
<p><strong>Stay atop the latest forest research and news! The Global Forest Watch blog uses data to illuminate the state of forests worldwide and tells the stories of people dedicated to protecting them. Read about rainforests, deforestation, fires, sustainable agriculture, forest management and other topics critical to the future of forests.</strong></p>


Global Forest Watch Blog

<p><strong>Stay atop the latest forest research and news! The Global Forest Watch blog uses data to illuminate the state of forests worldwide and tells the stories of people dedicated to protecting them. Read about rainforests, deforestation, fires, sustainable agriculture, forest management and other topics critical to the future of forests.</strong></p>

Read about data-backed topics critical to the future of forests, including rainforests, deforestation, fires, sustainable agriculture, forest monitoring and management.

Forest News, Research & Monitoring | Global Forest Watch Blog

Global Forest Watch Content

https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/gfwGlobal.png

<p>New natural forests data is available on the <a href="https://gfw.global/4fQfl03">map</a> and <a href="https://gfw.global/4h95fsk">dashboards</a>. <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/new-data-distinguishes-natural-forests-other-tree-cover/">Learn more here</a>. </p>


New natural forests data available

<p>Updated tree cover gain data shows shows areas of tree cover that grew between a base year of 2000, 2005, 2010 or 2015 and 2020. <a href="https://gfw.global/4gnWpa5">Explore the updated layer and set your baseline here </a> and <a href="https://gfw.global/41ToQbD">read more here</a>.</p>


New baselines for tree cover gain data

<p>A new version of the Spatial Database of Planted Trees and tree plantations layer with near-global coverage is now available on GFW! <a href="https://gfw.global/2Qbv7fM">View on the map here</a> and <a href="https://gfw.global/3DG43On">learn more here</a>.</p>


Updated planted trees layer

Forest Insights

Forest Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

Brazil

Brazil | Global Forest Watch Blog

forest change

forest change | Global Forest Watch Blog

restoration

restoration | Global Forest Watch Blog

Katie Reytar

Jefferson Ferreira-Ferreira

Luciana Alves

Carlos Leandro de Oliveira Cordeiro

Miguel Calmon

<p>In 2022, Global Forest Watch (GFW) in partnership with <a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Land & Carbon Lab</a> <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/new-gfw-tree-cover-gain-net-change-data/">released new tree cover gain data</a> from the University of Maryland that shows <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/tracking-global-tree-cover-gain" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">where and how much land has gained tree cover globally</a> between 2000 and 2020. This data set provided much-needed information to complement data on tree cover loss, revealing a more complete picture of forest change dynamics.</p>



<p>We’ve <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/new-gfw-tree-cover-gain-net-change-data/">now added a new dimension</a> to the gain data showing not just the cumulative change between 2000 and 2020, but also how much tree cover was gained in the intervening five-year periods — 2000-2005, 2005-2010, 2010-2015, and 2015-2020. Data from these intervals provides valuable information on the global trajectory and pace of gain, which can help us better track the extent to which tree cover is coming back. This can include gain resulting from <a href="https://www.wri.org/forest-landscape-restoration-principles" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">forest landscape restoration</a>, which typically involves a variety of strategic interventions that lead to increased tree cover across the landscape.</p>



<p>While we now have a better global picture of tree cover gain, the data captures a wide variety of forms of tree cover, from industrial scale monoculture of Eucalyptus and oil palm — which are not typically considered forms of restoration — to regenerating natural forests. This means that though the data does include gain resulting from forest landscape restoration, it is difficult to identify or measure the success of restoration investments and interventions using the tree cover gain data alone.</p>



<p>Some contextual data, such as mapped plantations from the <a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Spatial Database of Planted Trees</a>, can provide additional information that can help users distinguish gain in plantations from more natural forms of tree cover gain. However, local information — such as geographic information on where and what type of restoration activities are taking place — is the most useful for interpreting what is actually occurring in different locations and whether it would count toward <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-targets-tracker" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">achieving global targets</a>.</p>



<p>In this blog, we explore a few such examples in Brazil where we see areas of gain, but that represent very different scenarios for what is happening on the ground.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Tree cover gain data can capture restoration successes</h2>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><em>Landless Rural Workers Movement supports forest regeneration in Pará State</em></h3>



<p>The Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) is a national social movement in Brazil that focuses on agrarian land reform, seeking to achieve a self-sustainable way of life for rural poor in the country. It is the largest rural network of smallholder farmers in Latin America, supporting more than 450,000 families.</p>



<p>In 2004, MST began occupying the Abril Vermelho settlement in Pará State, an area of 6,668 hectares that had previously been used for oil palm monoculture and belonged to a bankrupt palm oil company. The land was then designated for agrarian reform and became a rural settlement. Today, Abril Vermelho has more than 300 families <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/amazon-restoration-brazil-agrarian-reform-settlements" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">dedicated to producing food with sustainable practices</a>.</p>



<p>When MST arrived, the land was degraded including an unbalanced insect population, poor soil quality and deteriorated water springs. MST first planted small crops of beans, corn and manioc. Over the years they experimented with several management practices to improve soil productivity, cope with pests and improve water quality and quantity. The settled families practiced agroecology, an approach focused on the recovery of native vegetation through the elimination of oil palm production areas, allowing the forest to regenerate.</p>



<p>The main practice in the settlement today is agroforestry, where food crops are introduced in the regenerating forests, or native tree species are planted among food crops.</p>



<p>The tree cover gain data captures the successful restoration efforts that resulted from forest regeneration and native tree species planting. The data shows that the landscape of Abril Vermelho gained a total of 1,981 hectares between 2000 and 2020, with the vast majority (89%) of the new tree cover gained between 2000 and 2010, corresponding with when MST began occupying and settling the area.</p>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/20025052?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img decoding="async" src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/20025052/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="chart visualization" /></noscript></div>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/map/?analysis=eyJzaG93RHJhdyI6dHJ1ZX0%3D&map=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%3D"></iframe>



<p><em>Blue pixels show the tree cover gain in the Abril Vermelho settlement area.</em></p>



<p>Forest restoration and assisted natural regeneration in the settlement became part of MST’s program “Plant Trees – Produce Healthy Food” launched in 2020, which aims to plant 100 million trees all over the country. Besides being a significant contribution for their agroecology practices, this initiative is a strong contributor to Brazilian restoration goals and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Future updates to the gain data combined with local information will help to visualize and measure the impact of this initiative.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><em>Restoration of ecological corridors gives hope to black lion tamarin population in São Paulo</em></h3>



<p>In the Pontal do Paranapanema region, located in the western corner of São Paulo state between the Parana and Paranapanema Rivers, a project to save the endangered black lion tamarin evolved into a landscape-scale restoration project that has successfully restored thousands of hectares of forest cover to support the lion tamarins’ habitat. Once thought to be extinct, the population of black lion tamarins has recovered significantly, largely due to the landscape-scale restoration in and around the only forests where they are known to exist.</p>



<p><a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.200939" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">A combination of factors</a> and collaboration across several sectors led to the successful restoration of the region. These factors included scientists and researchers educating local farmers about conservation and agroforestry, agreements with government to include conservation area in land titles for newly settled farming communities, and coordination among local farmers and researchers to set aside certain areas to create forest corridors that allow the tamarins and other wildlife to move freely between the larger forests of Morro do Diabo State Park and the Mico Leão Preto Ecological Station. Brazil’s forest code, which obligates landowners to reforest riparian areas, created an incentive for reforestation of these corridors, and funding for the restoration activities was secured through dozens of organizations via voluntary carbon markets.</p>



<p>The tree cover gain data shows the results of these efforts for forest recovery. The Pontal do Paranapanema landscape gained a total of 2,476 hectares of tree cover between 2000 and 2020 with nearly three-quarters of that gain occurring after 2010, which reflects the dedicated efforts of the community to reforest the ecological corridors that began in 2012.</p>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/20025099?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img decoding="async" src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/20025099/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="chart visualization" /></noscript></div>



<p>The tree cover gain data also shows the results of restoration across the ecological corridors connecting the Morro do Diabo State Park to the Mico Leão Preto Ecological Station.</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/map/?map=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%3D%3D"></iframe>



<p><em>Blue pixels show the tree cover gain in forested corridors between the forests of Morro do Diabo State Park, the Mico Leão Preto Ecological Station, other patch forest and the Paranapanema River.</em></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Not all tree cover gain is restoration</h2>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><em>Production forests dominate the landscape in Southern Bahia state</em></h3>



<p>Southern Bahia in eastern Brazil is known for its diverse ecosystems and agricultural practices. Though one of the main agricultural activities, growing cacao, uses agroforestry systems, the region has also been a significant hub for cultivating eucalyptus over the past few decades. Eucalyptus is a non-native species that is used in manufacturing pulp and paper as well as various other uses like energy.</p>



<p>Historically, companies were drawn to the region due to the availability of large, inexpensive tracts of land that were ideal for mechanized practices. The favorable climate and soil conditions supported the rapid growth of tree species like eucalyptus and pine. Additionally, government policies, including fiscal incentives and investments from the National Social and Economic Development Bank (BNDES), further encouraged the expansion of tree plantations. Many of these plantations were established on previously degraded lands implementing ecological zoning systems to ensure ecosystems protection, promoting ecological restoration and native species in a “mosaic approach,” and adopting sustainable forestry practices, such as reduced-impact logging and maintaining buffer zones around water bodies to prevent soil erosion and protect water quality.</p>



<p>This has attracted large companies to grow and harvest eucalyptus, resulting in high eucalyptus production. Due to the expansion of eucalyptus and native species, the Southern Bahia region gained 220,100 hectares of tree cover between 2000 and 2020, which translates to a more than 5% increase in tree cover.</p>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/20023118?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img decoding="async" src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/20023118/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="chart visualization" /></noscript></div>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/map/?map=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%3D%3D"></iframe>



<p><em>In Bahia state, tree cover gain is widespread, but represents a large network of eucalyptus plantations and monoculture, which is typically not considered restoration.</em></p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/map/?map=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%3D"></iframe>



<p><em>Detailed view of eucalyptus plantations in Nova Viçosa, Bahia, Brazil.</em></p>



<p>Despite the increase in tree cover captured by the tree cover gain data, these plantations are not typically considered restoration. This is because plantations, especially those involving non-native species, do not restore the original biodiversity and ecological functions of the native ecosystems they replace. While they may contribute to carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services, they are not considered true ecological restoration.</p>



<p>In the case of Southern Bahia, the consolidation of land ownership by the companies cultivating eucalyptus has caused conflict with local organizations and communities due to impact on the landscape, among other issues. An initiative was established in 2005 that led to a national Forest Dialogue and regional forums to promote collaborative efforts to minimize the environmental impacts of eucalyptus plantations. Now, a program led by the Forest Dialogue has assigned several locations as conservation areas, and the companies are enacting restoration programs and initiatives to form ecological corridors.</p>



<p>Future data will reveal whether the region continues to gain tree cover. However, more localized information will be necessary to determine how much of this gain can be attributed to the restoration efforts led by those companies and how much is due to plantations. As a start, we know that there are 19,300 hectares of restoration reported in the Bahia state in the Brazilian Restoration and Reforestation Observatory, although the amount of reported restoration is known to be underrepresented.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What does this mean for using the tree cover gain data?</h2>



<p>The new data on tree cover gain represents a significant step forward in understanding the dynamics of forest change from space, and as the best-available global data, significantly expands the scale at which we can view such changes. Being able to see this gain in five-year intervals, instead of just as one 20-year cumulative sum, provides important detail on the timing of when new tree cover was established and the trajectory, which are important for monitoring efforts and tracking restoration targets over time. Additionally, when combined with data on tree cover loss, it provides the missing piece on calculating net tree cover change.</p>



<p>However, there are limitations in how this data can be used. Satellites can more easily capture taller trees with at least 10% canopy cover — which means that newly sprouting growth is seldom counted. Furthermore, even though the new five-year periods provide a more complete picture of gain, there is still a lag time between when tree growth begins and when it can be detected.</p>



<p>The Bonn Challenge, UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and other major global initiatives have helped national governments and other communities to set priorities and channel investments toward restoration, but global data on tree cover gain or other types of land cover change alone can’t measure their success. Detailed landscape restoration plans, as well as georeferenced information on local projects and investments, are still important for understanding the scope and scale of restoration success.</p>



<p>For example, the <a href="https://www.africa.terramatch.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">TerraFund for AFR100</a> initiative, which channels funding to restoration projects in Africa, has developed a <a href="https://terramatchsupport.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/21178354112539-The-TerraFund-Monitoring-Reporting-and-Verification-Framework" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification Framework</a> that outlines a clear set of indicators and standards for how to measure and report information on restoration progress, integrating both field-based and satellite-based sources of data.</p>



<p>Further advancements to the tree cover gain data will continue to improve its usefulness. For example, dedicated research to differentiate natural tree cover gain from industrial or plantation-based gain has <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00904-w" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">been successfully applied</a> to a prior version of tree cover gain data, with plans to expand this research to the 20-year gain data shortly. But in addition to improving global data, tying local information on actions to the global data on change will continue to be critical for monitoring restoration at scale, and having confidence that we are achieving our goals to restore degraded landscapes.</p>



<style type="text/css"></style>

What can Tree Cover Gain Data Tell Us About Restoration? Perspectives from Brazil

O que os dados de ganho de cobertura arbórea podem nos dizer sobre restauração? Perspectivas do Brasil

This blog explores case studies in Brazil where we see tree cover gain, but that are not always restoration.

What can Tree Cover Gain Data Tell Us About Restoration? Brazil Case Studies

Comment

https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/be19f67e91ba81d93d32ae47706dcbb8?s=96&d=mm&r=g

Paige Johnson

Tree cover gain 2000-2020 visualized on the GFW map

Data &amp; Tools

Data &amp; Tools | Global Forest Watch Blog

Mikaela Weisse

Peter Potapov

Sarah Carter

Liz Goldman

<p>In 2022, researchers at the University of Maryland (UMD) <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsen.2022.856903/full" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">published the first results</a> of global tree cover height and change monitoring between 2000 and 2020, providing an updated look at tree cover <strong>height</strong>, tree cover <strong>gain</strong>, and <strong>net change</strong> in tree cover worldwide. This data set provided much-needed information to complement data on tree cover loss, illustrating all the components of forest change. The data shows that though the world lost more tree cover than it gained from 2000-2020, <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/tracking-global-tree-cover-gain" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">36 countries</a> experienced a net gain in tree cover.</p>



<p>Since then, UMD calculated tree height and change in the intervening five-year periods — from 2005, 2010 and 2015. We’ve now made the five-year gain <a href="https://gfw.global/3ZJS5L6">available on Global Forest Watch (GFW)</a> — read on to learn more about how to access it and how it differs from data you may have used in the past.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s available on GFW, and how can I access it?</h2>



<p>Three different data sets on the GFW platform are based on the height data:</p>



<p>1.<strong> Tree cover height in 2000 and 2020: </strong>This data shows the height in meters of tree canopy cover in each 30-meter pixel. Users can set the minimum height threshold starting at three meters to view the extent of tree cover above a specific height.</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://gfw.global/3rrHOm7"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>2. <strong>Tree cover gain between 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020: </strong>This data shows areas of tree cover that grew from a height of less than five meters in the base year (either 2000, 2005, 2010 or 2015) to a height of greater than or equal to five meters in 2020. <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/key-terms-definitions#tree-cover-gain-and-restoration" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tree cover gain</a> can include regeneration of natural forests, regrowth after harvesting of planted trees or restoration activities. This layer replaces previous data on tree cover gain between 2000 and 2012.</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://gfw.global/3ZJS5L6"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>In addition to viewing the data on the map, users can access statistics on tree cover gain between an adjustable baseline year — either 2000, 2005, 2010 or 2015 — and end year 2020 on the analysis pane and dashboards. In the widget, access the settings to open up the options for adjusting the baseline.</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="315" height="460" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/widget/treeCoverGain/global"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>3. <strong>Net change in tree cover between 2000 and 2020: </strong>This data shows how much more or less tree cover a given location (country, state/province or county/municipality) had in 2020 compared to 2000. This data layer was newly added to GFW in 2022.</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://gfw.global/3CJo9TN"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>In addition to viewing the data on the map, users can access statistics on net change in tree cover between 2000 and 2020 on the analysis pane and dashboards.</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="630" height="460" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/widget/netChange/global"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>Annual data for all three of these data sets will eventually be available. Read more about what we’re learning from these three data sets in the <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-extent" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Forest Extent</a> and <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-gain" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Forest Gain</a> Indicators in the Global Forest Review.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why is GFW using tree cover height as well as canopy cover?</h2>



<p>The first iteration of the tree cover change data on GFW, including the current annual tree cover loss data and the previous tree cover gain between 2000 and 2012, used definitions based on the percent canopy cover. The three data sets discussed above are all based instead on tree cover height.</p>



<p>The main reason for this switch is because the tree cover height data is more accurate. <a href="https://gedi.umd.edu/mission/mission-overview/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">NASA’s GEDI mission</a>, which uses a lidar sensor aboard the International Space Station, provides point-based measurements of vegetation structure, including forest canopy height, which UMD uses as training data to model tree height globally. The data defining tree cover in 2000 using a minimum height of five meters resulted in an accuracy of 97%, compared to 95% accuracy when tree cover is defined as a minimum canopy cover of 30%.</p>



<p>Additionally, tree cover height allows for improved detection of tree cover gain. Unlike tree canopy cover, which reaches its maximum soon after tree growth begins, tree height changes gradually.</p>



<p>Another value of tree cover height is that it better highlights changes in forest structure related to biomass, carbon storage and wildlife habitat. For example, tree height is linearly related to the increase of forest biomass and carbon storage, and therefore allows us to more accurately monitor carbon sequestration in trees over time.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s different about the updated tree cover gain data?</h2>



<p>Like the previous tree cover gain data based on canopy cover, the data based on height shows cumulative gain between a base year and an end year. However, the updated data shows tree cover gain in five-year increments between 2000 and 2020, where the previous layer showed gain between 2000 and 2012. With eight additional years of data and a higher temporal cadence, we are now able to see a more recent view of gain and its trajectory since the start of the millennium.</p>



<p>The old data based on canopy cover and updated data based on height also feature slightly different definitions of gain due to the methodological shift from measuring canopy cover to measuring tree cover height, as described above. The old data defined gain as an increase in tree cover to at least 50% canopy cover, while the updated data defines gain as an increase in tree cover to at least five meters tall.</p>



<p>Like the previous data, the updated gain data is available at 30-meter resolution and was produced by the GLAD lab at the University of Maryland based on Landsat satellite images. Future versions of this data will show annual tree cover gain.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What do the new 5-year intervals of tree cover gain data show?</h2>



<p>Data from the new intervals provides valuable information on the <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-targets-tracker" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">global trajectory and pace of gain</a> and can help better reveal forest dynamics.</p>



<p>Between 2000 and 2020, a total of 130 million hectares (Mha) of tree cover was gained globally, meaning that 130 Mha of land that had no or very low tree cover in 2000 had trees at least five meters tall in 2020. But what can we say about the trajectory over time? </p>



<p>With the new five-year interval information, we now know that the rate of gain was not consistent over that 20-year time period, ranging from 41.5 Mha gained between 2000-2005 to 22.6 Mha gained between 2015-2020. While the overall trajectory shows a decline in the pace of gain, the decline in the last five-year period for which data are available is less severe. It is also important to consider the lag time between when seedlings are established and when they can be detected by satellite, with a longer time horizon needed for slower growing species. In other words, seedling establishment that occurred at the middle or end of the last five-year period (such as 2017 or later) is likely not captured in the data.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/20323036?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img decoding="async" src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/20323036/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="chart visualization" /></noscript></div>



<p>Future annual tree cover height change products will improve our understanding of tree cover gain and allow for more precise and detailed measurements of forest changes over time.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is net change, and why is it important?</h2>



<p>The net tree cover change data tells us how much more or less tree cover there was in 2020 than in 2000 in a particular administrative area such as a country, province or district. This is different from the current annual tree cover loss data or the updated tree cover gain data, both of which focus on gross changes in tree cover. The net change corresponds to the area of gross gain minus the area of gross loss to show the overall change (which can be negative or positive).</p>



<p>Net change is important because loss and gain data by themselves show just one side of the coin. If we consider loss on its own, we‘re not accounting for tree cover that grows back due to restoration efforts, tree plantation establishment or natural regeneration (e.g. after a fire). If we consider gain on its own, we’re focusing only on new forest growth while turning a blind eye to any forests that are cut down next door.</p>



<p>Looking at net change in addition to gross gains and losses gives us a more holistic picture. Net change data is also important for better estimates of <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/forest-carbon-flux-data-explained/">carbon fluxes from forests</a> and aligns better with other data such as the FAO’s “forest area net change” statistics in the <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data/global-forest-watch-and-the-forest-resources-assessment-explained-in-5-graphics-2/?ap3c=IGc_RkUBX32y-fYCAGc_RkU8wbYWz5JGo6zjLQ9HiOVomSzZ_g">Forest Resources Assessment</a>.</p>



<p>However, net change alone doesn’t tell us about the quality of tree cover that was lost or gained. For example, primary forests in Southeast Asia that have been replaced by rubber plantations are considered to have no net change if that location had tree cover in both 2000 and 2020. It is important to look at other data sets available on GFW that can help us better understand these dynamics, such as those on <a href="https://gfw.global/3y9CGGQ">primary forests</a>, Intact Forest Landscapes and <a href="https://gfw.global/3ya4v1Q">tree plantations</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How does the annual tree cover loss data fit in?</h2>



<p>Future updates to the annual tree cover loss data will also be based on tree cover height data to allow direct comparisons with the updated tree cover height and gain layers going forward. Watch for more information on this change and what it means for tree cover loss resources on GFW and in the Global Forest Review.</p>



<p>Previous years of loss data will also be eventually reprocessed. However, note that until then, the gain and loss data cannot be compared to each other because they are based on different methods and definitions.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What are the plans for updating this data?</h2>



<p>GFW is working with UMD to deliver annual data on tree height, including tree cover loss and gain data, which will eventually replace the 20-year data we have now. This will allow us to provide annual updates on global tree cover gain and net change in addition to our annual tree cover loss updates.</p>



<p>In the meantime, you can explore key takeaways about 2000 and 2020 extent, gain and progress toward restoration goals in the <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/global-forest-review" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Global Forest Review</a>; learn more about what the gain data <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/forest-insights/tree-cover-gain-restoration-brazil">can and can’t show us about restoration</a>; and explore the data on the GFW <a href="https://gfw.global/3ZJS5L6">map</a> and <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/global/?category=forest-change&location=WyJnbG9iYWwiXQ%3D%3D&scrollTo=forest-gain">dashboards</a>.</p>



<p><em>This piece was originally published in October 2022. It was updated in December 2024 to reflect the latest developments on GFW.</em></p>



<style type="text/css"></style>

Exploring Tree Cover Gain and Net Change on Global Forest Watch

<p>In 2022, researchers at the University of Maryland (UMD) <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsen.2022.856903/full" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">published the first results</a> of global tree cover height and change monitoring between 2000 and 2020, providing an updated look at tree cover <strong>height</strong>, tree cover <strong>gain</strong>, and <strong>net change</strong> in tree cover worldwide. This data set provided much-needed information to complement data on tree cover loss, illustrating all the components of forest change. The data shows that though the world lost more tree cover than it gained from 2000-2020, <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/tracking-global-tree-cover-gain" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">36 countries</a> experienced a net gain in tree cover.</p>



<p>Since then, UMD calculated tree height and change in the intervening five-year periods — from 2005, 2010 and 2015. We’ve now made the five-year gain <a href="https://gfw.global/3ZJS5L6">available on Global Forest Watch (GFW)</a> — read on to learn more about how to access it and how it differs from data you may have used in the past.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s available on GFW, and how can I access it?</h2>



<p>Three different data sets on the GFW platform are based on the height data:</p>



<p>1.<strong> Tree cover height in 2000 and 2020: </strong>This data shows the height in meters of tree canopy cover in each 30-meter pixel. Users can set the minimum height threshold starting at three meters to view the extent of tree cover above a specific height.</p>



<iframe width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://gfw.global/3rrHOm7"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>2. <strong>Tree cover gain between 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020: </strong>This data shows areas of tree cover that grew from a height of less than five meters in the base year (either 2000, 2005, 2010 or 2015) to a height of greater than or equal to five meters in 2020. <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/key-terms-definitions#tree-cover-gain-and-restoration" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tree cover gain</a> can include regeneration of natural forests, regrowth after harvesting of planted trees or restoration activities. This layer replaces previous data on tree cover gain between 2000 and 2012.</p>



<iframe width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://gfw.global/3ZJS5L6"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>In addition to viewing the data on the map, users can access statistics on tree cover gain between an adjustable baseline year — either 2000, 2005, 2010 or 2015 — and end year 2020 on the analysis pane and dashboards. In the widget, access the settings to open up the options for adjusting the baseline.</p>



<iframe width="315" height="460" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/widget/treeCoverGain/global"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>3. <strong>Net change in tree cover between 2000 and 2020: </strong>This data shows how much more or less tree cover a given location (country, state/province or county/municipality) had in 2020 compared to 2000. This data layer was newly added to GFW in 2022.</p>



<iframe width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://gfw.global/3CJo9TN"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>In addition to viewing the data on the map, users can access statistics on net change in tree cover between 2000 and 2020 on the analysis pane and dashboards.</p>



<iframe width="630" height="460" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/widget/netChange/global"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>Annual data for all three of these data sets will eventually be available. Read more about what we’re learning from these three data sets in the <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-extent" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Forest Extent</a> and <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-gain" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Forest Gain</a> Indicators in the Global Forest Review.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why is GFW using tree cover height as well as canopy cover?</h2>



<p>The first iteration of the tree cover change data on GFW, including the current annual tree cover loss data and the previous tree cover gain between 2000 and 2012, used definitions based on the percent canopy cover. The three data sets discussed above are all based instead on tree cover height.</p>



<p>The main reason for this switch is because the tree cover height data is more accurate. <a href="https://gedi.umd.edu/mission/mission-overview/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">NASA’s GEDI mission</a>, which uses a lidar sensor aboard the International Space Station, provides point-based measurements of vegetation structure, including forest canopy height, which UMD uses as training data to model tree height globally. The data defining tree cover in 2000 using a minimum height of five meters resulted in an accuracy of 97%, compared to 95% accuracy when tree cover is defined as a minimum canopy cover of 30%.</p>



<p>Additionally, tree cover height allows for improved detection of tree cover gain. Unlike tree canopy cover, which reaches its maximum soon after tree growth begins, tree height changes gradually.</p>



<p>Another value of tree cover height is that it better highlights changes in forest structure related to biomass, carbon storage and wildlife habitat. For example, tree height is linearly related to the increase of forest biomass and carbon storage, and therefore allows us to more accurately monitor carbon sequestration in trees over time.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s different about the updated tree cover gain data?</h2>



<p>Like the previous tree cover gain data based on canopy cover, the data based on height shows cumulative gain between a base year and an end year. However, the updated data shows tree cover gain in five-year increments between 2000 and 2020, where the previous layer showed gain between 2000 and 2012. With eight additional years of data and a higher temporal cadence, we are now able to see a more recent view of gain and its trajectory since the start of the millennium.</p>



<p>The old data based on canopy cover and updated data based on height also feature slightly different definitions of gain due to the methodological shift from measuring canopy cover to measuring tree cover height, as described above. The old data defined gain as an increase in tree cover to at least 50% canopy cover, while the updated data defines gain as an increase in tree cover to at least five meters tall.</p>



<p>Like the previous data, the updated gain data is available at 30-meter resolution and was produced by the GLAD lab at the University of Maryland based on Landsat satellite images. Future versions of this data will show annual tree cover gain.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What do the new 5-year intervals of tree cover gain data show?</h2>



<p>Data from the new intervals provides valuable information on the <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-targets-tracker" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">global trajectory and pace of gain</a> and can help better reveal forest dynamics.</p>



<p>Between 2000 and 2020, a total of 130 million hectares (Mha) of tree cover was gained globally, meaning that 130 Mha of land that had no or very low tree cover in 2000 had trees at least five meters tall in 2020. But what can we say about the trajectory over time? </p>



<p>With the new five-year interval information, we now know that the rate of gain was not consistent over that 20-year time period, ranging from 41.5 Mha gained between 2000-2005 to 22.6 Mha gained between 2015-2020. While the overall trajectory shows a decline in the pace of gain, the decline in the last five-year period for which data are available is less severe. It is also important to consider the lag time between when seedlings are established and when they can be detected by satellite, with a longer time horizon needed for slower growing species. In other words, seedling establishment that occurred at the middle or end of the last five-year period (such as 2017 or later) is likely not captured in the data.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/20323036?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/20323036/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="chart visualization" /></noscript></div>



<p>Future annual tree cover height change products will improve our understanding of tree cover gain and allow for more precise and detailed measurements of forest changes over time.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is net change, and why is it important?</h2>



<p>The net tree cover change data tells us how much more or less tree cover there was in 2020 than in 2000 in a particular administrative area such as a country, province or district. This is different from the current annual tree cover loss data or the updated tree cover gain data, both of which focus on gross changes in tree cover. The net change corresponds to the area of gross gain minus the area of gross loss to show the overall change (which can be negative or positive).</p>



<p>Net change is important because loss and gain data by themselves show just one side of the coin. If we consider loss on its own, we‘re not accounting for tree cover that grows back due to restoration efforts, tree plantation establishment or natural regeneration (e.g. after a fire). If we consider gain on its own, we’re focusing only on new forest growth while turning a blind eye to any forests that are cut down next door.</p>



<p>Looking at net change in addition to gross gains and losses gives us a more holistic picture. Net change data is also important for better estimates of <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/forest-carbon-flux-data-explained/">carbon fluxes from forests</a> and aligns better with other data such as the FAO’s "forest area net change” statistics in the <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data/global-forest-watch-and-the-forest-resources-assessment-explained-in-5-graphics-2/?ap3c=IGc_RkUBX32y-fYCAGc_RkU8wbYWz5JGo6zjLQ9HiOVomSzZ_g">Forest Resources Assessment</a>.</p>



<p>However, net change alone doesn’t tell us about the quality of tree cover that was lost or gained. For example, primary forests in Southeast Asia that have been replaced by rubber plantations are considered to have no net change if that location had tree cover in both 2000 and 2020. It is important to look at other data sets available on GFW that can help us better understand these dynamics, such as those on <a href="https://gfw.global/3y9CGGQ">primary forests</a>, Intact Forest Landscapes and <a href="https://gfw.global/3ya4v1Q">tree plantations</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How does the annual tree cover loss data fit in?</h2>



<p>Future updates to the annual tree cover loss data will also be based on tree cover height data to allow direct comparisons with the updated tree cover height and gain layers going forward. Watch for more information on this change and what it means for tree cover loss resources on GFW and in the Global Forest Review.</p>



<p>Previous years of loss data will also be eventually reprocessed. However, note that until then, the gain and loss data cannot be compared to each other because they are based on different methods and definitions.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What are the plans for updating this data?</h2>



<p>GFW is working with UMD to deliver annual data on tree height, including tree cover loss and gain data, which will eventually replace the 20-year data we have now. This will allow us to provide annual updates on global tree cover gain and net change in addition to our annual tree cover loss updates.</p>



<p>In the meantime, you can explore key takeaways about 2000 and 2020 extent, gain and progress toward restoration goals in the <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/global-forest-review" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Global Forest Review</a>; learn more about what the gain data <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/forest-insights/tree-cover-gain-restoration-brazil">can and can’t show us about restoration</a>; and explore the data on the GFW <a href="https://gfw.global/3ZJS5L6">map</a> and <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/global/?category=forest-change&amp;location=WyJnbG9iYWwiXQ%3D%3D&amp;scrollTo=forest-gain">dashboards</a>.</p>



<p><em>This piece was originally published in October 2022. It was updated in December 2024 to reflect the latest developments on GFW.</em></p>



<style type="text/css"></style>

Updated data on GFW provides a more detailed look at tree cover height, tree cover gain and net change in tree cover worldwide.

Exploring New Tree Cover Gain and Net Change Data | GFW

Users In Action

Hear stories from the forest defenders working in the field.

Users In Action | Global Forest Watch Blog

indigenous peoples

indigenous peoples | Global Forest Watch Blog

Indonesia

Indonesia | Global Forest Watch Blog

Isabela Barriga

Inge Snip

<p><em>A decade ago, the launch of Global Forest Watch (GFW) ushered in a new era of accountability and transparency around monitoring and protecting the world’s forests. To celebrate 10 years of impact, our <strong>Voices of Global Forest Watch series</strong> will highlight successes of GFW users, partners and community members throughout the year. We invite you to read, watch and share the stories of exceptional leaders in forest monitoring who have played a pivotal role in protecting forests everywhere.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="560" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6pfTvH6_520?si=NSmHYOeS_YIpeBBy" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<p></p>



<p><strong>“Forests have protected the climate of our planet, including protecting against flood threats and soil erosion. They provide a source of water for essential needs, a variety of types of food, and oxygen. At their core, [forests] have provided everything for all of us.”</strong> – Muhammad Ichwan, National Executive Director of Indonesia’s Forestry Independent Monitoring Network (JPIK)&nbsp;</p>



<p>Indonesia is home to the world’s third-largest forested area. Founded in 2010, JPIK is a leading voice in the country’s battle against forest loss and illegal logging, as well as addressing the causes of deforestation, using GFW tools. Their work spans years of mobilizing communities, leveraging technology and advocating for sustainable forest management.&nbsp;</p>



<p>JPIK is a network of civil society organizations across Indonesia, form Papua to Aceh, that originally came together to monitor the application of Indonesia’s Timber legality Assurance System (SVLK).&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="624" height="468" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JPIK-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18195"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Meranti logs resulting from illegal logging in Central Kalimantan Province. Credit: JPIK</figcaption></figure>



<p>JPIK has grown into a national network, comprising 26 regional offices, over 614 individual members and 68 institutional members. As Ichwan explains, JPIK’s mandate now goes beyond monitoring logging; it combines community engagement with policy advocacy to create long-lasting solutions to prevent forest loss and degradation.</p>



<p>This expansion required a strategic rethinking of the monitoring framework used by independent monitors to enable them to advocate for legal and policy reforms to better address illegal logging and protect Indonesia’s forests.</p>



<p>The adoption of satellite technology, particularly GFW data, has improved JPIK’s forest monitoring capabilities significantly in recent years.</p>



<p>“The use of satellite technology today is quite helpful in JPIK’s work,” said Ichwan. “We use this technology as our basis for conducting field monitoring, and for evidence of complaints — to law enforcement, to certification agencies, government.”</p>



<p>For example, in a pivotal case in December 2022, JPIK used GFW data to uncover illegal logging activities in Central Kalimantan. The investigation revealed the illegal harvesting of ramin wood, a species <a href="https://wri-indonesia.org/id/wawasan/mengenal-cites-dan-perannya-mengatasi-perdagangan-kayu-ilegal" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species</a> (CITES). “Through the GFW app we can track illegal logging sites in protected forests, the flow of wood into rivers, until it enters the company,” said Ichwan. By tracking the wood’s journey, JPIK exposed an operation aiming to disguise the illegally logged timber as legitimate. The findings were submitted to Indonesian authorities, leading to legal actions against the perpetrators.</p>



<p>The involvement of local communities, particularly Indigenous Peoples, is key to JPIK’s success. Indonesia’s forests are critical to the livelihoods of Indigenous and local communities, who often bear the brunt of effects of deforestation and poor forest management, facing increased risks of flooding, landslides and other environmental disasters. “If the forests are damaged or the governance of these forests is damaged, [Indigenous or local communities] will be most affected,” said Ichwan.</p>



<p>JPIK provides training to communities on independent forest monitoring and the use of GFW tools. According to Ichwan, empowering Indigenous Peoples and local communities to independently lead forest monitoring has been one of JPIK’s most effective strategies. “Indigenous or local communities are the primary independent monitoring actors because they are the closest party to forests, the closest to forests as their life support,” he said.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="468" height="312" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JPIK-2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18196"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Training on GFW with WRI Indonesia. Credit: JPIK</figcaption></figure>



<p>In another case in Central Kalimantan, a group of Indigenous people trained by JPIK helped stop illegal logging in protected areas. Their efforts, which included reporting the violations to law enforcement, resulted in significant legal actions: criminal sanctions, withdrawal of SVLK certifications and fines for the perpetrators and others.</p>



<p>Looking to the future, JPIK recognizes the importance of involving Indonesia’s youth in forest monitoring. They plan to recruit and train hundreds of young people — aged 17 to 29 — on the principles of sustainable forestry, using GFW and forest advocacy. The goal is to equip this new generation with the skills needed to document, report and campaign against illegal logging and deforestation, while also using social media platforms like TikTok and YouTube to raise awareness.</p>



<p>This next generation of independent forest monitors will continue JPIK’s legacy of community-driven, technology-enhanced forest protection. According to Ichwan, continuing to use GFW in this work is key: “GFW, for us, is very important to support our work on forest monitoring, to counter the threat of deforestation and illegal logging in Indonesia.”</p>



<hr> 

<div class="attribute" style="”padding-bottom:" 10px;”="">
 

Video filmed at the Land & Carbon Lab Summit in June 2023.

 

</div>



<style type="text/css"></style>

Voices of Global Forest Watch: Muhammad Ichwan, Indonesia’s Forestry Independent Monitoring Network

<p><em>A decade ago, the launch of Global Forest Watch (GFW) ushered in a new era of accountability and transparency around monitoring and protecting the world’s forests. To celebrate 10 years of impact, our <strong>Voices of Global Forest Watch series</strong> will highlight successes of GFW users, partners and community members throughout the year. We invite you to read, watch and share the stories of exceptional leaders in forest monitoring who have played a pivotal role in protecting forests everywhere.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;</p>



<iframe width="560" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6pfTvH6_520?si=NSmHYOeS_YIpeBBy" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<p></p>



<p><strong>“Forests have protected the climate of our planet, including protecting against flood threats and soil erosion. They provide a source of water for essential needs, a variety of types of food, and oxygen. At their core, [forests] have provided everything for all of us.”</strong> – Muhammad Ichwan, National Executive Director of Indonesia's Forestry Independent Monitoring Network (JPIK)&nbsp;</p>



<p>Indonesia is home to the world’s third-largest forested area. Founded in 2010, JPIK is a leading voice in the country's battle against forest loss and illegal logging, as well as addressing the causes of deforestation, using GFW tools. Their work spans years of mobilizing communities, leveraging technology and advocating for sustainable forest management.&nbsp;</p>



<p>JPIK is a network of civil society organizations across Indonesia, form Papua to Aceh, that originally came together to monitor the application of Indonesia's Timber legality Assurance System (SVLK).&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JPIK-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18195"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Meranti logs resulting from illegal logging in Central Kalimantan Province. Credit: JPIK</figcaption></figure>



<p>JPIK has grown into a national network, comprising 26 regional offices, over 614 individual members and 68 institutional members. As Ichwan explains, JPIK's mandate now goes beyond monitoring logging; it combines community engagement with policy advocacy to create long-lasting solutions to prevent forest loss and degradation.</p>



<p>This expansion required a strategic rethinking of the monitoring framework used by independent monitors to enable them to advocate for legal and policy reforms to better address illegal logging and protect Indonesia's forests.</p>



<p>The adoption of satellite technology, particularly GFW data, has improved JPIK's forest monitoring capabilities significantly in recent years.</p>



<p>"The use of satellite technology today is quite helpful in JPIK’s work," said Ichwan. “We use this technology as our basis for conducting field monitoring, and for evidence of complaints — to law enforcement, to certification agencies, government.”</p>



<p>For example, in a pivotal case in December 2022, JPIK used GFW data to uncover illegal logging activities in Central Kalimantan. The investigation revealed the illegal harvesting of ramin wood, a species <a href="https://wri-indonesia.org/id/wawasan/mengenal-cites-dan-perannya-mengatasi-perdagangan-kayu-ilegal" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species</a> (CITES). “Through the GFW app we can track illegal logging sites in protected forests, the flow of wood into rivers, until it enters the company,” said Ichwan. By tracking the wood’s journey, JPIK exposed an operation aiming to disguise the illegally logged timber as legitimate. The findings were submitted to Indonesian authorities, leading to legal actions against the perpetrators.</p>



<p>The involvement of local communities, particularly Indigenous Peoples, is key to JPIK’s success. Indonesia’s forests are critical to the livelihoods of Indigenous and local communities, who often bear the brunt of effects of deforestation and poor forest management, facing increased risks of flooding, landslides and other environmental disasters. “If the forests are damaged or the governance of these forests is damaged, [Indigenous or local communities] will be most affected,” said Ichwan.</p>



<p>JPIK provides training to communities on independent forest monitoring and the use of GFW tools. According to Ichwan, empowering Indigenous Peoples and local communities to independently lead forest monitoring has been one of JPIK’s most effective strategies. “Indigenous or local communities are the primary independent monitoring actors because they are the closest party to forests, the closest to forests as their life support,” he said.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JPIK-2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18196"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Training on GFW with WRI Indonesia. Credit: JPIK</figcaption></figure>



<p>In another case in Central Kalimantan, a group of Indigenous people trained by JPIK helped stop illegal logging in protected areas. Their efforts, which included reporting the violations to law enforcement, resulted in significant legal actions: criminal sanctions, withdrawal of SVLK certifications and fines for the perpetrators and others.</p>



<p>Looking to the future, JPIK recognizes the importance of involving Indonesia's youth in forest monitoring. They plan to recruit and train hundreds of young people — aged 17 to 29 — on the principles of sustainable forestry, using GFW and forest advocacy. The goal is to equip this new generation with the skills needed to document, report and campaign against illegal logging and deforestation, while also using social media platforms like TikTok and YouTube to raise awareness.</p>



<p>This next generation of independent forest monitors will continue JPIK's legacy of community-driven, technology-enhanced forest protection. According to Ichwan, continuing to use GFW in this work is key: “GFW, for us, is very important to support our work on forest monitoring, to counter the threat of deforestation and illegal logging in Indonesia.”</p>



<hr> 

<div class="attribute" style="”padding-bottom:" 10px;”="">
 

Video filmed at the Land & Carbon Lab Summit in June 2023.

 

</div>



<style type="text/css"></style>

Voices of Global Forest Watch: Muhammad Ichwan, Indonesia's Forestry Independent Monitoring Network

<p><em>Satu dekade yang lalu, peluncuran Global Forest Watch (GFW) mengantarkan era baru akuntabilitas dan transparansi dalam pemantauan dan perlindungan hutan dunia. Untuk merayakan 10 tahun dampaknya, seri Kisah Pemantauan dengan GFW (Voices of Global Forest Watch) akan menyoroti keberhasilan para pengguna, mitra, dan anggota komunitas GFW sepanjang tahun. Kami mengundang Anda untuk membaca, menonton, dan berbagi kisah-kisah para pemimpin luar biasa dalam pemantauan hutan yang memiliki peran penting dalam melindungi hutan di mana pun.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;</p>



<iframe width="560" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6pfTvH6_520?si=NSmHYOeS_YIpeBBy" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<p></p>



<p><strong>“Hutan telah melindungi iklim planet kita, termasuk melindungi dari ancaman banjir dan erosi tanah. Hutan menyediakan sumber air untuk kebutuhan pokok, berbagai jenis makanan, dan oksigen. Pada intinya, [hutan] telah menyediakan segalanya untuk kita semua.”</strong> - Muhammad Ichwan, Direktur Eksekutif Nasional Jaringan Pemantau Independen Kehutanan (JPIK)</p>



<p>Indonesia adalah rumah bagi kawasan hutan terbesar ketiga di dunia. Didirikan pada tahun 2010, JPIK merupakan organisasi terdepan dalam perjuangan melawan dan mengatasi deforestasi dan pembalakan liar di Indonesia, salah satunya dengan menggunakan perangkat GFW. Upaya mereka ini telah berlangsung selama bertahun-tahun dalam pemberdayaan masyarakat, pemanfaatan teknologi pendukung pemantauan, serta mengadvokasi pengelolaan hutan yang berkelanjutan. JPIK adalah jaringan organisasi masyarakat sipil di seluruh Indonesia, dari Papua hingga Aceh, yang pada awalnya merupakan perkumpulan untuk bersama-sama mengawasi penerapan Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu (SVLK) di Indonesia.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JPIK-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18195"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Kayu bulat Meranti hasil pembalakan liar di Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah. Kredit: JPIK</figcaption></figure>



<p>JPIK telah berkembang menjadi jaringan nasional yang terdiri dari 26 kantor regional tersebar di seluruh Indonesia, dengan lebih dari 614 anggota individu dan 68 anggota lembaga. Seperti yang dijelaskan oleh Ichwan, mandat JPIK kini lebih dari sekedar memantau penebangan kayu; JPIK menggabungkan pelibatan masyarakat dengan advokasi kebijakan untuk menciptakan solusi jangka panjang guna mencegah hilangnya hutan dan degradasi lahan.</p>



<p>Perluasan ini membutuhkan peninjauan strategis terhadap kerangka kerja pemantauan yang digunakan oleh para pemantau independen, sehingga memungkinkan mereka untuk mendorong reformasi hukum dan kebijakan yang lebih efektif untuk menangani pembalakan liar dan melindungi hutan di Indonesia dengan lebih baik.</p>



<p>Penggunaan teknologi satelit, khususnya data GFW, telah meningkatkan kemampuan pemantauan hutan JPIK secara signifikan dalam beberapa tahun terakhir.&nbsp;</p>



<p>“Penggunaan teknologi satelit saat ini cukup membantu kerja-kerja JPIK,” kata Ichwan. “Kami menggunakan teknologi ini sebagai dasar untuk melakukan pemantauan lapangan, dan sebagai data pendukung pengaduan - kepada penegak hukum, lembaga sertifikasi, dan pemerintah.”</p>



<p>Sebagai contoh, dalam sebuah kasus penting pada bulan Desember 2022, JPIK menggunakan data GFW untuk mengungkap kegiatan penebangan hutan ilegal di Kalimantan Tengah. Investigasi tersebut mengungkap adanya pemanenan kayu ramin – spesies yang tergolong Apendiks II atau sebagai spesies yang dilindungi <a href="https://wri-indonesia.org/id/wawasan/mengenal-cites-dan-perannya-mengatasi-perdagangan-kayu-ilegal" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">dalam sistem CITES</a> (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) – secara ilegal. “Melalui aplikasi GFW, kami dapat melacak lokasi pembalakan liar dalam kawasan hutan lindung, distribusi kayu melalui sungai, hingga masuk ke perusahaan,” kata Ichwan. Dengan melacak perjalanan kayu tersebut, JPIK berhasil membongkar sebuah operasi yang bertujuan untuk menyamarkan kayu yang ditebang secara ilegal menjadi kayu legal. Temuan ini kemudian disampaikan kepada pihak berwenang di Indonesia, yang kemudian berujung pada tindakan hukum kepada para pelaku.</p>



<p>Keterlibatan masyarakat lokal, khususnya Masyarakat Adat, merupakan kunci keberhasilan JPIK. Hutan Indonesia sangat penting bagi mata pencaharian Masyarakat Adat dan masyarakat lokal, yang sering kali menanggung beban terbesar dari dampak deforestasi dan pengelolaan hutan yang buruk, menghadapi peningkatan resiko banjir, tanah longsor, dan bencana lingkungan lainnya. “Jika hutan rusak atau tata kelola hutan buruk, [masyarakat adat atau lokal] akan menjadi pihak yang paling terkena dampaknya,” kata Ichwan.</p>



<p>JPIK memberikan pelatihan kepada masyarakat mengenai pemantauan hutan secara mandiri dan penggunaan perangkat GFW. Menurut Ichwan, memberdayakan masyarakat adat dan komunitas lokal untuk memimpin pemantauan hutan secara mandiri merupakan salah satu strategi JPIK yang paling efektif. “Masyarakat adat atau masyarakat lokal adalah pelaku utama pemantauan independen karena mereka adalah pihak yang paling dekat dengan hutan sebagai penopang kehidupan mereka,” katanya.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JPIK-2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18196"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Pelatihan tentang GFW dengan WRI Indonesia. Kredit: JPIK</figcaption></figure>



<p>Dalam kasus lain di Kalimantan Tengah, sekelompok masyarakat adat yang dilatih oleh JPIK membantu menghentikan pembalakan liar dalam kawasan lindung. Upaya mereka, termasuk melaporkan pelanggaran kepada penegak hukum, menghasilkan tindakan hukum yang signifikan: sanksi pidana, pencabutan sertifikasi SVLK dan denda bagi para pelaku, dan lain-lain.</p>



<p>Kedepannya, JPIK menyadari pentingnya melibatkan kaum muda Indonesia dalam pemantauan hutan. JPIK berencana untuk merekrut dan melatih ratusan anak muda - berusia 17 hingga 29 tahun - tentang prinsip-prinsip pengelolaan kehutanan berkelanjutan, serta menggunakan GFW dan advokasi hutan. Tujuannya untuk membekali generasi baru ini dengan keterampilan yang dibutuhkan untuk mendokumentasikan, melaporkan, dan mengkampanyekan perlawanan terhadap pembalakan liar dan deforestasi, serta menggunakan platform media sosial seperti TikTok dan YouTube untuk meningkatkan kesadaran masyarakat.</p>



<p>Generasi pemantau hutan independen berikutnya akan melanjutkan warisan JPIK dalam hal perlindungan hutan yang berbasis masyarakat dan didukung oleh teknologi. Menurut Ichwan, melanjutkan penggunaan GFW dalam pekerjaan ini adalah kuncinya: “GFW, bagi kami, sangat penting untuk mendukung pekerjaan kami dalam pemantauan hutan, untuk melawan ancaman deforestasi dan pembalakan liar di Indonesia.”</p>



<hr> 

<div class="attribute" style="”padding-bottom:" 10px;”="">
 

Video filmed at the Land & Carbon Lab Summit in June 2023.

 

</div>



<style type="text/css"></style>

Kisah Pemantauan dengan Global Forest Watch: Muhammad Ichwan, Jaringan Pemantau Independen Kehutanan Indonesia

As part of our Voices of GFW series, learn about Muhammad Ichwan's work with Indonesia's Forestry Independent Monitoring Network (JPIK).

Voices of GFW: Muhammad Ichwan, JPIK

Voices of Global Forest Watch: Muhammad Ichwan, Indonesia&#8217;s Forestry Independent Monitoring Network

deforestation

deforestation | Global Forest Watch Blog

mapping

mapping | Global Forest Watch Blog

policy

policy | Global Forest Watch Blog

Viviana Zalles

Nancy Harris

Fred Stolle

Matt Hansen

How Rethinking ‘What Is a Forest’ Can Result in More Effective Conservation

How we define "what is a forest?" can have major implications for how forests — and more importantly, changes to forests — are measured.

How Rethinking ‘What Is a Forest’ Can Result in More Effective Conservation | Forest Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

commodities

commodities | Global Forest Watch Blog

Radost Stanimirova

Ke Wang

Melissa Barbanell

Mining Is Increasingly Pushing into Critical Rainforests and Protected Areas

Mining Is Increasingly Pushing into Critical Rainforests and Protected Areas | Forest Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

amazon

amazon | Global Forest Watch Blog

Congo Basin

Congo Basin | Global Forest Watch Blog

Small grants fund

Small grants fund | Global Forest Watch Blog

Women are Leading the Way to Protect Some of the World’s Most Important Forests

Las mujeres lideran el camino para proteger algunos de los bosques más importantes del mundo

Para Wanita Memimpin Upaya Perlindungan Hutan-Hutan Terpenting Di Dunia

Les femmes montrent la voie de la protection de certaines des forêts les plus importantes au monde

This blog spotlights stories of women leaders using GFW tools and data to protecting some of the world’s most important forests.

Women are Protecting Some of the World’s Most Important Forests

<p><em>A decade ago, the launch of Global Forest Watch (GFW) ushered in a new era of accountability and transparency around monitoring and protecting the world’s forests. To celebrate 10 years of impact, our <strong>Voices of Global Forest Watch series</strong> will highlight successes of GFW users, partners and community members throughout the year. We invite you to read, watch and share the stories of exceptional leaders in forest monitoring who have played a pivotal role in protecting forests everywhere.&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="560" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U9q_I9KHLzU?si=KZVxl0wS0mpzEMi5" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<p></p>



<p><strong>“Forests are important as they play several roles. I consider forests to be the factor that allows us to stay alive.”</strong> – Serge Bondo Kayembe, Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière</p>



<p>Serge Bondo Kayembe, born in Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), developed a passion for forest conservation at a young age. Growing up, he worked alongside his family in a forested area, where he became deeply aware of the importance of protecting these vital ecosystems.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>“Protecting forests is not only beneficial for us living in forests and around forests,” said Serge, “but also for others beyond our countries where wood is produced, where logging is done in tropical areas.”&nbsp;</p>



<p>Serge works with the Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière (OGF), a nonprofit working to protect DRC’s forests through resource monitoring, legislation and governance oversight using tools like GFW to detect and report illegal activities, which are further investigated in field missions. This monitoring is essential to ensure that forest laws are respected and that forests are protected.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Serge is proud of the work OGF has achieved so far,&nbsp;including receiving&nbsp;government support through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that enables OGF to act as an independent third party monitoring government forest-related activities. Thanks to this MoU, OGF’s work has gained acceptance from DRC’s Ministry of Forestry. This collaboration and tools like GFW have enabled OGF to&nbsp;secure&nbsp;more responsible and transparent management of forest resources by making information on forest exploitation accessible and governance processes clear and open. In a major achievement, this independent monitoring has led to proposed alternatives to protect critical areas.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>For example, a DRC provincial government gathered key stakeholders to develop strategies for protecting the Luki Biosphere Reserve, a protected area in Central Congo Province. The area faces significant threats of deforestation due to charcoal production, agriculture and illegal logging, both from forestry companies and from local communities.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1200" height="800" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18043" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-1.jpg 1200w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-1-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-1-768x512.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: OGF</figcaption></figure>



<p>OGF used GFW’s deforestation alerts to identify the different causes of deforested activities, and used this information to prepare proposals for alternative activities that allow communities to sustainably meet their economic needs without causing deforestation and biodiversity loss in the reserve. This led to meetings between authorities and local stakeholders to develop strategies for protecting the reserve, introduce alternative economic activities for local communities and strengthen monitoring measures.&nbsp;</p>



<p>OGF actively involves local communities in this kind of work by raising awareness of the negative impacts of deforestation and providing trainings on how to protect natural resources. Through these trainings, OGF supported communities to monitor forests and report any suspicious activity. This participatory approach has strengthened the role of communities in conserving the reserve, making them more vigilant and proactive in protecting their environment.&nbsp;</p>



<p>In 2023 and 2024, with support from GFW’s Small Grants Fund (SGF), OGF worked on building the skills of a network of independent forest monitors, which currently consists of 25 organizations, to improve environmental monitoring and make conservation initiatives in the reserve more sustainable. OGF organized training courses for local forest monitors, government officials in charge of forest control and other civil society actors, resulting in more sustainable and participatory forest management.&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1536" height="2048" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-2-1536x2048.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18044" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-2-1536x2048.jpg 1536w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-2-768x1024.jpg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-2-1152x1536.jpg 1152w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-2-scaled.jpg 1920w" sizes="(max-width: 1536px) 100vw, 1536px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: OGF</figcaption></figure>



<p>“These tools allow us to access documentation, i.e. all logging titles, cutting permits, concession contracts,” Serge said, explaining how they use WRI’s Open Timber Portal and Forest Atlas for planning, while GFW’s near-real-time deforestation alerts are crucial for execution, helping forest monitors in the field identify and investigate the causes, such as bushfires or large-scale logging.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>These tools also provide detailed, reliable, publicly available evidence that they can submit to authorities. This information has helped authorities to better understand the scale of the problem and take appropriate action.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="2048" height="1536" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/OGF-3-2048x1536.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18069" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/OGF-3-2048x1536.jpg 2048w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/OGF-3-1024x768.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/OGF-3-768x576.jpg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/OGF-3-1536x1152.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: OGF</figcaption></figure>



<p>In the Luki region, use of deforestation alerts has contributed to rapid detection and response to illegal activities, leading to a positive impact to protect forests and biodiversity. As a result, OGF has been able to not only improve monitoring and documentation of illegal activities, but fostered collaborations with local authorities for better law enforcement.&nbsp;</p>



<p>In addition to their work in Luki, OGF has made significant impacts in other regions. They contributed to a significant reduction in deforestation in several critical areas of the DRC through collaborations with various NGOs and the government. They have worked to ensure that local communities in many areas of the DRC have access to equitable benefits from forest resources, including the creation of social infrastructure. And their efforts have led to important legislative reforms aimed at strengthening forest protection and improving governance of natural resources.&nbsp;</p>



<p>The challenges for protecting DRC’s critical forests remain significant, and Serge recognizes that he, OGF, and the communities they work with have a long way to go in this ongoing fight for forest conservation and the rights of forest communities.&nbsp;</p>



<p>“At the beginning of my career, I thought it was going to be easy. But over the years, I’ve been doing this job for 12 years, I feel like I just started.”&nbsp;</p>



<p><a href="https://ogfrdc.cd/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Learn more about OGF here.</em></a></p>



<hr> 

<div class="attribute" style="”padding-bottom:" 10px;”="">
 

Video filmed at the Land & Carbon Lab Summit in June 2023.

 

</div>



<style type="text/css"></style>

Voices of Global Forest Watch: Serge Bondo Kayembe, Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière

<p><em>A decade ago, the launch of Global Forest Watch (GFW) ushered in a new era of accountability and transparency around monitoring and protecting the world’s forests. To celebrate 10 years of impact, our <strong>Voices of Global Forest Watch series</strong> will highlight successes of GFW users, partners and community members throughout the year. We invite you to read, watch and share the stories of exceptional leaders in forest monitoring who have played a pivotal role in protecting forests everywhere.&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;</p>



<iframe width="560" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U9q_I9KHLzU?si=KZVxl0wS0mpzEMi5" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<p></p>



<p><strong>“Forests are important as they play several roles. I consider forests to be the factor that allows us to stay alive.”</strong> - Serge Bondo Kayembe, Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière</p>



<p>Serge Bondo Kayembe, born in Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), developed a passion for forest conservation at a young age. Growing up, he worked alongside his family in a forested area, where he became deeply aware of the importance of protecting these vital ecosystems.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>“Protecting forests is not only beneficial for us living in forests and around forests,” said Serge, “but also for others beyond our countries where wood is produced, where logging is done in tropical areas.”&nbsp;</p>



<p>Serge works with the Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière (OGF), a nonprofit working to protect DRC’s forests through resource monitoring, legislation and governance oversight using tools like GFW to detect and report illegal activities, which are further investigated in field missions. This monitoring is essential to ensure that forest laws are respected and that forests are protected.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Serge is proud of the work OGF has achieved so far,&nbsp;including receiving&nbsp;government support through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that enables OGF to act as an independent third party monitoring government forest-related activities. Thanks to this MoU, OGF’s work has gained acceptance from DRC's Ministry of Forestry. This collaboration and tools like GFW have enabled OGF to&nbsp;secure&nbsp;more responsible and transparent management of forest resources by making information on forest exploitation accessible and governance processes clear and open. In a major achievement, this independent monitoring has led to proposed alternatives to protect critical areas.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>For example, a DRC provincial government gathered key stakeholders to develop strategies for protecting the Luki Biosphere Reserve, a protected area in Central Congo Province. The area faces significant threats of deforestation due to charcoal production, agriculture and illegal logging, both from forestry companies and from local communities.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18043"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: OGF</figcaption></figure>



<p>OGF used GFW’s deforestation alerts to identify the different causes of deforested activities, and used this information to prepare proposals for alternative activities that allow communities to sustainably meet their economic needs without causing deforestation and biodiversity loss in the reserve. This led to meetings between authorities and local stakeholders to develop strategies for protecting the reserve, introduce alternative economic activities for local communities and strengthen monitoring measures.&nbsp;</p>



<p>OGF actively involves local communities in this kind of work by raising awareness of the negative impacts of deforestation and providing trainings on how to protect natural resources. Through these trainings, OGF supported communities to monitor forests and report any suspicious activity. This participatory approach has strengthened the role of communities in conserving the reserve, making them more vigilant and proactive in protecting their environment.&nbsp;</p>



<p>In 2023 and 2024, with support from GFW’s Small Grants Fund (SGF), OGF worked on building the skills of a network of independent forest monitors, which currently consists of 25 organizations, to improve environmental monitoring and make conservation initiatives in the reserve more sustainable. OGF organized training courses for local forest monitors, government officials in charge of forest control and other civil society actors, resulting in more sustainable and participatory forest management.&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-2-1536x2048.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18044"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: OGF</figcaption></figure>



<p>“These tools allow us to access documentation, i.e. all logging titles, cutting permits, concession contracts,” Serge said, explaining how they use WRI’s Open Timber Portal and Forest Atlas for planning, while GFW’s near-real-time deforestation alerts are crucial for execution, helping forest monitors in the field identify and investigate the causes, such as bushfires or large-scale logging.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>These tools also provide detailed, reliable, publicly available evidence that they can submit to authorities. This information has helped authorities to better understand the scale of the problem and take appropriate action.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/OGF-3-2048x1536.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18069"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: OGF</figcaption></figure>



<p>In the Luki region, use of deforestation alerts has contributed to rapid detection and response to illegal activities, leading to a positive impact to protect forests and biodiversity. As a result, OGF has been able to not only improve monitoring and documentation of illegal activities, but fostered collaborations with local authorities for better law enforcement.&nbsp;</p>



<p>In addition to their work in Luki, OGF has made significant impacts in other regions. They contributed to a significant reduction in deforestation in several critical areas of the DRC through collaborations with various NGOs and the government. They have worked to ensure that local communities in many areas of the DRC have access to equitable benefits from forest resources, including the creation of social infrastructure. And their efforts have led to important legislative reforms aimed at strengthening forest protection and improving governance of natural resources.&nbsp;</p>



<p>The challenges for protecting DRC’s critical forests remain significant, and Serge recognizes that he, OGF, and the communities they work with have a long way to go in this ongoing fight for forest conservation and the rights of forest communities.&nbsp;</p>



<p>“At the beginning of my career, I thought it was going to be easy. But over the years, I’ve been doing this job for 12 years, I feel like I just started.”&nbsp;</p>



<p><a href="https://ogfrdc.cd/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Learn more about OGF here.</em></a></p>



<hr> 

<div class="attribute" style="”padding-bottom:" 10px;”="">
 

Video filmed at the Land & Carbon Lab Summit in June 2023.

 

</div>



<style type="text/css"></style>

<p><em>Il y a dix ans, le lancement de Global Forest Watch (GFW) a marqué le début d'une nouvelle ère de responsabilité et de transparence en ce qui concerne la surveillance et la protection des forêts du monde. Pour célébrer ces dix années d'impact, notre <strong>série Voix of Global Forest Watch</strong> mettra en lumière les réussites des utilisateurs, des partenaires et des membres de la communauté de GFW tout au long de l'année. Nous vous invitons à lire, regarder et partager les histoires de leaders exceptionnels dans le domaine de la surveillance des forêts qui ont joué un rôle essentiel dans la protection des forêts partout dans le monde.</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<iframe width="560" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U9q_I9KHLzU?si=KZVxl0wS0mpzEMi5" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<p></p>



<p><strong>« Les forêts sont importantes car elles jouent plusieurs rôles. Je considère que les forêts sont le facteur qui nous permet de rester vivant. »</strong>  - Serge Bondo Kayembe, Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière </p>



<p>Serge Bondo, né à Kinshasa, en République démocratique du Congo (RDC), s'est passionné dès son plus jeune âge pour la conservation des forêts. En grandissant, il a travaillé avec sa famille dans une zone forestière, où il a pris profondément conscience de l'importance de la protection de ces écosystèmes vitaux.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>« La protection des forêts n'est pas seulement bénéfique pour nous qui vivons dans les forêts et autour des forêts », a déclaré Serge. « Mais aussi pour d'autres, au-delà de nos pays, où le bois est produit, où l'exploitation forestière se fait dans les zones tropicales. »&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Serge travaille avec l'Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière (OGF), une organisation à but non lucratif qui s'efforce de protéger les forêts de la RDC en surveillant les ressources, la législation et la gouvernance à l'aide d'outils tels que le GFW pour détecter et signaler les activités illégales, qui sont ensuite examinées plus en détail dans le cadre de missions sur le terrain. Cette surveillance est essentielle pour garantir le respect des lois forestières et la protection des forêts.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Serge est fier du travail accompli par l'OGF jusqu'à présent, notamment en recevant le soutien du gouvernement par le biais d'un protocole d'accord qui permet à l'OGF d'agir en tant que tierce partie indépendante chargée de surveiller les activités forestières du gouvernement. Grâce à ce protocole d'accord, le travail d'OGF a gagné l'acceptation du ministère des forêts de la RDC. Cette collaboration et des outils tels que le GFW ont permis à OGF de garantir une gestion plus responsable et plus transparente des ressources forestières en rendant les informations sur l'exploitation forestière accessibles et les processus de gouvernance clairs et ouverts. Une réalisation majeure est que ce suivi indépendant a permis de proposer des alternatives pour protéger les zones vulnérables.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Par exemple, un gouvernement provincial de la RDC a réuni les principales parties prenantes pour élaborer des stratégies de protection de la réserve de biosphère de Luki, une zone protégée dans la province du Congo central. Cette zone est fortement menacée par la déforestation due à la production de charbon de bois, à l'agriculture et à l'exploitation forestière illégale, tant par les entreprises forestières que par les communautés locales.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18043"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: OGF</figcaption></figure>



<p>OGF a utilisé les alertes de déforestation de GFW pour identifier les différentes causes des activités de déforestation, et a utilisé ces informations pour préparer des propositions d'activités alternatives qui permettent aux communautés de répondre durablement à leurs besoins économiques sans causer de déforestation et de perte de biodiversité dans la réserve. Cette démarche a mené à des réunions entre les autorités et les parties prenantes locales afin d'élaborer des stratégies de protection de la réserve, d'introduire des activités économiques alternatives pour les communautés locales et de renforcer les mesures de surveillance. &nbsp;</p>



<p>OGF implique activement les communautés locales dans ce type de travail en les sensibilisant aux effets négatifs de la déforestation et en leur proposant des formations sur la manière de protéger les ressources naturelles. Par ces formations, OGF a soutenu les communautés à surveiller les forêts et à signaler toute activité suspecte. Cette approche participative a renforcé le rôle des communautés dans la conservation de la réserve, les rendant plus vigilantes et proactives dans la protection de leur environnement. &nbsp;</p>



<p>En 2023 et 2024, avec le soutien du Fonds de petites subventions de GFW, OGF a travaillé sur le renforcement des compétences d'un réseau d'observateurs forestiers indépendants, qui comprend actuellement 25 organisations, afin d'améliorer la surveillance de l'environnement et de rendre les initiatives de conservation dans la réserve plus durables. OGF a organisé des formations pour les observateurs forestiers locaux, les fonctionnaires chargés du contrôle des forêts et d'autres acteurs de la société civile, ce qui a permis une gestion plus durable et plus participative des forêts.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OGF-2-1536x2048.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18044"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: OGF</figcaption></figure>



<p>« Ces outils nous permettent d'accéder à la documentation, c'est-à-dire à tous les titres d'exploitation forestière, aux permis de coupe et aux contrats de concession », explique Serge, qui précise qu'ils utilisent le portail Open Timber et Forest Atlas de WRI pour la planification, tandis que les alertes de déforestation en temps quasi réel de GFW sont cruciales pour l'exécution, aidant les surveillants forestiers sur le terrain à identifier et à enquêter sur les causes, telles que les feux de brousse ou l'exploitation forestière à grande échelle.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/OGF-3-2048x1536.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18069"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: OGF</figcaption></figure>



<p>Ces outils fournissent également des preuves détaillées, fiables et accessibles au public qu'ils peuvent soumettre aux autorités. Ces informations ont aidé les autorités à mieux comprendre l'ampleur du problème et à prendre les mesures appropriées.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>



<p>Dans la région de Luki, l'utilisation des alertes à la déforestation a contribué à la détection et à la réponse rapides aux activités illégales, ce qui a eu un impact positif sur la protection des forêts et de la biodiversité. En conséquence, OGF a pu non seulement améliorer la surveillance et la documentation des activités illégales, mais aussi favoriser la collaboration avec les autorités locales pour une meilleure application de la loi. &nbsp;</p>



<p>En plus de son travail à Luki, OGF a eu un impact significatif dans d'autres régions. Elle a contribué à une réduction significative de la déforestation dans plusieurs zones critiques de la RDC grâce à des collaborations avec diverses ONG et le gouvernement. Elle a veillé à ce que les communautés locales dans de nombreuses régions de la RDC aient accès à des bénéfices équitables des ressources forestières, y compris la création d'infrastructures sociales. Leurs efforts ont conduit à d'importantes réformes législatives visant à renforcer la protection des forêts et à améliorer la gouvernance des ressources naturelles. &nbsp;</p>



<p>Les défis pour la protection des forêts critiques de la RDC restent considérables, et Serge reconnaît que lui-même, OGF et les communautés avec lesquelles ils travaillent ont un long chemin à parcourir dans cette lutte continuelle pour la conservation des forêts et les droits des communautés forestières. &nbsp;</p>



<p>« Au début de ma carrière, je pensais que ce serait facile. Mais au fil des ans, cela fait 12 ans que je fais ce métier, j'ai l'impression que je viens de commencer. » &nbsp;</p>



<p><a href="https://ogfrdc.cd/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Pour en savoir plus sur l'OGF, cliquez ici.</em></a></p>



<hr> 

<div class="attribute" style="”padding-bottom:" 10px;”="">
 

Video filmed at the Land & Carbon Lab Summit in June 2023.

 

</div>



<style type="text/css"></style>

Voix de Global Forest Watch : Serge Bondo, Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière  

As part of our Voices of Global Forest Watch series, learn about Serge Bondo Kayembe's work with Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière.

Voices of GFW: Serge Bondo, Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière

fires

fires | Global Forest Watch Blog

James MacCarthy

Sarah Parsons

6 Graphics Explain South America’s Forest Fires

GFW data shows that the number of fire alerts in the Amazon region are 79% higher than average for this time of year.

6 Graphics Explain South America’s Forest Fires | GFW Blog

Peru

Peru | Global Forest Watch Blog

<p><em>A decade ago, the launch of Global Forest Watch (GFW) ushered in a new era of accountability and transparency around monitoring and protecting the world’s forests. To celebrate 10 years of impact, our <strong>Voices of Global Forest Watch series</strong> will highlight successes of GFW users, partners and community members throughout the year. We invite you to read, watch and share the stories of exceptional leaders in forest monitoring who have played a pivotal role in protecting forests everywhere.</em></p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="560" height="400" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/81QXh8wJwno?si=qw9WDO8r0RXmgfy0" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<p></p>



<p><strong>“[Indigenous Communities] say they once hunted the animals, the fish; now they say they hunt deforestation through integrated deforestation alerts.” </strong><em>–</em> Wendy Pineda, General Project Manager for Rainforest Foundation US (RFUS) in Peru. </p>



<p></p>



<p>This sentiment captures the essence of how Indigenous Peoples in the Peruvian Amazon are using advanced tools to fight deforestation.</p>



<p>RFUS, a partner with Global Forest Watch since 2016, has been pivotal in training and building the capacity of forest monitors, particularly in Peru’s Loreto region. Their work supports Indigenous Peoples in defending their rights and territories, and their collaboration with GFW has led to significant strides in forest conservation in the region. For example, a 2021 study looking at results from two years of monitoring found that communities using GFW data and tools were able to reduce deforestation in their territories by <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015171118" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">52% within the first year alone.</a></p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="2048" height="1365" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-uses-GFW-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-17848" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-uses-GFW-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-uses-GFW-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-uses-GFW-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-uses-GFW-1536x1024.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Since 2016, Rainforest Foundation US has been using Global Forest Watch tools with significant results in the fight against deforestation in Indigenous peoples’ territories.</figcaption></figure>



<p>Wendy Pineda, a specialist in geospatial technology and engineering and project management techniques, has been instrumental in creating participatory tools and training methodologies for these communities.</p>



<p>Wendy supports RFUS’s activities such as a training in 2017 for community monitors on how to use the Forest Watcher app for monitoring and verifying deforestation in the Ucayali region. This pilot led to scaling of programs from Ucayali to Loreto, which were the activities evaluated in the 2021 study.</p>



<p>Together with Peru’s National Protected Area Service (SERNANP), RFUS and local communities were able to use GLAD alerts to identify and halt illegal logging operations and coca cultivation in the buffer zone of the Sierra Divisor National Park. RFUS later extended field training using GLAD alerts and Forest Watcher to Loreto. In both Ucayali and Loreto, the field data collected through the community monitoring served as the basis for prosecution of those implicated in illegal deforestation by Peruvian government agencies.</p>



<p>RFUS currently works with approximately 200 Indigenous men and women using tools like GFW to improve monitoring of their territories and prevent the loss of forests and critical resources. This has led some communities to develop their own land management plans. RFUS has also made efforts to increase women’s access to technology by implementing a gender and social inclusion program, enabling more women to become monitors and trainers.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1086" height="724" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Mirian-Sanchez-San-Jose-de-Pacache-community-Peru.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-17849" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Mirian-Sanchez-San-Jose-de-Pacache-community-Peru.jpg 1086w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Mirian-Sanchez-San-Jose-de-Pacache-community-Peru-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Mirian-Sanchez-San-Jose-de-Pacache-community-Peru-768x512.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1086px) 100vw, 1086px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Forest monitor Mirian Sánchez trains women from the San José de Pacache community, Peru, in using technology for forest protection.</figcaption></figure>



<p>Some communities’ demonstrated capacity to manage their territory has led to their inclusion in Peru’s <a href="https://www.gob.pe/institucion/minam/noticias/23055-comunidades-indigenas-usan-herramientas-tecnologicas-para-el-control-de-las-actividades-ilegales-que-impactan-en-el-bosque" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Conditional Payment for Ecosystem Services program</a>, providing financial support for ongoing monitoring efforts.</p>



<p>Wendy underscores the importance democratizing technology has played: “Now that [GFW has] been able to democratize information — satellite images, data — this information can be [used] by any Indigenous man or woman.” This shift enables Indigenous communities to independently manage their territories and understand their forests’ contributions to climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation.</p>



<p>This has been a <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/forest-watcher/webinars/beyond-satellite-monitoring-impacts-on-the-lives-of-indigenous-communities-in-the-peruvian-amazon/">game-changer</a> for helping more community members become expert technology users. “There are many iconic cases of Indigenous Peoples’ success using GFW tools,” said Wendy. For example, installing technology information hubs that provide access to early deforestation and wildfire alerts, helping communities produce research to support legal and judicial claims.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="2048" height="1365" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-Peru-Alto-Napo-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-17850" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-Peru-Alto-Napo-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-Peru-Alto-Napo-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-Peru-Alto-Napo-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-Peru-Alto-Napo-1536x1024.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">The Rainforest Foundation US Peru team, led by Wendy Pineda, arriving at a partner Indigenous community in the Alto Napo region of the Peruvian Amazon.</figcaption></figure>



<p>However, forest monitoring does not come without risks and challenges. While the rise in data information available to Indigenous Peoples strengthens their ability to secure their rights, the increased visibility also exposes environmental advocates. “In that sense, we need to start thinking about how these technologies can also protect environmental defenders,” said Wendy.</p>



<p>RFUS continues to expand their reach. They are now working with 59 Indigenous communities across the Napo, Lower Amazon and Ucayali River Basins to create new satellite information hubs. RFUS also continues to strengthen existing forest monitoring systems, improving access to satellite information, internet and necessary equipment. These hubs enhance Indigenous trainers’ capacities to train forest patrollers and replicate trainings across other communities.</p>



<p>Reflecting on the impact of RFUS’s work, Wendy emphasized the importance of continued support and technological advancements: “Our efforts show that when Indigenous communities are equipped with the right tools, they become formidable defenders of their forests.” As RFUS and its partners push forward, they remain dedicated to empowering more communities and ensuring that the voices and expertise of Indigenous Peoples are at the forefront of forest conservation efforts.</p>



<hr> 

<div class="attribute" style="”padding-bottom:" 10px;”="">
 

Video filmed at the Land & Carbon Lab Summit in June 2023.

 

</div> 

 

<hr>



<style type="text/css"></style>

Voices of Global Forest Watch: Wendy Pineda, Rainforest Foundation US

<p><em>A decade ago, the launch of Global Forest Watch (GFW) ushered in a new era of accountability and transparency around monitoring and protecting the world’s forests. To celebrate 10 years of impact, our <strong>Voices of Global Forest Watch series</strong> will highlight successes of GFW users, partners and community members throughout the year. We invite you to read, watch and share the stories of exceptional leaders in forest monitoring who have played a pivotal role in protecting forests everywhere.</em></p>



<iframe width="560" height="400" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/81QXh8wJwno?si=qw9WDO8r0RXmgfy0" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<p></p>



<p><strong>"[Indigenous Communities] say they once hunted the animals, the fish; now they say they hunt deforestation through integrated deforestation alerts." </strong><em>–</em> Wendy Pineda, General Project Manager for Rainforest Foundation US (RFUS) in Peru. </p>



<p></p>



<p>This sentiment captures the essence of how Indigenous Peoples in the Peruvian Amazon are using advanced tools to fight deforestation.</p>



<p>RFUS, a partner with Global Forest Watch since 2016, has been pivotal in training and building the capacity of forest monitors, particularly in Peru's Loreto region. Their work supports Indigenous Peoples in defending their rights and territories, and their collaboration with GFW has led to significant strides in forest conservation in the region. For example, a 2021 study looking at results from two years of monitoring found that communities using GFW data and tools were able to reduce deforestation in their territories by <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015171118" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">52% within the first year alone.</a></p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-uses-GFW-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-17848"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Since 2016, Rainforest Foundation US has been using Global Forest Watch tools with significant results in the fight against deforestation in Indigenous peoples' territories.</figcaption></figure>



<p>Wendy Pineda, a specialist in geospatial technology and engineering and project management techniques, has been instrumental in creating participatory tools and training methodologies for these communities.</p>



<p>Wendy supports RFUS’s activities such as a training in 2017 for community monitors on how to use the Forest Watcher app for monitoring and verifying deforestation in the Ucayali region. This pilot led to scaling of programs from Ucayali to Loreto, which were the activities evaluated in the 2021 study.</p>



<p>Together with Peru's National Protected Area Service (SERNANP), RFUS and local communities were able to use GLAD alerts to identify and halt illegal logging operations and coca cultivation in the buffer zone of the Sierra Divisor National Park. RFUS later extended field training using GLAD alerts and Forest Watcher to Loreto. In both Ucayali and Loreto, the field data collected through the community monitoring served as the basis for prosecution of those implicated in illegal deforestation by Peruvian government agencies.</p>



<p>RFUS currently works with approximately 200 Indigenous men and women using tools like GFW to improve monitoring of their territories and prevent the loss of forests and critical resources. This has led some communities to develop their own land management plans. RFUS has also made efforts to increase women’s access to technology by implementing a gender and social inclusion program, enabling more women to become monitors and trainers.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Mirian-Sanchez-San-Jose-de-Pacache-community-Peru.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-17849"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Forest monitor Mirian Sánchez trains women from the San José de Pacache community, Peru, in using technology for forest protection.</figcaption></figure>



<p>Some communities' demonstrated capacity to manage their territory has led to their inclusion in Peru's <a href="https://www.gob.pe/institucion/minam/noticias/23055-comunidades-indigenas-usan-herramientas-tecnologicas-para-el-control-de-las-actividades-ilegales-que-impactan-en-el-bosque" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Conditional Payment for Ecosystem Services program</a>, providing financial support for ongoing monitoring efforts.</p>



<p>Wendy underscores the importance democratizing technology has played: "Now that [GFW has] been able to democratize information — satellite images, data — this information can be [used] by any Indigenous man or woman." This shift enables Indigenous communities to independently manage their territories and understand their forests' contributions to climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation.</p>



<p>This has been a <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/forest-watcher/webinars/beyond-satellite-monitoring-impacts-on-the-lives-of-indigenous-communities-in-the-peruvian-amazon/">game-changer</a> for helping more community members become expert technology users. "There are many iconic cases of Indigenous Peoples’ success using GFW tools,” said Wendy. For example, installing technology information hubs that provide access to early deforestation and wildfire alerts, helping communities produce research to support legal and judicial claims.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-Peru-Alto-Napo-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-17850"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">The Rainforest Foundation US Peru team, led by Wendy Pineda, arriving at a partner Indigenous community in the Alto Napo region of the Peruvian Amazon.</figcaption></figure>



<p>However, forest monitoring does not come without risks and challenges. While the rise in data information available to Indigenous Peoples strengthens their ability to secure their rights, the increased visibility also exposes environmental advocates. “In that sense, we need to start thinking about how these technologies can also protect environmental defenders,” said Wendy.</p>



<p>RFUS continues to expand their reach. They are now working with 59 Indigenous communities across the Napo, Lower Amazon and Ucayali River Basins to create new satellite information hubs. RFUS also continues to strengthen existing forest monitoring systems, improving access to satellite information, internet and necessary equipment. These hubs enhance Indigenous trainers' capacities to train forest patrollers and replicate trainings across other communities.</p>



<p>Reflecting on the impact of RFUS’s work, Wendy emphasized the importance of continued support and technological advancements: "Our efforts show that when Indigenous communities are equipped with the right tools, they become formidable defenders of their forests." As RFUS and its partners push forward, they remain dedicated to empowering more communities and ensuring that the voices and expertise of Indigenous Peoples are at the forefront of forest conservation efforts.</p>



<hr> 

<div class="attribute" style="”padding-bottom:" 10px;”="">
 

Video filmed at the Land & Carbon Lab Summit in June 2023.

 

</div> 

 

<hr>



<style type="text/css"></style>

<p><em>Hace una década, el lanzamiento de Global Forest Watch (GFW) marcó un hito de responsabilidad y transparencia en el monitoreo y protección de nuestros bosques a nivel mundial. Para celebrar estos 10 años de impacto, nuestra serie <strong>"Voces de Global Forest Watch"</strong> destacará los logros de quienes han sido parte de esta gran iniciativa. Te invitamos a leer, ver y compartir las historias de líderes excepcionales que han jugado un rol fundamental en la protección de nuestros bosques.&nbsp;</em></p>



<iframe width="560" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/81QXh8wJwno?si=qw9WDO8r0RXmgfy0" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<p></p>



<p><strong>"[Las comunidades indígenas] dicen que antes cazaban animales y peces, ahora dicen que “cazan” la deforestación a través de alertas integradas de deforestación."</strong> - Wendy Pineda, Gerente General de Proyectos de Rainforest Foundation US (RFUS) en Perú. </p>



<p>Este sentimiento capta la esencia de cómo los pueblos indígenas de la Amazonía peruana están utilizando tecnología de punta para defender su territorio.&nbsp;</p>



<p>RFUS, socio de Global Forest Watch desde 2016, ha sido fundamental en la capacitación de monitores forestales, particularmente en la región peruana de Loreto.&nbsp;Su trabajo apoya a los pueblos indígenas en la defensa de sus derechos y territorios, y su alianza con GFW ha generado resultados sorprendentes&nbsp;en la conservación de los bosques en la región. Por ejemplo, un estudio de 2021&nbsp;reveló que las comunidades que utilizaron las herramientas de GFW lograron reducir la deforestación en un&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015171118" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">un 52% en el primer año.</a>&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-uses-GFW-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-17848"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Desde<strong>el </strong>2016, Rainforest Foundation US <strong>utiliza </strong>herramientas de Global Forest Watch con resultados significativos en la lucha contra la deforestación en los territorios de los pueblos indígenas.</figcaption></figure>



<p>Wendy Pineda, especialista en tecnología geoespacial, técnicas de ingeniería y gestión de proyectos, ha sido fundamental en la creación de metodologías participativas de capacitación&nbsp;para estas comunidades. Gracias a su trabajo, monitores comunitarios han aprendido a usar la aplicación Forest Watcher para identificar y verificar la deforestación, cuyos resultados positivos iniciales como piloto en Ucayali impulsaron la expansión del proyecto a Loreto, como se detalla en el estudio de 2021. &nbsp;</p>



<p>Junto con el Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas del Perú (SERNANP), la RFUS y las comunidades locales&nbsp;utilizaron las alertas GLAD para detectar y detener la tala ilegal y el cultivo de coca en la zona de amortiguamiento&nbsp;el Parque Nacional Sierra Divisor. Posteriormente, RFUS extendió el entrenamiento de campo utilizando alertas GLAD y Forest Watcher a Loreto. Los datos recopilados en Ucayali en Loreto por el monitoreo comunitario sirvieron de base para procesar a los responsables antes las agencias gubernamentales peruanas.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Actualmente, RFUS trabaja con cerca de 200 hombres y mujeres indígenas que utilizan GFW para monitorear sus territorios y prevenir la pérdida de bosques&nbsp;y recursos críticos.&nbsp;Muchas comunidades ahora cuentan con sus propios planes de manejo&nbsp;territorial.&nbsp;Además, RFUS ha promovido la participación de las mujeres&nbsp;en la tecnología mediante la implementación de un programa de género e inclusión social, lo que permite que más mujeres se conviertan en monitores y capacitadoras.&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Mirian-Sanchez-San-Jose-de-Pacache-community-Peru.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-17849"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">La monitora forestal Mirian Sánchez capacita a mujeres de la comunidad San José de Pacache, Perú, en el uso de tecnología para la protección del bosque.</figcaption></figure>



<p>El éxito de estas comunidades para gestionar su territorio les ha permitido acceder a programas como el <a href="https://www.gob.pe/institucion/minam/noticias/23055-comunidades-indigenas-usan-herramientas-tecnologicas-para-el-control-de-las-actividades-ilegales-que-impactan-en-el-bosque" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pago Condicional por Servicios Ecosistémicos de Perú</a>, lo que les brinda un apoyo económico adicional para continuar con sus esfuerzos de monitoreo.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Wendy destaca la importancia que ha tenido la democratización de la tecnología: "Ahora que [GFW] ha sido capaz de democratizar la información (imágenes satelitales, datos), esta información puede ser [utilizada] por cualquier hombre o mujer indígena". Este cambio permite a las comunidades indígenas gestionar de forma independiente sus territorios y comprender mejor el valor de sus bosques en la lucha contra el cambio climático y la conservación de la biodiversidad.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Con este <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/forest-watcher/webinars/beyond-satellite-monitoring-impacts-on-the-lives-of-indigenous-communities-in-the-peruvian-amazon/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">punto de inflexión</a>&nbsp;más miembros de las comunidades se han convertido en expertos en tecnología. "Hay muchos casos icónicos de éxito de los pueblos indígenas utilizando las herramientas de GFW", dijo Wendy. Por ejemplo, la instalación de centros de información tecnológica que brindan acceso a alertas tempranas de deforestación e incendios forestales, ayudando a las comunidades a&nbsp;respaldar reclamos legales y judiciales con investigaciones sólidas.&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/RFUS-Peru-Alto-Napo-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-17850"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">El equipo de Rainforest Foundation US Perú, dirigido por Wendy Pineda, llega a una comunidad indígena asociada en la región del Alto Napo de la Amazonía peruana.</figcaption></figure>



<p>Sin embargo, el monitoreo forestal también presenta riesgos y desafíos. Si bien la tecnología brinda más herramientas e información para garantizar sus derechos, esta visibilidad también expone a los defensores ambientales a mayores riesgos. "En ese sentido, tenemos que empezar a pensar en cómo estas tecnologías también pueden proteger a los defensores del medio ambiente", dijo Wendy.&nbsp;</p>



<p>RFUS sigue ampliando su alcance y actualmente trabaja con 59 comunidades en las cuencas de los ríos Napo, Bajo Amazonas y Ucayali para establecer nuevos centros de información satelital. Asimismo, la organización continúa fortaleciendo los sistemas de monitoreo forestal existentes, mejorando el acceso a información satelital, internet y equipos especializados. Estos centros permiten que los instructores indígenas desarrollen sus capacidades para capacitar a los guardianes forestales y replicar estas capacitaciones en otras comunidades.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Al reflexionar sobre los logros de RFUS, Wendy destaca la importancia de un apoyo constante y de la innovación tecnológica. "Nuestros esfuerzos muestran que cuando las comunidades indígenas están equipadas con las herramientas adecuadas, se convierten en formidables defensoras de sus bosques", afirma. Orientados hacia nuevos logros, RFUS&nbsp;y sus aliados seguirán trabajando para empoderar a más comunidades y garantizar que las voces y conocimientos de los pueblos indígenas estén a la vanguardia en la conservación forestal.&nbsp;</p>



<hr> 

<div class="attribute" style="”padding-bottom:" 10px;”="">
 

Video filmed at the Land & Carbon Lab Summit in June 2023.

 

</div> 

 

<hr>



<style type="text/css"></style>

Voces de Global Forest Watch: Wendy Pineda, Rainforest Foundation US 

As part of our Voices of Global Forest Watch series, learn about Wendy Pineda's work in Peru with Rainforest Foundation US

Voices of GFW: Wendy Pineda, Rainforest Foundation US

Michelle Sims

Elise Mazur

<p>It’s well established that forests are important for people, nature and climate, but not all forests are created equal. Natural forests tend to <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/3553579#.ZFU8GnbMJwI" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">harbor more biodiversity</a> and offer a wider array of ecosystem services than planted forests, and therefore keeping natural forests standing is particularly critical.</p>



<p>The tree cover data available on Global Forest Watch (GFW) includes all types of tree cover, including natural forests and planted trees such tree crops and wood fiber plantations. Although data on primary forests are available for the humid tropics, distinguishing natural forests globally from other types of tree cover previously required overlaying multiple data sets to exclude areas that are not natural forests.</p>



<p>Now, new <a href="https://gfw.global/4fQfl03">natural forest data on GFW</a> from the <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Science Based Target Network (SBTN)</a> Natural Lands Map can help shed light on where the world’s natural forests are located and provide a baseline for monitoring loss within them since 2020.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is the Science Based Target Network Natural Lands Map?</h2>



<p>Land & Carbon Lab collaborated with WWF and Systemiq to develop the <a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/insights/natural-lands-map-companies-no-conversion-targets/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Natural Lands Map</a> to support companies who have committed to eliminate conversion of natural lands in their supply chains through targets set with the SBTN land sector framework. The map provides a 2020 baseline of natural lands that companies can use to see where production activities have caused conversion since 2020, as well as identify and prevent future risk of conversion.</p>



<p>The Natural Lands Map includes several classes of natural land cover. The natural forest layer on GFW is a subset of the SBTN Natural Lands Map that includes the natural forest class and relevant subclasses, including wetland forests, mangroves and peat forests.</p>



<p>The <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Technical-Guidance-2023-Step3-Land-v0.3-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Natural Lands Map</a> was created by combining the best available global and local land cover and land use data sets into a single harmonized map at 30-meter resolution circa the year 2020. This includes data sets such as the University of Maryland GLAD Lab’s 2020 <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/remote-sensing/articles/10.3389/frsen.2022.856903/full" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">land cover data set</a>, various data sets on cropland and <a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">planted trees</a>, and local data sets such as <a href="https://brasil.mapbiomas.org/en/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MapBiomas</a> in South America and Indonesia, among others. The various input data sets were selected based on accuracies reported from the data producers when available and alignment with the definitions used by SBTN. Input data sets were combined to create the final Map.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How does the Map define natural forests?</h2>



<p>SBTN uses the Accountability Framework Initiative (AFi) <a href="https://accountability-framework.org/use-the-accountability-framework/definitions/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">definitions</a> of natural ecosystems and natural forests to align with other standard setting initiatives. AFi adopts the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) definition of forests: land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ, not including land that is predominantly under agricultural or other land use. AFi then differentiates <em>natural</em> forests as those where the species composition, structure and ecological function do not show effects of major human impacts.</p>



<p>Because satellite data cannot directly map all the elements of these definitions, the data development team operationalized them using proxies based on available data to exclude tree cover that would not meet the natural forest definition. Non-natural tree cover may include tree crops (e.g., palm oil, orchards, cocoa), planted forests (e.g., eucalyptus, teak, or pine plantations), patches of trees under 0.5 hectares, or trees within areas predominantly under agricultural or urban land use (e.g., trees planted within agricultural fields or within small urban parks). Natural forests may include primary, secondary or naturally regenerating forests, and may include some forms of low-intensity management.</p>



<p>AFi guidance states that quantitative thresholds established by national and sub-national forest definitions may take precedence over the global definitions, so local maps were given priority over global data in select regions.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">The natural forest map distinguishes natural forests from other tree cover</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-photo-slider" data-src="visualisation/21139033?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img decoding="async" src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/21139033/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="photo-slider visualization" /></noscript></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What data is available on Global Forest Watch?</h2>



<p>The natural forest layer now available on the GFW map includes all natural forest subclasses from the SBTN Natural Lands Map (<a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Technical-Guidance-2023-Step3-Land-v0.3-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">version 0.3</a>). This natural forest layer has an overall accuracy of 88%.*</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/map/?map=eyJkYXRhc2V0cyI6W3siZGF0YXNldCI6Im5hdHVyYWwtZm9yZXN0cyIsIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWUsImxheWVycyI6WyJuYXR1cmFsLWZvcmVzdHMtMjAyMCJdfSx7ImRhdGFzZXQiOiJwb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsImxheWVycyI6WyJkaXNwdXRlZC1wb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsInBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIl0sIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9XX0%3D"></iframe>



<p>Previously, GFW users could analyze tree cover loss within and outside of the <a href="https://gfw.global/2Qbv7fM">Spatial Database of Planted Trees</a>, which helped identify which losses were more likely to represent plantation harvesting or tree crop rotation. Now, the GFW dashboard allows users to separate tree cover loss in natural forests and non-natural tree cover from 2021 onwards using the natural forest map, meaning users can specifically monitor loss of natural forests around the world. This provides users with a more comprehensive and improved method to estimate loss in natural forests that is more aligned with widely accepted definitions.</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="630" height="460" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/widget/treeLossPlantations/country/BRA"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>Users can also now calculate the area** of natural forest, non-natural tree cover and other land cover within administrative boundaries and other land use categories, such as protected areas.</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="315" height="460" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/widget/naturalForest/global"></iframe>



<p></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How can this data be used?</h2>



<p>The natural forest layer can be used to assess the extent of natural forest in 2020, and can be combined with additional data, such as tree cover loss, to monitor loss of natural forests from 2021 onward in a user’s area of interest. For example, companies can use the data to assess whether their production or sourcing activities have caused deforestation since 2020, or if their future plans pose a risk of deforestation, for tracking progress under voluntary commitments or the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).</p>



<p>For any use case however, users should consider the definitions used for the natural forest layer and determine whether these definitions align with their monitoring needs. For example, there is a key difference in how AFi and EUDR define deforestation that users must consider: while AFi defines deforestation as conversion of natural forest to non-natural tree cover or another land cover, <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115&qid=1686611894470" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">EUDR defines deforestation</a> as the conversion of any type of forest — including planted forest — to agricultural use. Because the natural forest layer does not include planted forest, users may need to use additional data to include planted forests in their forest baseline to monitor conversion of natural and planted forest to agriculture for EUDR purposes.</p>



<p>For a full description of how the natural forest map relates to EUDR, see <a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/insights/natural-lands-map-companies-no-conversion-targets/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">this blog</a>. For more information on EUDR definitions and how GFW can support EUDR monitoring, read <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/satellite-data-eu-regulation-deforestation-free-supply-chains/">part one</a> and <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/monitoring-forest-degradation-eudr/">two</a> of our blog series.</p>



<p>Whenever using the SBTN Natural Lands Map, including the natural forests map on GFW, users should also be aware of a few limitations of the data:</p>



<ul type="1">
<li>Overestimation of natural forest in agroforestry systems and in temperate and boreal forests: Agroforestry systems, especially those where crops are grown under shade trees (such as some types of coffee and cocoa systems), are difficult to differentiate from natural forests in satellite imagery, and therefore available data on their extent is limited. Similarly, publicly available data on planted forests is limited in many temperate and boreal regions. As a result, these areas may be included as natural forest in the Map.</li>



<li>Inconsistent forest definitions in certain regions: Because the SBTN Natural Lands Map team prioritized local and regional input data over global data during the compilation and harmonization process when the Map was developed, there may be inconsistencies in the height and canopy density thresholds used to define forests in some regions where local data was used, including Brazil, the Amazon, Atlantic Forest, Pampa, Chaco, Indonesia, South Africa and New Zealand.</li>



<li>Temporal inconsistencies: The Map is as close to the year 2020 as possible, but due to limited data availability, some input data is from earlier time periods (e.g., 2015).</li>



<li>Resolution inconsistencies: Most input data used to create the Map is at least 30-meter resolution, but in some cases lower resolution data was used when higher resolution data was unavailable. These inconsistencies create data artifacts (sharp boundary lines that are only due to resolutions) in some areas.</li>
</ul>



<p>See more information on these limitations in the <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Technical-Guidance-2023-Step3-Land-v0.3-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">technical documentation</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s next for the natural forest data on GFW?</h2>



<p>Currently, <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Technical-Guidance-2023-Step3-Land-v0.3-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">version 0.3</a> of the natural forest map is available on GFW. In the coming months, we will update GFW to <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Technical-Guidance-2024-Step3-Land-v1-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">version 1</a>, which is now available on the <a href="https://datasets.wri.org/datasets/sbtn-natural-lands-map?map=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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">WRI Open Data Portal</a>, <a href="https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/WRI_SBTN_naturalLands_v1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Google Earth Engine</a> and <a href="https://pro-news.globalforestwatch.org/news-events/how-gfw-pro-supports-eudr-compliance" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">GFW Pro</a>. We plan to continue to update the data on GFW as future versions of the SBTN Natural Lands Map become available.</p>



<p>We also plan to release additional analysis capabilities with the data, such as the option to filter deforestation and fire alerts to within natural forests. Stay tuned for future updates!</p>



<p></p>



<p>* <em>Note that the validation points were labeled based on definitions of natural forests from v1 of the SBTN Natural Lands Map, which includes more regional data sets and their corresponding definitions, as well as an additional filtering of local savanna classes to remove vegetation shorter than 5 meters from the forest class. This may affect the validation of the v0.3 natural forest layer because of variation in definitions of natural forest where local data was used. See the <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Technical-Guidance-2024-Step3-Land-v1-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">v1 technical note change log</a> to see the full list of changes.</em></p>



<p><em>** We generally </em><a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/insights/natural-lands-map-companies-no-conversion-targets/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>caution against</em></a><em> using the SBTN Natural Lands Map to quantify the area of natural lands due to data limitations, including overestimation of natural lands. However, data on natural and non-natural forest cover is much more widely available than other land covers, such as natural grassland and pasture, so we consider the natural forest classes to provide a reasonable approximation of natural forest area. Users should still be aware of the limitations of the data when using it to quantify area.</em></p>



<style type="text/css"></style>

New Data on Global Forest Watch Distinguishes Natural Forests from Other Tree Cover

<p>It’s well established that forests are important for people, nature and climate, but not all forests are created equal. Natural forests tend to <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/3553579#.ZFU8GnbMJwI" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">harbor more biodiversity</a> and offer a wider array of ecosystem services than planted forests, and therefore keeping natural forests standing is particularly critical.</p>



<p>The tree cover data available on Global Forest Watch (GFW) includes all types of tree cover, including natural forests and planted trees such tree crops and wood fiber plantations. Although data on primary forests are available for the humid tropics, distinguishing natural forests globally from other types of tree cover previously required overlaying multiple data sets to exclude areas that are not natural forests.</p>



<p>Now, new <a href="https://gfw.global/4fQfl03">natural forest data on GFW</a> from the <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Science Based Target Network (SBTN)</a> Natural Lands Map can help shed light on where the world’s natural forests are located and provide a baseline for monitoring loss within them since 2020.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is the Science Based Target Network Natural Lands Map?</h2>



<p>Land &amp; Carbon Lab collaborated with WWF and Systemiq to develop the <a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/insights/natural-lands-map-companies-no-conversion-targets/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Natural Lands Map</a> to support companies who have committed to eliminate conversion of natural lands in their supply chains through targets set with the SBTN land sector framework. The map provides a 2020 baseline of natural lands that companies can use to see where production activities have caused conversion since 2020, as well as identify and prevent future risk of conversion.</p>



<p>The Natural Lands Map includes several classes of natural land cover. The natural forest layer on GFW is a subset of the SBTN Natural Lands Map that includes the natural forest class and relevant subclasses, including wetland forests, mangroves and peat forests.</p>



<p>The <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Technical-Guidance-2023-Step3-Land-v0.3-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Natural Lands Map</a> was created by combining the best available global and local land cover and land use data sets into a single harmonized map at 30-meter resolution circa the year 2020. This includes data sets such as the University of Maryland GLAD Lab’s 2020 <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/remote-sensing/articles/10.3389/frsen.2022.856903/full" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">land cover data set</a>, various data sets on cropland and <a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">planted trees</a>, and local data sets such as <a href="https://brasil.mapbiomas.org/en/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MapBiomas</a> in South America and Indonesia, among others. The various input data sets were selected based on accuracies reported from the data producers when available and alignment with the definitions used by SBTN. Input data sets were combined to create the final Map.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How does the Map define natural forests?</h2>



<p>SBTN uses the Accountability Framework Initiative (AFi) <a href="https://accountability-framework.org/use-the-accountability-framework/definitions/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">definitions</a> of natural ecosystems and natural forests to align with other standard setting initiatives. AFi adopts the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) definition of forests: land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ, not including land that is predominantly under agricultural or other land use. AFi then differentiates <em>natural</em> forests as those where the species composition, structure and ecological function do not show effects of major human impacts.</p>



<p>Because satellite data cannot directly map all the elements of these definitions, the data development team operationalized them using proxies based on available data to exclude tree cover that would not meet the natural forest definition. Non-natural tree cover may include tree crops (e.g., palm oil, orchards, cocoa), planted forests (e.g., eucalyptus, teak, or pine plantations), patches of trees under 0.5 hectares, or trees within areas predominantly under agricultural or urban land use (e.g., trees planted within agricultural fields or within small urban parks). Natural forests may include primary, secondary or naturally regenerating forests, and may include some forms of low-intensity management.</p>



<p>AFi guidance states that quantitative thresholds established by national and sub-national forest definitions may take precedence over the global definitions, so local maps were given priority over global data in select regions.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">The natural forest map distinguishes natural forests from other tree cover</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-photo-slider" data-src="visualisation/21139033?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/21139033/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="photo-slider visualization" /></noscript></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What data is available on Global Forest Watch?</h2>



<p>The natural forest layer now available on the GFW map includes all natural forest subclasses from the SBTN Natural Lands Map (<a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Technical-Guidance-2023-Step3-Land-v0.3-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">version 0.3</a>). This natural forest layer has an overall accuracy of 88%.*</p>



<iframe width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/map/?map=eyJkYXRhc2V0cyI6W3siZGF0YXNldCI6Im5hdHVyYWwtZm9yZXN0cyIsIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWUsImxheWVycyI6WyJuYXR1cmFsLWZvcmVzdHMtMjAyMCJdfSx7ImRhdGFzZXQiOiJwb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsImxheWVycyI6WyJkaXNwdXRlZC1wb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsInBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIl0sIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9XX0%3D"></iframe>



<p>Previously, GFW users could analyze tree cover loss within and outside of the <a href="https://gfw.global/2Qbv7fM">Spatial Database of Planted Trees</a>, which helped identify which losses were more likely to represent plantation harvesting or tree crop rotation. Now, the GFW dashboard allows users to separate tree cover loss in natural forests and non-natural tree cover from 2021 onwards using the natural forest map, meaning users can specifically monitor loss of natural forests around the world. This provides users with a more comprehensive and improved method to estimate loss in natural forests that is more aligned with widely accepted definitions.</p>



<iframe width="630" height="460" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/widget/treeLossPlantations/country/BRA"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>Users can also now calculate the area** of natural forest, non-natural tree cover and other land cover within administrative boundaries and other land use categories, such as protected areas.</p>



<iframe width="315" height="460" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/widget/naturalForest/global"></iframe>



<p></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How can this data be used?</h2>



<p>The natural forest layer can be used to assess the extent of natural forest in 2020, and can be combined with additional data, such as tree cover loss, to monitor loss of natural forests from 2021 onward in a user’s area of interest. For example, companies can use the data to assess whether their production or sourcing activities have caused deforestation since 2020, or if their future plans pose a risk of deforestation, for tracking progress under voluntary commitments or the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).</p>



<p>For any use case however, users should consider the definitions used for the natural forest layer and determine whether these definitions align with their monitoring needs. For example, there is a key difference in how AFi and EUDR define deforestation that users must consider: while AFi defines deforestation as conversion of natural forest to non-natural tree cover or another land cover, <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115&amp;qid=1686611894470" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">EUDR defines deforestation</a> as the conversion of any type of forest — including planted forest — to agricultural use. Because the natural forest layer does not include planted forest, users may need to use additional data to include planted forests in their forest baseline to monitor conversion of natural and planted forest to agriculture for EUDR purposes.</p>



<p>For a full description of how the natural forest map relates to EUDR, see <a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/insights/natural-lands-map-companies-no-conversion-targets/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">this blog</a>. For more information on EUDR definitions and how GFW can support EUDR monitoring, read <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/satellite-data-eu-regulation-deforestation-free-supply-chains/">part one</a> and <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/monitoring-forest-degradation-eudr/">two</a> of our blog series.</p>



<p>Whenever using the SBTN Natural Lands Map, including the natural forests map on GFW, users should also be aware of a few limitations of the data:</p>



<ul type="1">
<li>Overestimation of natural forest in agroforestry systems and in temperate and boreal forests: Agroforestry systems, especially those where crops are grown under shade trees (such as some types of coffee and cocoa systems), are difficult to differentiate from natural forests in satellite imagery, and therefore available data on their extent is limited. Similarly, publicly available data on planted forests is limited in many temperate and boreal regions. As a result, these areas may be included as natural forest in the Map.</li>



<li>Inconsistent forest definitions in certain regions: Because the SBTN Natural Lands Map team prioritized local and regional input data over global data during the compilation and harmonization process when the Map was developed, there may be inconsistencies in the height and canopy density thresholds used to define forests in some regions where local data was used, including Brazil, the Amazon, Atlantic Forest, Pampa, Chaco, Indonesia, South Africa and New Zealand.</li>



<li>Temporal inconsistencies: The Map is as close to the year 2020 as possible, but due to limited data availability, some input data is from earlier time periods (e.g., 2015).</li>



<li>Resolution inconsistencies: Most input data used to create the Map is at least 30-meter resolution, but in some cases lower resolution data was used when higher resolution data was unavailable. These inconsistencies create data artifacts (sharp boundary lines that are only due to resolutions) in some areas.</li>
</ul>



<p>See more information on these limitations in the <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Technical-Guidance-2023-Step3-Land-v0.3-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">technical documentation</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s next for the natural forest data on GFW?</h2>



<p>Currently, <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Technical-Guidance-2023-Step3-Land-v0.3-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">version 0.3</a> of the natural forest map is available on GFW. In the coming months, we will update GFW to <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Technical-Guidance-2024-Step3-Land-v1-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">version 1</a>, which is now available on the <a href="https://datasets.wri.org/datasets/sbtn-natural-lands-map?map=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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">WRI Open Data Portal</a>, <a href="https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/WRI_SBTN_naturalLands_v1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Google Earth Engine</a> and <a href="https://pro-news.globalforestwatch.org/news-events/how-gfw-pro-supports-eudr-compliance" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">GFW Pro</a>. We plan to continue to update the data on GFW as future versions of the SBTN Natural Lands Map become available.</p>



<p>We also plan to release additional analysis capabilities with the data, such as the option to filter deforestation and fire alerts to within natural forests. Stay tuned for future updates!</p>



<p></p>



<p>* <em>Note that the validation points were labeled based on definitions of natural forests from v1 of the SBTN Natural Lands Map, which includes more regional data sets and their corresponding definitions, as well as an additional filtering of local savanna classes to remove vegetation shorter than 5 meters from the forest class. This may affect the validation of the v0.3 natural forest layer because of variation in definitions of natural forest where local data was used. See the <a href="https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Technical-Guidance-2024-Step3-Land-v1-Natural-Lands-Map.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">v1 technical note change log</a> to see the full list of changes.</em></p>



<p><em>** We generally </em><a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/insights/natural-lands-map-companies-no-conversion-targets/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>caution against</em></a><em> using the SBTN Natural Lands Map to quantify the area of natural lands due to data limitations, including overestimation of natural lands. However, data on natural and non-natural forest cover is much more widely available than other land covers, such as natural grassland and pasture, so we consider the natural forest classes to provide a reasonable approximation of natural forest area. Users should still be aware of the limitations of the data when using it to quantify area.</em></p>



<style type="text/css"></style>

New natural forest data on GFW reveals where the world’s natural forests are located and provides a baseline for monitoring loss within them.

New Data Distinguishes Natural Forests from Other Tree Cover

Jessica Richter

4 Graphics Explain Los Angeles’ Rare and Devastating January Fires

Data on Global Forest Watch shows just how uncommon L.A.'s current fires are, and how fire trends are changing as the planet warms.

Oil palm plantation in Sentabai Village, West Kalimantan, Indonesia.

<p>Determining the boundaries of different forest types allows us to better understand how forests are changing over time. A longstanding limitation of the tree cover data available on Global Forest Watch (GFW) has been the inability to differentiate planted forests and tree crops from primary and secondary natural forests. There is no globally consistent data available on the location of planted trees, making it difficult to determine whether tree cover change occurred in natural forest or if it was simply harvesting or management activities in planted trees.</p>



<p>In 2019, GFW and World Resources Institute published the original Spatial Database of Planted Trees (SDPT) to fill this data gap by compiling data sources on planted tree boundaries across the globe. This effort allowed GFW users to view the location of planted trees on the GFW map and focus tree cover loss and gain statistics on change inside or outside planted tree areas.</p>



<p>Now, a new version of the SDPT is <a href="https://gfw.global/2Qbv7fM">available on GFW</a>, which provides broader geographic coverage and several key updates that improve its application to global forest monitoring and management.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is the Spatial Database of Planted Trees (SDPT)?</h2>



<p>The SDPT aims to spatially differentiate planted forests and tree crops from natural and seminatural forests on a global scale. We conducted extensive research and outreach to governments, civil society organizations and researchers to compile, synthesize and integrate national and regional data sources of the world’s planted trees into the SDPT.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="2048" height="1495" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/23_GRAPHIC-GFW-blog-SPDT-spatial-database-planted-trees_V2-2048x1495.png" alt="Table showing definitions of planted trees, planted forest and tree crops as defined in the Spatial Database of Planted Trees" class="wp-image-18224" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/23_GRAPHIC-GFW-blog-SPDT-spatial-database-planted-trees_V2-2048x1495.png 2048w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/23_GRAPHIC-GFW-blog-SPDT-spatial-database-planted-trees_V2-1024x748.png 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/23_GRAPHIC-GFW-blog-SPDT-spatial-database-planted-trees_V2-768x561.png 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/23_GRAPHIC-GFW-blog-SPDT-spatial-database-planted-trees_V2-1536x1121.png 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /></figure>



<p>The SDPT includes key information on each integrated data set, including the planted tree type (planted forest vs. tree crop), original data source information and carbon removal factors — or the rate at which planted trees remove atmospheric carbon dioxide and store it in biomass. Where available, the SDPT also includes species information, as well as the method and year(s) of imagery used to determine the planted tree boundary.</p>



<p>The SDPT was established as a living database that will continue to evolve as new data becomes available. The recent publication of an updated version of SDPT (<a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">v2.0</a>) reflects this aim and provides significant updates to the initial (<a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-10" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">v1.0</a>) database.</p>



<p>Users can download the v2.0 database <a href="https://gfw2-data.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/sdpt/sdpt_v2.zip">here</a>. The SDPT is also available as the <a href="https://gfw.global/2Qbv7fM">tree plantation</a> layer on the GFW map and is included in several analyses on the GFW dashboard.</p>



<style>
.css-19vc5o2 aside {
   width: 100% !important;
float: none !important;
margin-left:
0px
!important;
}
</style>
<aside id="textbox"><em><b>Comparing the SDPT to Forest Resources Assessment Reporting</b><p></p>
The record of planted forest statistics provided in the <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/global-forest-watch-and-the-forest-resources-assessment-explained-in-5-graphics-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ (FAO)</a> <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/ca9825en/ca9825en.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)</a> every five years serves as an important baseline of comparison to the SDPT. However, data sets included in the SDPT may not adhere to the definitions used by FAO as there are no universal definitions for the terms “planted trees,” “planted forests” and “tree crops.” In the SDPT, we focused on including data sets, or classes within data sets, that used the terms “plantation,” “plantation forest” or “planted forest,” which we classified under the term planted forest. The SDPT also includes maps of agroforestry systems and various perennial tree crops such as rubber, oil palm, coffee, coconut, cocoa and orchards, which we classified under the term tree crop. FAO instead uses the terms planted forest and plantation, defining planted forest as “forest predominantly composed of trees established through planting and/or deliberate seeding” and plantation as “planted forest that is intensively managed and meet ALL the following criteria at planting and stand maturity: one or two species, even age class, and regular spacing.” FAO’s reporting of planted forests does not include tree crop systems, so we compared FAO’s planted forest statistics to SDPT data classified as planted forest. The SDPT is not intended to resolve definitional debate surrounding these terms but rather to synthesize data.
</em> </aside>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s new in SDPT version 2.0?</h2>





<p>A range of <a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">improvements have been made</a> to the SDPT in v2.0 based on new global and national data sources. These include:</p>



<p><strong>1. Near-global coverage</strong></p>



<p>Coverage in v2.0 has expanded from 82 countries in v1.0 to a total of 158 countries represented. Based on the newly compiled data, v2.0 reports approximately 329 million hectares (Mha) of planted trees worldwide in 2020, made up of 264 Mha of planted forests and 65 Mha of tree crops. This represents 8% of total global tree cover (an area roughly the size of India).</p>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-map" data-src="visualisation/19737652?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img decoding="async" src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/19737652/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="map visualization" /></noscript></div>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/16052609?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img decoding="async" src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/16052609/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="chart visualization" /></noscript></div>



<p><strong>2. Tree species information</strong></p>



<p>SDPT v2.0 added or updated tree species information for 39 countries and now includes species-level information for 52 out of the 158 countries covered. Users can view available species information by <a href="https://gfw2-data.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/sdpt/sdpt_v2.zip">downloading the database</a> and referencing the <em>sciName</em> data attribute.</p>



<p><strong>3. Planting year information</strong></p>



<p>A new planting year attribute has been added to the database that provides the latest approximate year that an individual area was planted. Researchers at Tsinghua University were able to detect the year of planting in SDPT v2.0 using the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01260-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">LandTrendr algorithm</a> on a time series of Landsat images from 1982 to 2020. Results from this analysis were added to each planted tree area and are available by <a href="https://gfw2-data.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/sdpt/sdpt_v2.zip">downloading the database</a> and referencing the <em>plantedYear </em>data attribute.</p>



<p><strong>4. Carbon removal factors</strong></p>



<p>Carbon removal factors, or carbon sequestration rates, have been assigned to planted trees represented in SDPT v2.0 that were not included in v1.0. In addition to carbon removal factors for aboveground biomass, belowground biomass and the standard deviations of removal factors, the database includes notes on methods and sources for each removal factor. Users can access carbon removal factor information by <a href="https://gfw2-data.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/sdpt/sdpt_v2.zip">downloading the database</a> and referencing attributes such as <em>removalFactorAGCBGCMgHaYr</em>, <em>removalFactorAGCBGCstdevMgHaYr</em>, <em>removalFactorSource</em> and <em>removalFactorNotes</em>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How can the SDPT be used?</h2>



<p>The SDPT exists first and foremost to differentiate the geographic extent of planted trees from natural forests on a global scale, leading to easier identification of “natural forest” areas. Already, SDPT v2.0 is being used as an input layer into the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) <a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/insights/natural-lands-map-companies-no-conversion-targets/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Natural Lands Map</a> to filter out planted forests and produce a natural forest class.</p>



<p>Specific SDPT attributes, such as species information, also have important global applications. Enforcement actors, such as United States government customs agencies, can use SDPT species information to expedite inspections of timber shipments. The database can help confirm whether there are other planted timber forests of the same species within the stated country of origin, as this impacts the legality of the import. The removal factors can be used to estimate carbon sequestration rates over large areas of planted trees where plot-level carbon measurements are not available.</p>



<p>Beyond these specific applications, the SDPT has implications for global forest monitoring and management. It can aid in tracking where and when planted trees may be replacing natural forests and help monitor the impact of these planted forests across diverse landscapes. This can lead to more effective tracking of national and global progress towards major international commitments associated with forests, climate and biodiversity.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Future plans for the SDPT</h2>



<p>While major challenges remain in mapping planted trees, we expect to see continued, significant advances in large-scale planted tree mapping as well as improvements to national- and regional-scale data over time. The SDPT will continue to integrate these sources across all scales to provide users with the most detailed spatial information available. Incorporating more species-specific data into the SDPT is a key part of this effort. This includes species information taken directly from image-interpreted data sets as well as integrating non-spatial species information derived from literature reviews.</p>



<p>Users can <a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">explore the tree plantations layer on GFW</a> and can <a href="https://gfw2-data.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/sdpt/sdpt_v2.zip">download the data</a><em>. </em>For more information on the SDPT v2.0 update, <a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-2">read the technical note here</a>.</p>



<p><em>The SDPT compiles data from a variety of sources. If you have spatial data on planted trees that you think should be incorporated into the data set, </em><a href="https://forms.gle/pUzJy72N7szVMydg9" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>please let us know here</em></a><em>.</em></p>



<p><em>Additional minor updates have been made to the SDPT in a version 2.1 incorporating new data in Brazil, Cambodia, Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana. </em><a href="https://gfw-files.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/SDPT_v2.1/sdpt_v21_v09152024_public.gdb.zip"><em>Access the latest version here</em></a><em>.</em></p>



<style type="text/css"></style>

Updated Planted Trees Map Reaches Near-Global Coverage

<p>Determining the boundaries of different forest types allows us to better understand how forests are changing over time. A longstanding limitation of the tree cover data available on Global Forest Watch (GFW) has been the inability to differentiate planted forests and tree crops from primary and secondary natural forests. There is no globally consistent data available on the location of planted trees, making it difficult to determine whether tree cover change occurred in natural forest or if it was simply harvesting or management activities in planted trees.</p>



<p>In 2019, GFW and World Resources Institute published the original Spatial Database of Planted Trees (SDPT) to fill this data gap by compiling data sources on planted tree boundaries across the globe. This effort allowed GFW users to view the location of planted trees on the GFW map and focus tree cover loss and gain statistics on change inside or outside planted tree areas.</p>



<p>Now, a new version of the SDPT is <a href="https://gfw.global/2Qbv7fM">available on GFW</a>, which provides broader geographic coverage and several key updates that improve its application to global forest monitoring and management.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is the Spatial Database of Planted Trees (SDPT)?</h2>



<p>The SDPT aims to spatially differentiate planted forests and tree crops from natural and seminatural forests on a global scale. We conducted extensive research and outreach to governments, civil society organizations and researchers to compile, synthesize and integrate national and regional data sources of the world’s planted trees into the SDPT.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/23_GRAPHIC-GFW-blog-SPDT-spatial-database-planted-trees_V2-2048x1495.png" alt="Table showing definitions of planted trees, planted forest and tree crops as defined in the Spatial Database of Planted Trees" class="wp-image-18224"/></figure>



<p>The SDPT includes key information on each integrated data set, including the planted tree type (planted forest vs. tree crop), original data source information and carbon removal factors — or the rate at which planted trees remove atmospheric carbon dioxide and store it in biomass. Where available, the SDPT also includes species information, as well as the method and year(s) of imagery used to determine the planted tree boundary.</p>



<p>The SDPT was established as a living database that will continue to evolve as new data becomes available. The recent publication of an updated version of SDPT (<a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">v2.0</a>) reflects this aim and provides significant updates to the initial (<a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-10" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">v1.0</a>) database.</p>



<p>Users can download the v2.0 database <a href="https://gfw2-data.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/sdpt/sdpt_v2.zip">here</a>. The SDPT is also available as the <a href="https://gfw.global/2Qbv7fM">tree plantation</a> layer on the GFW map and is included in several analyses on the GFW dashboard.</p>



<style>
.css-19vc5o2 aside {
   width: 100% !important;
float: none !important;
margin-left:
0px
!important;
}
</style>
<aside id="textbox"><em><b>Comparing the SDPT to Forest Resources Assessment Reporting</b><p></p>
The record of planted forest statistics provided in the <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/global-forest-watch-and-the-forest-resources-assessment-explained-in-5-graphics-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' (FAO)</a> <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/ca9825en/ca9825en.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)</a> every five years serves as an important baseline of comparison to the SDPT. However, data sets included in the SDPT may not adhere to the definitions used by FAO as there are no universal definitions for the terms “planted trees,” “planted forests” and “tree crops.” In the SDPT, we focused on including data sets, or classes within data sets, that used the terms “plantation,” “plantation forest” or “planted forest,” which we classified under the term planted forest. The SDPT also includes maps of agroforestry systems and various perennial tree crops such as rubber, oil palm, coffee, coconut, cocoa and orchards, which we classified under the term tree crop. FAO instead uses the terms planted forest and plantation, defining planted forest as “forest predominantly composed of trees established through planting and/or deliberate seeding” and plantation as “planted forest that is intensively managed and meet ALL the following criteria at planting and stand maturity: one or two species, even age class, and regular spacing.” FAO’s reporting of planted forests does not include tree crop systems, so we compared FAO’s planted forest statistics to SDPT data classified as planted forest. The SDPT is not intended to resolve definitional debate surrounding these terms but rather to synthesize data.
</em> </aside>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s new in SDPT version 2.0?</h2>





<p>A range of <a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">improvements have been made</a> to the SDPT in v2.0 based on new global and national data sources. These include:</p>



<p><strong>1. Near-global coverage</strong></p>



<p>Coverage in v2.0 has expanded from 82 countries in v1.0 to a total of 158 countries represented. Based on the newly compiled data, v2.0 reports approximately 329 million hectares (Mha) of planted trees worldwide in 2020, made up of 264 Mha of planted forests and 65 Mha of tree crops. This represents 8% of total global tree cover (an area roughly the size of India).</p>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-map" data-src="visualisation/19737652?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/19737652/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="map visualization" /></noscript></div>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/16052609?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/16052609/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="chart visualization" /></noscript></div>



<p><strong>2. Tree species information</strong></p>



<p>SDPT v2.0 added or updated tree species information for 39 countries and now includes species-level information for 52 out of the 158 countries covered. Users can view available species information by <a href="https://gfw2-data.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/sdpt/sdpt_v2.zip">downloading the database</a> and referencing the <em>sciName</em> data attribute.</p>



<p><strong>3. Planting year information</strong></p>



<p>A new planting year attribute has been added to the database that provides the latest approximate year that an individual area was planted. Researchers at Tsinghua University were able to detect the year of planting in SDPT v2.0 using the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01260-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">LandTrendr algorithm</a> on a time series of Landsat images from 1982 to 2020. Results from this analysis were added to each planted tree area and are available by <a href="https://gfw2-data.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/sdpt/sdpt_v2.zip">downloading the database</a> and referencing the <em>plantedYear </em>data attribute.</p>



<p><strong>4. Carbon removal factors</strong></p>



<p>Carbon removal factors, or carbon sequestration rates, have been assigned to planted trees represented in SDPT v2.0 that were not included in v1.0. In addition to carbon removal factors for aboveground biomass, belowground biomass and the standard deviations of removal factors, the database includes notes on methods and sources for each removal factor. Users can access carbon removal factor information by <a href="https://gfw2-data.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/sdpt/sdpt_v2.zip">downloading the database</a> and referencing attributes such as <em>removalFactorAGCBGCMgHaYr</em>, <em>removalFactorAGCBGCstdevMgHaYr</em>, <em>removalFactorSource</em> and <em>removalFactorNotes</em>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How can the SDPT be used?</h2>



<p>The SDPT exists first and foremost to differentiate the geographic extent of planted trees from natural forests on a global scale, leading to easier identification of “natural forest” areas. Already, SDPT v2.0 is being used as an input layer into the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) <a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/insights/natural-lands-map-companies-no-conversion-targets/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Natural Lands Map</a> to filter out planted forests and produce a natural forest class.</p>



<p>Specific SDPT attributes, such as species information, also have important global applications. Enforcement actors, such as United States government customs agencies, can use SDPT species information to expedite inspections of timber shipments. The database can help confirm whether there are other planted timber forests of the same species within the stated country of origin, as this impacts the legality of the import. The removal factors can be used to estimate carbon sequestration rates over large areas of planted trees where plot-level carbon measurements are not available.</p>



<p>Beyond these specific applications, the SDPT has implications for global forest monitoring and management. It can aid in tracking where and when planted trees may be replacing natural forests and help monitor the impact of these planted forests across diverse landscapes. This can lead to more effective tracking of national and global progress towards major international commitments associated with forests, climate and biodiversity.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Future plans for the SDPT</h2>



<p>While major challenges remain in mapping planted trees, we expect to see continued, significant advances in large-scale planted tree mapping as well as improvements to national- and regional-scale data over time. The SDPT will continue to integrate these sources across all scales to provide users with the most detailed spatial information available. Incorporating more species-specific data into the SDPT is a key part of this effort. This includes species information taken directly from image-interpreted data sets as well as integrating non-spatial species information derived from literature reviews.</p>



<p>Users can <a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">explore the tree plantations layer on GFW</a> and can <a href="https://gfw2-data.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/sdpt/sdpt_v2.zip">download the data</a><em>. </em>For more information on the SDPT v2.0 update, <a href="https://www.wri.org/research/spatial-database-planted-trees-sdpt-version-2">read the technical note here</a>.</p>



<p><em>The SDPT compiles data from a variety of sources. If you have spatial data on planted trees that you think should be incorporated into the data set, </em><a href="https://forms.gle/pUzJy72N7szVMydg9" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>please let us know here</em></a><em>.</em></p>



<p><em>Additional minor updates have been made to the SDPT in a version 2.1 incorporating new data in Brazil, Cambodia, Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana. </em><a href="https://gfw-files.s3.amazonaws.com/plantations/SDPT_v2.1/sdpt_v21_v09152024_public.gdb.zip"><em>Access the latest version here</em></a><em>.</em></p>



<style type="text/css"></style>

A new version of the Spatial Database of Planted Trees provides near-global coverage and other key updates.

Deforestation Alerts

Deforestation Alerts | Global Forest Watch Blog

Zhen Song

Alyssa Barrett

Anika Berger

<p>Global Forest Watch’s (GFW) deforestation alerts provide information about loss of trees in near-real-time, making them a critical tool for those working to combat deforestation. Existing alerts on GFW have been used to <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/users-in-action/indigenous-forest-monitors-reduce-deforestation/">help Indigenous and local communities</a> protect their forests, <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/indigenous-peoples-local-communities-use-satellite-data-deforestation" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">halt and prosecute</a> environmental crimes and <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/users-in-action/data-protect-cameroon-mengame-gorilla-sanctuary/">protect</a> threatened <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/users-in-action/protecting-forest-habitats-mara-elephant-project/">wildlife</a>.</p>



<p>But previously, alerts were only available for tropical forests. Now, a <a href="https://gfw.global/401umrm">new alert system available on GFW called DIST-ALERT</a> provides alerts within forests globally as well as alerts where other ecosystems are disturbed — such as grasslands, savannas, shrublands, wetlands and crops. This new global data set makes it possible to monitor deforestation and other vegetation disturbance events as they happen around the world for the first time.</p>



<p>Read on to learn more about the new DIST-ALERT, how it’s different from other alerts and what’s next for alerts on GFW.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What are the new disturbance alerts?</h2>



<p>In 2024, a groundbreaking new land surface disturbance monitoring system known as&nbsp;<a href="https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/opera_l3_dist-alert-hls_v1v001/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">OPERA Land Surface Disturbance Alert</a>, or DIST-ALERT, was developed by the University of Maryland (UMD) and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/go/opera" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">NASA’s OPERA project</a> to map per pixel vegetation cover loss globally at a 30×30-meter resolution. The DIST-ALERT algorithm uses Harmonized Landsat Sentinel-2 (HLS) satellite data that is updated every 2-4 days for each pixel on the earth, and thus the system is updated every time the satellite data is acquired and the ground is not covered by clouds or snow (<a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/insights/new-monitoring-system-land-ecosystem-disturbances/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">read more here</a> about how DIST-ALERT was developed and the methodology behind it).</p>



<p>DIST-ALERT shows an alert when there is an anomaly or notable reduction in vegetation cover, measured as “vegetation fraction” or percent of the ground covered by vegetation. It identifies this by comparing the new vegetation fraction estimate to the minimum fraction for the same time period over the last three years. This means that the algorithm can accommodate changes to seasonal vegetation without triggering an alert.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What new alert data is available on GFW?</h2>



<p>The new DIST-ALERT system on GFW updates weekly and tailors the vegetation fraction level to only display alerts in areas that experience at least 30% vegetation cover loss compared to the same period over the last three years. &nbsp;</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/map/?map=eyJkYXRhc2V0cyI6W3siZGF0YXNldCI6IkRJU1RfYWxlcnRzIiwib3BhY2l0eSI6MSwidmlzaWJpbGl0eSI6dHJ1ZSwibGF5ZXJzIjpbIkRJU1RfYWxlcnRzX2FsbCJdfSx7ImRhdGFzZXQiOiJwb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsImxheWVycyI6WyJkaXNwdXRlZC1wb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsInBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIl0sIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9XX0%3D"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>DIST-ALERT on GFW also provides information about the level of confidence for alerts. The system determines confidence level by the number of anomalous observations, with more observations meaning a higher confidence level. That is, two to three anomalies detected result in a low confidence alert, whereas four or more mean a high confidence alert. Since the system continues to detect anomalies in a pixel over time and the underlying algorithm is updated every 2-4 days (in cloud free conditions), this means that an alert can quickly move from lower to higher confidence, providing users with more timely and more confident alerting than ever before.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="800" height="155" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/confidence-levels-DIST-ALERT-GFW.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18301" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/confidence-levels-DIST-ALERT-GFW.png 800w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/confidence-levels-DIST-ALERT-GFW-768x149.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" /></figure>



<p>Like other alerts on GFW, users can also explore DIST-ALERT locations with the <a href="https://forestwatcher.globalforestwatch.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Forest Watcher mobile app</a>, which allows users to investigate potential deforestation events and other disturbances in the field and offline.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How does DIST-ALERT differ from existing alerts on GFW?</h2>



<p>GFW’s existing <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/integrated-deforestation-alerts/">integrated deforestation alerts</a> are only available in tropical forests. Now, DIST-ALERT makes it possible to view alerts for all types of tree and vegetation cover, including grassland, shrubland, agricultural land, savannas, temperate forests and boreal forests.</p>



<p>Users can also choose to only view alerts within areas of tree cover with at least 30% canopy density across the globe. Disturbances in forests with 10-30% canopy cover are difficult to identify with this product because anomalies can be driven by disturbances of any vegetation in the pixel — for example, disturbances of undergrowth where trees remain intact. For this reason, we provide the option to view alerts where tree cover disturbances are more likely to be driving the anomalies: within areas of 30% tree canopy density or above.</p>



<p>In contrast to many other alert systems available on GFW, DIST-ALERT continues to monitor pixels where it has identified an alert in the past. The layer on GFW shows the date of the most recent alert, keeping users informed of the most up-to-date changes to forest and vegetation cover.</p>



<table>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>System </strong></td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;"><strong>Geographic coverage </strong></td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;"><strong>Resolution </strong></td>
        <td><strong>Revisit time </strong></td>
        <td><strong>Vegetation type </strong></td>
        <td><strong>Alert description</strong></td>
 
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>DIST-ALERT</strong> (Land Surface Disturbance Alert from Harmonized Landsat Sentinel-2)  </td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;">Global  </td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;">30 meter </td>
        <td>Every 2-4 days  </td>
        <td>All vegetation (and recommended for forests: tree cover >30%) </td>
        <td>Vegetation cover loss >30% compared to the same period over the previous 3 years in each HLS pixel</td>
    
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>Integrated Alerts</strong> (combines GLAD-L, GLAD-S2 and RADD)</td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;">Tropics —30°N to 30°S  </td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;">10 meter </td>
        <td>Upon source systems’ updates (GLAD-L, GLAD-S2 and RADD) </td>
        <td>Tree cover – including primary forests, plantations and secondary forest</td>
        <td>See contributing systems (GLAD-L, GLAD-S2 and RADD) </td>
       
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>GLAD-L</strong> (Global Land Analysis and Discovery – Landsat) </td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;">Tropics — 30°N to 30°S </td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;">30 meter </td>
        <td>Every 8 days  </td>
        <td>Tree cover – including primary forest, plantations and secondary forests </td>
        <td>Any pixel that experiences a canopy loss in excess of 50% cover  </td>
     </tr>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>GLAD-S2</strong> (Global Land Analysis and Discovery – Sentinel-2) </td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;">Amazon basin </td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;">10 meter </td>
        <td>Every 5 days </td>
        <td>Humid tropical primary forests  </td>
        <td>Reduction in tree cover compared to the previous 2 years  </td>
     
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>RADD</strong> (RAdar for Detecting Deforestation – Sentinel-1) </td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;">Humid tropics </td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;">10 meter </td>
        <td>Every 6-12 days </td>
        <td>Humid tropical primary forests  </td>
        <td>Complete or partial removal of tree cover, with a minimum mapping unit of 0.1 hectares. Use of radar detects disturbances through clouds. </td>
    </tr></table>



<p></p>



<p>GFW also hosts the <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/?mapMenu=eyJtZW51U2VjdGlvbiI6ImRhdGFzZXRzIiwiZGF0YXNldENhdGVnb3J5IjoiZm9yZXN0Q2hhbmdlIn0%3D&modalMeta=viirs_fires">VIIRS fire alerts</a>. Like DIST-ALERT, these monitor all land, but they differ from DIST-ALERT because they only monitor fire activity, have more frequent temporal resolution (2 times daily) and a coarser spatial resolution (375 meter).</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What can the new alerts tell us?</h2>



<p>The DIST-ALERT data shows changes within both natural and human-managed vegetation cover. These changes may be driven by human activities like agricultural conversion, or natural causes like drought damage in crops, and may be temporary or permanent. Therefore, an alert in tree cover area is not necessarily deforestation, and one in grasslands or savannas is not necessarily conversion to another land use such as agriculture.</p>



<p>In addition, because the alerts are available in near-real-time, they are often available before any change in land use, like conversion to agriculture, has occurred, and before replanting might have happened in areas where forestry activities are taking place, meaning further investigation may be needed to understand the context of the alert.</p>



<p>While this new system is incredibly powerful, detecting any loss of vegetative cover anywhere on earth continuously, not all changes are equally interesting and useful to track. Additional information such as whether the alert is in a natural or non-natural ecosystem can be used to identify alerts that warrant further action. Here are two examples of how the data may be useful:</p>



<p><strong>1.</strong> <strong>Supply chain actors can monitor for no-conversion voluntary commitments and regulatory requirements: </strong>Suppliers looking to ensure and demonstrate sustainability in their supply chains and that have made no-conversion commitments for natural lands (e.g. the <a href="https://accountability-framework.org/news-events/news/the-afi-recommends-a-target-date-no-later-than-2025-to-eliminate-deforestation-and-conversion-in-supply-chains/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Accountability Framework Initiative goal</a>) can use DIST-ALERT to monitor areas outside of forests. The data is also relevant to the European Union’s deforestation regulation (EUDR), providing information on potential deforestation or degradation. In addition, while the EUDR’s scope is currently limited to conversions in forests, it could potentially expand to “Other Wooded Land” (non-agricultural land with few trees that can include shrubs and bushes). This expansion would require identifying conversion of this land cover to cropland, which DIST-ALERT could support.</p>



<p><strong>2. Land managers can identify threats to natural ecosystems: </strong>DIST-ALERT can provide early information about other worrying trends in the world’s natural ecosystems, such as the impacts of droughts and climate change. By tracking alerts within valuable lands such as protected areas, biodiversity hotspots and Indigenous lands, and crosschecking with other information such as weather anomalies or fires, land managers could better tell what’s going on in these areas to identify threats and support their decision making. The global biodiversity framework includes the ambitious “30×30 initiative,” which aims to protect 30% of the planet’s land and water by 2030. Alerts within these protected areas could indicate threats to their long-term conservation and provide an early warning that swift action should be taken to reverse this trend.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s next for DIST-ALERT on GFW?</h2>



<p>The new DIST-ALERT layer provides more near-real-time information about disturbances in the world’s vegetation than ever before, but there is still more to come.</p>



<p>In future, GFW will have additional features to support DIST-ALERT such as on-the-fly analysis (e.g. number of alerts) in an uploaded or drawn area, the ability to subscribe to email alerts, and the ability to download alert coordinates. We will introduce these items in the coming months, but in the meantime, users can overlay layers available on GFW such as primary forests and protected areas and view together with DIST-ALERT to provide context and support decision making.</p>



<p>We also plan to add information about what is causing alerts. This information will help users understand if the alerts are caused by natural disturbances or human activity, and inform decisions about what kind of action might be required. Land and Carbon Lab is developing an <a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/data/land-disturbance-alert-classification-system/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">alert classification system</a> to create targeted alert products that can be used to distinguish between human-caused conversion of natural lands to other land uses like agriculture, mining or urban development, as well as natural disturbances like drought and wildfire. A prototype is currently available for testing and users can register their interest and gain access by <a href="https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/8004701/b7c0ce053cf0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">completing this survey</a>.</p>



<p>Lastly, DIST-ALERT is not yet incorporated into GFW’s integrated deforestation alerts, but we are working hard to add it in the near future so users can benefit from improved and expanded alert systems, all in one place. Adding the DIST-ALERT layer to the integrated deforestation alert product means that more timely and confident alerts will be available for users, and will enable having a “highest confidence” category where two or more systems detect an alert in the same pixel, and alerts are therefore more certain.</p>



<p><em>We welcome your input as we continue to improve the new DIST-ALERT data. <a href="https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/8130006/e9ac3f6c1b42" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Please fill out a short survey</a> to provide your feedback.&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;</p>



<style type="text/css"></style>

Near-Real-Time Disturbance Alerts for All Vegetation Globally are Now Available on GFW

<p>Global Forest Watch’s (GFW) deforestation alerts provide information about loss of trees in near-real-time, making them a critical tool for those working to combat deforestation. Existing alerts on GFW have been used to <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/users-in-action/indigenous-forest-monitors-reduce-deforestation/">help Indigenous and local communities</a> protect their forests, <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/indigenous-peoples-local-communities-use-satellite-data-deforestation" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">halt and prosecute</a> environmental crimes and <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/users-in-action/data-protect-cameroon-mengame-gorilla-sanctuary/">protect</a> threatened <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/users-in-action/protecting-forest-habitats-mara-elephant-project/">wildlife</a>.</p>



<p>But previously, alerts were only available for tropical forests. Now, a <a href="https://gfw.global/401umrm">new alert system available on GFW called DIST-ALERT</a> provides alerts within forests globally as well as alerts where other ecosystems are disturbed — such as grasslands, savannas, shrublands, wetlands and crops. This new global data set makes it possible to monitor deforestation and other vegetation disturbance events as they happen around the world for the first time.</p>



<p>Read on to learn more about the new DIST-ALERT, how it’s different from other alerts and what’s next for alerts on GFW.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What are the new disturbance alerts?</h2>



<p>In 2024, a groundbreaking new land surface disturbance monitoring system known as&nbsp;<a href="https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/opera_l3_dist-alert-hls_v1v001/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">OPERA Land Surface Disturbance Alert</a>, or DIST-ALERT, was developed by the University of Maryland (UMD) and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/go/opera" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">NASA’s OPERA project</a> to map per pixel vegetation cover loss globally at a 30x30-meter resolution. The DIST-ALERT algorithm uses Harmonized Landsat Sentinel-2 (HLS) satellite data that is updated every 2-4 days for each pixel on the earth, and thus the system is updated every time the satellite data is acquired and the ground is not covered by clouds or snow (<a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/insights/new-monitoring-system-land-ecosystem-disturbances/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">read more here</a> about how DIST-ALERT was developed and the methodology behind it).</p>



<p>DIST-ALERT shows an alert when there is an anomaly or notable reduction in vegetation cover, measured as “vegetation fraction” or percent of the ground covered by vegetation. It identifies this by comparing the new vegetation fraction estimate to the minimum fraction for the same time period over the last three years. This means that the algorithm can accommodate changes to seasonal vegetation without triggering an alert.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What new alert data is available on GFW?</h2>



<p>The new DIST-ALERT system on GFW updates weekly and tailors the vegetation fraction level to only display alerts in areas that experience at least 30% vegetation cover loss compared to the same period over the last three years. &nbsp;</p>



<iframe width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/map/?map=eyJkYXRhc2V0cyI6W3siZGF0YXNldCI6IkRJU1RfYWxlcnRzIiwib3BhY2l0eSI6MSwidmlzaWJpbGl0eSI6dHJ1ZSwibGF5ZXJzIjpbIkRJU1RfYWxlcnRzX2FsbCJdfSx7ImRhdGFzZXQiOiJwb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsImxheWVycyI6WyJkaXNwdXRlZC1wb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsInBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIl0sIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9XX0%3D"></iframe>



<p></p>



<p>DIST-ALERT on GFW also provides information about the level of confidence for alerts. The system determines confidence level by the number of anomalous observations, with more observations meaning a higher confidence level. That is, two to three anomalies detected result in a low confidence alert, whereas four or more mean a high confidence alert. Since the system continues to detect anomalies in a pixel over time and the underlying algorithm is updated every 2-4 days (in cloud free conditions), this means that an alert can quickly move from lower to higher confidence, providing users with more timely and more confident alerting than ever before.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/confidence-levels-DIST-ALERT-GFW.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18301"/></figure>



<p>Like other alerts on GFW, users can also explore DIST-ALERT locations with the <a href="https://forestwatcher.globalforestwatch.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Forest Watcher mobile app</a>, which allows users to investigate potential deforestation events and other disturbances in the field and offline.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How does DIST-ALERT differ from existing alerts on GFW?</h2>



<p>GFW’s existing <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/integrated-deforestation-alerts/">integrated deforestation alerts</a> are only available in tropical forests. Now, DIST-ALERT makes it possible to view alerts for all types of tree and vegetation cover, including grassland, shrubland, agricultural land, savannas, temperate forests and boreal forests.</p>



<p>Users can also choose to only view alerts within areas of tree cover with at least 30% canopy density across the globe. Disturbances in forests with 10-30% canopy cover are difficult to identify with this product because anomalies can be driven by disturbances of any vegetation in the pixel — for example, disturbances of undergrowth where trees remain intact. For this reason, we provide the option to view alerts where tree cover disturbances are more likely to be driving the anomalies: within areas of 30% tree canopy density or above.</p>



<p>In contrast to many other alert systems available on GFW, DIST-ALERT continues to monitor pixels where it has identified an alert in the past. The layer on GFW shows the date of the most recent alert, keeping users informed of the most up-to-date changes to forest and vegetation cover.</p>



<table>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>System </strong></td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;"><strong>Geographic coverage </strong></td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;"><strong>Resolution </strong></td>
        <td><strong>Revisit time </strong></td>
        <td><strong>Vegetation type </strong></td>
        <td><strong>Alert description</strong></td>
 
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>DIST-ALERT</strong> (Land Surface Disturbance Alert from Harmonized Landsat Sentinel-2)  </td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;">Global  </td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;">30 meter </td>
        <td>Every 2-4 days  </td>
        <td>All vegetation (and recommended for forests: tree cover &gt;30%) </td>
        <td>Vegetation cover loss &gt;30% compared to the same period over the previous 3 years in each HLS pixel</td>
    
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>Integrated Alerts</strong> (combines GLAD-L, GLAD-S2 and RADD)</td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;">Tropics —30°N to 30°S  </td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;">10 meter </td>
        <td>Upon source systems’ updates (GLAD-L, GLAD-S2 and RADD) </td>
        <td>Tree cover - including primary forests, plantations and secondary forest</td>
        <td>See contributing systems (GLAD-L, GLAD-S2 and RADD) </td>
       
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>GLAD-L</strong> (Global Land Analysis and Discovery – Landsat) </td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;">Tropics — 30°N to 30°S </td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;">30 meter </td>
        <td>Every 8 days  </td>
        <td>Tree cover - including primary forest, plantations and secondary forests </td>
        <td>Any pixel that experiences a canopy loss in excess of 50% cover  </td>
     </tr>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>GLAD-S2</strong> (Global Land Analysis and Discovery – Sentinel-2) </td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;">Amazon basin </td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;">10 meter </td>
        <td>Every 5 days </td>
        <td>Humid tropical primary forests  </td>
        <td>Reduction in tree cover compared to the previous 2 years  </td>
     
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td><strong>RADD</strong> (RAdar for Detecting Deforestation – Sentinel-1) </td>
        <td><td style="width:105px;">Humid tropics </td>
        <td><td style="width:89px;">10 meter </td>
        <td>Every 6-12 days </td>
        <td>Humid tropical primary forests  </td>
        <td>Complete or partial removal of tree cover, with a minimum mapping unit of 0.1 hectares. Use of radar detects disturbances through clouds. </td>
    </tr></table>



<p></p>



<p>GFW also hosts the <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/?mapMenu=eyJtZW51U2VjdGlvbiI6ImRhdGFzZXRzIiwiZGF0YXNldENhdGVnb3J5IjoiZm9yZXN0Q2hhbmdlIn0%3D&amp;modalMeta=viirs_fires">VIIRS fire alerts</a>. Like DIST-ALERT, these monitor all land, but they differ from DIST-ALERT because they only monitor fire activity, have more frequent temporal resolution (2 times daily) and a coarser spatial resolution (375 meter).</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What can the new alerts tell us?</h2>



<p>The DIST-ALERT data shows changes within both natural and human-managed vegetation cover. These changes may be driven by human activities like agricultural conversion, or natural causes like drought damage in crops, and may be temporary or permanent. Therefore, an alert in tree cover area is not necessarily deforestation, and one in grasslands or savannas is not necessarily conversion to another land use such as agriculture.</p>



<p>In addition, because the alerts are available in near-real-time, they are often available before any change in land use, like conversion to agriculture, has occurred, and before replanting might have happened in areas where forestry activities are taking place, meaning further investigation may be needed to understand the context of the alert.</p>



<p>While this new system is incredibly powerful, detecting any loss of vegetative cover anywhere on earth continuously, not all changes are equally interesting and useful to track. Additional information such as whether the alert is in a natural or non-natural ecosystem can be used to identify alerts that warrant further action. Here are two examples of how the data may be useful:</p>



<p><strong>1.</strong> <strong>Supply chain actors can monitor for no-conversion voluntary commitments and regulatory requirements: </strong>Suppliers looking to ensure and demonstrate sustainability in their supply chains and that have made no-conversion commitments for natural lands (e.g. the <a href="https://accountability-framework.org/news-events/news/the-afi-recommends-a-target-date-no-later-than-2025-to-eliminate-deforestation-and-conversion-in-supply-chains/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Accountability Framework Initiative goal</a>) can use DIST-ALERT to monitor areas outside of forests. The data is also relevant to the European Union’s deforestation regulation (EUDR), providing information on potential deforestation or degradation. In addition, while the EUDR’s scope is currently limited to conversions in forests, it could potentially expand to “Other Wooded Land” (non-agricultural land with few trees that can include shrubs and bushes). This expansion would require identifying conversion of this land cover to cropland, which DIST-ALERT could support.</p>



<p><strong>2. Land managers can identify threats to natural ecosystems: </strong>DIST-ALERT can provide early information about other worrying trends in the world’s natural ecosystems, such as the impacts of droughts and climate change. By tracking alerts within valuable lands such as protected areas, biodiversity hotspots and Indigenous lands, and crosschecking with other information such as weather anomalies or fires, land managers could better tell what’s going on in these areas to identify threats and support their decision making. The global biodiversity framework includes the ambitious “30x30 initiative,” which aims to protect 30% of the planet's land and water by 2030. Alerts within these protected areas could indicate threats to their long-term conservation and provide an early warning that swift action should be taken to reverse this trend.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s next for DIST-ALERT on GFW?</h2>



<p>The new DIST-ALERT layer provides more near-real-time information about disturbances in the world’s vegetation than ever before, but there is still more to come.</p>



<p>In future, GFW will have additional features to support DIST-ALERT such as on-the-fly analysis (e.g. number of alerts) in an uploaded or drawn area, the ability to subscribe to email alerts, and the ability to download alert coordinates. We will introduce these items in the coming months, but in the meantime, users can overlay layers available on GFW such as primary forests and protected areas and view together with DIST-ALERT to provide context and support decision making.</p>



<p>We also plan to add information about what is causing alerts. This information will help users understand if the alerts are caused by natural disturbances or human activity, and inform decisions about what kind of action might be required. Land and Carbon Lab is developing an <a href="https://landcarbonlab.org/data/land-disturbance-alert-classification-system/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">alert classification system</a> to create targeted alert products that can be used to distinguish between human-caused conversion of natural lands to other land uses like agriculture, mining or urban development, as well as natural disturbances like drought and wildfire. A prototype is currently available for testing and users can register their interest and gain access by <a href="https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/8004701/b7c0ce053cf0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">completing this survey</a>.</p>



<p>Lastly, DIST-ALERT is not yet incorporated into GFW’s integrated deforestation alerts, but we are working hard to add it in the near future so users can benefit from improved and expanded alert systems, all in one place. Adding the DIST-ALERT layer to the integrated deforestation alert product means that more timely and confident alerts will be available for users, and will enable having a “highest confidence” category where two or more systems detect an alert in the same pixel, and alerts are therefore more certain.</p>



<p><em>We welcome your input as we continue to improve the new DIST-ALERT data. <a href="https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/8130006/e9ac3f6c1b42" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Please fill out a short survey</a> to provide your feedback.&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;</p>



<style type="text/css"></style>

A new global alert system on GFW, DIST-ALERT, provides alerts within forests globally as well where other ecosystems are disturbed.

Global Forest Watch Blog

Featured Articles

New Data on Global Forest Watch Distinguishes Natural Forests from Other Tree Cover

4 Graphics Explain Los Angeles’ Rare and Devastating January Fires

Updated Planted Trees Map Reaches Near-Global Coverage

Near-Real-Time Disturbance Alerts for All Vegetation Globally are Now Available on GFW

New Data on Global Forest Watch Distinguishes Natural Forests from Other Tree Cover

4 Graphics Explain Los Angeles’ Rare and Devastating January Fires

Updated Planted Trees Map Reaches Near-Global Coverage

Near-Real-Time Disturbance Alerts for All Vegetation Globally are Now Available on GFW

All articles

What can Tree Cover Gain Data Tell Us About Restoration? Perspectives from Brazil

Exploring Tree Cover Gain and Net Change on Global Forest Watch

Voices of Global Forest Watch: Muhammad Ichwan, Indonesia’s Forestry Independent Monitoring Network

How Rethinking ‘What Is a Forest’ Can Result in More Effective Conservation

Mining Is Increasingly Pushing into Critical Rainforests and Protected Areas

Women are Leading the Way to Protect Some of the World’s Most Important Forests

Voices of Global Forest Watch: Serge Bondo Kayembe, Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière

6 Graphics Explain South America’s Forest Fires

Voices of Global Forest Watch: Wendy Pineda, Rainforest Foundation US