&&& I went to summer camp with my classmate last summer .I never forget the days .
&&& Early in the morning ,about 200 children from Grade Seven came together at the bus station from different schools .After saying goodbye to our parents ,we got on the buses.It took us more than two hours to arrive at the campground in Qingdao .
&&& We were laughing ,shouting,jumping and running lke birds when we got off the buses ,For us ,it was our first time to be away from our parents .
&&& Swimming was my favorite class .&It was about one o'clock in the afternoon .It is the warmest time of a day and the best time to stay in cool water .With the help of my swimming teacher ,I could swim every well .
&&& During the holiday ,I learned many new things and made many new friends.How happy I was !
1.What did the writer do last summer ?
A.He went to summer camp .&& B.He went to the mountains .
C.He studied for fishing.&&&& D.He learned to swim
2.There were about ______ students in the summer camp .
A.one hundres&& B.two thousand&& C.two hundred& D.one thousand
3.For the writer ,it's ______ time to be away from his parents
A.first&& B.second&& C.third&& D.last
4.According to （根据） the passsage ,what did the students do at the campground ?
A.They made a trip to America&& B.They learned English
C.They learned to swim .&&& D.They had a running lesson
5.How was the writer's holiday last summer ?
A.It was bad&& B.It was not good& C.It was pretty good& D.It was hot &&
1.根据For us，it was our first time to be away from our parent 可知；
2.根据 Early in the morning ,about 200 children from Grade Seven came together at the bus station from different schools 可知；
3.根据For us ,it was our first time to be away from our parents .可知；
4.根据 Swimming was my favorite class 和With the help of my swimming teacher ,I could swim every well .可推断选C；
5.根据文章最后一段 During the holiday ,I learned many new things and made many new friends.How happy I was !可知选C。
1.A& 2.C& 3.A& 4.C& 5.CHow much is itA.Ten yuan a kilo.B.Two kilos.C.Five.哪个是正确答句?为什么?
从题目的 is it 可知道题目中问的东西是不可数名词A 选项中说10元一公斤 可肯定这个商品时可数的B 说2公斤 完全与题意不符C 5元所以应该选 c
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
A 两元一千克c是5的意思，没单位b似乎2千克，题目问的是多少钱
扫描下载二维码How Much Is It: A Shopping Lesson Plan
& | & | & & | &&&&|&& &&|&& && & | &Spell
Book &| &&&| & | & &| &&& | &
Lesson Plan:&
Information
Gap, Survey, Simulation, and Vocabulary Worksheets
Chris Gunn
Up to 4 hours depending on how much the teacher wishes to use.
Materials:
To give to the
Materials:
1: Introduction to the Unit Vocabulary
time permits, write the unit vocabulary expressions on the board
before the class begins. This will help save time as there is a lot to
cover in this unit. When the class begins, handout the
(after you've gone over your usual review and
teacher talk).&
at the groupings of words and ask students to come up with a heading
for each group. This is technique is outlined in Thomas Lavelle's
2: Information Gap
part is pretty much self-explanatory. Pair students up and give them
either an . They have to go through the
conversation and fill in the missing information. It is probably best
if the teacher brings a student to the front and models the
conversation.&
the 'Conversation Strategy' for this unit is confirming. Make sure
students confirm the information that they hear. In
this activity, confirming is done using the expression 'so that's'.
Other expressions that can be used are: Did you say . . .? You said .
. ., right?
3: Class Survey and Social Strategy
this section, students can practice complimenting each other. To start
the activity off the teacher can walk around the class and compliment
some of the students. After the teacher compliments the students, the
teacher can point out how the students looked when they were
complimented (pleased, happy). Now the teacher can write some standard
compliments on the board and discuss them with the students.&
Complimenting
properly is a form of pragmatic competence. In this unit we call it a
'Social Strategy' because it highlights language that helps students
successfully interact with people in English. The purpose is more to
establish a relation than to convey information. Conversation
strategies, on the other hand, are meant to help students convey
information precisely.&
and have the students practice it in pairs, using the
substitutions. You can also point out the pronunciation tip for past
students will be given a survey. This activity is a simple but
effective walk-and-talk. Students take their survey sheet and walk
around the room. When they meet another student, they compliment that
other student on some article of clothing. And then they ask where the
item was bought, how much was paid for it, and other questions about
the article.&
4: Grammar Focus and Comparatives - Shopping Role-play
this section, the students will do some comparison shopping. The
grammar focus for the unit is comparatives.&Most units on
comparatives highlight 'adjective+er
than' or 'more adjective
than'. This unit highlights those
patterns plus 'not as adjective
the . Demonstrate the grammar on the
board and then show some examples using the class. You can use
examples of height, hair length, price of clothing, or whatever you
happen to think of.&
look at the examples of the Cool Walkers and Slimm Jimms. Using the
information on the cards, make comparisons between the two pairs of
shoes. The the students will work in pairs and make comparisons of
other products. The teacher can circulate around the room and help
students write their comparisons. The teacher may also have to explain
some vocabulary.&
it's time to do the role-play. Handout the
to the students. Each student should get some details
about one product. The student should get one set of pictures (two
products), which they can show their 'customers'. And they should get
one set of product details, which the teacher will take away once the
students fill in the details on their role-play worksheet.
the student's are finished filling out their store information, the
teacher can give them a list of items to buy. If their are more than 8
students in the class, then the students should buy the complete
shopping list. If their are only seven students, then the teacher can
either join the role-play or just make a shopping list of seven items.
If there are fewer students, the teacher can remove more items from
the list as necessary.&
students will have a budget depending on how big the shopping list is.
If you use the complete shopping list the budget should be $750.00. If
you use a partial list you can add to the budget in the fallowing
manner: cameras ($200), sunglasses ($50), hiking boots ($100), jackets
($100), pants ($50), sleeping bags ($100), tent ($100), and tickets
($50). You should divide up between how much cash they have, how much
they can write in checks, and how much they can put on their credit
students have to purchase the items on their shopping lists from other
students. They should use the conversation as a guide. As they
purchase the items, the students should fill out the table.&
5: Workbook Exercises.&
a vocabulary review (or preview if you wish), we've included .&Note: one activity is still
unfinished. You can either omit it or make it yourself.&The source document for this Digest states:OVERVIEW Extent of forest resources is the first of the thematic elements characterizing sustainable forest management. Generally speaking, it refers to the overall goal of maintaining adequate forest cover and stocking – of various forest types and characteristics including on ‘other wooded land’ and as ‘trees outside forests’ – to support the social, economic and environmental objectives related to forestry within a country or region. The ultimate aim of monitoring the extent and characteristics of forest resources is to reduce unplanned , restore and rehabilitate
forest landscapes, manage
sustainably and evaluate the important function of
by forests,
and trees outside forests – thereby contributing to moderating the global climate (FAO, 2005d). Information on the extent of forest resources has formed the backbone of all global forest resources assessments and continued to be a major topic in FRA 2005. Forest area is an easily understood baseline variable, which provides a first indication of the relative importance of
in a country or region. Estimates of change in forest area over time provide an indication of the demand for land for forestry and other land uses, as well as of the impact of significant environmental disasters and disturbances on forest . As mentioned previously, the proportion of land area under forests is also used in the Millennium Development Goals indicator process (United Nations, 2005a) However, as was observed in FRA 2000 (FAO, 2001b), the significance of forest area as a single indicator of forest development has often been overemphasized, particularly in the public debate, where other aspects of forest resources feature less prominently. The most commonly quoted result from global forest resources assessments continues to be the global net loss of forest area. However, it is important to note that many other parameters and scales must be considered in determining the relevant
in the extent of forest resources.
and carbon storage may be considered equally important parameters, as they indicate whether
and to what extent they mitigate . Further, the net loss of forest area is not in itself sufficient to describe land-use dynamics that include both loss of forests due to
and natural disasters and gains in forest area from planting or natural expansion. For FRA 2005, information was sought on the current status and changes over time of the following four variables:
area of ‘forest’ and ‘other wooded land’. Countries were also encouraged to provide information on ‘other land with tree cover’; 1 characteristics of
according to five classes: primary, modified natural, semi-natural, standing volume of wood, i.e. the total
in forests a
contained in woody , dead wood,
and forest soils.
1 See Annex 2 for exact definitions Figure 2.1 illustrates the availability of information for these variables at the global level. In regional and ecoregional criteria and indicator processes, as well as in national reports, more-detailed classifications of the forest area are often used, e.g. according to forest or vegetation type, age structure or diameter distribution classes. Because of the varying conditions and classification systems among countries and regions, it was not feasible to report on such classifications at the global level. However, country reports for FRA 2005 contain considerably more detail than is shown in the global tables. Moreover, thematic studies have been prepared on planted ,
and bamboo that provide in-depth knowledge on these forest types and groups of . In FRA 2000, an independent remote sensing survey was carried out to supplement country reporting for the pan-tropical region. The results constituted an important ingredient in the analysis of global and regional , leading, for example, to a calibration of reported changes in forest area for Africa. The survey also provided considerable insight into change processes in land use, including the documentation of different patterns of land-use change in tropical regions. The results have been widely acknowledged and used (e.g. Mayaux et al., 2005). While no similar project was carried out for FRA 2005 owing to lack of resources, preparations have been made for a more ambitious approach (FAO, 2003d) that takes a broader range of information requirements into account. This approach is being considered for the next global forest resources assessment (FRA 2010). :
Chapter 2: Extent of forest resources, p.11-12 2.1 How much of the planet is covered with/by forests?
The source document for this Digest states:FOREST AREA AND FOREST AREA CHANGE Forest area provides the first indication of the relative importance of
in a country or region, while estimates of forest area change over time provide an indication of the demand for land for forestry and other land uses, and may also illustrate the impact of significant environmental disasters and disturbances on forest . Forest area is relatively easy to measure, and this variable has therefore been selected as one of the 48 indicators for monitoring progress towards the Millennium Development Goals agreed by the United Nations (particularly Goal 7 – Ensuring environmental sustainability). Data on the status of and
in area of forest are crucial to decisions related to forest and land-use policies and resource allocations, but they need to be combined with information on the health and vitality of
and their socio-economic and environmental functions and . Other sections of this report deal with these aspects. Information availability Information on the extent of
was provided by 228 of the 229 countries and areas reporting for FRA 2005 – the exception being the Marshall Islands, for which no quantitative information was available. Antarctica and some of the smaller dependent territories, which do not have, or have no significant, forest area were not included in the list of reporting units for FRA 2005. Four countries or areas (Guam, Guyana, Lebanon and the Occupied Palestinian Territory) did not provide an estimate of forest area for 1990. All other countries and areas provided estimates for all three reporting years ( and 2005). For the purpose of analysis, the 1990 forest area for each of these four countries and areas was estimated by FAO based on a linear extrapolation of the figures provided for 2000 and 2005. Since extent of forest resources is a key variable for decisions regarding forest policy and investments in the forestry sector, almost all countries and areas provided information on this variable. However, some countries had comprehensive information from only one point in time (see Table 2 in Annex 3), while others had estimates that were incompatible, making
analyses difficult. Information on the extent of
as of 2005 was available from 180 countries and areas, which together account for 64.9 percent of total forest area. Only 61 countries and areas reported on current extent of , which is a new variable in global forest resources assessments. It aims to capture those areas in which forest cover criteria are met, but the predominant land use is agricultural (e.g. orchards and oil-palm ) or urban (e.g. urban parks). Status Total forest area as of 2005 is estimated at 3 952 million hectares or 30 percent of total land area. This corresponds to an average of 0.62 ha per capita. As can be seen from , the area of forest is unevenly distributed. For example, 64 countries with a combined
of 2.0 billion have less than 0.1 ha of forest per capita.
Based on available information, total area of
is estimated to be at least 1 376 million hectares – about one-third of total forest area. This category suffered from reclassification problems, particularly in dry zones such as those in Australia, Kenya and the Sudan, in which the distinction between forest and other wooded land is not very clear. Total area of
is at least 76 million hectares. These two estimates, particularly the latter, were limited by lack of information, and the true extent of other land with tree cover is undoubtedly much higher. Distribution of . A subregional summary of the distribution of forests is shown in . Europe accounts for one-quarter of total forest area, followed by South America and North and Central America with 21 and 18 percent respectively. Information on the area of forest and
by country can be found in Table 3 in Annex 3. Forest-rich and forest-poor countries. The five most forest-rich countries (the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada, the United States and China) account for more than half of total forest area (2 097 million hectares or 53 percent). The Russian Federation alone accounts for 20 percent of the world total. Seven countries have more than 100 million hectares of forest each. The ten most forest-rich countries account for 66 percent of total forest area (). The remaining 34 percent is spread among 212 countries and areas. Seven countries and areas (the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, the Holy See, Monaco, Nauru, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and Tokelau) reported having no areas that qualify as
using the FRA 2005 definition. High and low forest cover countries. Forty-five countries and areas have more than half their total land area covered by
(Figure 2.4), and 11 of these have more than 75 percent of their total land area covered. Most of these are small island states or territories, but the list also includes three low-lying coastal states in South America and one country in the Congo Basin (Table 2.2). Sixty-four countries and areas have less than 10 percent of their total land area covered by . These include many SIDS and dependent territories, as well as 17 larger countries with relatively substantial forest areas (more than 1 million hectares each). Three of these (Chad, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Mongolia) have more than 10 million hectares of forest, but still qualify as LFCCs. At the regional level, South America is the region with the highest percentage of forest cover, followed by Europe and North and Central America. Asia is the region with the lowest percentage of forest cover (). :
Chapter 2: Extent of forest resources, p.14-17 2.2 How fast are forests disappearing?
The source document for this Digest states:
is a simplified model illustrating forest change dynamics. It has only two classes:
and all other land. A reduction in forest area can happen through either of two processes. , which is by far the most important, implies that forests are cleared by people and the land converted to another use, such as agriculture or infrastructure. Natural disasters may also destroy forests, and when the area is incapable of regenerating naturally and no efforts are made to replant it, it, too, reverts to other land. An increase in forest area can also happen in two ways: Either through , i.e. planting of trees on land that was not previously forested, or through natural expansion of , e.g. on abandoned agricultural land – which is quite common in some European countries. Where part of a forest is cut down but replanted (reforestation), or where the forest grows back on its own within a relatively short period (natural regeneration), there is no change in forest area. For FRA 2005, countries were asked to provide information on their forest area for three points in time. This allows calculation of the net change in forest area over time. This net change is the sum of all negative changes due to
and natural disasters and all positive changes due to
and natural expansion of .
The total net change in forest area in the period
is estimated at -8.9 million hectares per year – equivalent to a loss of 0.22 percent of the remaining forest area each year during this period. The total net change in forest area in the period
is estimated at -7.3 million hectares per year – an area the size of Panama or Sierra Leone – or equivalent to a loss of 200 km2 of forest per day. Compared to the 1990s, the current annual net loss is 18 percent lower and equals a loss of 0.18 percent of the remaining forest area each year during this period. Countries were not requested to provide information on each of the four components of net change, as most countries do not have such information. This, however, makes estimation of the
rate difficult and no attempt has been made to do so at the country level. Rather, an estimate of the global deforestation rate has been made as follows: The total net loss for countries with a negative change in forest area was 13.1 million hectares per year for
and 12.9 million hectares per year for . This would indicate that annual
rates were at least at this level. Since the net change rate takes into account
efforts and natural expansion of , the rate of deforestation might be higher still. On the other hand, Brazil, which accounts for 21 percent of the total net loss in the period
and 24 percent in , calculated its forest area in 2005 and 1990 based on information from 2000 and the sum of annual figures of the area of forests cleared. It did not take into account to what extent the land use of these areas had changed and to what extent cleared lands had been abandoned and had reverted to forest through natural regeneration. Such naturally regenerated secondary forests are thought to be quite extensive, but insufficient information is available to estimate the extent. Thus the area of deforestation and the net loss of forests in Brazil are likely overestimated. Taking these considerations into account, the global
rate was estimated at 13 million hectares per year during the period , with few signs of a significant decrease over time. In summary,
continues at an alarming rate – but the rate of net loss is decreasing due to
and natural expansion of
in some countries and regions.
in area of
were analysed, based on the 171 countries and areas providing information for all three reporting years. The analysis indicates that other wooded land is more or less constant in North and Central America and Oceania. In Europe and South America, it decreased in the period , but remained almost constant in the period . It decreased in both periods in Africa and Asia. At the global level, area of other wooded land decreased by about 3.3 million hectares per year over the past 15 years. This finding should be treated with caution, however, since many countries do not have compatible information over time for other wooded land, and thus one estimate was frequently used as the best available figure for all three reporting years. Data for
were too limited to allow trend analysis. Regional and subregional comparisons. Table 2.4 and Figure 2.6 show the changes in area of forest by region and subregion. South America suffered the largest net loss of
from 2000 to 2005 – about 4.3 million hectares per year – followed by Africa, which lost 4.0 million hectares annually. While there are signs that the net loss in Africa is decreasing, it seems to be increasing in South America – primarily due to a reported increase in the net loss of forests in Brazil. However, as indicated above, the net loss reported by Brazil for both periods may be overestimated. Efforts are currently underway to design and implement a national forest assessment on a pilot basis in Brazil, which should yield better information for the next global forest resources assessment.
North and Central America and Oceania each had a net loss of about 350 000 ha, with a decreasing
in Oceania, and a slightly increasing trend in North and Central America – the latter primarily owing to a decrease in the plantation establishment rate in the United States (down from an average of 596 900 ha per year in
to an average of 157 400 ha per year in the period ) and the continued, albeit decreasing, net loss of
in Mexico. Asia, which had a net loss of some 800 000 ha per year in the 1990s, reported a net gain of 1 million hectares per year from 2000 to 2005, primarily as a result of the largescale
reported by China. Forest areas in Europe continued to expand, although at a slower rate than in the 1990s. For information on changes in forest area by country, see Table 4 in Annex 3. Countries with large positive or negative changes. In the Caribbean, Europe, North America, Oceania and Western and Central Asia, a majority of countries have no major changes over the last five years, while in Africa a majority of countries have a negative change rate (Figure 2.7). A large number of countries in Oceania and the Caribbean have reported no major change, primarily because of lack of data and particularly for more than one point in time. The ten countries with the largest net loss per year in the period
had a combined net loss of forest area of 8.2 million hectares per year (Table 2.5).
The ten countries with the largest net gain per year in the period
had a combined net gain of forest area of 5.1 million hectares per year due to
efforts and natural expansion of
(Table 2.6). The large increase in forest area for China is due to recent, large-scale afforestation programmes. Thirty-seven countries and areas have an estimated net negative change rate of 1 percent or more per year. The ten countries with the largest annual net negative change rates for
are: Comoros (7.4 percent); Burundi (5.2 percent); Togo (4.5 percent); Mauritania (3.4 percent); Nigeria (3.3 percent); Afghanistan (3.1 percent); Honduras (3.1 percent); Benin (2.5 percent); Uganda (2.2 percent) and the Philippines (2.1 percent). Eighteen countries have an estimated annual positive change rate of 1 percent or more due to natural expansion of
and . The ten countries with the largest estimated annual positive change rates for
are: Rwanda (6.9 percent); Iceland (3.9 percent); Bahrain (3.8 percent); Lesotho (2.7 percent); Kuwait (2.7 percent); Egypt (2.6 percent); China (2.2 percent); Cuba (2.2 percent); Viet Nam (2.0 percent) and Tunisia (1.9 percent). Most but not all of the countries with large change rates measured in percentages are LFCCs or countries with a limited forest area, where a relatively small change in absolute
results in a large change in relative or percentage terms. Comparison with previous estimates Countries were asked to provide estimates for three points in time for FRA , 2000 and 2005. The figures provided for 1990 and 2000 are likely to differ slightly from those reported for the previous assessment (FRA 2000) for the following reasons: First, the estimates presented in both assessments are derived primarily through linear interpolation and extrapolation of the results from two or more recent assessments. National forest resources assessments are fairly expensive, thus they are often carried out at infrequent intervals and a new data set can significantly change previous forecasts based, for example, on estimates from the 1970s or 1980s.
Second, many more countries were actively involved in the FRA 2005 process than in previous assessments, and the national correspondents helped provide access to better and more recent information, while their detailed knowledge of forest types helped improve the reclassification of data into FRA 2005 categories. Table 2.7 shows a comparison of the results provided in FRA 2000 and those reported in FRA 2005 for reporting years 1990 and 2000. Globally, total forest area estimated in FRA 2005 for 1990 and 2000 was about 3 percent higher than that in FRA 2000. This was primarily owing to reclassification of unproductive
in Canada and the United States (previously classified as ), but also to new and better information from other countries.
Most countries provided estimates of forest area that differed from those provided for FRA 2000. Many differences were minor and due to calibration of areas to match the official land areas as found in the FAO database FAOSTAT (FAO, 2005a). Others were due to reclassifications or to new and better information and, in some cases, resulted in significantly different figures. A total of 79 countries provided estimates for 1990 for FRA 2005 that differed by more than 10 percent from those presented for FRA 2000. Similarly, a total of 85 countries provided new figures for 2000 that differed by more than 10 percent from those presented for FRA 2000. A separate working paper has been prepared explaining these differences (FAO, 2006a). Annual net loss of
in the 1990s appears to have been overestimated in previous studies. FRA 2000 estimated the annual net change in global forest area to be -9.4 million hectares per year for the period . FRA 2005 estimates the rate for the same period to be -8.9 million hectares per year, i.e. half a million hectares less per year. The main differences are found in Africa, where the net loss is 1 million hectares lower than previously estimated, and in Asia, where FRA 2005 estimates a higher loss for the 1990s than previously reported, primarily due to a revised change rate for Indonesia, based on more recent information. For Africa, the results for FRA 2005 are closer to the results of the independent remote sensing analysis done for FRA 2000, which indicated that the net annual loss was -2.2 million hectares, while the reports indicated a net loss of -5.5 million hectares. However, the net loss of 4.3 million hectares reported for FRA 2005, which is based on national reports, may still be overestimated. :
Chapter 2: Extent of forest resources, p.18-23 2.3 How much is there of the different kinds of forests?
The source document for this Digest states:FOREST CHARACTERISTICS The request for information on forest characteristics aimed to provide more detailed information on the kinds of forest that exist, in terms of their ‘naturalness’ or the intensity of silviculture and management practices. A continuum exists from
with no – or no visible – indications of past or present human activity to intensively managed
of introduced , primarily managed for a single product, often on a relatively short rotation. Between these two extremes lies a range of scenarios, and there are no clear cut-off points between possible classes along the continuum. Countries were asked to characterize their
according to five classes: primary, modified natural, semi-natural, protective forest plantation and productive forest plantation. The first three classes comprise native forest tree
only, with the possible exception of small areas of natural regeneration of introduced or naturalized species in the semi-natural class. While the origin of primary and
is natural regeneration,
are established through assisted natural regeneration, planting or seeding, while all
are established through planting or seeding. Planted
thus comprise all
and parts of . All planted forests of introduced
were classified as forest plantations in FRA 2005. Planted forests of native species were classified as forest plantations if characterized by few species, straight, regularly spaced rows and/or even-aged stands. If they resembled natural forests of the same species mix, such as many planted forests in Europe, they were classified as semi-natural forests. A thematic study on planted , including the planted-forest component of both
and , is being completed for release during 2006 to complement the data available in FRA 2005 (). The use of the five different classes helps clarify the extent to which
are human-made or -modified, while at the same time providing an indication of the intensity of management and the potential for wood production, e.g. for use in global fibre supply models. The typical modified forest is a tropical forest in which selective logging has taken place, but no silvicultural measures have influenced the natural regeneration of . The typical semi-natural forest might be a
forest in Europe or a teak forest in Asia, in which the harvesting is much more intense, removing a larger volume and number of trees per hectare, and with specific interventions aimed at securing a desirable future species mix through assisted natural regeneration, seeding or planting of native species.
may be established for different purposes and have been divided into two classes, with
typically being unavailable for wood supply (or at least having wood production as a secondary objective only) and often consisting of a mix of
managed on long rotations or under continuous cover. This section provides an overview of status and
as related to forest characteristics. More detailed information on
can be found in the chapter on , while analyses of
can be found in the respective chapters on these themes. Information availability Although a large number of countries reported on the characteristics of their , information on all five classes was not always readily available, because countries either did not collect information or used a different national classification system. Proxy
have often been used, which makes a detailed analysis of status and
difficult. Information was unavailable for many of the countries in the Congo Basin, the second largest expanse of tropical forest, and this should be kept in mind when analysing the findings. Few countries had information on the area of . Some used the current area of
in national parks and other protected areas as a proxy
or provided an expert estimate of the percentage of natural forests that could be considered primary according to the definition used for FRA 2005. There were also some inconsistencies in reporting planted forests of native : some countries reported these as , while others preferred to include them as . Thus it may not be possible to directly compare figures for different countries, owing to differences in interpretation of the classification systems. Of 229 countries and areas reporting, 174 reported on the characteristics of their . Their combined forest area was estimated at 3 678 million hectares – equivalent to 93 percent of the total forest area of the world (Figure 2.8). Of the 180 countries providing information on the area of , 114 provided information on characteristics. Status More than one-third (36 percent) of total forest area is classified as , i.e. forest of native , in which there are no clearly visible indications of human activity and
are not significantly disturbed (). Great variation exists in terms of the distribution of , with limited areas reported from the Caribbean, Europe (excluding the Russian Federation) and the arid zones of Eastern and Southern Africa, Northern Africa and Western and Central Asia. The largest expanse of
is found in South America (the Amazon). Countries in North and Central America and the Russian Federation have also classified a relatively high proportion of their
as primary. Slightly more than half of all
(53 percent) are considered
(forests of naturally regenerated native
in which there are clearly visible indications of human activity) and 7 percent are classified as
(forests comprising native species, established through planting, seeding or assisted natural regeneration).
constitute an estimated 4 percent of forest area ( of introduced , and in some cases native species, established through planting or seeding), classified either as productive (3 percent of total forest area) or protective (0.8 percent of total forest area). The vast majority of
(69 percent) was classified as modified natural, 28 percent as primary and the remaining 3 percent as semi-natural. Trends A
analysis was generated based on the 167 countries providing estimates for all three reporting years,2 including those reporting no . 2 This list of countries excludes the Russian Federation (see comment related to primary forests in footnote 3). Australia did not provide information for all categories for 1990; its primary forest has been assumed to be constant and the remaining forest area not classified as forest plantation has been assumed to be modified natural forest based on information from 2000 and 2005. As can be seen in Figure 2.10, the areas of
and modified natural forest are decreasing, while the areas of semi-natural forest and forest plantation are increasing. About 6 million hectares of
have been lost or modified each year since 1990,3 and there is no indication that the rate of change is slowing down. This rapid decrease stems not only from , but also from modification of
due to selective logging and other human interventions – whereby
move into the class of . The rate of loss of primary forests is stable or slightly decreasing in most subregions, but is increasing in South America and, to a lesser extent, in North America. 3 This estimated net loss excluded the Russian Federation, in which a large difference in the change rate (from -1.6 million hectares per year in the 1990s to +0.5 million hectares per year in the last five years) is likely due to a change in the methodology used, rather than being a reflection of actual change. Brazil and Indonesia alone account for an annual loss of
of 4.9 million hectares. The data collected do not permit an analysis of how much of this net loss is due to
and how much is owing to areas of forest moving into the modified natural forest class. A number of countries registered positive change rates in the area of , including several European countries and Japan (see Table 9 in Annex 3). In most of these cases, countries have been setting aside natural forest areas in which no intervention is to take place. With time, these areas evolve into
in which there are no clearly visible indications of human activity and
are not significantly disturbed, which is the definition of primary forests used in FRA 2005. Japan and some of the European countries, for example, classified all natural forests over a certain age or size as primary forests if no interventions had been conducted in the last 25 years. There has been an increase in the area of
of about 14 million hectares in the last five years, or about 2.8 million hectares per year, 87 percent of which are in the productive class. Information availability on the characteristics of
was insufficient for analysing
over time. Forest types and
groups. In addition to the thematic study on planted
mentioned above, two studies on specific forest types and species groups were undertaken to complement the FRA 2005 main report – one on
() and another on bamboo (). The total area of
was estimated at 15.2 million hectares, down from 18.8 million hectares in 1980. An estimated 47 percent of this area was found in five countries: Indonesia, Australia, Brazil, Nigeria and Mexico. As mentioned earlier, the area of bamboo is difficult to assess, as these
often occur as patches within or outside . Nevertheless, preliminary findings based on reports from 30 of the main bamboo-rich countries indicate that total area of bamboo amounts to some 40 million hectares – or 1 percent of the global forest area – and it is increasing. :
Chapter 2: Extent of forest resources, p.23-28 VideoPublished under the authority of the GreenFacts Scientific Board.Keep in touch, subscribe: (C) GreenFacts
GreenFacts(R) is a registered trademark of Cogeneris sprl. Design:}