Among them, the fact that no state indicator for genetic resources has been widely accepted and adopted, at any scale, is not a trivial problem. Furthermore, response indicators are much more easily understood and reported on, especially by non-geneticists. Few state indicators of tree genetic diversity can be fully addressed

within the boundaries of one country, and this may also have contributed to the lack CAL-101 in vitro of information reported on such indicators. We examined the completed Country Reports (cf. above) to determine how many countries attempted to complete the only table (number 7 in Annex 2, FAO, 2010b) that would inform a state/pressure indicator, and the amount of information that was provided. This information is summarized in Table 4. Among the 84 Country Reports that we examined, 30 (36%) included information on at least one of the five parameter columns (Table 4). Only seven countries reported on all of them, four of which were in Europe. The two most informative columns in the table: Area (ha) of species’ natural distribution in your country if known and Average number of trees per hectare, if known were least often completed (11 and 7 countries

respectively) and the two columns with the highest response rate were those with the least inherent information value from the perspective of tree genetic diversity. None of the Country Reports from South or Central America included the table from Annex 2 in FAO (2010b) with learn more species distribution and threat information, but two of them reported on levels of genetic diversity. Two of

the three North American reports included information about levels of genetic diversity for important tree species, but only one included the table. Genetic diversity parameters for key species were also reported by two Asian countries and two European countries. The general lack of state/pressure type information that was requested from the countries emphasizes the need to focus more on identifying practical informative indicators that could be used to gather information in subsequent Tyrosine-protein kinase BLK reporting cycles. The fact that a few countries did report on genetic parameters indicates that it is becoming increasingly feasible to do so. However, there must be a standardized approach in order to achieve statistically interpretable results. In summary, reasons for the overall scarcity of reported results for genetic indicators include difficulty, real or perceived, in measurement and interpretation, disagreement among experts on the minimal set of indicators required in order to provide useful information, lack of resources to add additional variables to the standard forest inventory data collection procedures, and possibly a lack of understanding among forest management practitioners about the relevance of genetic resources to forest sustainability. The challenge is thus to provide meaningful indicators that can be agreed upon and implemented in practice.