Ten Years of Mapping and Monitoring Intact Ten Years of Mapping and Monitoring Intact Forest Landscapes in the TropicsForest Landscapes in the Tropics

Ilona ZhuravlevaGreenpeace Russia

2011

Greenpeace WorldwideGreenpeace WorldwideMapping UnitsMapping Units

• International non-governmental organisation “Greenpeace” – 28 offices in 43 countries• GIS Units in 3 offices (Russia, Brazil, Indonesia)

FOCUS on FORESTS

2/36

Greenpeace integrates GIS data and tools into its campaign work in order to have clear

evidence of forest loss (it is crucial to work and lobby on the base of credible figures and data)Greenpeace integrates GIS data and tools into its campaign work in order to have clear

evidence of forest loss (it is crucial to work and lobby on the base of credible figures and data)

Forests of the World Forests of the World

Vegetation Continuous Fields, 2000(Global 500m Tree Cover Product from MODIS)

Starting Point in 2000

3/36

Why are Large Intact Forests Important ?Why are Large Intact Forests Important ?

The United Nation’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has realised the importance of large intact forests and other intact ecosystems (see, e.g. Tech Series 41). In the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) discussions on Reducing Deforestation and Degradation in developing countries (REDD), emerges the importance of preserving natural forests and IFLs are the backbone of the world’s natural forests.

“In largely intact forest landscapes where there is currently little deforestation and degradation occurring, the conservation of existing forests, especially primary forests, is critical both for preventing future greenhouse gas emissions through loss of carbon stocks and

ensuring continued sequestration, and for conserving biodiversity.”- (CBD 2009)

- Better recovering from disturbances (resistance and resilience)

- Important for the preservation of all strata of biological diversity (especially for large animals)

- Maintaining ecological processes and supplying ecos ystem services like water and air purification, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, erosion, and flood control

- High conservation value + low economic value = easy to protect

4/36

Intact Forest Landscape (IFL)

An unbroken expanse of natural ecosystems within the zone of current forest extent, showing no signs of significant human activity and large enough that all native biodiversity, including viable populations of wide-ranging species, could be maintained.

IFL DefinitionIFL Definition

Source: Potapov, P., A. Yaroshenko, S. Turubanova, M. Dubinin, L. Laestadius, C. Thies, D. Aksenov, A. Egorov, Y. Yesipova, I. Glushkov, M. Karpachevskiy, A. Kostikova, A. Manisha, E. Tsybikova, and I.Zhuravleva. 2008. Mapping the world’s intact forest landscapes by remote sensing. Ecology and Society 13(2): 51. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art51/

5/36

IFL Size CriteriaIFL Size Criteria

Areas within today's global extent of forest cover which contains forest and non-forest ecosystems minimally influenced by human economic activity:

• Larger than 50,000 ha

• At least 10 km wide at the broadest place (measured as the diameter of the largest circle that can be fitted inside the patch)

• At least 2 km wide in corridors or appendages to areas that meet the above criteria

Indonesia, Riau province. 2010Landsat-7 ETM+ slc-off,

6/36

Disturbed Areas Exclusion AlgorithmDisturbed Areas Exclusion Algorithm

* Basis: Vegetation Continuous Fields, 2000(Global 500m Tree Cover Product from MODIS)

>40%, close forests20-40%, open forests

Forests, Tree canopy density*

Forest zone

Forest zone: all forests with tree canopy density greater than 20% if the distance between them is less than 2 km and all non-forest plots which are fully surrounded by forests. Fragments of the forest zone smaller than 50,000ha were not considered in the analysis

Small fragments

Patches larger then 50,000 haUSA, 2000TIGER dataset,

Scale 1 : 100 000

“Negative” approach . Exclusion of deforested areas and small fragmented patches based on infrastructure maps

Step 1. Forest Zone Step 1. Forest Zone DefiningDefining

Step 2.Step 2. DDeveloped Areaseveloped AreasAnalysisAnalysis

7/36

“Inverse" logic. Checking large forested areas for indications of active or recent use (clearing for agriculture, logging, and infrastructure development) based on satellite images

Disturbed Areas Exclusion AlgorithmDisturbed Areas Exclusion AlgorithmStep 3. Step 3. FragmentationFragmentation Analysis Analysis

What was excluded:

- Populated places

- Infrastructure line objects (buffer of 1km on each side was applied): roads, railways, navigable waterways,

seashore, pipelines and power transmission lines

- Areas used for agriculture and timber production

- Areas affected by industrial activities during the last 30-70 years (logging, mining, oil and gas, peat exploration, etc)

What was excluded:

- Populated places

- Infrastructure line objects (buffer of 1km on each side was applied): roads, railways, navigable waterways,

seashore, pipelines and power transmission lines

- Areas used for agriculture and timber production

- Areas affected by industrial activities during the last 30-70 years (logging, mining, oil and gas, peat exploration, etc)

Yellow line – IFL border

Indonesia. 2005Landsat-7 ETM+

IFL IFL

Logging Navigate River

Yellow line – IFL border

Republic of the Congo. 2010Mosaic of Landsat-7 ETM+ slc-off

8/36

History of IFL MappingHistory of IFL Mapping

IFLs of North European part of Russia (2001)

IFLs of Russia(2002)

Boreal IFLs of Russia, Canada,

USA, Sweden, Finland, north parts of Japan

and China(2003)

9/36

The WorldThe World ’’s IFLss IFLs (200(20066)).. Key FindingsKey Findings

• IFLs exist in 66 of the 149 countries within the forest zone. Most of IFLs (90%) occur in 13 countries , and three of them – Canada, Russia and Brazil – contain 63.8% of the world's entire IFL area

• Less then 19% of IFLs have some form of protection, 9.7% – are strictly protected (according to IUCN categories I-III of protected areas). The protection percentage is the highest for Temperate forests and lowest for Boreal forests (less than 4.4%). Comparing continents, the protection percentage is lowest in Asia . Some Asian countries – China, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam – have placed little or none of their IFL area under protection

• IFL area – 13.1 million km 2 (23.5% of the forest zone)

• Most of the IFL consist of closed forests (64.5%), with the remainder spread over open forests and woodlands (20.5%), and non-forest ecosystems (15.0%)

• The vast majority of IFL – in two biomes: Humid Tropical and Boreal forests . The lowest proportion of IFLs – in Temperate forests

10/36

IFLs MonitoringIFLs Monitoring

…TropicsTropics Non-boreal EuropeNon-boreal Europe

Northern European Russia

Northern European Russia

IFLs in Northern European Russia, Russia, 2007

Country IFLs. Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2011

Retezat Nationla park, Retezat-Godeanu-Tarcu IFL, Romania, 2009

IFL fragmentation and degradation

11/36

World IFLs Monitoring World IFLs Monitoring –– Focus on TropicsFocus on Tropics

Congo Basin Paradise ForestsBrazilian Amazon Brazil Democratic republic of the Congo

Republic of CongoGabonCameroonCentral African RepublicEquatorial Guinea

IndonesiaPapua – New Guinea

19% 4%8%

12/36

Monitoring Focus on Tropics Monitoring Focus on Tropics -- ReasonsReasons

• 30% world IFLs in 9 tropical countries

• Humid tropical biome is one of two (the second is Boreal biome) where IFLs mostly are concentrated

• Tropical forests do have a higher biodiversity than other forests

• The lowest chance of survival where economies are predominantly based on export

• The highest rate of deforestation (Paradise forests)

• Deforestation of peatforests (Indonesia) is releasing a huge amount of carbon emissions

13/36

CCycle of IFL ycle of IFL DDestructionestruction

Fragmentation Degradation Deforestation

Roads Selective logging Agro-industrial clearing

14/36

Main Drivers of IFLs Degradation in TropicsMain Drivers of IFLs Degradation in Tropics

• Palm Oil Industry• Pulp & Paper Industry

• Industrial Logging• Upcoming Commercial

Plantations• Population Growth

• Soy Industry• Cattle Farming

Brazilian Amazon Congo Basin Paradise Forests

Lack of Governance, Transparency, Control and Monit oring; CorruptionWeak forest policies, laws and/or law enforcement

Export-oriented Economics

Lack of Governance, Transparency, Control and Monit oring; CorruptionWeak forest policies, laws and/or law enforcement

Export-oriented Economics

15/36

Monitoring ProcessMonitoring Process

200016/36

Monitoring ProcessMonitoring Process

200517/36

Monitoring ProcessMonitoring Process

201018/36

IFL Loss 2000-2005

IFL Loss 2005-2010

IFL Area 2010

Monitoring ProcessMonitoring Process

19/36

Current State of Tropical IFLsCurrent State of Tropical IFLs20102010

371,135 ha * 1000(equal ½ Australia)

BrazilianAmazon

63%

CongoBasin

24%

ParadiseForests

13%

Tropical IFLs Loss 2000/2005/2010Tropical IFLs Loss 2000/2005/2010% IFL change

2000-2005% IFL change

2005-2010IFL change

trend% IFL change

2000-2010

TOTAL TROPICS 4.0 2.0 2 5.9

Brazil (Amazon) 4.1 1.1 3 ¾ 5.2

Congo Basin 3.5 2.0 1 ¾ 5.5

Paradise forests 4.9 5.7 1 ½ 10.4

Ha*10002

395,000 371,000379,000

24,000 ha*1000 (≥ Israel area)

IFL loss in absolute areas 2000-2010

21/36

22/36

IFL Change Proportions inIFL Change Proportions in 20002000--20102010

15%31%

27%

24%

2% 1%Republic of the Congo

Gabon

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Cameroon

Central African Republic

Equatorial Guinea

100%

Brasilia (Amazon)

33%

67%

Indonesia

Papua New Guinea

Brazil (Amazon)Congo Basin Paradise Forests

54%22%

24%

Brazil(Amazon) Congo

Basin

Paradise Forests• More then half of all IFL

change occurred in Brazil (Amazon)

• Paradise Forests and Congo basin lost approximately one and the same IFL area –quarter of all IFL changes

• More then 80% of all change in Congo Basin is located in 3 countries (Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo)

• Approximately 70% of all changes in the Paradise Forests are located in Indonesia - the other 30 % are located in Papua New Guinea

IFL IFL Loss Rates Loss Rates –– Country AnalysisCountry Analysis

- Countries with more then 10% IFL loss during 2000-2010

23/36

Brazil (Amazon) 4.1 1.1 3 ¾ 5.2

Democratic Republic of Congo 1.0 0.9 = 1 1.9

Republic of Congo 8.4 3.3 2 ½ 11.4

Gabon 8.7 4.8 1 ¾ 13.1

Cameroon 10.2 5.2 2 14.9

Central African Republic 2.4 12.4 5 14.5

Equatorial Guinea 11.7 2.5 4 ¾ 13.9

Indonesia 4.3 5.9 1 ¼ 10.0

Papua-New Guinea 6.4 5.3 1 ¼ 11.4

% IFL loss2000-2005

% IFL loss2005-2010

IFL ChangeTrend

% IFL loss2000-2010

IFL Loss in Tropics: Brazilian AmazonIFL Loss in Tropics: Brazilian Amazon

- IFL loss (deforestation or degradation) in 2000-2005

- IFL loss (deforestation or degradation) in 2005-2010

- IFL area 2010

BRASIL24/36

IFL Loss in the Tropics: Paradise ForestsIFL Loss in the Tropics: Paradise Forests

INDONESIA

- IFL loss (deforestation or degradation) in 2000-2005

- IFL loss (deforestation or degradation) in 2005-2010

- IFL area 2010

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

25/36

IFL Loss in the Tropics: Congo BasinIFL Loss in the Tropics: Congo Basin

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

- IFL loss in 2000-2005 - IFL loss in 2005-2010 - IFL 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

CAMEROON

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

GABON

26/36

IFL loss in the Tropics: Paradise ForestsIFL loss in the Tropics: Paradise ForestsCase study Case study –– province analysis in Paradise Forests, 2000province analysis in Paradise Forests, 2000 --20052005

Indonesia Papua New Guinea

- In 3 provinces of Indonesia (Maluku Utara, Riau, Sumatera Utara) and 2 provinces of Papua New Guinea (Gulf, West New Britain), the rate of IFL loss (deforestation and degradation) in 2000-2005 is higher than 10%

% of IFL change in 2000-2005 in Provinces

No changesLess then 1%1-5%5-10%10-20%More then 20%

27/36

IFL Mapping and Monitoring Implementation: IFL Mapping and Monitoring Implementation: The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification ProcessThe Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification Process

- The Definition of High Conservation Value Forest category 2 (HCVF2) used in Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship (FSC 2004) is similar to that of Intact Forest Landscapes. The Principles claim intactness values to be preserved as a condition for getting certified.

- In the FSC Controlled Wood standard (FSC 2006) IFL are directly mentioned among other categories of High Conservation Value Forests

- Some regional FSC standards like the Russian one incorporated IFLs (in addition to HCVF)

Canada. Agreement between 9 NGOs and Forest Products Association of Canada. 2010

Russia. Komi Republic. The scheme for NROs and “IlimSeverLes” agreement. 2008

Russia. Karelia Republic. Moratorium agreement between NRO “SPOK” and “Ledmozerskoe” timber company. 2009

28/36

IFL Loss in the Tropics: Congo BasinIFL Loss in the Tropics: Congo BasinCase Study Case Study -- IFLs and Industrial Logging Titles in Congo Basin C ountries, 20IFLs and Industrial Logging Titles in Congo Basin C ountries, 20 1010

Democratic Republic of the Congo

29/36

IFL Loss in the Tropics: Congo BasinIFL Loss in the Tropics: Congo BasinCase study Case study -- IFLs Losses and Industrial Logging Titles in IFLs Losses and Industrial Logging Titles in

the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2000the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2000 --20102010

No changesLess then 5%5-10%10-50%50-90%90-100%

No changesLess then 5%5-10%10-50%50-90%90-100%

Concession titlesIFLs outside of concessions

Change (2000-2010) per each IFL patch

Rate of loss of areas in IFLs (2000-2010) within concession title area

IFLs inside concession

30/36

IFL Mapping and Monitoring Implementation: IFL Mapping and Monitoring Implementation: MoratoriumsMoratoriums are timeare time --bound and therefore no longbound and therefore no long --term protection term protection

Example of violation of a moratorium on IFL area in the North West of RussiaExample of violation of a moratorium on IFL area in the North West of Russia

road

logging

IFL

Green line – IFL border

Russia. Dvinskoy IFL. 2010Spot 2/4, IRS-1C/1D© Scanex, © NASA, © Transparent World

31/36

IFL Mapping and Monitoring Implementation: IFL Mapping and Monitoring Implementation: Protected Area exampleProtected Area example

National ParkUdegeiskaya Legenda

Example of IFL Conservation in the Far East of RussiaExample of IFL Conservation in the Far East of Russia

Green line – IFL borderRed line – National Park border

Russia. Primorsky kray. 2007Spot 2/4, IRS-1C/1D© Scanex, © NASA, © Transparent World

Half of National Park “Udegeiskaya Legenda” is IFL

The north part of the Park is given for local communities (the Udegheis) for forestry

Part given to the Udegheis

32/36

IFL Mapping and Monitoring Implementation: IFL Mapping and Monitoring Implementation: Protected Areas in TropicsProtected Areas in Tropics

• While the average figure of IFLs under strict protection* is 9.7%, the average figure in the

Tropics is lower, only 6.7%

• 11.5% of Paradise Forest’s, 8% of the Congo Basin’s, 5% of the Brazilian Amazon’s IFL

area are strictly protected

• Only 0.03% of Gabon IFLs are strictly protected. There are no Protected Areas in Papua

New Guinea

• The largest portion of IFL protected areas are in Equatorial Guinea – more then 40% of IFL

area are strictly protected; in Cameroon , Indonesia and Republic of the Congo , more

than 10% are protected

* IUCN categories I-III according to UNEP/IUCN World Database on Protected Areas (which in most countries doesn’t gurantee strict implementation on the ground)

33/36

Advantages and Advantages and LimitationLimitation of IFL Conceptof IFL Concept

+ Globally consistent map

+ Based on an up-to-date , precise data source while earlier analyses have relied on expert data, existing small-scale maps, or small-scale maps combined with low-resolution satellite-derived data sets

- Criteria designed for use with remotely sensed data. They seem to underestimate some types of disturbances that are difficult to detect in satellite imagery (selective logging, small-scale agriculture)

- Criteria are not sensitive to regional variations in the understanding of “intactness” and “disturbance”

- Created with visual interpretation of images by experts, may contain inconsistencies and inaccuracies (spatial resolution, lack of information about local land-use practices)

- Difficult to always find satellite images from the same year

Results are generally not immediately suitable for local-scale conservati on planning . They may be used as a framework for such projects to complement additional locally relevant information

There is a certain degree of subjectivity in determining IFL boundaries across transition zones from intact to disturbed areas. Allows to capture the effects of recent disturbances that were not captured in previous studies.

Results are generally not immediately suitable for local-scale conservati on planning . They may be used as a framework for such projects to complement additional locally relevant information

There is a certain degree of subjectivity in determining IFL boundaries across transition zones from intact to disturbed areas. Allows to capture the effects of recent disturbances that were not captured in previous studies.

34/36

• The concept is not known everywhere - how to better distribute it beyond Greenpeace channels?

• How to get IFL protection into legally binding policies and regulations at different levels (including appreciating and implementation IFL concept by international conventions and processes)?

• How to better integrate and use synergies with other conservation concepts?

• How to deal with the fact that the majority of remaining IFLs are situated in just a few countries and they’ll be against complete protection of them

Open Questions and DiscussionOpen Questions and Discussion

35/36

Ilona ZhuravlevaGIS Lab Head of Greenpeace Russia

ilona.zhuravleva@greenpeace.org+7 (495) 988-74-60

Skype: zhilonaMoscow, Leningradskiy prospekt, 26, b.1

www.greenpeace.org www.intactforests.org

Thank you for attention!Thank you for attention!

36/36