For the breakout Working Group sessions, the participants were divided into three main Groups, as follows:
The Working Group sessions represented the main part of the workshop, where most of the lengthy discussions on each separate topic took place. The list of participants and the facilitator for each group are given in Section 3.2, along with the separate group reports. Doug Williamson ensured some synchrony by dividing his time between groups.
To facilitate the discussions, and in particular to ensure that all groups addressed similar issues, some Guidelines for reporting were distributed. The topics to be addressed were as follows:
1. The proposed FAO classification for Global ecological zone classification
2. The correspondence between the selected source/input maps or data and the FAO classification or aggregation of local/regional classes into FAO EZ level 2
3. Matching problems between bordering maps/regions
4. Suggestions and recommendations for application of mountains or altitude into the system
5.Overall assessment of the proposed FAO Ecological zoning system
6. Your possible contribution to finalise the Global EZ map
The Working Group reports are presented below. Although the three main groups discussed much of the material within the group, there was inevitably some splitting within the groups when it came to details for each region, and this is reflected in the reports below, e.g., the report for the Australia and China region is split into two sections, one for Australia and one for China. Two groups, the Australia-China group and the Tropical Regions group drafted their reports to reflect the answers to each of the items given in the Guidelines. The report from the third region, was not drafted in this manner, and this is reflected in what is written from each group, below.
Participating Members: Z. Zhu (EDC)(Facilitator), X.. Li (Nanjing Forestry University), Du Zheng (Chinese Academy of Sciences), P. Tickle, (National Forest Inventory, Australia).
The two countries in this group reported separately, and this is shown below.
Rapporteur: Philip Tickle
1. The proposed FAO classification for Global ecological zone classification
It is not possible at the present time to accept Köppen’s definitions of his climatic zones as they relate to Australian vegetation formations. However it is possible to agree on the general climate groupings.
2. The correspondence between the selected source/input maps or data and the FAO classification or aggregation of local/regional classes into FAO EZ level 2
The remote sensing analogue of this would be to train satellite image classification in most Northern Europe and then apply it to Australia.
3. Matching problems between bordering maps/regions
For this reason we cannot just come at this using a top down approach from level 1 - 2.
4. Suggestions and recommendations for application of mountains or altitude into the system
We must therefore focus firstly on a bottom-up approach - the major vegetation and ecosystem types that occur in Australia, taking into account how these can be integrated into global vegetation types, and the Montreal Process. From here we can work backwards to reconstruct the appropriate Köppen definitions that correspond to ecosystem types.
5. Overall assessment of the proposed FAO Ecological zoning system
There are a few points as to the applicability of the scheme:
a. As with Canada and the USA we have the country broken up into BIO/Political/Demographic regions. They are currently used for reporting against natural resource and socio-economic data. They have labels like: “tropical”, “subtropical”, “temperate”.
b. We can label these with their dominant natural vegetation formations (which have been mapped).
c. We have mean monthly climate surfaces that can be used for implementing a Köppen or other scheme.
6. Your possible contribution to finalise the Global EZ map
For each zone we will provide:
a. A description of vegetation consistent with other national/international reporting.
b. A description of the criteria used to define the interaction of climate and vegetation
c. The area of each natural vegetation.
d. The area of existing forest vegetation.
1. The proposed FAO classification for Global ecological zone classification
The group felt that the proposed classification scheme is workable for China. Except for the changes recommended below, the scheme covers all major vegetation formations in China.
At the level 2, the group recommends that the descriptions (see table page 15) for both Aw and Cs be changed from “summer dry” to “seasonal dry”.
For Do and Dc in temperate regions, instead of, or in addition to, temperature criteria, a moisture availability criterion should be added. Recommend that for Do, E/P < 1 is used. For Dc, E/P between 1 and 1.5 be used.
The group discussed about an appropriate placement for the Tibet Plateau (avg. elevation c. 3,000 meters). The group did not feel a separate mountain designation in the FAO system is beneficial in the case of China. Instead, we suggest to consider both the climate and vegetation types and classify the alpine region accordingly in the current system (see Table). Obviously the mountain vegetation will be explained as part of FAO documentation for source maps.
2. The correspondence between the selected source/input maps or data and the FAO classification or aggregation of local/regional classes into FAO EZ level 2
The group recommends that works by Hou (1983), Zheng (1999) and Zhu (1992) be used in combination to produce a China EZ map. The new classification by Zheng, developed on the basis of Hou and other Chinese geographers, was studied in detail by the group, linking his classes to the FAO scheme (see Table, below). Recommend that the map by Hou be used as the base map (a digital version is available at EDC), and the work by Zhu be used to strengthen definitions of major forest types.
3. Matching problems between bordering maps/regions
Need to work with Russian colleagues and compare maps. We do not foresee major problems however.
4. Suggestions and recommendations for application of mountains or altitude into the system
Given the requirements set by FAO, the case for a mountain/lowland separation is not strong for China, although China has always separated the Tibet Plateau from other land regions in its regionalisation works. However, it may have an implication for mountain systems such as the Andes.
5. Overall assessment of the proposed FAO Ecological zoning system
Given constraints facing FAO (time, budget, feasibility), the group felt the approach taken by FAO is practical and does not have major science problems. However, the group recognises that it is a scientific responsibility to improve and build on the current map. We strongly recommend that FAO commit to a continued effort to make this a better and more widely acceptable map.
6. Your possible contribution to finalise the Global EZ map
The group noted that parts of East Asia are still not covered. These include Japan, Korea, and Mongolia. The Chinese Academy of Sciences will be happy to assist FAO to produce a seamless EZ map covering all East Asia.
References used for the China report
Hou, Xue-yu, 1983. Vegetation of China with reference to its geographic distribution. Annals Missouri Bot. Garden, 70:509-548.
Zheng, Du, 1999. A study on the eco-geographic regional system of China. FAO FRA2000 Global Ecological Zoning Workshop, Cambridge, UK, July 28-30, 1999. 12 pages.
Zhu, Zheng-de, 1992. Geographic distribution of China’s main forests. Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China. 54 pages.
Table referred to in Point 2 of the China report
Level 2 name |
Zheng code |
Vegetation formation | |
Evergreen broadleaf, large leaf, multi-levelled rain forest (up to 2,000 mm precip and 18oC avg. temp) | |||
Cs |
VIIA |
Monsoon evergreen broadleaf, large leaf, multi-level 1,000-2,000 mm precip. Annually. | |
Cf |
VA1-2 |
Subtropical evergreen broadleaf + evergreen needleleaf (pine) in E and SW China | |
Cs |
VA3-4 | ||
Cf |
IVA1 |
Deciduous and evergreen broadleaf mixed forest in N of the Yangtze R. | |
Cs |
IVA2 | ||
Do |
IIIA |
Deciduous broadleaf (oak) forest with pine. | |
Dc |
IIIB, IIA-B | ||
E |
IA |
Deciduous needleleaf (larch) forest with single canopy layer | |
BSk |
IIC |
Shortgrass steppe in N China and S Mongolia | |
BWK |
IID & HI |
Desert and alpine desert | |
Cs |
HII |
Temperate alpine coniferous forest |
Participating Members: H. Simons (FAO) (Facilitator), D. Williamson (FAO), Y.Barkoudah (Damascus University), N. Burgess (WWF), X. Li (Nature Conservancy), J.Tosi (Tropical Science Center), J. Zhang (UNEP), M.F. Bellan (LET).
Rapporteur: M.F. Bellan
1. The proposed FAO classification for Global ecological zone classification
a. Usability for the concerned regions
The group considers that this classification is usable for the purpose it was intended, which is to develop a globally consistent EZ's map and data base, for reporting on forest and other relevant information needed for FRA 2000.
b. Recommendations for changes/improvements at the first two levels
Tropical Wet Ar should be defined by 0-3 dry months
Winter dry Aw should be named
Seasonally dry and subdivided into:
a short dry season type (3-5 dry months)
a long dry season type (more than 5 dry months).
Subtropical Summer dry Cs should be named
Seasonally dry
The group accepts a single mountain type to be recognised in the Tropical Climate group, as well as in the Subtropical Climate Group.
c. Other issues/comments
Concerning the terminology, Dr. J. Tosi does not agree with the terms subtropical (that should be replaced by warm temperate) and temperate (that should be replaced by cool temperate).
He also proposes to replace the terms rainforest by forest and deciduous forest by seasonally deciduous forest.
2. The correspondence between the selected source/input maps or data and the FAO
classification or aggregation of local/regional classes into FAO EZ level 2
a. Reference maps selected
The main selected global maps are the LET EFZ maps (for Africa, South America and tropical Asia) as well as the WWF Terrestrial Ecoregions and Major Habitats Types maps. They are likely to match rather well with the FAO classification. The necessary adjustments and improvements will be done using some recent national maps, i.e.:
Concerning the Middle East, first drafts on paper were produced by Dr. Y.Barkoudah, mainly based on climate and floristic regions, after the works of Zohary (Geobotanical Foundation of the Middle East).
b. The look-up table
It was only done for the LET EFZ of tropical South America and for the Holdridge types in Central America.
Köppen Climate Types |
Holdridge (lowland and premontane) Types | |
Tropical |
Wet (0-3 d.m.) |
1) Tropical rain forest 2) T. wet forest 3) T. moist forest |
Seasonally Dry (3-5 d.m.) |
T. Dry forest | |
Seasonally Dry (> 5 d.m.) |
1) T. very Dry forest 2) T. thorn woodland | |
Semi-arid |
T. desert bush | |
Arid |
Desert | |
Subtropical |
Humid (no Dry season) |
Warm temperate rain/wet forest |
Seasonally Dry |
1) Warm t. moist forest 2) Warm t. Dry forest | |
Semi-arid |
1) Thorn steppe 2) Desert scrubs | |
Arid |
Desert | |
3. Matching problems between bordering maps/regions
Within the maps already produced by LET for FRA90, as well as in the Middle East, these problems were resolved.
On the last part of the work, there might be some problems to be resolved at the boundaries of South America/Central America, Eastern Africa/Middle East, tropical Asia/northern Asia.
4. Suggestions and recommendations for application of mountains or altitude into the system
See § 1 for level 2. Subdivisions should be made on level 3.
5. Overall assessment of the proposed FAO Ecological zoning system
a. Scientific soundness
This system is logical but limited and FAO should be open to some other options in the future.
b. Technical considerations
The system is compatible with global scales (1/5 000 000 to 1/30 000 000).
c. The system can be implemented provided it does not become too complicated.
6. Your possible contribution to finalise the Global EZ map
The members agree to provide any useful data for the project.
LET is carrying on improved EFZ maps for Africa, South America and Asia, according to the proposed classification.
Participating Members: Susan Iremonger (WCMC) (Facilitator), K.D. Singh (Harvard University), U. Bohn (Budesamt für Naturschutz), A. Filipchuk (All Russian Scientific Research and Information Centre for Forest Resources), H. Hirvonen (Canadian Forest Service), A. Korotkov (UN/ECE Timber Section), A. Shvidenko (IIASA), Galina Ogureeva (Moscow State University), Ole Ostermann (ETC/NC), Dominique Richard (ETC/NC), Igor Lysenko (WCMC).
This working group held much of its discussions as a unit, then broke into three subregional sub-groups. Dr. Bohn (Europe) made a joint presentation for the working group, followed by specific additional comments for the other two regions. After sometimes heated debates, e.g., on mountains, the working group presented a unanimous report, supportive overall to FAO’s approach. It was found that Köppen was usable for all regions, as already proved by the North America case study. For Europe and former USSR, suggestions for further regional division beyond level 2 were made. For all regions source maps were selected, and there no problem was foreseen, either conceptually or technically, to produce the level 2 EZ maps.
Rapporteur: U. Bohn.
The conclusions from the analysis for Europe were that the system was workable and could be implemented within the year. There were no matching problems foreseen with the former Soviet Union states (CIS). However a few modifications were considered very important, including:
a. the splitting of Boreal into two horizontal belts: a tundra and a taiga region;
b. the splitting into three horizontal belts of the temperate region, a cold temperate region where conifers and broadleaves are generally found in mixture, a middle region where broadleaves predominate and a third, mediterranean region. The mediterranean region is different to the typical subtropical zone;
c. ideally there should be at least three categories in the oceanic/continental range, from west to east. However it was recognised that in a global system, two might be more practical at level 2, which might mean that both may not occur in the European region because the extremely continental climate may be restricted in area to the CIS. The continental/oceanic split already exists in the proposed FAO level 2 system, so no change is necessary here;
d. mountains: various options can be thought of, for instance hatching at all levels. They need to be extensive and distinct enough, mappable as distinct mountain belts. For Europe a
threshold of about 800m was suggested;
e. a correspondence table was prepared between the proposed FAO system level 2 and the
potential vegetation map of Dr. Bohn. There is close co-operation between Dr. Bohn and the
European Topic Center for Nature Conservation (Dr. Richard and Ole Ostermann), to come to a broadly accepted European ecozoning system.
Rapporteur: A. Shvidenko.
The sub-group working on Russia was in agreement with what was outlined for Europe. Additional points made were:
1. The principles suggested are workable.
2. Technically the map can be made from existing maps.
3. It would be better to keep three classes for the Oceanic/Continental criterion, which FAO could then group as it liked.
4. Temperate - In Russia there are 10 classes of this climate, so to recombine these to four classes is not a problem. The basic sources used for the Russian map will be:
a. Russian vegetation map with 132 classes (Vegetation map, 1990, Moscow, Ed. by Isachenko, scale 1 : 2.5 Million)
b. Russian forests map, not available digitally (Forest vegetation zones. Moscow, 1990, Ed. by Kurnaev, scale 1:2.5 Million.)
c. The map of Dr. Ogureeva, which incorporates the latest findings from the field. (Zones and altitudinal zonality types of vegetation of Russia, 1999, Moscow State University, Ed. by G. Ogureeva, scale 1:8 Million.)
d. There are maps of slope, elevation and other parameters available digitally from IIASA.
5. There will be no problem with being compatible with China, but possibly some in Central Asia.
6. The group recommended strongly that the temperature criteria for the level 1 split should be provided to all.
7. The GIS support of the Global FRA is a good idea, and this current job is an input to future developments. A concept statement from FAO is needed as to where they see this effort actually leading.
8. There are many maps of interest to FAO available at IIASA. Many maps of vegetation, climate, slopes, elevation, land categories, forests, ecological regions.
Rapporteur: B. Smith
The North American region subgroup agrees with the reports of Russia and Europe.
Additionally they would like to emphasise that political considerations should be taken into account.
North America has an ecological base map they can reconfigure to the FAO system.
They will undertake to inform Mexico of the outcome of the meeting.
North America has one mediterranean climate and one oceanic regime, on the West coast.
The Working Group sessions represented the main body of scientific input and debate among the participants. There was high level of discussion within the groups, particularly the group encompassing Europe, North America and Russia. One outcome of the discussions was the broader acceptance of the proposed FAO system as a basic framework, due to a better comprehension of the concept, criteria and practical implications of the system. Another major outcome was the generation of enthusiasm for the EZ map project as a whole, and a commitment by all participants to fully co-operate with and contribute to the project over the coming months. The general opinion was that the map and database would provide excellent tools for analyses of various forms, both for the FRA and for other projects.
Among the main issues that caused concern were the lack of an available mapped version of the proposed FAO classification scheme. Finally this was not seen to be a problem as potential vegetation maps would form the main basis for defining EZ's in all regions, and these could be related to climatic data according to the FAO criteria, as required.
Another issue was that of the level at which mountain systems and major edaphic variants of vegetation formations should be included. It was accepted that the edaphic variants could be ascribed to level 3 of the hierarchy, but recommended that mountains should be shown at level 2. This was debated further in the plenary session following the Working Groups, and the final conclusion was that they should indeed be included at level 2, but just as one separate class, as opposed to each level 2 subdivision showing both a mountain and a lowland variant. The altitude at which “mountains” should be defined varied for each major climatic region, and will require further discussion between the regional experts and FAO.
The definition at level 2 in the temperate and boreal regions of continental and oceanic classes was discussed. This included suggestions that the continents should each have three separate zones defined on scales of oceanicity/continentality. It was finally accepted that at level 2 one oceanic and one continental variant should be defined and mapped for the temperate zone, but
the continental variant could be further subdivided at level 3 into extreme and average continental variants. The recommendation to define two boreal zones at level 2, i.e. a northern tundra zone and southern taiga zone, was accepted.
The concern brought to the table by the tropical group that the category shown at level 2 by FAO (see background paper) called Winter Dry Aw, should be re-named Seasonally Dry, and divided into two: Aw1 with 3-5 months Dry and Aw2 with 5-8 months Dry. The concern about using the term subtropical did not seem to be shared among the whole group, but this was noted and warm temperate was accepted as a suitable alternative. The use of the word steppe to describe grassland areas should not be used in the tropics and will be changed to savanna in the tables.
Some specific requests for FAO were:
