We need more information as to why we are producing the definition
We need to keep in mind that the nature of the raw data may be inaccurate and so a ratio of inaccurate figures would be even worse. It is important to quote all three pieces of information pertaining to the nation or region in question, i.e. total forest and land areas, and total population, but add to those, further data on the date to which these figures refer and some indication of the precision and accuracy of these estimates together with annual or periodic rates of change in forest and land areas and population. If nothing else this will force analysts to review the quality of the information they are quite content to convert into ratios. Any composite index should reflect the nominal error levels and allow sensitivities to guide categorization. Emphasize getting good basic data on areas and populations before trying to derive simplistic indices.

Basing a working definition of LFC on combinations of indicators is also attractive in that is possibly allows for a "richer" interpretation of the difficulties to emerge in the political discussion which IFF4 will have. Dennis's work with the thresholds suggested in the paper has perhaps brought in a few other countries but again, with the exception of Netherlands, they are generally the countries we would have expected to see. Using slightly higher thresholds to bring in a couple of "developed" countries may help the process.. More work could obviously be done on this.