 272
Belgium	620	90	54	4 457	3 326
Bulgaria	3 222	405	-	-	4 755
Cyprus	88	3	3	45	577
Former Czechoslovakia	4 491	991	725	31 023	20 152
Denmark	466	54	29	3 515	2 285
Finland	19 511	1 679	1 378	69 664	55 857
France	12 460	1 742	663	65 855	48 000
Germany of which:	9 852	2 674²	-	-	-
- former Dem. Rep.	2 476	476	340	16 5461	10 833
- former Fed. Rep.	7 376	2 198	14 76	-	31 819
Greece	2 289	149	77	3 317	3 376
Hungary	1 324	229	35	8 231	6 057
Iceland	-	-	-	-	-
Ireland	394	30	26	-	1 568
Israel	80	4	2	239	69
Italy	4 387	743	271	-	7 960
Luxembourg	82	20	-	-	360
Netherlands	331	52	29	2 394	1 300
Norway	6 638	571	468	17 633	11 814
Poland	8 460	1 380	1 074	30 464	27 318
Portugal	2 346	167	110	11 286	10 879
Romania	5 413	1 202	482	31 594	15 950
Spain	6 506	450	276	27 750	15 014
Sweden	22 048	2 471	2 104	91 005	57 543
Switzerland	1 093	360	264	5 8201	5 300
Turkey	6 642	759	549	-	17 152
United Kingdom	2 207	203	111	11 088	8 133
Former Yugoslavia	7 768	1 056	308	27 654	21 957
Total Europe	132 958³	185 09²	11 819²	576 700²	408 300²
Former USSR of which:	414 015	50 310	37 061	699 852	517 609
- Belarus	5 392	720	506	12 958	11 618
- Ukraine	5 820	895	509	20 800	14 560
Canada	112 077	14 855²	11 134	-	151 720
United States	195 596	23 092	13 128	-	619 587
Total North America	307 673	37 947	24 262	-	771 307
Japan	23 829²	2 861	1 785²	-	-
Australia	17 005	1 796	267²	358 401	19 959
New Zealand of which	2 060²	351²	319²	-	14 288²
- plantations	1 240	250	247	26 676	13 9061
- natural forest	820	101	72	-	3821
Total other	42 894	5 008	2 371	-	-
GRAND TOTAL	897 540³	111 774²	75 513²	-	-

¹ Estimates by national correspondents.
² UN-ECE/FAO secretariat estimates.
³ Data on "exploitable high forest and coppice".

National parks and nature reserves

All told, there are about 2.7 million ha of forest and other wooded land in national parks and nature reserves in the reporting European countries and 10.6 million ha in the former USSR. The United States reported 339 national parks, the area of which was not provided, and Australia 514, with an area of 18.6 million ha. Australia also reported 2 712 nature reserves with an area of 2.4 million ha. These areas should expand in the future (see Box, Protected areas).

Perceived conflicts between forest functions

Another question put to countries concerned areas of public concern and conflicts between forest functions, the aim being to gain a picture of the nature and range of the problems and conflicts arising in utilization of the resource. It emerges clearly that a change in public attitudes towards the forest as well as in public demands on it has taken place over the past two decades or so. The environmental and other non-wood goods and services of the forest are seen by society in the industrialized countries (the general public, opinion-makers and policy-makers) as being of ever-increasing importance.

TABLE 4. Comparative data on forest resources in the industrialized countries

Countries	Share of forest and other wooded land in land area	Forest and other wooded land per caput	Share of forest and other wooded land in private ownership	Exploitable forest		Growing stock per ha on exploitable forest	Growing stock on exploitable forest per caput	Share of coniferous species in growing stock on exploitable forest	Net annual increment per ha on exploitable forest	Ratio of felling to net annual increment on exploitable forest
				Share of total forest and other wooded land	Per caput
	%	(ha/caput)	%	%	(ha/caput)	(m³ over bark/ha)	(m³ over bark/caput)	%	(m³ over bark/ha)	(ratio)
Albania	52.2	0.45	0	62	0.28	80	22.5	21	1.1	1.62
Austria	47.0	0.50	82	86	0.43	286	123.6	83	6.6	0.76
Belgium	20.5	0.06	56	100	0.06	145	9.1	60	7.2	0.75
Bulgaria	33.4	0.41	-	87	0.36	1261	45.0	-	3.3	0.45
Cyprus	30.6	0.40	42	31	0.13	35²	4.3	100	0.5	-
Former Czechoslovakia	35.8	0.29	11³	100	0.29	2214	63.3	73	6.9	0.65
Denmark	11.0	0.09	73	100	0.09	116	10.5	54	7.5	0.65
Finland	76.7	4.68	70	83	3.91	86	336.5	82	3.6	0.80
France	26.1	0.25	74	88	0.22	140	30.9	38	5.3	0.73
Germany of which:	30.7²	0.13	-	92²	0.12²	-	33.5	-	-	-
- former Dem. Rep.	28.3	0.18	31	83	0.15	192	28.6	71	6.7	0.65
- former Fed. Rep.	31.8	0.12	46	95	0.12	298	34.8	67	-	-
Greece	46.7	0.60	17	38	0.23	65	14.8	52	1.5	1.02
Hungary	18.2	0.16	1	79	0.13	173	21.7	15	6.2	0.74
Iceland	1.5	0.54	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Ireland	6.2	0.12	22	92	0.11	76	8.6	87	8.4	0.48
Israel	6.1	0.03	3	65	0.02	45	0.9	50	3.0	0.29
Italy	28.4	0.15	60	51	0.08	169	12.9	37	4.1	0.48
Luxembourg	33.9	0.24	55	94	0.22	245	54.1	-	8.1	0.54
Netherlands	9.8	0.02	52	99	0.02	157	3.5	56	7.2	0.54
Norway	31.2	2.26	83	69	1.57	86	134.7	82	2.7	0.67
Poland	28.5	0.23	17	98	0.22	163	36.1	79	3.6	0.87
Portugal	35.8	0.29	91	76	0.22	71	15.9	66	4.8	0.96
Romania	27.3	0.27	0	86	0.23	222	51.8	40	5.8	0.53
Spain	51.3	0.66	70	25	0.17	69	11.6	61	4.3	0.54
Sweden	68.6	3.27	70	79	2.58	112	288.7	85	4.1	0.63
Switzerland	29.8	0.18	32	92	0.16	329	53.7	73	5.3	0.91
Turkey	26.2	0.34	1	33	0.11	114	12.9	72	3.1	0.82
United Kingdom	9.9	0.04	60	93	0.04	92	3.5	55	5.0	0.73
Former Yugoslavia, SFR	37.0	0.40	-	82	0.33	136	44.4	29	3.6	0.79
Total Europe	35.4	0.35	50²	68	0.24	139	32.8	64	4.3	0.71
Former USSR of which:	44.0	3.26	0	44	1.43	122	174.3	74	1.7	0.74
- Belarus	30.2	0.61	0	86	0.53	134	70.6	70	2.4	0.90
- Ukraine	15.9	0.18	0	63	0.11	154	17.3	57	3.6	0.70
Canada	49.2	17.09	6	25	4.23	133	560.1	75	1.9	0.73
United States	32.4	1.18	72	66	0.78	118	92.4	57	3.9	0.81
Total North America	40.8	2.71	-	41	1.11	123	137.2	64	3.2	0.79
Japan	67.8	0.20	57³	96.4²	-	1205	23.2	-	-	-
Australia	-	-	8³	12	1.00	106²	105.1	15	2.1	0.57
New Zealand of which:	27.9	2.23²	26³	28²	0.61	170²	104.8	91	-	-
- plantations	4.6	0.37	48³	99.7	0.37	202	74.6	99	21.5	0.52
- natural forest	23.3	1.86	21³	13	0.24	123	30.2	71	-	-
Total other	21.7	-	-	-	-	117	34.8	-	-	0.54
GRAND TOTAL	38.6	1.62	-	43	0.70	1256	87.8	68²	2.6	0.73

¹ Assuming the "exploitable growing stock" of Bulgarian forests is 405 million m² over bark and "exploitable forest area" is 3.2 million ha.
² UN-ECE/FAO secretariat estimates.
³ Share of private "forests" in the "forest and other wooded land" area.
⁴ Estimates by national correspondents.
⁵ Assuming the "exploitable forest area" in Japan is 23 829 million ha (stocked high forest area).
⁶ Calculated with the assumptions in notes ¹ and ⁵.

The most frequently cited conflicts are between wood production and one of the other functions, notably environmental protection, nature conservation, hunting or recreation. There is concern about the use of certain types of machinery in the forest (causing compaction of soil), harvesting systems (e.g. clear-felling) and chemicals. Other conflicts have arisen between nature conservation or protection and recreation; for example, skiing damage to young plants, increased fire risks in tourist areas and excess visitor numbers in sensitive ecosystems.

Protected areas

NATIONAL PARKS		NATURE RESERVES
Europe (22 countries)		Europe (24 countries)
Number	More than 220	Number	More than 10500
Total area of which:	7.66 million ha*	Total area of which:	9.65 million ha*
- Forest and other wooded land	22 percent	- Forest and other wooded land	36 percent
Former USSR		Former USSR
Number	21	Number	167
Total area of which:	2.24 million ha	Total area of which:	22.03 million ha
- Forest and other wooded land	- 46 percent	- Forest and other wooded land	43 percent
United States		Australia
Number	339	Number	2 712
Japan		Total area of which:	2.37 million ha
Number	82	- Forest and other wooded land	22 percent
Total area	3.34 million ha
Australia
Number	514
Total area of which:	18.61 million ha
- Forest and other wooded land	22 percent

* Approximation.

Discussion and conclusions

Being involved in the international collection of forest resource information, one comes to appreciate that "the more you know, the more you realize how little you know". Over the past four and a half decades that FAO has been collecting and publishing such data, considerable strides have been taken by countries in improving and expanding knowledge about the resource. The 1990 assessment of the forest resources of the industrialized regions provides a vast amount of new information which will no doubt be helpful to a wide range of users, including many who in the past would have found little of interest in it. Yet we still seem to be as far away as ever from fulfilling the needs of information users, which also seem to be growing at an accelerating rate.

Better identification of the users of forest resource assessment information (particularly "new users") and their needs will be a key topic of discussion at the FAO/ECE Kotka meeting of experts, mentioned previously. Many of these new users are likely to be among the first to point out the information gaps and call for efforts to fill them. This is a challenge that national inventory managers and those working at the international level already well aware of the shortcomings and the difficulties in overcoming them will be facing. How far they will get will depend on the level of political and financial support given to undertaking the necessary research, developing new monitoring and assessment methodologies and collecting the additional information.

In any case, a balance will have to be struck between what individuals or particular groups of potential users would like in the way of new information and what will be truly relevant at the international level. There are some encouraging signs, for example from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), that the global importance of forests for humankind - and hence of the need to understand them better - has been recognized at the highest levels.

Detailed analyses of the 1990 assessment of the industrialized countries' forests are only just beginning. Two major findings have already been mentioned: that the forest resources of the industrialized countries as a whole have been gradually expanding, certainly in terms of growing stock and increment and, in many countries, also in area; and that virtually everywhere the importance of the non-wood functions of the forest is growing, both in absolute terms and in relation to what is still the most important individual function - wood production.

The expansion of the temperate forest resource, should it continue - and there is little reason to think that it will not in the near future - will eventually raise a number of policy questions. For instance, up to what level is it good for the health and vitality of the forest for growing stock volumes to rise, given that this will be the result of an ageing of the resource as well as of an increasing backlog in thinnings in some countries? Should more attention be paid to the marketing of wood and its products in order to ensure that fellings are sufficient to allow the constant rejuvenation of the resource? Or should we allow it to become overmature to the point where natural losses from disease, insects, fire and so on reduce net increment to zero, as is more or less the case for virgin forest? Those who argue from a strictly preservation perspective might answer "yes". Others would query whether humankind can any longer afford not to utilize (sustainably) the variety of goods and services that a managed forest is able to provide.

Concern about the potential effects of atmospheric pollution on forest resources is increasing throughout the industrialized countries

The 1990 assessment does not provide us with a clear picture of the state of the forest resource's health or quality, and perhaps this is an aspect that needs to be addressed in future assessments. The forests of the industrialized countries are expanding in physical terms but, in many areas, they are under stress from various external agents and their vitality may be being eroded [Ed. note: see article by Kandler]. Forest fire causes serious ecological and economic damage in the drier areas, such as the Mediterranean basin and large areas of the former USSR, North America and Australia. Widespread storm damage to forests in Europe seems to have become more frequent. Under these conditions, the question of how long the forests can go on providing the quantity of goods and services that they have in the past remains unanswered.

The joint ECE/FAO division's work in Geneva has shown a number of areas that need to be carefully considered when drawing up plans for the next global assessment. One is that, to improve the quality and coverage of future surveys, more resources will have to be committed, both at the national and international levels.

Another area for continued priority work concerns classifications and definitions. Although there is universal agreement on the broad classifications and definitions to be applied in global surveys, there are problems of clarity and misunderstandings in some of the more detailed categories. This must be resolved before the next assessment.

Finally, the industrialized countries should give more attention to the monitoring of changes in their forest resources over time, both in physical and quality terms. This is one area where they can learn from the experience being gained in the developing regions.

The results of the 1990 assessment demonstrate that we know a lot more about the forest resources of the industrialized regions than we did even in the fairly recent past, but also that this is still far short of what we need to know to enable us to manage and use these resources in an optimal and sustainable way. This is a humbling thought, but it is also a tremendous challenge.

Bibliography

ECE/FAO. 1992. The forest resources of the temperate zones: the UN-ECE/FAO 1990 forest resource assessment. Vol. I. General forest resource information. ECE/TIM/62. New York, United Nations.

ECE/FAO. The forest resources of the temperate zones: the UN-ECE/FAO 1990 forest resource assessment. Vol. II. Benefits and functions of the forest. New York, United Nations. (In press)