<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

carbon

carbon | Global Forest Watch Blog

fires

fires | Global Forest Watch Blog

forest change

forest change | Global Forest Watch Blog

James MacCarthy

Sasha Tyukavina

Mikaela Weisse

Nancy Harris

Canada’s Record-breaking 2023 Wildfires Released Nearly 4 Times More Carbon than Global Aviation

Canada's Record-breaking 2023 Wildfires Released Nearly 4 Times More Carbon than Global Aviation

Canada’s 2023 wildfires burned 7.8 Mha of forests, emitting 3 billion tons of carbon, 25% more than from all tropical primary forest loss combined in 2023.

Canada's Record-breaking 2023 Wildfires Released Nearly 4 Times More Carbon than Global Aviation | Forest Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

Canada&#8217;s Record-breaking 2023 Wildfires Released Nearly 4 Times More Carbon than Global Aviation

Comment

Global Forest Watch Content

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

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

Paige Johnson

Data &amp; Tools

Data &amp; Tools | Global Forest Watch Blog

David Gibbs

Melissa Rose

What’s New With GFW’s Forest Carbon Monitoring

Carbon monitoring data on GFW provides information on where forests are gaining or losing carbon. We updated the model in 2023 and 2024.

What’s New With GFW’s Forest Carbon Monitoring | GFW Blog

amazon

amazon | Global Forest Watch Blog

indigenous peoples

indigenous peoples | Global Forest Watch Blog

Indigenous Peoples &amp; Local Communities

Indigenous Peoples &amp; Local Communities | Global Forest Watch Blog

Peter Veit

Katie Reytar

Indigenous Forests Are Some of the Amazon’s Last Carbon Sinks

New research shows that forests managed by Indigenous people in the Amazon are net carbon sinks, while forests outside Indigenous lands are a carbon source.

Indigenous Forests Are Some of the Amazon’s Last Carbon Sinks | Forest Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

<p><a href="https://gfw.global/2MoRaOl" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">New global maps</a> on GFW provide spatially explicit data on emissions, removals and net carbon fluxes from forests.  Whereas previous models only estimate forest carbon fluxes for entire countries or regions, the 30-meter resolution of this data allows users to consistently analyze carbon dynamics in forests down to the local scale. The study was published last week in <a href="https://rdcu.be/cdY40" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Nature Climate Change</em></a>. Here’s what you need to know about the new data.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">How were the forest carbon flux maps created?</h3>



<p>The new maps on GFW were produced using a groundbreaking new model, which applies the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) <a href="https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">guidelines</a> for national greenhouse gas inventories to high-resolution geospatial data. The inputs to the model include ground, airborne and satellite observations of forest change, disturbances (like deforestation, harvest or burning), and the type, age and condition of forests being lost or gained. </p>



<p>Combining these datasets allows for detailed estimates about how each 30×30 meter piece of forest contributes to global emissions and removals. The maps can be used by researchers to generate national, regional or global-scale estimates of forest carbon fluxes. And thanks to their high resolution, they can also be used by those seeking to monitor local forest carbon dynamics, like Indigenous communities.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Forest carbon flux global map" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/forests-global-net-carbon-flux-wri.png" width="100%"></div>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">How do GFW’s forest carbon numbers compare to other estimates?</h3>



<p>The <a href="https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/index.htm" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Global Carbon Project</a> (GCP) is the most frequently cited source of data on land-related emissions, but their estimates do not distinguish among forests, grasslands, croplands or other land types. Given that forests are the largest component of land-based fluxes, this is an important distinction. These new maps isolate carbon moving in and out of forests and improve upon past research in a few significant ways.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">1. Consistent methodology maps everything, regardless of human intervention</h3>



<p>At the end of the day, the atmosphere doesn’t care whether emissions come from human activity or natural causes. If we want to slow climate change, we must monitor and address all forest carbon fluxes. The new data on GFW simplifies carbon monitoring by mapping all observed emissions and removals using a single model. In contrast, the GCP data only reports emissions related to human activity (which can be hard to define) and estimates different components (e.g., emissions versus removals) using different models. The subjectivity and complexity inherent to this approach tends to obscure the role of land in climate change, making it difficult to advocate for and implement land-based mitigation solutions.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Forest carbon flux data models compared" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/21.01.27_GFW-Flux-Model-Explainer_Breakdown-of-Carbon-Flux-Estimates-002.png" width="100%"></div>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">2. Maps are derived from remote sensing data</h3>



<p>The new maps on GFW are based on satellite-derived data created using a globally consistent method. As such, the results are comparable at multiple scales, whether you are estimating forest carbon fluxes within a small patch of forest or across an entire region. Both the GCP and <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/988" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">some other</a> forest-specific carbon flux estimates combine country-reported forest inventory data and models that simulate vegetation growth, metabolism and death. Different countries use a variety of methods to measure forest carbon, creating inconsistencies when the data is combined. Further, nationally reported data is typically not spatially explicit, which prevents estimation of forest carbon fluxes at sub-national scales.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">3. Emissions and removals can be separated</h3>



<p>The new maps on GFW allow for separate estimates of emissions and removals, as well as the net flux between them. This is because the model uses the University of Maryland’s Global Forest Change data, which includes separate data on how much tree cover has been lost, gained, or remains standing. Previous global forest carbon studies have only provided data on net fluxes, while a few studies have disaggregated emissions and removals for the tropics only. GFW’s high-resolution maps of emissions and removals can help decision-makers prioritize different types of conservation or restoration interventions across landscapes.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">4. The model is designed to be continually improved upon as new data becomes available</h3>



<p>For example, new annual tree cover loss data can be folded into the analysis to keep the numbers up to date. As other data, such as drivers of forest loss or more spatially refined carbon removal rates become available, they can be incorporated as well.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">How should the new forest carbon model be used?</h3>



<p>The new forest carbon maps can be used to complement national forest inventories and satellites directly observing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The new data’s high resolution, transparent methods, global consistency, and separate accounting of emissions and removals makes it useful for a variety of applications.</p>



<ol type="1"><li>In 2023, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change plans to conduct its first <a href="https://unfccc.int/topics/science/workstreams/global-stocktake-referred-to-in-article-14-of-the-paris-agreement" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Global Stocktake</a> to assess how the world is doing on its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All countries will report their land-related carbon fluxes, which include fluxes from forests. Cross-checking these numbers against transparent and independently derived data like GFW’s will be essential for a robust assessment.</li><li>National governments have <a href="https://www.wri.org/ndcs" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">set targets</a> for reducing their emissions under the Paris Agreement, and land and forest emissions are a critical piece of that. Spatial data can help governments decide where to prioritize projects working towards these targets.</li><li>Companies setting <a href="https://sciencebasedtargets.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">science-based targets</a> for reducing emissions need to be able to monitor carbon fluxes on the land they own, lease or source products from. National estimates are too coarse and the quality of the data too varied for companies to adequately understand what’s happening in their supply chains from year to year. The higher spatial resolution of the new maps can help companies diligently track carbon on land in and determine where to intervene.</li><li>These new maps can help non-governmental organizations understand the climate impacts of land management decisions, measure what policies and practices are more or less effective at reducing emissions or increasing sequestration, and monitor the extent to which companies and governments are upholding their commitments.</li></ol>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Monitoring is just the first step</h3>



<p>This is just the beginning of a new framework for monitoring global carbon fluxes on land. In the future, new research will address some of the key limitations of the current estimates by mapping emissions from forest degradation and improved detection of forest expansion, refining the accuracy and timeliness of the resulting data.</p>



<p>Meanwhile, this method for mapping both emissions and removals from forests offers unprecedented detail for better management now. Reducing emissions from deforestation, while also scaling up carbon dioxide removals available from forests, is <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">necessary</a> for staying below 1.5 degrees of warming.</p>



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

New Global Maps Estimate Forest Carbon Fluxes in Unprecedented Detail

<p><a href="https://gfw.global/2MoRaOl" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">New global maps</a> on GFW provide spatially explicit data on emissions, removals and net carbon fluxes from forests.  Whereas previous models only estimate forest carbon fluxes for entire countries or regions, the 30-meter resolution of this data allows users to consistently analyze carbon dynamics in forests down to the local scale. The study was published last week in <a href="https://rdcu.be/cdY40" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Nature Climate Change</em></a>. Here’s what you need to know about the new data.</p>



<h3>How were the forest carbon flux maps created?</h3>



<p>The new maps on GFW were produced using a groundbreaking new model, which applies the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) <a href="https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">guidelines</a> for national greenhouse gas inventories to high-resolution geospatial data. The inputs to the model include ground, airborne and satellite observations of forest change, disturbances (like deforestation, harvest or burning), and the type, age and condition of forests being lost or gained. </p>



<p>Combining these datasets allows for detailed estimates about how each 30x30 meter piece of forest contributes to global emissions and removals. The maps can be used by researchers to generate national, regional or global-scale estimates of forest carbon fluxes. And thanks to their high resolution, they can also be used by those seeking to monitor local forest carbon dynamics, like Indigenous communities.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Forest carbon flux global map" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/forests-global-net-carbon-flux-wri.png" width="100%"></div>



<h3>How do GFW's forest carbon numbers compare to other estimates?</h3>



<p>The <a href="https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/index.htm" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Global Carbon Project</a> (GCP) is the most frequently cited source of data on land-related emissions, but their estimates do not distinguish among forests, grasslands, croplands or other land types. Given that forests are the largest component of land-based fluxes, this is an important distinction. These new maps isolate carbon moving in and out of forests and improve upon past research in a few significant ways.</p>



<h3>1. Consistent methodology maps everything, regardless of human intervention</h3>



<p>At the end of the day, the atmosphere doesn’t care whether emissions come from human activity or natural causes. If we want to slow climate change, we must monitor and address all forest carbon fluxes. The new data on GFW simplifies carbon monitoring by mapping all observed emissions and removals using a single model. In contrast, the GCP data only reports emissions related to human activity (which can be hard to define) and estimates different components (e.g., emissions versus removals) using different models. The subjectivity and complexity inherent to this approach tends to obscure the role of land in climate change, making it difficult to advocate for and implement land-based mitigation solutions.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Forest carbon flux data models compared" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/21.01.27_GFW-Flux-Model-Explainer_Breakdown-of-Carbon-Flux-Estimates-002.png" width="100%"></div>



<h3>2. Maps are derived from remote sensing data</h3>



<p>The new maps on GFW are based on satellite-derived data created using a globally consistent method. As such, the results are comparable at multiple scales, whether you are estimating forest carbon fluxes within a small patch of forest or across an entire region. Both the GCP and <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/988" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">some other</a> forest-specific carbon flux estimates combine country-reported forest inventory data and models that simulate vegetation growth, metabolism and death. Different countries use a variety of methods to measure forest carbon, creating inconsistencies when the data is combined. Further, nationally reported data is typically not spatially explicit, which prevents estimation of forest carbon fluxes at sub-national scales.</p>



<h3>3. Emissions and removals can be separated</h3>



<p>The new maps on GFW allow for separate estimates of emissions and removals, as well as the net flux between them. This is because the model uses the University of Maryland’s Global Forest Change data, which includes separate data on how much tree cover has been lost, gained, or remains standing. Previous global forest carbon studies have only provided data on net fluxes, while a few studies have disaggregated emissions and removals for the tropics only. GFW’s high-resolution maps of emissions and removals can help decision-makers prioritize different types of conservation or restoration interventions across landscapes.</p>



<h3>4. The model is designed to be continually improved upon as new data becomes available</h3>



<p>For example, new annual tree cover loss data can be folded into the analysis to keep the numbers up to date. As other data, such as drivers of forest loss or more spatially refined carbon removal rates become available, they can be incorporated as well.</p>



<h3>How should the new forest carbon model be used?</h3>



<p>The new forest carbon maps can be used to complement national forest inventories and satellites directly observing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The new data’s high resolution, transparent methods, global consistency, and separate accounting of emissions and removals makes it useful for a variety of applications.</p>



<ol type="1"><li>In 2023, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change plans to conduct its first <a href="https://unfccc.int/topics/science/workstreams/global-stocktake-referred-to-in-article-14-of-the-paris-agreement" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Global Stocktake</a> to assess how the world is doing on its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All countries will report their land-related carbon fluxes, which include fluxes from forests. Cross-checking these numbers against transparent and independently derived data like GFW’s will be essential for a robust assessment.</li><li>National governments have <a href="https://www.wri.org/ndcs" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">set targets</a> for reducing their emissions under the Paris Agreement, and land and forest emissions are a critical piece of that. Spatial data can help governments decide where to prioritize projects working towards these targets.</li><li>Companies setting <a href="https://sciencebasedtargets.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">science-based targets</a> for reducing emissions need to be able to monitor carbon fluxes on the land they own, lease or source products from. National estimates are too coarse and the quality of the data too varied for companies to adequately understand what’s happening in their supply chains from year to year. The higher spatial resolution of the new maps can help companies diligently track carbon on land in and determine where to intervene.</li><li>These new maps can help non-governmental organizations understand the climate impacts of land management decisions, measure what policies and practices are more or less effective at reducing emissions or increasing sequestration, and monitor the extent to which companies and governments are upholding their commitments.</li></ol>



<h3>Monitoring is just the first step</h3>



<p>This is just the beginning of a new framework for monitoring global carbon fluxes on land. In the future, new research will address some of the key limitations of the current estimates by mapping emissions from forest degradation and improved detection of forest expansion, refining the accuracy and timeliness of the resulting data.</p>



<p>Meanwhile, this method for mapping both emissions and removals from forests offers unprecedented detail for better management now. Reducing emissions from deforestation, while also scaling up carbon dioxide removals available from forests, is <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">necessary</a> for staying below 1.5 degrees of warming.</p>

What you need to know about how GFW's carbon flux data was created and how it differs from the other estimates out there.

Forest Carbon Flux Data, Explained | Global Forest Watch Blog

https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3dc298e411f65b199fc3734919d6934e?s=96&d=mm&r=g

Sarah Ruiz

<p>The world is getting a better understanding of just how important forests are in the global fight against climate change. New research, published in <em><a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41558-020-00976-6&data=04%7C01%7CKatie.Lyons%40wri.org%7C947e1cd62f8541d0896f08d8bc9656fc%7C476bac1f36b24ad98699cda6bad1f862%7C0%7C0%7C637466701180980029%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=wn%2B%2Fa0gwQv8GMcuVfDwWaVQi71VU2ZBAmOI%2Fv6rwBik%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Nature Climate Change</a></em> and <a href="https://gfw.global/3fI7mFG" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">available</a>&nbsp;on Global Forest Watch, found that the world’s forests sequestered about twice as much carbon dioxide as they emitted between 2001 and 2019. In other words, forests provide a &nbsp;“carbon sink” that absorbs a net 7.6 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year, 1.5 times more carbon than the United States emits annually.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="global forest carbon flux map" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/forests-global-net-carbon-flux-wri.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>Unlike other sectors, where carbon makes a one-way trip to the atmosphere, forests act as a two-way highway, absorbing CO2 when standing or regrowing&nbsp;and releasing it when cleared or degraded.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Before now, scientists estimated these global “carbon fluxes” from the sum of country-reported data, creating a coarse picture of the role forests play in both carbon emissions and sequestration. With these new data that combine ground measurements with satellite observations, we can now quantify carbon fluxes consistently over any area, from small local forests to countries to entire continents.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="forest carbon fluxes in and out of forests" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20_01_21-Carbon-Flux-v2_Graphic-1.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>Using this more granular information, we found that the world’s forests emitted an average of 8.1 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year due to deforestation and other disturbances, and absorbed 16 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year.</p>



<p>Here’s a look at what else the new maps tell us about forests and carbon:</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Only one major tropical rainforest remains a strong carbon sink</h3>



<p>Tropical rainforests are far and away the most important ecosystems for mitigating climate change. Tropical rainforests collectively&nbsp;sequester more carbon from the atmosphere than temperate or boreal forests, but they’re also increasingly destroyed for agricultural expansion. The world’s three largest tropical rainforests are located in the Amazon, Congo River basin and Southeast Asia.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="tropical rainforests carbon sinks are threatened" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/rainforests-carbon-flux-amazon-congo-southeast-asia-wri-1.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>Over the past 20 years, forests across Southeast Asia have collectively become a net source of carbon emissions due to clearing for plantations, uncontrolled fires and drainage of peat soils.</p>



<p>The&nbsp;Amazon River basin, which stretches across nine countries in South America, is<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2035-0?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nature%2Frss%2Fcurrent+%28Nature+-+Issue%29" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> still a net carbon sink</a>, but teeters on the edge of becoming a net <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00508-4" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">source if forest loss continues</a> at current rates. The Amazon basin has experienced heightened deforestation in the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/brazil-environment/deforestation-in-brazils-amazon-skyrockets-to-12-year-high-under-bolsonaro-idUSKBN28B3MV" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">last four years</a> due to clearing for cattle pasture and degradation from fires.</p>



<p>Of the world’s three largest tropical rainforests, only the Congo has enough standing forest left to remain a strong net carbon sink. The Congo’s tropical rainforest sequesters 600 million metric tonnes more carbon dioxide per year than it emits,&nbsp;equivalent to about one-third of the CO2 emissions from all U.S. transportation.</p>



<p>Protecting the remaining forests in all three regions is critical to mitigating climate change.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Protected areas help conserve forest carbon sinks</h3>



<p>The precarious state of the Amazonian carbon sink highlights the need to protect the forests we have left in this region and elsewhere around the world.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/107/24/10821" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Protected areas</a> and Indigenous reserves are some of our most valuable tools in the climate action toolbox, combined with command-and-control policies.</p>



<p>The new map reveals that 27% of the world’s net forest carbon sink falls within protected areas<a>.</a>&nbsp;Looking at individual areas demonstrates just how effective these designations can be in keeping CO2 in forests. &nbsp;</p>



<p>For example, in Brazil, a stark contrast in carbon emissions is evident between the protected Menkragnotí indigenous reserve and the surrounding unprotected forest. Forests in the reserve continue to absorb approximately 10 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide more from the atmosphere than they emit every year — equivalent to the annual carbon emissions from more than 2 million cars. The area surrounding the Menkragnotí indigenous reserve has become a net carbon source due to clearing for mining, pasture and soy. </p>



<p>Recognizing Indigenous Peoples and local communities as owners of their lands, and enforcing those rights, is a <a href="https://www.wri.org/publication/climate-benefits-tenure-costs" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">proven strategy</a> to protect standing forests and enhance carbon stored in them.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Indigenous territory in Brazil is a carbon sink" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/forests-indigenous-protected-areas-carbon-sink-wri.png" width="100%"></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Forestry carbon flux varies based on management practices</h2>



<p>Nowhere is the bidirectional nature of carbon flux more apparent than in the world’s managed forests, which are cut and regrown to produce timber and &nbsp;concentrated mainly in the United States, Canada, China, Europe and Russia. In these managed forest areas, some patches of trees are harvested or thinned at planned intervals, leading to carbon emissions, while others are left to regrow and absorb carbon.</p>



<p>Ultimately, whether managed forests are carbon sources or sinks depends on how they’re managed — how much time elapses between harvest cycles, how much forest is cut, the age of the trees, and, importantly, the total area over which fluxes are calculated. </p>



<p>Zooming in on individual clear-cuts in the new map shows CO2 emissions from the abrupt loss of tree cover during harvest. But at the landscape scale, forestry becomes a patchwork of both CO2 emissions from harvest and carbon removals from previously harvested forests growing back. On the whole, most well-managed forests are net carbon sinks.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="foresty patchwork of sources and sinks" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/forest-harvesting-carbon-emissions-removal-wri.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>Logging in pristine primary forests, however, still represents a concern with respect to both climate and biodiversity.&nbsp;Unlike secondary forests or fast-rotation pine or eucalyptus plantations, harvesting in <a href="https://www.ancientforestalliance.org/caycuse-watershed-logging-2020/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">old-growth</a> forests releases CO2 that has taken centuries to accumulate — carbon that, once lost, is irrecoverable in our lifetime.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Protecting standing forests is critical for climate mitigation</h3>



<p>Overall, the data show that keeping existing forests standing remains our best hope for maintaining the vast amount of carbon forests store and continuing the carbon sequestration that, if halted, will worsen the effects of climate change.</p>



<p>While <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/want-grow-trees-consider-these-5-lessons" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">planting new trees (the right way</a>) or <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">letting them regrow naturally</a> can play a role in mitigating climate change (and helping communities adapt to its effects), the new data show that forests that have sprouted up in the past 19 years represent less than 5% of the current global forest carbon sink.</p>



<p>Although important to give these young forests the chance to grow into old ones, protecting primary and mature secondary&nbsp;forests today is most important for curbing climate change. &nbsp;<strong>&nbsp;</strong></p>



<p>With these new maps, we can identify with unprecedented detail those forests that are capturing and emitting the most carbon. The maps can also be continually improved as better data become available. This gets us one step closer to tracking progress toward reducing emissions from deforestation and identifying where forests are being successfully managed — and where they need more protection.</p>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EEuO28hB9rg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>



<hr> 

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

 

Originally appeared on <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2021/01/forests-carbon-emissions-sink-flux" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WRI Insights</a>. 

 



 

</div> 

 

<hr>



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

Forests Absorb Twice as Much Carbon as They Emit Each Year

<p>The world is getting a better understanding of just how important forests are in the global fight against climate change. New research, published in <em><a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41558-020-00976-6&amp;data=04%7C01%7CKatie.Lyons%40wri.org%7C947e1cd62f8541d0896f08d8bc9656fc%7C476bac1f36b24ad98699cda6bad1f862%7C0%7C0%7C637466701180980029%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=wn%2B%2Fa0gwQv8GMcuVfDwWaVQi71VU2ZBAmOI%2Fv6rwBik%3D&amp;reserved=0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Nature Climate Change</a></em> and <a href="https://gfw.global/3fI7mFG" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">available</a>&nbsp;on Global Forest Watch, found that the world’s forests sequestered about twice as much carbon dioxide as they emitted between 2001 and 2019. In other words, forests provide a &nbsp;“carbon sink” that absorbs a net 7.6 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year, 1.5 times more carbon than the United States emits annually.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="global forest carbon flux map" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/forests-global-net-carbon-flux-wri.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>Unlike other sectors, where carbon makes a one-way trip to the atmosphere, forests act as a two-way highway, absorbing CO2 when standing or regrowing&nbsp;and releasing it when cleared or degraded.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Before now, scientists estimated these global “carbon fluxes” from the sum of country-reported data, creating a coarse picture of the role forests play in both carbon emissions and sequestration. With these new data that combine ground measurements with satellite observations, we can now quantify carbon fluxes consistently over any area, from small local forests to countries to entire continents.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="forest carbon fluxes in and out of forests" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20_01_21-Carbon-Flux-v2_Graphic-1.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>Using this more granular information, we found that the world’s forests emitted an average of 8.1 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year due to deforestation and other disturbances, and absorbed 16 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year.</p>



<p>Here's a look at what else the new maps tell us about forests and carbon:</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Only one major tropical rainforest remains a strong carbon sink</h3>



<p>Tropical rainforests are far and away the most important ecosystems for mitigating climate change. Tropical rainforests collectively&nbsp;sequester more carbon from the atmosphere than temperate or boreal forests, but they’re also increasingly destroyed for agricultural expansion. The world’s three largest tropical rainforests are located in the Amazon, Congo River basin and Southeast Asia.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="tropical rainforests carbon sinks are threatened" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/rainforests-carbon-flux-amazon-congo-southeast-asia-wri-1.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>Over the past 20 years, forests across Southeast Asia have collectively become a net source of carbon emissions due to clearing for plantations, uncontrolled fires and drainage of peat soils.</p>



<p>The&nbsp;Amazon River basin, which stretches across nine countries in South America, is<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2035-0?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nature%2Frss%2Fcurrent+%28Nature+-+Issue%29" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> still a net carbon sink</a>, but teeters on the edge of becoming a net <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00508-4" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">source if forest loss continues</a> at current rates. The Amazon basin has experienced heightened deforestation in the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/brazil-environment/deforestation-in-brazils-amazon-skyrockets-to-12-year-high-under-bolsonaro-idUSKBN28B3MV" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">last four years</a> due to clearing for cattle pasture and degradation from fires.</p>



<p>Of the world’s three largest tropical rainforests, only the Congo has enough standing forest left to remain a strong net carbon sink. The Congo’s tropical rainforest sequesters 600 million metric tonnes more carbon dioxide per year than it emits,&nbsp;equivalent to about one-third of the CO2 emissions from all U.S. transportation.</p>



<p>Protecting the remaining forests in all three regions is critical to mitigating climate change.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Protected areas help conserve forest carbon sinks</h3>



<p>The precarious state of the Amazonian carbon sink highlights the need to protect the forests we have left in this region and elsewhere around the world.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/107/24/10821" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Protected areas</a> and Indigenous reserves are some of our most valuable tools in the climate action toolbox, combined with command-and-control policies.</p>



<p>The new map reveals that 27% of the world’s net forest carbon sink falls within protected areas<a>.</a>&nbsp;Looking at individual areas demonstrates just how effective these designations can be in keeping CO2 in forests. &nbsp;</p>



<p>For example, in Brazil, a stark contrast in carbon emissions is evident between the protected Menkragnotí indigenous reserve and the surrounding unprotected forest. Forests in the reserve continue to absorb approximately 10 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide more from the atmosphere than they emit every year — equivalent to the annual carbon emissions from more than 2 million cars. The area surrounding the Menkragnotí indigenous reserve has become a net carbon source due to clearing for mining, pasture and soy. </p>



<p>Recognizing Indigenous Peoples and local communities as owners of their lands, and enforcing those rights, is a <a href="https://www.wri.org/publication/climate-benefits-tenure-costs" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">proven strategy</a> to protect standing forests and enhance carbon stored in them.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Indigenous territory in Brazil is a carbon sink" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/forests-indigenous-protected-areas-carbon-sink-wri.png" width="100%"></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Forestry carbon flux varies based on management practices</h2>



<p>Nowhere is the bidirectional nature of carbon flux more apparent than in the world’s managed forests, which are cut and regrown to produce timber and &nbsp;concentrated mainly in the United States, Canada, China, Europe and Russia. In these managed forest areas, some patches of trees are harvested or thinned at planned intervals, leading to carbon emissions, while others are left to regrow and absorb carbon.</p>



<p>Ultimately, whether managed forests are carbon sources or sinks depends on how they’re managed — how much time elapses between harvest cycles, how much forest is cut, the age of the trees, and, importantly, the total area over which fluxes are calculated. </p>



<p>Zooming in on individual clear-cuts in the new map shows CO2 emissions from the abrupt loss of tree cover during harvest. But at the landscape scale, forestry becomes a patchwork of both CO2 emissions from harvest and carbon removals from previously harvested forests growing back. On the whole, most well-managed forests are net carbon sinks.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="foresty patchwork of sources and sinks" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/forest-harvesting-carbon-emissions-removal-wri.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>Logging in pristine primary forests, however, still represents a concern with respect to both climate and biodiversity.&nbsp;Unlike secondary forests or fast-rotation pine or eucalyptus plantations, harvesting in <a href="https://www.ancientforestalliance.org/caycuse-watershed-logging-2020/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">old-growth</a> forests releases CO2 that has taken centuries to accumulate — carbon that, once lost, is irrecoverable in our lifetime.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Protecting standing forests is critical for climate mitigation</h3>



<p>Overall, the data show that keeping existing forests standing remains our best hope for maintaining the vast amount of carbon forests store and continuing the carbon sequestration that, if halted, will worsen the effects of climate change.</p>



<p>While <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/want-grow-trees-consider-these-5-lessons" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">planting new trees (the right way</a>) or <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">letting them regrow naturally</a> can play a role in mitigating climate change (and helping communities adapt to its effects), the new data show that forests that have sprouted up in the past 19 years represent less than 5% of the current global forest carbon sink.</p>



<p>Although important to give these young forests the chance to grow into old ones, protecting primary and mature secondary&nbsp;forests today is most important for curbing climate change. &nbsp;<strong>&nbsp;</strong></p>



<p>With these new maps, we can identify with unprecedented detail those forests that are capturing and emitting the most carbon. The maps can also be continually improved as better data become available. This gets us one step closer to tracking progress toward reducing emissions from deforestation and identifying where forests are being successfully managed — and where they need more protection.</p>



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EEuO28hB9rg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>



<hr> 

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

 

Originally appeared on <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2021/01/forests-carbon-emissions-sink-flux" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WRI Insights</a>. 

 



 

</div> 

 

<hr>

New data maps global carbon flux in forests, letting us quantify CO2 emissions and sequestration in local forests or countries to continents.

Quantifying Carbon Fluxes in Forests | Global Forest Watch Blog

restoration

restoration | Global Forest Watch Blog

Susan Cook-Patton

Kristine Lister

<p>There’s increasing recognition of how nature can help tackle the climate crisis. From protecting standing forests to planting new trees, forests offer significant climate mitigation benefits. Now, new research shows that letting forests regrow on their own could be a secret weapon to fighting climate change.</p>



<p>Experts at WRI, The Nature Conservancy and other institutions mapped potential rates of carbon capture from “natural forest regrowth” – a restoration method distinct from active tree-planting – initiatives where trees are allowed to grow back on lands previously cleared for agriculture and other purposes. The results, <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x" target="_blank">published in <em>Nature</em></a> and available on <a href="https://gfw.global/3ndMdVE" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Global Forest Watch </a> show that letting forests regrow naturally has the potential to absorb up to 8.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year through 2050, while still maintaining native grasslands and current levels of food production.<strong> That’s the equivalent of soaking up 23% of global emissions from the atmosphere every year. </strong></p>



<p>This is on top of the carbon sequestration already provided by existing forests, which currently absorb around 30% of CO2 emissions each year.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="natural forest regrowth could capture 23% of all carbon emissions" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Carbon_Emissions_natural_forest_regeneration_WRI.png" width="100%"></div>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Benefits of balancing reforestation and natural forest regrowth</h3>



<p>While decarbonization of fossil fuels and other industrial emissions remain essential pieces of the emissions-reduction puzzle, nature also has a major role to play. The United Nations declared the 2020s as the “Decade of Ecosystem Restoration,” calling for massive restoration of degraded lands to help with climate change mitigation.</p>



<p>It’s a powerful message, but too often “<a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/want-grow-trees-consider-these-5-lessons" target="_blank">tree restoration</a>” is seen as synonymous with “tree-planting.” For example, a <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01026-8#ref-CR2" target="_blank">close look</a> at a selection of national restoration commitments made under the Bonn Challenge, UN REDD+ program, Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement, and other schemes reveals that almost half of the current land area slated for restoration in these countries is set to become plantations of commercial trees. Balancing active reforestation of commercial species with natural forest regrowth could make for a more effective approach in terms of both carbon and biodiversity. </p>



<p>The map generated for the recent <em>Nature</em> study can help identify locations where natural forest regrowth has high climate mitigation potential, to be considered alongside active tree-planting initiatives. There are many advantages to letting forests recover on their own: it’s often cheaper and more likely to benefit native wildlife. The new map, viewed alongside other information on the local socioeconomic setting and alternative uses for the land, can provide context for optimizing where to let nature take the lead.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Previous IPCC carbon sequestration estimates are too low</h3>



<p>This latest study shows that potential rates of carbon capture from natural forest regrowth are far higher than previously estimated.</p>



<p>For decades, ecologists have collected data on the ground at different locations around the world about how quickly previously forested areas return to forest and recover carbon after agricultural abandonment or other disturbance. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) periodically compiles these measurements by general ecosystem type to provide default rates, which many countries use to estimate how much carbon dioxides their forests remove from the atmosphere each year as they compile greenhouse gas inventories and set climate mitigation commitments. </p>



<p>The new study found that these generalized IPCC defaults underestimate carbon sequestration rates in young forests by 32% globally, and by <em>a full 50%</em> for tropical forests. This is because the new map captures spatial variability in rates across a landscape much better than a smattering of hard-won field plots can; it’s simply not feasible or cost-effective to measure carbon everywhere. </p>



<p>By using IPCC defaults, many governments may be underestimating the benefits of natural forest regrowth for capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and thus underappreciating its power as a climate change solution.</p>



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



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Where does natural forest regrowth have the most carbon-removal potential?</h3>



<p>Rates at which young forests remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere vary by orders of magnitude around the world; tropical countries in West and Central Africa have the highest rates, while countries in Central Europe and the Middle East have the lowest. And while carbon accumulation rates are usually highest in warmer, wetter climates, they can also vary dramatically at local scales, for example with three-fold variation across Colombia alone.</p>



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



<p>By harmonizing detailed carbon measurements collected at different locations around the world and combining them with cutting-edge machine learning methods, the new map takes into account how 66 environmental variables influence forest growth rates — everything from topography to daily temperature range to soil texture. This new geospatial information is now easily accessible to governments, civil society organizations and companies via Global Forest Watch.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Forests can help with climate change mitigation and more</h3>



<p>Letting previously forested land recover carbon naturally can contribute to the 730 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide the IPCC says must be removed from the atmosphere by the end of this century to avert the worst effects of climate change. Increasing forest cover can also bring additional benefits beyond climate change mitigation, such as preventing floods, regulating rainfall, slowing biodiversity loss, and sustaining traditional ways of life and economies. </p>



<p>Equipped with a more detailed understanding of forests’ potential to capture carbon dioxide, officials can make rapid assessments on how to best use land for the greatest climate return.&nbsp;</p>



<hr> 

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

Originally appeared on <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WRI Insights</a>. 
 

</div> 

 

<hr>



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

Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought

<p>There’s increasing recognition of how nature can help tackle the climate crisis. From protecting standing forests to planting new trees, forests offer significant climate mitigation benefits. Now, new research shows that letting forests regrow on their own could be a secret weapon to fighting climate change.</p>



<p>Experts at WRI, The Nature Conservancy and other institutions mapped potential rates of carbon capture from “natural forest regrowth” – a restoration method distinct from active tree-planting – initiatives where trees are allowed to grow back on lands previously cleared for agriculture and other purposes. The results, <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x" target="_blank">published in <em>Nature</em></a> and available on <a href="https://gfw.global/3ndMdVE" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Global Forest Watch </a> show that letting forests regrow naturally has the potential to absorb up to 8.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year through 2050, while still maintaining native grasslands and current levels of food production.<strong> That’s the equivalent of soaking up 23% of global emissions from the atmosphere every year. </strong></p>



<p>This is on top of the carbon sequestration already provided by existing forests, which currently absorb around 30% of CO2 emissions each year.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="natural forest regrowth could capture 23% of all carbon emissions" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Carbon_Emissions_natural_forest_regeneration_WRI.png" width="100%"></div>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Benefits of balancing reforestation and natural forest regrowth</h3>



<p>While decarbonization of fossil fuels and other industrial emissions remain essential pieces of the emissions-reduction puzzle, nature also has a major role to play. The United Nations declared the 2020s as the “Decade of Ecosystem Restoration,” calling for massive restoration of degraded lands to help with climate change mitigation.</p>



<p>It’s a powerful message, but too often “<a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/want-grow-trees-consider-these-5-lessons" target="_blank">tree restoration</a>” is seen as synonymous with “tree-planting.” For example, a <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01026-8#ref-CR2" target="_blank">close look</a> at a selection of national restoration commitments made under the Bonn Challenge, UN REDD+ program, Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement, and other schemes reveals that almost half of the current land area slated for restoration in these countries is set to become plantations of commercial trees. Balancing active reforestation of commercial species with natural forest regrowth could make for a more effective approach in terms of both carbon and biodiversity. </p>



<p>The map generated for the recent <em>Nature</em> study can help identify locations where natural forest regrowth has high climate mitigation potential, to be considered alongside active tree-planting initiatives. There are many advantages to letting forests recover on their own: it’s often cheaper and more likely to benefit native wildlife. The new map, viewed alongside other information on the local socioeconomic setting and alternative uses for the land, can provide context for optimizing where to let nature take the lead.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Previous IPCC carbon sequestration estimates are too low</h3>



<p>This latest study shows that potential rates of carbon capture from natural forest regrowth are far higher than previously estimated.</p>



<p>For decades, ecologists have collected data on the ground at different locations around the world about how quickly previously forested areas return to forest and recover carbon after agricultural abandonment or other disturbance. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) periodically compiles these measurements by general ecosystem type to provide default rates, which many countries use to estimate how much carbon dioxides their forests remove from the atmosphere each year as they compile greenhouse gas inventories and set climate mitigation commitments. </p>



<p>The new study found that these generalized IPCC defaults underestimate carbon sequestration rates in young forests by 32% globally, and by <em>a full 50%</em> for tropical forests. This is because the new map captures spatial variability in rates across a landscape much better than a smattering of hard-won field plots can; it’s simply not feasible or cost-effective to measure carbon everywhere. </p>



<p>By using IPCC defaults, many governments may be underestimating the benefits of natural forest regrowth for capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and thus underappreciating its power as a climate change solution.</p>



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



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Where does natural forest regrowth have the most carbon-removal potential?</h3>



<p>Rates at which young forests remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere vary by orders of magnitude around the world; tropical countries in West and Central Africa have the highest rates, while countries in Central Europe and the Middle East have the lowest. And while carbon accumulation rates are usually highest in warmer, wetter climates, they can also vary dramatically at local scales, for example with three-fold variation across Colombia alone.</p>



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



<p>By harmonizing detailed carbon measurements collected at different locations around the world and combining them with cutting-edge machine learning methods, the new map takes into account how 66 environmental variables influence forest growth rates — everything from topography to daily temperature range to soil texture. This new geospatial information is now easily accessible to governments, civil society organizations and companies via Global Forest Watch.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Forests can help with climate change mitigation and more</h3>



<p>Letting previously forested land recover carbon naturally can contribute to the 730 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide the IPCC says must be removed from the atmosphere by the end of this century to avert the worst effects of climate change. Increasing forest cover can also bring additional benefits beyond climate change mitigation, such as preventing floods, regulating rainfall, slowing biodiversity loss, and sustaining traditional ways of life and economies. </p>



<p>Equipped with a more detailed understanding of forests’ potential to capture carbon dioxide, officials can make rapid assessments on how to best use land for the greatest climate return.&nbsp;</p>



<hr> 

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

Originally appeared on <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WRI Insights</a>. 
 

</div> 

 

<hr>