1. Is the FAO definition on primary forest (FAO, 2018) adequate to your national/regional/global assessment and reporting purposes? If not, what criteria would you like to add/remove from the FAO definition?
The definition is acceptable but has a certain dose of subjectivism/contradiction, as long as it ”includes both pristine and managed forests (that meet the definition)”.
So, ”managed forests” are supposed to be those in which ”traditional forest stewardship” currently take place (inevitably by harvesting wood/forest products), but invisibly and in the same time with „no known significant human intervention”.
The pristine forests are well defined and documented in Romania further to clear criteria and indicators established by law, which are checked during specific studies (developed also based on a regulated methodology), or during the forest management plan review, which resulted in the National Catalogue of Virgin and Quasi-Virgin Forests.
Accounting for the rest – the managed forests (the ”soft version” of pristine forests), seems not to be an easy mission and should be based on a compromise, difficult to be statistically recorded/reported.)
2. Is the background paper missing any major issues? If yes, please specify.
In the chapters 1. Introduction and 2. Current reporting on primary forests some approaches/methodologies for data collection and evaluation of more or less experimental primary forests from ex-European countries are mentioned, but nothing is mentioned about the approach of the countries from the Carpathian region in Europe, signatories of the FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CARPATHIANS. The Carpathian Convention created the framework for the adoption and harmonization of sustainable forest management in the region and, in particular, for the protection of the pristine forests of the Carpathians. Thus, under the "Protocol on sustainable forest management", adopted in Bratislava, on May 27, 2011, one of the activities by which the States parties contribute to the achievement of the objective of the protocol is to carry out activities and to cooperate for "identification and protection of natural, especially virgin forests". In this respect, on the occasion of COP4 of the Convention, Parties adopted "Criteria and indicators for the identification of virgin forests in the Carpathians and a common format for data collection and mapping". The activities are currently underway for inventory and protection of virgin forests.
It can be stated with certainty that at present, the Countries Party to the Carpathian Convention have the most comprehensive legal framework regarding the protection of virgin forests. Romania actively contributed to the elaboration of this regional framework, considering the criteria and indicators that it has already developed and used.
3. Which methodology and data, if any, do you use to assess primary forest area and its changes?
The methodology used in Romania to assess pristine forests (virgin and quasivirgin forests) is approved by a Ministerial Order/2012 and is based on indicators grouped under two criteria:
a. Naturalness
b. Surface size and borders
Regarding the primary forest, we chose the variant of the forests with special protection function, under a functional type with specific management according to which forest works are not allowed by forest management plans, due to functions to be met by respective forests, but there is no guarantee of 100% fulfilment of all the conditions in the definition.
4. Which methodological changes would be needed to improve reporting on primary forest area and its changes at national, regional and global levels, with particular emphasis on improving consistency among countries?
Establishing some indicators, like the minimum surface of a primary forest, for instance, or establishing common methodologies on ecological or biogeographical regions, but the more complex the definition / method, the harder it is to inventory/identify such forests.
5. How can FAO help countries improve their reporting on primary forest?
Defining a small set of indicators derived from definition, with a minimum number of indicators to be met by countries under a certain flexibility, adapted to their specific,
It is important for countries to present the criteria that are used to identify and map primary forests, to reflect the robustness / consistency of the data used in reporting.
Claudiu Zaharescu