A Whole-of-Government Approach to Reducing Tropical Deforestation

What can the Glasgow Declaration on Forests bring to global emission reduction?

In spite of the high importance of forests, global forest loss has remained alarmingly high during the last decades. Forest loss at a global scale has been unveiled with increasingly finer spatial resolution, but the forest extent and loss in protected areas (PAs) and in large intact forest landscapes (IFLs) have not so far been systematically assessed. Moreover, the impact of protection on preserving the IFLs is not well understood. In this study we conducted a consistent assessment of the global forest loss in PAs and IFLs over the period 2000–2012. We used recently published global remote sensing based spatial forest cover change data, being a uniform and consistent dataset over space and time, together with global datasets on PAs’ and IFLs’ locations. Our analyses revealed that on a global scale 3% of the protected forest, 2.5% of the intact forest, and 1.5% of the protected intact forest were lost during the study period. These forest loss rates are relatively high compared to global total forest loss of 5% for the same time period. The variation in forest losses and in protection effect was large among geographical regions and countries. In some regions the loss in protected forests exceeded 5% (e.g. in Australia and Oceania, and North America) and the relative forest loss was higher inside protected areas than outside those areas (e.g. in Mongolia and parts of Africa, Central Asia, and Europe). At the same time, protection was found to prevent forest loss in several countries (e.g. in South America and Southeast Asia). Globally, high area-weighted forest loss rates of protected and intact forests were associated with high gross domestic product and in the case of protected forests also with high proportions of agricultural land. Our findings reinforce the need for improved understanding of the reasons for the high forest losses in PAs and IFLs and strategies to prevent further losses.

The data, information and knowledge on the tropical forest area and its dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon remain contentious. We use time-series satellite images to quantify annual forest area, loss and gain in the Brazilian Amazon during 2000–2017. We find that forest area was ~15% higher than the estimate by the official Brazilian forest dataset (PRODES), but annual forest-loss rates were twice the PRODES estimates (~0.027 × 106 km2 yr–1 during 2001–2016). Forest-loss rates increased again after 2013. The El Nino and drought year (2015/2016) drove large forest area loss. The cumulative forest-loss area within the protected areas (which include ~50% of forests in the region) was ~11% of the total forest-loss area, which highlights the roles of protected areas in forest conservation. A new estimation of forest cover and loss finds more area but also double the loss rates in recent years, relative to previous estimates. Deforestation increased after a low peak in 2013.

BackgroundConversion of forests to other land cover or land use releases the carbon stored in the forests and reduces carbon sequestration potential of the land. The rate of forest conversion could be reduced by establishing protected areas for biological diversity and other conservation goals. The purpose of this study is to quantify the efficiency and potential of forest land protection for mitigating GHG emissions.ResultsThe analysis of related national-level datasets shows that during the period of 1992–2001 net forest losses in protected areas were small as compared to those in unprotected areas: -0.74% and −4.07%, respectively. If forest loss rates in protected and unprotected area had been similar, then forest losses in the protected forestlands would be larger by 870 km2/yr forests, that corresponds to release of 7 Tg C/yr (1 Tg=1012 g). Conversely, and continuing to assume no leakage effects or interactions of prices and harvest levels, about 1,200 km2/yr forests could have remained forest during the period of 1992–2001 if net area loss rate in the forestland outside protected areas was reduced by 20%. Not counting carbon in harvested wood products, this is equivalent to reducing fossil-fuel based carbon emissions by 10 Tg C/yr during this period. The South and West had much higher potentials to mitigate GHG emission from reducing loss rates in unprotected forests than that of North region. Spatially, rates of forest loss were higher across the coastal states in the southeastern US than would be expected from their population change, while interior states in the northern US experienced less forest area loss than would have been expected given their demographic characteristics.ConclusionsThe estimated carbon benefit from the reduced forest loss based on current protected areas is 7 Tg C/yr, equivalent to the average carbon benefit per year for a previously proposed ten-year $110 million per year tree planting program scenario in the US. If there had been a program that could have reduced forest area loss by 20% in unprotected forestlands during 1992–2001, collectively the benefits from reduced forest loss would be equal to 9.4% of current net forest ecosystem carbon sequestration in the conterminous US.

Ecotourism is developing rapidly in biodiversity hotspots worldwide, but there is limited and mixed empirical evidence that ecotourism achieves positive biodiversity outcomes. We assessed whether ecotourism influenced forest loss rates and trajectories from 2000 to 2017 in Himalayan temperate forests. We compared forest loss in 15 ecotourism hubs with nonecotourism areas in 4 Himalayan countries. We used matching statistics to control for local-level determinants of forest loss, for example, population density, market access, and topography. None of the ecotourism hubs was free of forest loss, and we found limited evidence that forest-loss trajectories in ecotourism hubs were different from those in nonecotourism areas. In Nepal and Bhutan, differences in forest loss rates between ecotourism hubs and matched nonecotourism areas did not differ significantly, and the magnitude of the estimated effect was small. In India, where overall forest loss rates were the lowest of any country in our analysis, forest loss rates were higher in ecotourism hubs than in matched nonecotourism areas. In contrast, in China, where overall forest loss rates were highest, forest loss rates were lower in ecotourism hubs than where there was no ecotourism. Our results suggest that the success of ecotourism as a forest conservation strategy, as it is currently practiced in the Himalaya, is context dependent. In a region with high deforestation pressures, ecotourism may be a relatively environmentally friendly form of economic development relative to other development strategies. However, ecotourism may stimulate forest loss in regions where deforestation rates are low.

A growing body of evidence suggests that criminal activities associated with drug trafficking networks are a progressively important driver of forest loss in Central America. However, the scale at which drug trafficking represents a driver of forest loss is not presently known. We estimated the degree to which narcotics trafficking may contribute to forest loss using an unsupervised spatial clustering of 15 spatial and temporal forest loss patch metrics developed from global forest change data. We distinguished anomalous forest loss from background loss patches for each country exhibiting potential ‘narco-capitalized’ signatures which showed a statistically significant dissimilarity from other patches in terms of size, timing, and rate of forest loss. We also compared annual anomalous forest loss with the number of cocaine shipments and volume of cocaine seized, lost, or delivered at country- and department-level. For Honduras, results from linear mixed effects models showed a highly significant relationship between anomalous forest loss and the timing of increased drug trafficking (F = 9.90, p = 0.009) that also differed significantly from temporal patterns of background forest loss (t-ratio = 2.98, p = 0.004). Other locations of high forest loss in Central America showed mixed results. The timing of increased trafficking was not significantly related to anomalous forest loss in Guatemala and Nicaragua, but significantly differed in patch size compared to background losses. We estimated that cocaine trafficking could account for between 15% and 30% of annual national forest loss in these three countries over the past decade, and 30% to 60% of loss occurred within nationally and internationally designated protected areas. Cocaine trafficking is likely to have severe and lasting consequences in terms of maintaining moist tropical forest cover in Central America. Addressing forest loss in these and other tropical locations will require a stronger linkage between national and international drug interdiction and conservation policies.

Long-term riparian forest loss around streams, lakes, and wetlands in ecologically diverse managed and unmanaged landscapes

The effects of urbanization on China's forest loss from 2000 to 2012: Evidence from a panel analysis

Tropical forests are vital for global biodiversity, carbon storage and local livelihoods, yet they are increasingly under threat from human activities. Large-scale land acquisitions have emerged as an important mechanism linking global resource demands to forests in the Global South, yet their influence on tropical deforestation remains unclear. Here we perform a multicountry assessment of the links between large-scale land acquisitions and tropical forest loss by combining a new georeferenced database of 82,403 individual land deals—covering 15 countries in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia—with data on annual forest cover and loss between 2000 and 2018. We find that land acquisitions cover between 6% and 59% of study-country land area and between 2% and 79% of their forests. Compared with non-investment areas, large-scale land acquisitions were granted in areas of higher forest cover in 11 countries and had higher forest loss in 52% of cases. Oil palm, wood fibre and tree plantations were consistently linked with enhanced forest loss while logging and mining concessions showed a mix of outcomes. Our findings demonstrate that large-scale land acquisitions can lead to elevated deforestation of tropical forests, highlighting the role of local policies in the sustainable management of these ecosystems. Tropical deforestation rates are linked to large-scale land investments, according to georeferenced land deal records and remote sensing of forest loss over the past two decades.

Detecting vulnerability of humid tropical forests to multiple stressors

Tropical forests, largely restricted between 23.5° south and north of the equator, are famous for both their high biological diversity and high rates of deforestation. The tropical forest biome covers about 22 million km2 of the world’s terrestrial surface (see Matthews, et al. 2000; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010, both cited under General Overviews). Tropical forests are characterized by a multilayered, angiosperm-dominated canopy, with high species richness and varied life forms (including herbs, shrubs, epiphytes, lianas, and trees). Rainfall seasonality is the primary driver of the four main types of forest physiognomy, along with temperature: Closed canopy rain forest, moist deciduous forest, dry forest and savanna, and upland or montane forest. In this bibliography, we focus mostly on tropical rain forest and tropical humid forest—forest that receives substantial rainfall with or without a dry season—where most research has been conducted. Abundant tree families in the Neotropics include Fabaceae, Arecaceae, and Lecythidaceae, whereas Dipterocarpaceae, Euphorbiaceae, and Meliaceae are abundant in the Paleotropics; dominance by a single species is rare. Tropical forests are estimated to contain at least half of all known plant species. This diversity has led to the intense study of the evolution of diversity, mechanisms of species coexistence, and plant–animal interactions. Tropical forests are usually highly productive and have long been populated by people. However, more recent conversion of tropical forests to arable land and pastures have led to the loss of 0.45 percent per year of tropical forest cover, which has stark implications for forest fragmentation, biodiversity, and climate change (see Ramankutty, et al. 2008, cited under Tropical Forest Extent and Loss; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010, cited under General Overviews; Malhi, et al. 2014 and Lewis, et al. 2015, both cited under Tropical Forest Extent and Loss).

Explosive growth of secondary roads is linked to widespread tropical deforestation.

Forest degradation is a major cause of habitat loss for species that rely on old forest features. Quantitative knowledge of forest degradation and deforestation in the breeding range of the critically endangered swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) is poor but essential to inform effective conservation planning. We provide the first quantitative analysis of forest degradation and deforestation across the swift parrot breeding range. We identify trends and drivers of anthropogenic loss to determine whether current forestry policy is aligned with targets to secure species recovery. We used global datasets of forest extent, change and loss to evaluate historic deforestation and forest dynamics since the year 2000. We applied our analysis at three spatial scales within the breeding range: potential, core, and Swift Parrot Important Breeding Areas (SPIBAs). We measured trends in fire and anthropogenic forest loss before and after forestry policy changes. Results informed a land use change analysis to identify major drivers of forest loss. Habitat loss has occurred in more than 50% of the swift parrots’ breeding range. More than 37% of the breeding range was permanently deforested prior to the year 2000. Of remaining forest in the year 2000, approximately a quarter has been disturbed, degraded or permanently deforested. Degradation was 6.5 times that of deforestation, and production forestry was the major human driver of forest loss. Forest loss rates in SPIBAs have doubled since forestry policy change in 2014. Degraded forests are unlikely to provide habitat for swift parrots and urgent changes to forest policies and practices are needed to ensure the perpetuity of the species. We highlight the advantages of using publicly available remote-sensing datasets to quantify past and present habitat degradation, deforestation, and land use change at biologically meaningful scales relevant to the recovery of threatened species.

Introduction

Analyzing the current status of forest loss and its causes is crucial for understanding and preparing for future forest changes and the spatial pattern of forest loss. We investigated spatial patterns of forest loss in South Korea and assessed the effects of various factors on forest loss based on spatial heterogeneity. We used the local Moran’s I to classify forest loss spatial patterns as high–high clusters, low–low clusters, high–low outliers, and high–low outliers. Additionally, to assess the effect of factors on forest loss, two statistical models (i.e., ordinary least squares regression (OLS) and geographically weighted regression (GWR) models) and one machine-learning model (i.e., random forest (RF) model) were used. The accuracy of each model was determined using the R2, RMSE, MAE, and AICc. Across South Korea, the forest loss rate was highest in the Seoul–Incheon–Gyeonggi region. Moreover, high–high spatial clusters were found in the Seoul–Incheon–Gyeonggi and Daejeon–Chungnam regions. Among the models, the GWR model was the most accurate. Notably, according to the GWR model, the main factors driving forest loss were road density, cropland area, number of households, and number of tertiary industry establishments. However, the factors driving forest loss had varying degrees of influence depending on the location. Therefore, our findings suggest that spatial heterogeneity should be considered when developing policies to reduce forest loss.