TenTen YearsYears ofof MappingMapping andand MonitoringMonitoring IntactIntact ForestForest LandscapesLandscapes inin thethe TropicsTropics

Ilona Zhuravleva Russia 2011 GreenpeaceGreenpeace WorldwideWorldwide Mapping Units

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

FOCUS on

GreenpeaceGreenpeace integrates integrates GIS GIS data data and and tools tools into into its its ca campaignmpaign work work in in order order to to have have clear clear evidenceevidence of of forest loss loss (it (it is is crucial crucial to to work work and and lob lobbyby on on the the base base of of credible credible figures figures and and data) data)

2/36 ForestsForests ofof thethe WorldWorld

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

Starting Point in 2000

3/36 WhyWhy areare LargeLarge IntactIntact ForestsForests ImportantImportant ??

- Better recovering from disturbances (resistance and resilience)

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

- Maintaining ecological processes and supplying services like water and air purification, nutrient cycling, , , and flood control

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

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

“In largely intact forest landscapes where there is currently little deforestation and degradation occurring, the conservation of existing forests, especially primary forests, is critical both for preventing future greenhouse gas emissions through loss of carbon stocks and ensuring continued sequestration, and for conserving .” - (CBD 2009)

4/36 IFLIFL DefinitionDefinition

Intact Forest Landscape (IFL)

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

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

5/36 IFLIFL SizeSize CriteriaCriteria

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

Indonesia, Riau province. 2010 • Larger than 50,000 ha Landsat-7 ETM+ slc-off,

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

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

6/36 DisturbedDisturbed AreasAreas ExclusionExclusion AlgorithmAlgorithm

Step 1. Forest Zone Defining

Forest zone: all forests with tree canopy density greater than 20% if the distance between them is less than 2 Forest zone km and all non-forest plots which are Forests, fully surrounded by forests. Fragments Tree canopy density* of the forest zone smaller than 50,000 ha were not considered in the analysis >40%, close forests * Basis: Vegetation Continuous Fields, 2000 20-40%, open forests (Global 500m Tree Cover Product from MODIS) Step 2. Developed Areas Small fragments Analysis

“Negative” approach . Exclusion of USA, 2000 Patches larger then 50,000 ha deforested areas and small TIGER dataset, fragmented patches based on infrastructure maps Scale 1 : 100 000

7/36 DisturbedDisturbed AreasAreas ExclusionExclusion AlgorithmAlgorithm Step 3. Fragmentation Analysis

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

WhatWhat was was excluded: excluded:

-- Populated Populated places places -- Infrastructure Infrastructure line line objects objects ( buffer(buffer of of 1km 1km onon each each side side was was applied): applied): roads, roads, railways, railways, navigabl navigablee waterways, waterways, seashore,seashore, pipelines pipelines and and power power transmission transmission lines lines -- Areas Areas used used for for agriculture agriculture and and timber timber production production -- Areas Areas affected affected by by industrial industrial activities activities during during the the last last 30-70 30-70 years years (logging, (logging, , mining, oil oil and and gas, gas, pea peatt exploration, exploration, etc) etc)

IFL IFL Logging Navigate River

Yellow line – IFL border Yellow line – IFL border

Republic of the Congo. 2010 Indonesia. 2005 Mosaic of Landsat-7 ETM+ slc-off Landsat-7 ETM+

8/36 HistoryHistory ofof IFLIFL MappingMapping

IFLs of North European part of Russia (2001)

IFLs of Russia (2002) Boreal IFLs of Russia, Canada, USA, Sweden, Finland, north parts of Japan and China (2003)

9/36 TheThe WorldWorld’’ss IFLsIFLs (200(200 66)).. KeyKey FindingsFindings

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

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

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

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

• Less then 19% of IFLs have some form of protection, 9.7% – are strictly protected (according to IUCN categories I-III of protected areas). The protection percentage is the highest for Temperate forests and lowest for Boreal forests (less than 4.4% ). Comparing continents, the protection percentage is lowest in Asia . Some Asian countries – China, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam – have placed little or none of their IFL area under protection 10/36 IFLsIFLs MonitoringMonitoring … NorthernNorthern European European Tropics Non-borealNon-boreal Europe Europe RussiaRussia Tropics

IFL fragmentation and degradation

Retezat Nationla park, IFLs in Northern European Russia, Retezat-Godeanu-Tarcu IFL, Russia, 2007 Romania, 2009 Country IFLs. Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2011

11/36 WorldWorld IFLsIFLs MonitoringMonitoring –– FocusFocus onon TropicsTropics

19% 8% 4% Brazilian Amazon Congo Basin Paradise Forests Brazil Democratic republic of the Congo Indonesia Republic of Congo Papua – New Guinea Gabon Cameroon Central African Republic Equatorial Guinea

12/36 MonitoringMonitoring FocusFocus onon TropicsTropics -- ReasonsReasons

• 30% world IFLs in 9 tropical countries

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

• Tropical forests do have a higher biodiversity than other forests

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

• The highest rate of deforestation (Paradise forests)

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

13/36 CCycleycle ofof IFLIFL DDestructionestruction

Fragmentation Degradation Deforestation

Roads Selective logging Agro-industrial clearing

14/36 MainMain DriversDrivers ofof IFLsIFLs DegradationDegradation inin TropicsTropics

Brazilian Amazon Congo Basin Paradise Forests

• Industrial Logging • Upcoming Commercial • Soy Industry Plantations • Palm Oil Industry • Cattle Farming • Population Growth • Pulp & Paper Industry

LackLack of of Governance, Governance, Transparency, Transparency, Control Control and and Monit Monitoring;oring; Corruption Corruption WeakWeak forest forest policies, policies, laws laws and/or and/or law law enforcement enforcement Export-orientedExport-oriented Economics Economics

15/36 MonitoringMonitoring ProcessProcess

2000

16/36 MonitoringMonitoring ProcessProcess

2005

17/36 MonitoringMonitoring ProcessProcess

2010

18/36 MonitoringMonitoring ProcessProcess

IFL Loss 2005-2010

IFL Loss 2000-2005

IFL Area 2010

19/36 CurrentCurrent StateState ofof TropicalTropical IFLsIFLs 2010

371,135 ha * 1000 (equal ½ Australia)

Brazilian Congo Paradise Amazon Basin Forests

63% 24% 13% TropicalTropical IFLsIFLs LossLoss 2000/2005/20102000/2005/2010 % IFL change % IFL change IFL change % IFL change 2000-2005 2005-2010 trend 2000-2010

TOTAL TROPICS 4.0 2.0 2 5.9

Brazil (Amazon) 4.1 1.1 3 ¾ 5.2

Congo Basin 3.5 2.0 1 ¾ 5.5

Paradise forests 4.9 5.7 1 ½ 10.4

395 ,000 379 ,000 371 ,000

IFL loss in absolute areas 2000-2010

24,000 ha*1000 ( ≥ Israel area)

Ha*1000 2

21/36 IFLIFL ChangeChange ProportionsProportions inin 20002000 --20102010

• More then 80% of all change in Paradise Congo Basin is located in 3 Forests • More then half of all IFL countries (Republic of the change occurred in Brazil 24% Congo, Gabon, Democratic (Amazon) Republic of the Congo) 54% • Approximately 70% of all • Paradise Forests and Congo Brazil 22% basin lost approximately one changes in the Paradise (Amazon) Congo and the same IFL area – Forests are located in Basin Indonesia - the other 30 % are quarter of all IFL changes located in Papua New Guinea

Brazil (Amazon) Congo Basin Paradise Forests

1% Republic of the Congo 2%

Gabon 15% 31% 33% Democratic Republic of the Congo 100% Cameroon 24% 67% Indonesia Central African Republic 27%

Equatorial Guinea Papua New Guinea Brasilia (Amazon) 22/36 IFLIFL LossLoss RatesRates –– CountryCountry AnalysisAnalysis

% IFL loss % IFL loss IFL Change % IFL loss 2000-2005 2005-2010 Trend 2000-2010

Brazil (Amazon) 4.1 1.1 3 ¾ 5.2

Democratic Republic of Congo 1.0 0.9 = 1 1.9

Republic of Congo 8.4 3.3 2 ½ 11.4

Gabon 8.7 4.8 1 ¾ 13.1

Cameroon 10.2 5.2 2 14.9

Central African Republic 2.4 12.4 5 14.5

Equatorial Guinea 11.7 2.5 4 ¾ 13.9

Indonesia 4.3 5.9 1 ¼ 10.0

Papua-New Guinea 6.4 5.3 1 ¼ 11.4

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

23/36 IFLIFL LossLoss inin Tropics:Tropics: BrazilianBrazilian AmazonAmazon

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

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

- IFL area 2010

BRASIL

24/36 IFLIFL LossLoss inin thethe Tropics:Tropics: ParadiseParadise ForestsForests

INDONESIA

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

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

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

- IFL area 2010 25/36 IFLIFL LossLoss inin thethe Tropics:Tropics: CongoCongo BasinBasin

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

CAMEROON

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

GABON

REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO - IFL loss in 2000-2005 - IFL loss in 2005-2010 - IFL 2010 26/36 IFLIFL lossloss inin thethe Tropics:Tropics: ParadiseParadise ForestsForests Case study – province analysis in Paradise Forests, 2000 -2005

% of IFL change in 2000-2005 in Provinces No changes Less then 1% 1-5% 5-10% 10-20% More then 20%

Indonesia Papua New Guinea

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

27/36 IFLIFL MappingMapping andand MonitoringMonitoring Implementation:Implementation: The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification Process

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

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

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

Russia. Karelia Republic. Moratorium Canada. Agreement between 9 NGOs Russia. Komi Republic. The scheme for agreement between NRO “SPOK” and and Forest Products Association of NROs and “IlimSeverLes” agreement. 2008 “Ledmozerskoe” timber company. 2009 Canada. 2010 28/36 IFLIFL LossLoss inin thethe Tropics:Tropics: CongoCongo BasinBasin Case Study - IFLs and Industrial Logging Titles in Congo Basin Countries, 20 10

Democratic Republic of the Congo

29/36 IFLIFL LossLoss inin thethe Tropics:Tropics: CongoCongo BasinBasin Case study - IFLs Losses and Industrial Logging Titles in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2000 -2010

Change (2000-2010) per each IFL No changes Rate of loss of areas in IFLs IFLs inside concession patch Less then 5% (2000-2010) within 5-10% No changes concession title area Less then 5% 10-50% 5-10% 50-90% 10-50% 90-100% Concession titles 50-90% IFLs outside of concessions 90-100% 30/36 IFLIFL MappingMapping andand MonitoringMonitoring Implementation:Implementation: Moratoriums are time -bound and therefore no long -term protection

IFL logging

road

Green line – IFL border

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

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

31/36 IFLIFL MappingMapping andand MonitoringMonitoring Implementation:Implementation: Protected Area example

Part given to the Udegheis Half of National Park “Udegeiskaya Legenda” is IFL

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

Green line – IFL border Red line – National Park border

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

ExampleExample of of IFL IFL Conservation Conservation in in the the Far Far East East of of Russia Russia

32/36 IFLIFL MappingMapping andand MonitoringMonitoring Implementation:Implementation: Protected Areas in Tropics

• While the average figure of IFLs under strict protection* is 9.7%, the average figure in the Tropics is lower, only 6.7%

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

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

• The largest portion of IFL protected areas are in Equatorial Guinea – more then 40% of IFL area are strictly protected; in Cameroon , Indonesia and Republic of the Congo , more than 10% are protected

* IUCN categories I-III according to UNEP/IUCN World Database on Protected Areas (which in most countries doesn’t gurantee strict implementation on the ground) 33/36 AdvantagesAdvantages andand LimitationLimitation ofof IFLIFL ConceptConcept

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

- Criteria designed for use with remotely sensed data. They seem to underestimate some types of disturbances that are difficult to detect in (selective logging, small-scale agriculture) - Criteria are not sensitive to regional variations in the understanding of “intactness” and “disturbance” - Created with visual interpretation of images by experts, may contain inconsistencies and inaccuracies (spatial resolution, lack of information about local land-use practices) - Difficult to always find satellite images from the same year

ResultsResults are are generally generally not not immediately immediately suitable suitable for for local-scale local-scale conservati conservationon planning planning . . TheyThey may may be be used used as as a a framework framework forfor such such projects projects to to complement complement additional additional locally locally relevantrelevant information information

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

34/36 OpenOpen QuestionsQuestions andand DiscussionDiscussion

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

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

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

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

35/36 ThankThank youyou forfor attention!attention!

Ilona Zhuravleva GIS Lab Head of Greenpeace Russia

[email protected] +7 (495) 988-74-60 Skype: zhilona Moscow, Leningradskiy prospekt, 26, b.1

www.greenpeace.org www.intactforests.org

36/36