<p>Total tropical primary forest loss in 2023 totaled 3.7 million hectares, the equivalent of losing almost 10 football (soccer) fields of forest per minute. <a href="https://gfw.global/3TPufvy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">View on the Global Forest Review.</a></p>


2023 Tree Cover Loss Data Analysis

overview of a river in Pantanal, Brazil

Insights

Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

amazon

amazon | Global Forest Watch Blog

Brazil

Brazil | Global Forest Watch Blog

Congo Basin

Congo Basin | Global Forest Watch Blog

deforestation

deforestation | Global Forest Watch Blog

forest change

forest change | Global Forest Watch Blog

Indonesia

Indonesia | Global Forest Watch Blog

Mikaela Weisse

Liz Goldman

Sarah Carter

Tropical Forest Loss Drops Steeply in Brazil and Colombia, but High Rates Persist Overall

Despite progress in some countries, the rate of tropical primary forest loss in 2023 remained persistent, according to new data from UMD on GFW.

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

Aerial footage of palm oil and the forest in Sentabai Village, West Kalimantan, 2017.

Data

Data | Global Forest Watch Blog

<p>New tree cover loss data from the University of Maryland’s GLAD lab (UMD) and available on Global Forest Watch (GFW) shows declines in primary forest loss in some countries but a persistent rate overall in 2023. What does the data measure, what is different this year and how does it compare to other official estimates of deforestation? Here is what you should know about the new data.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What tree cover loss measures and how this differs from deforestation</h2>



<p>The tree cover loss data from UMD captures the annual loss of all trees taller than five meters for the calendar years between 2001 and 2023. The tree cover loss data includes the loss of trees in natural forests as well as in plantations and tree crops (though notably, the primary forest data we use to filter the loss in the tropics excludes plantations, tree crops and regrowing forests). Loss of this tree cover can be due to human or natural causes and can be permanent or temporary.</p>



<p>Deforestation differs in that it only refers to a human-caused, permanent change from forest to another land use. Some forms of tree cover loss, such as conversion of a natural forest to agricultural land, are considered deforestation, while other forms of tree cover loss, such as timber harvesting in plantation forests or natural disturbances, are not — <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/key-terms-definitions" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">read more about the differences here</a>. Loss in tree cover, whether deforestation or not, can be legal or illegal.</p>



<p>In some cases, such as in the <a href="https://gfw.global/4apxyiz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Deforestation and Restoration Targets Tracker</a> on the Global Forest Review, we use a proxy for deforestation. That proxy includes losses that are from small-scale agriculture in humid tropical primary forests and all commodity-driven deforestation and urbanization (inside and outside of humid tropical primary forests). Temporary losses, such as from fires or forestry activities, are not included. We don’t use this deforestation proxy in all of our reporting because it is based on coarse resolution data that is designed to limit the inclusion of temporary losses or losses in planted forests at the global scale only. Deforestation continues to be difficult to track with globally consistent data sets and there are inherent delays in confirming whether loss detected in satellite imagery is temporary or permanent.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Data improvements over time result in some inconsistencies in the data timeseries</h2>



<p>Algorithm adjustments and better satellite data have <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/tree-cover-loss-satellite-data-trend-analysis/">improved the tree cover loss data set over time</a>.</p>



<p>This year, the loss detection algorithm used by the University of Maryland to create the tree cover loss data set was supplemented by information from the <a href="https://glad.umd.edu/dataset/DIST-ALERT" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">DIST-ALERT land disturbance data set</a>. Late season changes are sometimes missed in the tree cover loss data due to insufficient satellite data and cloud cover and are attributed to the following year. DIST-ALERT showed patches of tree cover loss that were originally missed by the tree cover loss data, and these were manually reviewed and included for 2023.</p>



<p>Employing DIST-ALERT helped especially to detect loss from late season forest fires in boreal forests and late season clearing in the tropics that would have otherwise appeared in the 2024 data. The DIST-ALERT data also helped detect some tree cover loss due to flooding and mining. The use of alerts resulted in a 3.7% increase in global tree cover loss detected. Most of the changes affected the boreal regions, while for the rest of the globe, the increase was only 1.7%. It is important to note that since most of the added areas would have otherwise been detected in 2024, we do not believe this change in the mapping approach for 2023 will have any impact on long-term trends in the data.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Additional changes to the time series include adjustments to the algorithm for the years 2011-2014 and 2015 onwards and the incorporation of Landsat 8 data starting in 2013. These changes make it easier to detect smaller scale changes, such as loss due to fires, selective logging and shifting agriculture. Variations in satellite image availability also mean there are inconsistencies with the quality and number of images available to capture data each year.</p>



<p>To address these inconsistencies, we:</p>



<ul>
<li>Focus our analysis on trends post-2015.</li>



<li>Assess the three-year moving average to interpret longer-term trends.</li>



<li>Disregard the increase in loss post-2012 in places dominated by small-scale agriculture, like Central Africa.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What does tree cover loss from fire capture?</h2>



<p>The tree cover loss from fire data from UMD allows us to distinguish fire-driven loss from other tree cover loss by assigning likelihood of loss due to fire to each 30-meter tree cover loss pixel, breaking the data into loss due to fire and loss due to other drivers, such as agriculture or logging. The tree cover loss due to fire data includes natural or human-ignited fires that result in direct loss of tree canopy cover. The data captures wildfires, fires used to clear land for another use and intentionally set fires that result in tree cover loss (including escaped fires started by humans for purposes related to agriculture, hunting, recreation or arson). Instances where trees are felled and later burned are not included, however, since the initial driver of loss is mechanical removal.</p>



<p>This data allows us to better understand how fire impacted tree cover loss in 2023. For example, fire played especially large roles in Bolivia and Canada — <a href="https://gfw.global/43tcLbQ" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">learn more about our findings from the 2023 data here</a>.</p>



<p>Even though fires often do not result in a permanent change in land use, they are still an important source of carbon emissions and can <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">lead to feedback loops</a> of increasing emissions, hotter temperatures, drier forests and more fires.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why we focus on the tropics</h2>



<p>In our <a href="https://gfw.global/43tcLbQ" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">analysis of the UMD data</a>, we largely focus on tree cover loss in tropical primary forests because tropical forests experience <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-loss?utm_campaign=treecoverloss2021&utm_medium=bitly&utm_source=GFWBlog#how-much-tree-cover-is-lost-in-tropical-versus-temperate-and-boreal-forests" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the vast majority</a> (over 96%) of the world’s deforestation, and loss in those areas has huge impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Even if these losses are eventually reversed, it will <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3629" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">take decades</a> for these habitats and carbon stocks to recover, and permanent biodiversity loss may occur.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How does tree cover loss compare with official country data in Brazil and Indonesia?</h2>



<p><em>Brazil</em></p>



<p>PRODES — the official forest monitoring system for the Amazon from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) — and the UMD data have methodological and definitional differences that are important to understand when comparing these two data sources. PRODES measures clear cut deforestation and anthropogenic forest losses by fire larger than 6.25 hectares, whereas UMD captures loss larger than 0.09 hectares of all trees taller than five meters. These are both important measures that help us understand how forests are changing since deforestation, forest fires and small disturbances to forest canopy can all lead to impacts on climate, biodiversity and ecosystem services.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1348" height="1042" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-EN.png" alt="UMD and PRODES differences explained" class="wp-image-15866" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-EN.png 1348w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-EN-1024x792.png 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-EN-768x594.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1348px) 100vw, 1348px" /></figure>



<p>Both systems show a downward trend in loss for 2023 — 22% decrease for PRODES and 39% decrease for UMD (42% decrease for non-fire loss) in the Amazon biome, confirming the positive news for the Amazon.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">PRODES VS. UMD DATA IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/17268908?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<p><em>Indonesia</em></p>



<p>Overlaying the UMD/GFW primary forest loss data for 2023 with the official Indonesia land cover map from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) shows that 70% occurred within Indonesia’s official forest cover classes, with the remaining 30% taking place in mixed dry land agriculture, shrubland, swamp shrub and other land cover types. Approximately 144 thousand hectares of loss were found to be both within Indonesia’s official forest land cover classes and with a patch size larger than two hectares. Of these 144 thousand hectares, about 15 thousand hectares were within areas legally classified as primary forest in Indonesia.</p>



<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p><strong>MoEF class</strong></p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p><strong>Percent of UMD/GFW 2023 Primary Forest Loss</strong></p>
			</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Primary forest</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>9%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Secondary forest</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>60%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Plantation forest</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>1%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Non-forest</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>30%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>



<p></p>



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



<p></p>



<p></p>

Global Forest Watch’s 2023 Tree Cover Loss Data Explained

<p>New tree cover loss data from the University of Maryland’s GLAD lab (UMD) and available on Global Forest Watch (GFW) shows declines in primary forest loss in some countries but a persistent rate overall in 2023. What does the data measure, what is different this year and how does it compare to other official estimates of deforestation? Here is what you should know about the new data.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What tree cover loss measures and how this differs from deforestation</h2>



<p>The tree cover loss data from UMD captures the annual loss of all trees taller than five meters for the calendar years between 2001 and 2023. The tree cover loss data includes the loss of trees in natural forests as well as in plantations and tree crops (though notably, the primary forest data we use to filter the loss in the tropics excludes plantations, tree crops and regrowing forests). Loss of this tree cover can be due to human or natural causes and can be permanent or temporary.</p>



<p>Deforestation differs in that it only refers to a human-caused, permanent change from forest to another land use. Some forms of tree cover loss, such as conversion of a natural forest to agricultural land, are considered deforestation, while other forms of tree cover loss, such as timber harvesting in plantation forests or natural disturbances, are not — <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/key-terms-definitions" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">read more about the differences here</a>. Loss in tree cover, whether deforestation or not, can be legal or illegal.</p>



<p>In some cases, such as in the <a href="https://gfw.global/4apxyiz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Deforestation and Restoration Targets Tracker</a> on the Global Forest Review, we use a proxy for deforestation. That proxy includes losses that are from small-scale agriculture in humid tropical primary forests and all commodity-driven deforestation and urbanization (inside and outside of humid tropical primary forests). Temporary losses, such as from fires or forestry activities, are not included. We don’t use this deforestation proxy in all of our reporting because it is based on coarse resolution data that is designed to limit the inclusion of temporary losses or losses in planted forests at the global scale only. Deforestation continues to be difficult to track with globally consistent data sets and there are inherent delays in confirming whether loss detected in satellite imagery is temporary or permanent.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Data improvements over time result in some inconsistencies in the data timeseries</h2>



<p>Algorithm adjustments and better satellite data have <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/tree-cover-loss-satellite-data-trend-analysis/">improved the tree cover loss data set over time</a>.</p>



<p>This year, the loss detection algorithm used by the University of Maryland to create the tree cover loss data set was supplemented by information from the <a href="https://glad.umd.edu/dataset/DIST-ALERT" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">DIST-ALERT land disturbance data set</a>. Late season changes are sometimes missed in the tree cover loss data due to insufficient satellite data and cloud cover and are attributed to the following year. DIST-ALERT showed patches of tree cover loss that were originally missed by the tree cover loss data, and these were manually reviewed and included for 2023.</p>



<p>Employing DIST-ALERT helped especially to detect loss from late season forest fires in boreal forests and late season clearing in the tropics that would have otherwise appeared in the 2024 data. The DIST-ALERT data also helped detect some tree cover loss due to flooding and mining. The use of alerts resulted in a 3.7% increase in global tree cover loss detected. Most of the changes affected the boreal regions, while for the rest of the globe, the increase was only 1.7%. It is important to note that since most of the added areas would have otherwise been detected in 2024, we do not believe this change in the mapping approach for 2023 will have any impact on long-term trends in the data.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Additional changes to the time series include adjustments to the algorithm for the years 2011-2014 and 2015 onwards and the incorporation of Landsat 8 data starting in 2013. These changes make it easier to detect smaller scale changes, such as loss due to fires, selective logging and shifting agriculture. Variations in satellite image availability also mean there are inconsistencies with the quality and number of images available to capture data each year.</p>



<p>To address these inconsistencies, we:</p>



<ul>
<li>Focus our analysis on trends post-2015.</li>



<li>Assess the three-year moving average to interpret longer-term trends.</li>



<li>Disregard the increase in loss post-2012 in places dominated by small-scale agriculture, like Central Africa.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What does tree cover loss from fire capture?</h2>



<p>The tree cover loss from fire data from UMD allows us to distinguish fire-driven loss from other tree cover loss by assigning likelihood of loss due to fire to each 30-meter tree cover loss pixel, breaking the data into loss due to fire and loss due to other drivers, such as agriculture or logging. The tree cover loss due to fire data includes natural or human-ignited fires that result in direct loss of tree canopy cover. The data captures wildfires, fires used to clear land for another use and intentionally set fires that result in tree cover loss (including escaped fires started by humans for purposes related to agriculture, hunting, recreation or arson). Instances where trees are felled and later burned are not included, however, since the initial driver of loss is mechanical removal.</p>



<p>This data allows us to better understand how fire impacted tree cover loss in 2023. For example, fire played especially large roles in Bolivia and Canada — <a href="https://gfw.global/43tcLbQ" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">learn more about our findings from the 2023 data here</a>.</p>



<p>Even though fires often do not result in a permanent change in land use, they are still an important source of carbon emissions and can <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">lead to feedback loops</a> of increasing emissions, hotter temperatures, drier forests and more fires.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why we focus on the tropics</h2>



<p>In our <a href="https://gfw.global/43tcLbQ" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">analysis of the UMD data</a>, we largely focus on tree cover loss in tropical primary forests because tropical forests experience <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-loss?utm_campaign=treecoverloss2021&amp;utm_medium=bitly&amp;utm_source=GFWBlog#how-much-tree-cover-is-lost-in-tropical-versus-temperate-and-boreal-forests" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the vast majority</a> (over 96%) of the world’s deforestation, and loss in those areas has huge impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Even if these losses are eventually reversed, it will <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3629" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">take decades</a> for these habitats and carbon stocks to recover, and permanent biodiversity loss may occur.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How does tree cover loss compare with official country data in Brazil and Indonesia?</h2>



<p><em>Brazil</em></p>



<p>PRODES — the official forest monitoring system for the Amazon from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) — and the UMD data have methodological and definitional differences that are important to understand when comparing these two data sources. PRODES measures clear cut deforestation and anthropogenic forest losses by fire larger than 6.25 hectares, whereas UMD captures loss larger than 0.09 hectares of all trees taller than five meters. These are both important measures that help us understand how forests are changing since deforestation, forest fires and small disturbances to forest canopy can all lead to impacts on climate, biodiversity and ecosystem services.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-EN.png" alt="UMD and PRODES differences explained" class="wp-image-15866"/></figure>



<p>Both systems show a downward trend in loss for 2023 — 22% decrease for PRODES and 39% decrease for UMD (42% decrease for non-fire loss) in the Amazon biome, confirming the positive news for the Amazon.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">PRODES VS. UMD DATA IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/17268908?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<p><em>Indonesia</em></p>



<p>Overlaying the UMD/GFW primary forest loss data for 2023 with the official Indonesia land cover map from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) shows that 70% occurred within Indonesia’s official forest cover classes, with the remaining 30% taking place in mixed dry land agriculture, shrubland, swamp shrub and other land cover types. Approximately 144 thousand hectares of loss were found to be both within Indonesia’s official forest land cover classes and with a patch size larger than two hectares. Of these 144 thousand hectares, about 15 thousand hectares were within areas legally classified as primary forest in Indonesia.</p>



<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p><strong>MoEF class</strong></p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p><strong>Percent of UMD/GFW 2023 Primary Forest Loss</strong></p>
			</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Primary forest</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>9%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Secondary forest</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>60%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Plantation forest</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>1%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Non-forest</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>30%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>



<p></p>



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



<p></p>



<p></p>

<p>Novos dados de perda de cobertura arbórea do GLAD Lab da University of Maryland (UMD) e disponíveis na plataforma Global Forest Watch (GFW) mostram uma redução na perda de floresta primária em alguns países, mas uma taxa geral persistente em 2023. O que os dados medem, o que há de diferente este ano e como eles se comparam a outras estimativas oficiais de desmatamento? Aqui está o que você precisa saber sobre os novos dados.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">O que a perda de cobertura arbórea mede e como ela difere do desmatamento </h2>



<p>Os dados de perda de cobertura arbórea da UMD capturam a perda anual de todas as árvores com mais de cinco metros de altura entre os anos de 2001 e 2023. Os dados sobre perda de cobertura arbórea incluem a perda de árvores em florestas naturais, bem como em plantações e cultivo arbóreo (embora seja importante notar que os dados sobre florestas que usamos para filtrar a perda nos trópicos excluem plantações, cultivos de árvores e florestas em regeneração). A perda dessa cobertura pode ser devido a causas humanas ou naturais, permanente ou temporária.</p>



<p>O desmatamento difere por se referir apenas a uma mudança permanente e causada pelo homem, partindo do estado de floresta para outros usos da terra. Algumas formas de perda de cobertura arbórea, como a conversão de uma floresta natural em terras agrícolas, são consideradas desmatamento, enquanto outras formas, como a extração de madeira em florestas plantadas ou distúrbios naturais, não são. <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/key-terms-definitions" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Leia mais sobre as diferenças aqui</a>. A perda de cobertura arbórea, seja desmatamento ou não, pode ser legal ou ilegal.</p>



<p>Em alguns casos, como no <a href="https://gfw.global/4apxyiz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Targets Tracker de Desmatamento e Restauração</a> no Global Forest Review, usamos um indicador para desmatamento. Esse indicador inclui as perdas que são de agricultura de pequena escala em florestas tropicais primárias úmidas e todo desmatamento e urbanização impulsionados por <em>commodities </em>(dentro e fora de florestas tropicais primárias úmidas). Perdas temporárias, como as decorrentes de incêndios ou atividades florestais, não foram incluídas. Não usamos esse indicador de desmatamento em todos os nossos relatórios porque é baseado em dados de baixa resolução que são concebidos para limitar a inclusão de perdas temporárias ou perdas em florestas plantadas apenas em escala global. O desmatamento continua a ser difícil de rastrear com conjuntos de dados consistentes globalmente e há atrasos inerentes para confirmar se as perdas detectadas em imagens de satélite são temporárias ou permanentes.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Melhorias de dados ao longo do tempo resultam em algumas inconsistências na série temporal de dados</h2>



<p>Ajustes de algoritmo e melhores dados de satélite <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/tree-cover-loss-satellite-data-trend-analysis/">melhoraram o conjunto de dados de perda de cobertura arbórea ao longo do tempo</a>.</p>



<p>Este ano, o algoritmo de detecção de perda usado pela University of Maryland para criar o conjunto de dados de perda de cobertura arbórea foi suplementado pelas informações do <a href="https://glad.umd.edu/dataset/DIST-ALERT" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">conjunto de dados de alteração do solo do DIST-ALERT</a>. Mudanças da última estação às vezes são perdidas nos dados de perda de cobertura arbórea devido a dados de satélite insuficientes e cobertura de nuvens e são atribuídos ao ano seguinte. O DIST-ALERT mostrou fragmentos de perda de cobertura arbórea que originalmente foram omitidos pelos dados de perda de cobertura arbórea e incluídos para 2023 e esses foram revisados manualmente e incluídos em 2023.</p>



<p>Utilizar o DIST-ALERT ajudou especialmente a detectar a perda por queimadas da última estação em florestas boreais e desmatamento da última estação nos trópicos que de outro modo apareceriam nos dados de 2024. Os dados do DIST-ALERT também ajudaram a detectar parte da perda de cobertura arbórea devido à inundação e mineração. O uso de alertas resultou em um aumento de 3,7% em perda de cobertura arbórea detectada. A maioria das mudanças afetou as regiões boreais, embora para o restante do globo, o aumento foi de apenas 1,7%. É importante observar que, como a maioria das áreas adicionadas teria sido detectada em 2024 de outra forma, não acreditamos que essa mudança na abordagem de mapeamento em 2023 terá algum impacto nas tendências de longo prazo nos dados.</p>



<p>Mudanças adicionais para a série temporal inclui ajustes no algoritmo para os anos de 2011 a 2014 e a partir de 2015, bem como a incorporação de dados do Landsat 8 com início em 2013. Essas alterações facilitam a detecção de mudanças em escalas maiores, como a perda devido a incêndios, exploração madeireira seletiva e agricultura de rotação. Variações na disponibilidade de imagens por satélite também significam que há inconsistências na qualidade e no número de imagens disponíveis para capturar dados a cada ano.</p>



<p>Para resolver essas inconsistências, nós:</p>



<ul>
<li>concentramos nossa análise em tendências após 2015;</li>



<li>avaliamos a média móvel de três anos para interpretar as tendências de longo prazo; e</li>



<li>desconsideramos o aumento da perda após 2012 em locais dominados pela agricultura de pequena escala, como a África Central.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">O que a perda de cobertura arbórea devido a incêndio capta?</h2>



<p>Os dados de perda de cobertura arbórea devido a incêndio da UMD nos permitem distinguir de outras mudanças na cobertura florestal ao atribuir a probabilidade de perda devido a incêndio para cada pixel de perda de cobertura arbórea de 30 metros, dividindo os dados em perda devido a incêndio e perda devido a outros fatores, como agricultura ou extração de madeira. Esses dados incluem incêndios naturais ou provocados pelo homem que resultam em perda direta de cobertura de copa das árvores. Os dados capturam incêndios florestais, incêndios usados para limpar a terra para outro uso e incêndios intencionais que resultam em perda de cobertura arbórea (incluindo incêndios escapados iniciados por humanos para fins relacionados à agricultura, caça, recreação ou incêndio criminoso). No entanto, os casos em que as árvores são derrubadas e posteriormente queimadas não são incluídos, uma vez que o fator inicial de perda é a remoção mecânica.</p>



<p>Esses dados nos permitem entender melhor como incêndios afetaram a perda de cobertura arbórea em 2023. Por exemplo, incêndios desempenharam papéis especialmente grandes na Bolívia e Canadá. <a href="https://gfw.global/43tcLbQ" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Saiba mais sobre nossas descobertas a partir dos dados de 2023 aqui</a>.</p>



<p>Embora os incêndios muitas vezes não resultem em uma mudança permanente no uso da terra, eles ainda são uma importante fonte de emissões de carbono e podem <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">levar a ciclos de retroalimentação</a> de emissões crescentes, temperaturas mais quentes, florestas mais secas e mais incêndios.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Por que nos concentramos nos trópicos? </h2>



<p>Na <a href="https://gfw.global/3LkdrbQ" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">análise dos dados da UMD</a>, nós nos concentramos principalmente na perda de cobertura arbórea em florestas primárias tropicais, pois as florestas tropicais sofrem <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-loss?utm_campaign=treecoverloss2021&amp;utm_medium=bitly&amp;utm_source=GFWBlog#how-much-tree-cover-is-lost-in-tropical-versus-temperate-and-boreal-forests" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a grande maioria</a> (mais de 96%) do desmatamento mundial, e a perda nessas áreas tem impactos enormes sobre a biodiversidade e o armazenamento de carbono. Mesmo que essas perdas acabem sendo revertidas, <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3629" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">levará décadas</a> para que esses habitats e estoques de carbono se recuperem, e poderá ocorrer uma perda permanente de biodiversidade.&nbsp;</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Como a perda de cobertura arbórea se compara aos dados nacionais oficiais no Brasil e na Indonésia?  </h2>



<p><em>Brasil</em>&nbsp;</p>



<p>O PRODES – o sistema oficial de monitoramento florestal para a Amazônia do Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) – e os dados da UMD têm diferenças metodológicas e de definição que são importantes de serem compreendidas ao comparar essas duas fontes de dados. O PRODES mede o desmatamento nítido e as perdas florestais antropogênicas por incêndio maiores que 6,25 hectares, enquanto a UMD captura perdas maiores que 0,09 hectare de todas as árvores com altura superior a cinco metros. Ambas são medidas importantes que nos ajudam a entender como as florestas estão mudando, uma vez que o desmatamento, as queimadas e pequenos distúrbios no dossel florestal podem levar a impactos no clima, na biodiversidade e nos serviços ecossistêmicos.&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/PT-23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-PT.png" alt="" class="wp-image-16134" style="aspect-ratio:3/2;object-fit:cover"/></figure>



<p>Os sistemas mostram uma tendência de queda na perda para 2023. Uma diminuição de 22% para o PRODES e 39% para a UMD (42% de redução para a perda não relacionada a incêndios) no bioma da Amazônia, confirmando as notícias positivas para a Amazônia.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">Dados do PRODES vs. UMD sobre a Amazônia brasileira</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/17601358?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<p><em>Indonésia</em></p>



<p>A sobreposição dos dados de perda de floresta primária da UMD/GFW de 2023 com o mapa oficial de cobertura terrestre da Indonésia do Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Florestas (Ministry of Environment and Forestry, MoEF) mostra que 70% ocorreu em classes oficiais de cobertura florestal da Indonésia, com os restantes 30% ocorrendo em áreas de agricultura em terras secas mistas, matagais, arbustos de pântanos e outros tipos de cobertura do solo. Cerca de 144 mil hectares de perda revelaram ser tanto classes oficiais de cobertura florestal da Indonésia quanto ter um tamanho de fragmento maior do que dois hectares. Dos 144 mil hectares, cerca de 15 mil hectares estavam em áreas legalmente classificadas como floresta primária na Indonésia.</p>



<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p><strong>Classe do MoEF</strong></p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p><strong>Porcentagem de perda florestal primária de 2023 da UMD/GFW</strong></p>
			</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Floresta primária</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>9%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Floresta secundária</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>60%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Floresta plantada</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>1%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
			<td style="width:350px;height:39px;">
			<p>Não florestal</p>
			</td>
			<td style="width:550px;height:39px;">
			<p>30%</p>
			</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>



<p></p>



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



<p></p>



<p></p>

Explicação dos dados do Global Forest Watch sobre a perda de cobertura arbórea de 2023

New data shows persistent primary forest loss in 2023. What does the data measure and how does it compare to other official estimates of deforestation?

Global Forest Watch’s 2023 Tree Cover Loss Data Explained | GFW Blog

Amazon - Brazil, 2011.  ©Neil Palmer/CIAT

<p>New tree cover loss data from the University of Maryland (UMD) and available on Global Forest Watch (GFW) shows high rates of primary forest loss in 2022 despite <a href="https://gfw.global/3L1xFpo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">political ambitions to curb loss</a>. What does the data measure, what is different this year and how does it compare to other official estimates of deforestation? Here is what you should know about the new data.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What tree cover loss measures and how this differs from deforestation&nbsp;</h2>



<p>The tree cover loss data from UMD captures the annual loss of all trees taller than five meters for the calendar years between 2001 and 2022. Because optical satellite data collection can often be obscured by cloud cover in the humid tropics, some late-in-the year loss can be picked up in the next year following persistent cloud cover. This is a common occurrence in many tropical countries where cloud cover is prevalent.</p>



<p>The tree cover loss data includes the loss of trees in natural forests as well as in plantations and tree crops. Loss of this tree cover can be due to human or natural causes and can be permanent or temporary. Deforestation differs in that it only refers to a human-caused, permanent change from forest to another land use. Some forms of tree cover loss, such as conversion of a natural forest to agricultural land, are considered deforestation, while other forms of tree cover loss, such as timber harvesting in plantation forests or natural disturbances, are not. <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/key-terms-definitions" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Read more about the differences here</a>.</p>



<p>A new tool available on the Global Forest Review, the <a href="https://gfw.global/3L1xFpo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Targets Tracker</a>, enables us to use tree cover loss data to measure progress toward deforestation commitments on a global level by using a coarse resolution <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-targets-tracker#how-is-deforestation-estimated" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">proxy of deforestation</a>. To do this, the Targets Tracker identifies losses that are likely to represent deforestation in and outside of the tropics by only including tree cover loss from certain drivers. Specifically, it includes the expansion of small-scale agriculture into humid tropical primary forests, as well as all loss in commodity-driven deforestation and urbanization. It excludes temporary losses, such as from fires or forestry activities.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why we focus on the tropics&nbsp;</h2>



<p>In our <a href="https://gfw.global/3LkdrbQ" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">analysis of the UMD data</a>, we largely focus on tree cover loss in tropical primary forests because tropical forests experience <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-loss?utm_campaign=treecoverloss2021&utm_medium=bitly&utm_source=GFWBlog#how-much-tree-cover-is-lost-in-tropical-versus-temperate-and-boreal-forests" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the vast majority</a> (over 96%) of the world’s deforestation, and loss in those areas has huge impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Even if these losses are eventually reversed, it will <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3629" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">take decades</a> for these habitats and carbon stocks to recover, and permanent biodiversity loss may occur.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How does tree cover loss compare with official country data in Brazil and Indonesia?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Brazil&nbsp;</h3>



<p>PRODES — the official forest monitoring system for the Amazon from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) — and the UMD data have methodological and definitional differences that are important to understand when comparing these two data sources. PRODES measures clear cut deforestation and anthropogenic forest losses by fire larger than 6.25 hectares, whereas UMD captures loss larger than 0.09 hectares of all trees taller than five meters. These are both important measures that help us understand how forests are changing since deforestation, forest fires and small disturbances to forest canopy can all lead to impacts on climate, biodiversity and ecosystem services.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1348" height="1042" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-EN.png" alt="UMD and PRODES differences explained" class="wp-image-15866" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-EN.png 1348w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-EN-1024x792.png 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-EN-768x594.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1348px) 100vw, 1348px" /></figure>



<p>Separating out tree cover loss from fire in the UMD data has resulted in a much closer match between these two data sets. However, the two seem to show different trends for 2022 in the Brazilian Amazon: PRODES shows an 11% decrease in deforestation while UMD shows a 21% increase in non-fire primary forest loss.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">PRODES vs. UMD data in the Brazilian Amazon&nbsp;</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/13629875?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<p>The reason for this discrepancy may be the difference in reporting periods. PRODES uses the period between August and July (in this case, August 2021 to July 2022), while UMD uses the calendar year (January to December 2022). The Brazilian government’s DETER alerts — which track deforestation on a daily basis — suggest that deforestation rates increased in the second half of 2022 compared to previous years. DETER alerts detected a 2% decrease in deforestation between August 2021 and July 2022 compared to August 2020 to July 2021, but detected a 25% increase between the calendar year 2021 and 2022.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">DETER Alerts in the Brazilian Amazon&nbsp;</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed" data-src="story/1907320?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Indonesia</h3>



<p>This year, WRI and Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) are working together on a joint analysis to better understand the UMD/GFW primary forest loss findings through the MoEF’s data and definitions. Overlaying the UMD/GFW primary forest loss data for 2022 with the MoEF land cover map shows that 67% occurs within Indonesia’s official forest cover classes, with the remaining 33% taking place in mixed dry land agriculture, shrub, swamp shrub and other land cover types. Approximately 107 thousand hectares of loss was found to be both within Indonesia’s official forest land cover classes and with a patch size larger than two hectares. Of these 107 thousand hectares, about 12 thousand hectares were within areas legally classified as primary forest in Indonesia. The upcoming joint analysis will improve our understanding of these issues.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1348" height="1438" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_Indonesia-error-bars-table-unrounded.png" alt="Table showing UMD/GFW primary forest loss in hectares per MoEF forest classes in 2022" class="wp-image-16098" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_Indonesia-error-bars-table-unrounded.png 1348w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_Indonesia-error-bars-table-unrounded-960x1024.png 960w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_Indonesia-error-bars-table-unrounded-768x819.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1348px) 100vw, 1348px" /></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Data improvements over time result in inconsistencies in the data before 2015&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>



<p>Algorithm adjustments and better satellite data have <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/tree-cover-loss-satellite-data-trend-analysis/">improved the tree cover loss data set over time</a>. Changes to the tree cover loss detection algorithm for the years 2011-2014 and 2015 onwards and the incorporation of Landsat 8 data starting in 2013 make it easier to detect smaller scale changes, such as loss due to fires, selective logging and shifting agriculture.&nbsp;Variations in satellite image availability also mean there are inconsistencies with the quality and number of images available to capture data each year.</p>



<p>To address these issues, we:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<ul><li>Focus our analysis on trends post-2015.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li><li>Assess the three-year moving average to interpret longer-term trends.&nbsp;</li><li>Disregard the increase in loss post 2012 in places dominated by small-scale agriculture, like Central Africa. This increase is likely due to data improvements that better detect the loss later in the time series.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li></ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How will the data change over time?&nbsp;</h2>



<p>UMD is working on improvements to the tree cover extent and change data, which will result in changes to the data in the coming years. The new data will track the annual extent of tree cover and offer annual loss and gain information using a consistent algorithm across the time series. It will also track multiple gain and loss events in a single location, allowing us to better track dynamic areas of forest change such as forestry activities and wildfires. Incorporating annual gain and repeated loss events will provide a more complete picture of global forest change.</p>



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

Global Forest Watch’s 2022 Tree Cover Loss Data Explained

<p>New tree cover loss data from the University of Maryland (UMD) and available on Global Forest Watch (GFW) shows high rates of primary forest loss in 2022 despite <a href="https://gfw.global/3L1xFpo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">political ambitions to curb loss</a>. What does the data measure, what is different this year and how does it compare to other official estimates of deforestation? Here is what you should know about the new data.</p>



<h2>What tree cover loss measures and how this differs from deforestation&nbsp;</h2>



<p>The tree cover loss data from UMD captures the annual loss of all trees taller than five meters for the calendar years between 2001 and 2022. Because optical satellite data collection can often be obscured by cloud cover in the humid tropics, some late-in-the year loss can be picked up in the next year following persistent cloud cover. This is a common occurrence in many tropical countries where cloud cover is prevalent.</p>



<p>The tree cover loss data includes the loss of trees in natural forests as well as in plantations and tree crops. Loss of this tree cover can be due to human or natural causes and can be permanent or temporary. Deforestation differs in that it only refers to a human-caused, permanent change from forest to another land use. Some forms of tree cover loss, such as conversion of a natural forest to agricultural land, are considered deforestation, while other forms of tree cover loss, such as timber harvesting in plantation forests or natural disturbances, are not. <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/key-terms-definitions" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Read more about the differences here</a>.</p>



<p>A new tool available on the Global Forest Review, the <a href="https://gfw.global/3L1xFpo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Targets Tracker</a>, enables us to use tree cover loss data to measure progress toward deforestation commitments on a global level by using a coarse resolution <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-targets-tracker#how-is-deforestation-estimated" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">proxy of deforestation</a>. To do this, the Targets Tracker identifies losses that are likely to represent deforestation in and outside of the tropics by only including tree cover loss from certain drivers. Specifically, it includes the expansion of small-scale agriculture into humid tropical primary forests, as well as all loss in commodity-driven deforestation and urbanization. It excludes temporary losses, such as from fires or forestry activities.</p>



<h2>Why we focus on the tropics&nbsp;</h2>



<p>In our <a href="https://gfw.global/3LkdrbQ" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">analysis of the UMD data</a>, we largely focus on tree cover loss in tropical primary forests because tropical forests experience <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-loss?utm_campaign=treecoverloss2021&amp;utm_medium=bitly&amp;utm_source=GFWBlog#how-much-tree-cover-is-lost-in-tropical-versus-temperate-and-boreal-forests" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the vast majority</a> (over 96%) of the world's deforestation, and loss in those areas has huge impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Even if these losses are eventually reversed, it will <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3629" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">take decades</a> for these habitats and carbon stocks to recover, and permanent biodiversity loss may occur.</p>



<h2>How does tree cover loss compare with official country data in Brazil and Indonesia?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>



<h3>Brazil&nbsp;</h3>



<p>PRODES — the official forest monitoring system for the Amazon from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) — and the UMD data have methodological and definitional differences that are important to understand when comparing these two data sources. PRODES measures clear cut deforestation and anthropogenic forest losses by fire larger than 6.25 hectares, whereas UMD captures loss larger than 0.09 hectares of all trees taller than five meters. These are both important measures that help us understand how forests are changing since deforestation, forest fires and small disturbances to forest canopy can all lead to impacts on climate, biodiversity and ecosystem services.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-EN.png" alt="UMD and PRODES differences explained" class="wp-image-15866"/></figure>



<p>Separating out tree cover loss from fire in the UMD data has resulted in a much closer match between these two data sets. However, the two seem to show different trends for 2022 in the Brazilian Amazon: PRODES shows an 11% decrease in deforestation while UMD shows a 21% increase in non-fire primary forest loss.</p>



<h4>PRODES vs. UMD data in the Brazilian Amazon&nbsp;</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/13629875?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<p>The reason for this discrepancy may be the difference in reporting periods. PRODES uses the period between August and July (in this case, August 2021 to July 2022), while UMD uses the calendar year (January to December 2022). The Brazilian government’s DETER alerts — which track deforestation on a daily basis — suggest that deforestation rates increased in the second half of 2022 compared to previous years. DETER alerts detected a 2% decrease in deforestation between August 2021 and July 2022 compared to August 2020 to July 2021, but detected a 25% increase between the calendar year 2021 and 2022.</p>



<h4>DETER Alerts in the Brazilian Amazon&nbsp;</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed" data-src="story/1907320?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<h3>Indonesia</h3>



<p>This year, WRI and Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) are working together on a joint analysis to better understand the UMD/GFW primary forest loss findings through the MoEF’s data and definitions. Overlaying the UMD/GFW primary forest loss data for 2022 with the MoEF land cover map shows that 67% occurs within Indonesia’s official forest cover classes, with the remaining 33% taking place in mixed dry land agriculture, shrub, swamp shrub and other land cover types. Approximately 107 thousand hectares of loss was found to be both within Indonesia’s official forest land cover classes and with a patch size larger than two hectares. Of these 107 thousand hectares, about 12 thousand hectares were within areas legally classified as primary forest in Indonesia. The upcoming joint analysis will improve our understanding of these issues.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_Indonesia-error-bars-table-unrounded.png" alt="Table showing UMD/GFW primary forest loss in hectares per MoEF forest classes in 2022" class="wp-image-16098"/></figure>



<h2>Data improvements over time result in inconsistencies in the data before 2015&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>



<p>Algorithm adjustments and better satellite data have <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/tree-cover-loss-satellite-data-trend-analysis/">improved the tree cover loss data set over time</a>. Changes to the tree cover loss detection algorithm for the years 2011-2014 and 2015 onwards and the incorporation of Landsat 8 data starting in 2013 make it easier to detect smaller scale changes, such as loss due to fires, selective logging and shifting agriculture.&nbsp;Variations in satellite image availability also mean there are inconsistencies with the quality and number of images available to capture data each year.</p>



<p>To address these issues, we:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<ul><li>Focus our analysis on trends post-2015.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li><li>Assess the three-year moving average to interpret longer-term trends.&nbsp;</li><li>Disregard the increase in loss post 2012 in places dominated by small-scale agriculture, like Central Africa. This increase is likely due to data improvements that better detect the loss later in the time series.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li></ul>



<h2>How will the data change over time?&nbsp;</h2>



<p>UMD is working on improvements to the tree cover extent and change data, which will result in changes to the data in the coming years. The new data will track the annual extent of tree cover and offer annual loss and gain information using a consistent algorithm across the time series. It will also track multiple gain and loss events in a single location, allowing us to better track dynamic areas of forest change such as forestry activities and wildfires. Incorporating annual gain and repeated loss events will provide a more complete picture of global forest change.</p>



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

<p>De nouvelles données sur la perte de la couverture arborée, fournies par l’Université du Maryland (UMD) et disponibles sur le site Global Forest Watch (GFW), révèlent des taux élevés de perte de forêts primaires en 2022, en dépit des&nbsp;<a href="https://gfw.global/3L1xFpo">ambitions politiques visant à freiner cette perte</a>. Qu’est-ce qui est mesuré par ces données, quelles sont les différences cette années et comment se comparent-elles aux autres estimations officielles de la déforestation&nbsp;? Voici ce qu'il faut savoir sur ces nouvelles données.</p>



<h2>Qu’est-ce que la perte du couverture arborée et en quoi cela diffère-t-elle de la déforestation ?</h2>



<p>Les données recueillies par l'UMD concernant la perte du couvert arboré comprennent les pertes annuelles de tous les arbres d'une hauteur supérieure à cinq mètres entre 2001 et 2022. Dans les régions tropicales humides, où la couverture nuageuse est fréquente, la collecte de données par satellite optique peut être entravée, ce qui peut entraîner une récupération partielle des pertes en fin d'année lorsqu'il y a une couverture nuageuse persistante. Ce phénomène est courant dans de nombreux pays tropicaux où les nuages sont prédominants.</p>



<p>Ces données sur la perte du couvert arboré englobent les pertes d'arbres dans les forêts naturelles, les plantations et les cultures arboricoles. La perte de ce couvert arboré peut être attribuée à des facteurs humains ou naturels et peut être permanente ou temporaire. La déforestation se distingue de la perte de couvert arboré dans le sens où elle se réfère uniquement à un changement permanent de la forêt vers une autre utilisation des terres, causé par l'homme. Certaines formes de perte de couvert arboré, telles que la conversion d'une forêt naturelle en terres agricoles, sont considérées comme de la déforestation, tandis que d'autres formes de perte de couvert arboré, comme l'exploitation du bois dans les plantations forestières ou les perturbations naturelles, ne sont pas considérées comme de la déforestation. Pour en savoir plus sur les différences, vous pouvez cliquer <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/key-terms-definitions">ici</a>.</p>



<p>Le <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-targets-tracker?utm_campaign=treecoverloss2022&amp;utm_medium=bitly&amp;utm_source=GFWBlog">Targets Tracker</a>, un nouvel outil disponible sur la Revue mondiale des forêts, permet de mesurer les progrès réalisés dans la lutte contre la déforestation à l'échelle mondiale en utilisant des données sur la perte du couvert arboré. Cet outil utilise une estimation approximative de la <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-targets-tracker#how-is-deforestation-estimated">déforestation à résolution grossière</a> en identifiant les pertes qui pourraient représenter la déforestation, tant dans les régions tropicales que hors de celles-ci. Il se concentre uniquement sur les pertes du couvert arboré liées à certains facteurs, tels que l'expansion de l'agriculture à petite échelle dans les forêts tropicales humides primaires, ainsi que les pertes causées par la déforestation et l'urbanisation liées aux produits de base. Les pertes temporaires, telles que celles causées par les incendies ou les activités forestières, sont exclues de cette évaluation.</p>



<h2>Pourquoi nous concentrons-nous sur les tropiques ?</h2>



<p>Dans notre&nbsp;<a href="https://gfw.global/3LkdrbQ">analyse des données de l’UMD</a>, nous nous concentrons principalement sur la&nbsp;perte du couvert arboré dans les forêts primaires tropicales. Cette focalisation est justifiée par le fait que les forêts tropicales représentent la&nbsp;<a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-loss?utm_campaign=treecoverloss2021&amp;utm_medium=bitly&amp;utm_source=GFWBlog#how-much-tree-cover-is-lost-in-tropical-versus-temperate-and-boreal-forests">grande majorité</a>&nbsp;(plus de 96 %) des zones touchées par la déforestation&nbsp;dans le monde. La perte de ces forêts a un impact considérable sur la biodiversité et le stockage du carbone. Même si ces pertes sont finalement inversées, il faudra&nbsp;<a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3629">des décennies</a>&nbsp;pour que ces habitats et ces stocks de carbone se reconstituent. De plus, une perte permanente de biodiversité est susceptible de se produire.</p>



<h2>Comment la perte du couvert arboré se compare-t-elle aux données officielles du Brésil et de l’Indonésie ?</h2>



<h3>Brésil</h3>



<p>Il est essentiel de comprendre les différences méthodologiques et définitionnelles entre PRODES, le système officiel de surveillance des forêts amazoniennes de l'Institut national brésilien de recherche spatiale (INPE), et les données de l'UMD lors de la comparaison de ces deux sources d'information. PRODES mesure la déforestation par coupes rases et les pertes forestières anthropiques résultant d'incendies sur des surfaces de plus de 6,25 hectares. En revanche, l'UMD enregistre les pertes du couvert forestier de plus de 0,09 hectare, incluant tous les arbres de plus de cinq mètres de haut. Ces deux mesures sont importantes pour comprendre l'évolution des forêts, car la déforestation, les incendies de forêt et les perturbations mineures du couvert forestier peuvent tous avoir un impact sur le climat, la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/FR-23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-FR.png" alt="Explication des différences UMD et PRODES" class="wp-image-16148"/></figure>



<p>Lorsqu'on isole la perte du couvert arboré causée par les incendies dans les données de l'UMD, on observe une correspondance beaucoup plus étroite entre ces deux ensembles de données. Cependant, pour l'année 2022 en Amazonie brésilienne, les deux sources semblent présenter des tendances différentes : PRODES indique une diminution de 11 % de la déforestation, tandis que l'UMD révèle une augmentation de 21 % de la perte de forêt primaire non liée aux incendies.</p>



<h4>Données PRODES vs UMD dans l’Amazonie brésilienne&nbsp;</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/14261358?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<p>La différence entre les données PRODES et UMD dans la région amazonienne du Brésil peut s'expliquer par l'écart entre les périodes de déclaration utilisées par ces sources. PRODES utilise la période d'août à juillet (par exemple, août 2021 à juillet 2022), tandis que l'UMD se base sur l'année civile (janvier à décembre 2022). Les alertes DETER du gouvernement brésilien, qui surveillent la déforestation quotidiennement, suggèrent que les taux de déforestation ont augmenté au cours du second semestre 2022 par rapport aux années précédentes. Les alertes DETER ont montré une diminution de 2 % de la déforestation entre août 2021 et juillet 2022 par rapport à la période d'août 2020 à juillet 2021, mais ont enregistré une augmentation de 25 % entre l'année civile 2021 et 2022.</p>



<h4>Alertes DETER en Amazonie brésilienne</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed" data-src="story/1962332?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<h3>Indonésie</h3>



<p>Cette année, le WRI (World Resources Institute) et le ministère indonésien de l'environnement et des forêts (MoEF) travaillent ensemble sur une analyse commune dans le but de mieux comprendre les résultats de la perte de forêt primaire selon les données et les définitions de l'UMD/GFW (Université du Maryland/Global Forest Watch). En superposant les données de perte de forêt primaire de l'UMD/GFW pour l'année 2022 avec la carte de couverture terrestre du ministère indonésien de l'environnement et des forêts, il a été constaté que 67 % des pertes se produisent dans les classes officielles de couverture forestière de l'Indonésie, tandis que les 33 % restants se produisent dans des zones de terres agricoles mixtes sèches, d'arbustes, d'arbustes marécageux et d'autres types de couverture terrestre. De plus, il a été relevé qu'environ 107 000 hectares de perte se trouvent à la fois dans les classes officielles de couverture forestière de l'Indonésie et ont une taille de parcelle supérieure à deux hectares. Parmi ces 107 000 hectares, environ 12 000 hectares se situent dans des zones légalement désignées comme des forêts primaires en Indonésie. L'analyse conjointe en cours permettra d'améliorer notre compréhension de ces questions.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/FR-23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_Indonesia-error-bars-table-unrounded-FR.png" alt="Perte de forêt primaire de l'UMD/GFW en hectares par classe de forêt du MoEF en 2022" class="wp-image-16149"/></figure>



<h2>L’amélioration des données au fil du temps a entraîné des incohérences dans les données antérieures à 2015&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>



<p>Les ajustements des algorithmes et de meilleures données satellitaires ont <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/tree-cover-loss-satellite-data-trend-analysis/">amélioré les données de perte de la couverture arborée au cours du temps</a>. Les changements dans l’algorithme de détection de la perte de la couverture arborée pour les années 2011 à 2014 ainsi que 2015 et au-delà, de même que l’intégration des données de Landsat 8 à partir de 2013, facilitent la détection des changements à plus faible échelle, comme les pertes dues aux incendies, la coupe sélective et des changements agricoles.&nbsp;Les variations de disponibilité des images satellites signifient également qu’il y a des incohérences dans la qualité et le nombre d’images disponibles pour la capture de données chaque année.</p>



<p>Pour corriger ce problème, nous&nbsp;:</p>



<ul><li>Concentrons nos analyses sur les tendances après 2015</li><li>Évaluer la moyenne mobile sur trois ans pour interpréter les tendances à long terme.</li><li>Ne pas tenir compte de l’augmentation des pertes après 2012 dans les régions dominées par l’agriculture à petite échelle, comme l’Afrique centrale. Cette augmentation est probablement due à l’amélioration des données qui permet de mieux détecter la perte plus tard dans la série chronologique.</li></ul>



<h2>Comment les données évolueront-elles dans le temps ?</h2>



<p>L’UMD travaille à l’amélioration des données sur l’étendue et l’évolution du couvert arboré, ce qui entraînera des modifications des données dans les années à venir. Les nouvelles données permettront de suivre l’étendue annuelle du couvert arboré et fourniront des informations sur les pertes et les gains annuels à l’aide d’un algorithme cohérent pour l’ensemble de la série chronologique. Elles permettront également de suivre plusieurs événements de gain et de perte en un seul endroit, ce qui nous permettra de mieux suivre les zones dynamiques de changement forestier, telles que les activités forestières et les incendies de forêt. La prise en compte des gains annuels et des pertes répétées permettra d’obtenir une image plus complète de l’évolution des forêts à l’échelle mondiale.</p>



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

Explication des données du Global Forest Watch sur la perte du couvert arboré en 2022

<p>Novos dados sobre a perda de cobertura arbórea da Universidade de Maryland (University of Maryland, UMD) disponíveis no Global Forest Watch (GFW) mostram taxas altas de perda de florestas primárias em 2022, apesar das&nbsp;<a href="https://gfw.global/3L1xFpo">ambições políticas de conter a perda</a>. O que os dados medem, o que há de diferente este ano e como eles se comparam a outras estimativas oficiais de desmatamento? Aqui está o que você precisa saber sobre os novos dados.</p>



<h2>O que a perda de cobertura arbórea mede e como ela difere do desmatamento</h2>



<p>Os dados de perda de cobertura arbórea da UMD capturam a perda anual de todas as árvores com mais de cinco metros de altura entre os anos de 2001 e 2022. Como a coleta de dados por satélite óptico pode, muitas vezes, ser atrapalhada por nuvens nos trópicos úmidos, algumas perdas no final do ano podem ser detectadas no próximo ano após uma cobertura de nuvens persistente. Essa é uma ocorrência comum em muitos países tropicais onde a cobertura de nuvens é predominante.</p>



<p>Os dados sobre perda de cobertura arbórea incluem a perda de árvores em florestas naturais, bem como em plantações e cultivo arbóreo. A perda dessa cobertura pode ser devido a causas humanas ou naturais, permanente ou temporária. O desmatamento difere por se referir apenas a uma mudança permanente e causada pelo homem, partindo do estado de floresta para outros usos da terra. Algumas formas de perda de cobertura arbórea, como a conversão de uma floresta natural em terras agrícolas, são consideradas desmatamento, enquanto outras formas, como a extração de madeira em florestas plantadas ou distúrbios naturais, não são. <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/key-terms-definitions">Leia mais sobre as diferenças aqui</a>.</p>



<p>Uma nova ferramenta disponível na Global Forest Review, o&nbsp;<a href="https://gfw.global/3L1xFpo">Targets Tracker</a>&nbsp;(Rastreador de metas), nos permite usar dados sobre perda de cobertura arbórea para medir o progresso em relação aos compromissos de desmatamento em nível global, usando uma&nbsp;<a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-targets-tracker#how-is-deforestation-estimated">aproximação de desmatamento</a>&nbsp;de resolução grosseira. Para isso, o Targets Tracker identifica as perdas que&nbsp;provavelmente&nbsp;representam o desmatamento dentro e fora dos trópicos, incluindo apenas a perda de cobertura arbórea de determinados fatores. Especificamente, ele inclui a expansão da agricultura de pequena escala em florestas primárias tropicais úmidas, bem como todas as perdas no desmatamento e na urbanização impulsionados por commodities. Também exclui perdas temporárias, como as decorrentes de incêndios ou atividades florestais.</p>



<h2>Por que nos concentramos nos trópicos?</h2>



<p>Na&nbsp;<a href="https://gfw.global/3LkdrbQ">análise dos dados da UMD</a>, nós nos concentramos principalmente na perda de cobertura arbórea em florestas primárias tropicais, pois as florestas tropicais sofrem&nbsp;<a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-loss?utm_campaign=treecoverloss2021&amp;utm_medium=bitly&amp;utm_source=GFWBlog#how-much-tree-cover-is-lost-in-tropical-versus-temperate-and-boreal-forests">a grande maioria</a>&nbsp;(mais de 96%) do desmatamento mundial, e a perda nessas áreas tem impactos enormes sobre a biodiversidade e o armazenamento de carbono. Mesmo que essas perdas acabem sendo revertidas,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3629">levará décadas</a>&nbsp;para que esses habitats e estoques de carbono se recuperem, e poderá ocorrer uma perda permanente de biodiversidade.</p>



<h2>Como a perda de cobertura arbórea se compara aos dados nacionais oficiais no Brasil e na Indonésia?</h2>



<h3>Brasil&nbsp;</h3>



<p>O PRODES – o sistema oficial de monitoramento florestal para a Amazônia do Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) – e os dados da UMD têm diferenças metodológicas e de definição que são importantes de serem compreendidas ao comparar essas duas fontes de dados. O PRODES mede o desmatamento nítido e as perdas florestais antropogênicas por incêndio maiores que 6,25 hectares, enquanto a UMD captura perdas maiores que 0,09 hectare de todas as árvores com altura superior a cinco metros. Ambas são medidas importantes que nos ajudam a entender como as florestas estão mudando, uma vez que o desmatamento, as queimadas e pequenos distúrbios no dossel florestal podem levar a impactos no clima, na biodiversidade e nos serviços ecossistêmicos.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/PT-23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-PT.png" alt="Explicação das diferenças da UMD e do PRODES" class="wp-image-16134"/></figure>



<p>Separar a perda de cobertura arbórea de incêndios nos dados da UMD resultou em uma correspondência muito mais próxima entre esses dois conjuntos de dados. No entanto, eles parecem mostrar tendências diferentes na Amazônia brasileira no ano de 2022: o PRODES mostra uma redução de 11% no desmatamento, enquanto a UMD mostra um aumento de 21% na perda de floresta primária sem relação com incêndios.</p>



<h4>Dados do PRODES vs. UMD sobre a Amazônia brasileira&nbsp;</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/14224655?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<p>O motivo para essa discrepância pode ser a diferença nos períodos dos relatórios. O PRODES se utiliza do período entre agosto e julho (nesse caso, agosto de 2021 a julho de 2022), enquanto a UMD usa o ano-calendário (janeiro a dezembro de 2022). Os alertas do DETER do governo brasileiro, que rastreiam diariamente o desmatamento, sugerem que as taxas de desmatamento aumentaram no segundo semestre de 2022 em comparação com os anos anteriores. Os alertas do DETER detectaram uma redução de 2% no desmatamento entre agosto de 2021 e julho de 2022 em comparação com agosto de 2020 a julho de 2021, mas detectaram um aumento de 25% entre o ano-calendário de 2021 e 2022.</p>



<h4>Alertas do DETER na Amazônia brasileira</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed" data-src="story/1959112?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<h3>Indonésia</h3>



<p>Neste ano, o WRI e o Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Florestas da Indonésia (MoEF) estão trabalhando juntos para analisar e compreender os dados da Universidade de Maryland e do GFW de perda de florestas primárias pela lente das definições e classificações do MoEF. Sobrepondo os dados de perda de florestas primárias de 2022 da UMD/GFW com os mapas de uso e cobertura da terra, podemos identificar que 67% da perda ocorre em classes de cobertura de florestas definidas pela Indonésia, enquanto 33% restantes se dão em áreas de outros usos, como agricultura mista, arbustos, áreas alagáveis e outros tipos de cobertura de vegetação. Aproximadamente 107 mil hectares de perda foram identificados dentro das classes oficiais do governo. Desses 107 mil hectares, cerca de 12 mil hectares estão áreas legalmente classificadas como florestas primárias na Indonésia. A análise conjunta irá melhorar nossa compreensão sobre essas questões. &nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/PT-23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_Indonesia-error-bars-table-unrounded-PT.png" alt="Perda de florestas primárias UMD/GFW em hectares segundo as classes do MoEF em 2022" class="wp-image-16135"/></figure>



<h2>Melhorias de dados ao longo do tempo resultam em inconsistências nos dados antes de 2015&nbsp;</h2>



<p>Ajustes de algoritmo e melhores dados de satélite <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/tree-cover-loss-satellite-data-trend-analysis/">melhoraram o conjunto de dados de perda de cobertura arbórea ao longo do tempo</a>. Mudanças no algoritmo de detecção de perda de cobertura arbórea para os anos de 2011 a 2014 e 2015 em diante e a incorporação de dados do Landsat 8 a partir de 2013 facilitam a detecção de mudanças de menor escala, como perdas devido a incêndios, corte seletivo e agricultura itinerante. As variações na disponibilidade de imagens de satélite também significam que há inconsistências com a qualidade e o número de imagens disponíveis para capturar dados a cada ano.</p>



<p>Para abordar esses problemas, nós:</p>



<ul><li>concentramos nossa análise em tendências após 2015;</li><li>avaliamos a média móvel de três anos para interpretar as tendências de longo prazo; e</li><li>desconsideramos o aumento da perda após 2012 em locais dominados pela agricultura de pequena escala, como a África Central. Esse aumento provavelmente se deve a melhorias nos dados que detectam melhor a perda posterior na série temporal.</li></ul>



<h2>Como os dados mudarão com o passar do tempo?</h2>



<p>A UMD está trabalhando para aprimorar os dados de extensão e alteração de cobertura arbórea, o que resultará em mudanças nos dados para os próximos anos. Os novos dados rastrearão a extensão anual de&nbsp;cobertura arbórea e oferecerão informações anuais de perdas e ganhos usando um algoritmo consistente em toda a série temporal. Eles também rastrearão vários eventos de ganho e perda em um mesmo local, o que nos permitirá rastrear melhor as áreas dinâmicas de mudança florestal, como atividades de reflorestamento e incêndios florestais. A incorporação de eventos de ganho e perda anuais e repetidos fornecerá um cenário mais completo das mudanças florestais globais.</p>



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

Explicação dos dados do Global Forest Watch sobre a perda de cobertura arbórea de 2022

<p>Nuevos datos sobre la pérdida de cobertura arbórea facilitados por la Universidad de Maryland (University of Maryland, UMD) y disponibles en Global Forest Watch (GFW) muestran tasas altas de pérdida de bosques primarios en 2022, a pesar de las <a href="https://gfw.global/3L1xFpo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">ambiciones políticas para frenar la pérdida</a>. ¿Qué miden los datos, qué es diferente este año y cómo se compara con otras estimaciones oficiales de deforestación? Esto es lo que usted debe saber sobre los nuevos datos.&nbsp;</p>



<h2>Qué mide la pérdida de cobertura arbórea y cuál es su diferencia con la deforestación</h2>



<p>Los datos sobre la pérdida de cobertura arbórea de la UMD registran la pérdida anual de todos los árboles de más de cinco metros de altura en los años naturales comprendidos entre 2001 y 2022. Debido a que la recolección de datos ópticos por satélite a menudo puede estar oscurecida por la cobertura de nubes en los trópicos húmedos, se puede registrar alguna pérdida tardía en el año siguiente después de la cobertura de nubes persistente. Este fenómeno es común en muchos países tropicales en los que predomina la cobertura de nubes.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Los datos sobre la pérdida de cobertura arbórea incluyen la pérdida de árboles en bosques naturales, así como en plantaciones y cultivos de árboles. La pérdida de esta cobertura arbórea puede ser de origen humano o natural y puede ser permanente o temporal. La deforestación consiste en un cambio permanente y provocado por el hombre de un bosque a otro uso del suelo. Algunas formas de pérdida de cobertura arbórea, como la conversión de un bosque natural en tierras agrícolas, se consideran deforestación, mientras que otras formas de pérdida de cobertura arbórea, como la tala de madera en plantaciones forestales o las alteraciones naturales, no. <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/key-terms-definitions" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lea más sobre las diferencias aquí</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Una nueva herramienta disponible en Global Forest Review, el <a href="https://gfw.global/3L1xFpo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Rastreador de Objetivos</a>, nos permite utilizar los datos de pérdida de cobertura arbórea para medir el progreso hacia el cumplimiento de los compromisos relacionados con la deforestación a nivel mundial gracias a un <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-targets-tracker#how-is-deforestation-estimated" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">proxy de deforestación</a> de resolución gruesa. Para ello, el Rastreador de Objetivos identifica las pérdidas que podrían representar deforestación dentro y fuera de los trópicos incluyendo únicamente la pérdida de cobertura arbórea causada por determinados factores. Más específicamente, incluye la expansión de la agricultura a pequeña escala en los bosques primarios tropicales húmedos, así como toda pérdida en la deforestación provocada por productos básicos de consumo y urbanización. Quedan excluidas las pérdidas temporales, como las provocadas por incendios o actividades forestales.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<h2>¿Por qué nos centramos en los trópicos?&nbsp;</h2>



<p>En nuestro <a href="https://gfw.global/3LkdrbQ" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">análisis de</a> los datos de la Universidad de Maryland (UMD), nos centramos principalmente en la pérdida de cobertura arbórea en los bosques tropicales primarios, ya que en ellos se registra <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-loss?utm_campaign=treecoverloss2021&amp;utm_medium=bitly&amp;utm_source=GFWBlog#how-much-tree-cover-is-lost-in-tropical-versus-temperate-and-boreal-forests" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">la mayor parte</a> (más del 96%) de la deforestación mundial, y la pérdida en esas áreas tiene enormes repercusiones sobre la biodiversidad y el almacenamiento de carbono. Aunque estas pérdidas puedan revertirse eventualmente, los hábitats y las reservas de carbono <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3629" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">tardarán décadas</a> en recuperarse y podría producirse una pérdida permanente de biodiversidad.&nbsp;</p>



<h2>¿Cómo se compara la pérdida de cobertura arbórea con los datos oficiales de Brasil e Indonesia?</h2>



<h3>Brasil&nbsp;</h3>



<p>PRODES (el sistema oficial de monitoreo forestal para la Amazonia del Instituto Nacional De Investigación Espacial de Brasil (INPE)) y los datos de la Universidad de Maryland (UMD) tienen diferencias metodológicas y de definición que son importantes de entender cuando se comparan estas dos fuentes de datos. PRODES mide la deforestación total de más de 6.25 hectáreas y pérdidas de bosques antropogénicos por incendios, mientras que la Universidad de Maryland (UMD) registra la pérdida de más de 0.09 hectáreas de todos los árboles de más de cinco metros de altura. Ambas son medidas importantes que nos ayudan a entender cómo cambian los bosques, ya que la deforestación, los incendios forestales y las pequeñas alteraciones del dosel forestal pueden tener impactos en el clima, la biodiversidad y los servicios de los ecosistemas.&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SP-23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-ES.png" alt="" class="wp-image-16173"/></figure>



<p>Al separar la pérdida de cobertura arbórea de los incendios en los datos de la UMD se obtuvo una correspondencia mucho más estrecha entre estos dos conjuntos de datos. Sin embargo, ambos parecen mostrar tendencias distintas para 2022 en la Amazonia brasileña: PRODES muestra un descenso del 11 % en la deforestación, mientras que UMD muestra un aumento del 21 % en la pérdida de bosques primarios no afectados por incendios.&nbsp;</p>



<h4>Datos de PRODES vs. Universidad de Maryland (UMD) en la Amazonia brasileña&nbsp;</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/14295074?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<p>El motivo de esta discrepancia puede ser la diferencia en los periodos reportados. PRODES utiliza el periodo que comprende entre agosto y julio (en este caso, de agosto de 2021 a julio de 2022), mientras que la UMD utiliza el año calendario (de enero a diciembre de 2022). Las alertas DETER del gobierno brasileño, que realizan un seguimiento diario de la deforestación, sugieren que las tasas de deforestación aumentaron en el segundo semestre de 2022 en comparación con años anteriores. Las alertas DETER detectaron una disminución del 2 % de la deforestación entre agosto de 2021 y julio de 2022 en comparación con agosto de 2020 y julio de 2021, pero detectaron un aumento del 25 % entre el año calendario 2021 y 2022.&nbsp;</p>



<h4>Alertas DETER en la Amazonia brasileña&nbsp;</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed" data-src="story/1965302?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<h3>Indonesia&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>



<p>Este año, WRI y el Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Silvicultura (MoEF) de Indonesia están trabajando juntos en un análisis conjunto para comprender mejor los hallazgos de la pérdida de bosque primario según UMD/GFW a través de los datos y definiciones del MoEF. Al superponer los datos de pérdida de bosque primario de UMD/GFW para 2022 con el mapa de cobertura de tierras del MoEF, se observa que el 67% ocurre dentro de las clases oficiales de cobertura forestal de Indonesia, mientras que el 33% restante tiene lugar en áreas de agricultura mixta de tierras secas, arbustos, pantanos y otros tipos de cobertura del suelo. Aproximadamente, se encontró una pérdida de 107 mil hectáreas que se ubicaba tanto dentro de las clases oficiales de cobertura forestal de Indonesia con un área mayor a dos hectáreas. De estas 107 mil hectáreas, alrededor de 12 mil hectáreas se encontraban dentro de áreas legalmente clasificadas como bosque primario en Indonesia. El próximo análisis conjunto mejorará nuestra comprensión de estos problemas.&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SP-23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_Indonesia-error-bars-table-unrounded-ES.png" alt="" class="wp-image-16174"/></figure>



<h2>Las mejoras en los datos a lo largo del tiempo generan incoherencias en los datos anteriores a 2015 </h2>



<p>Los ajustes del algoritmo y la mejora de los datos satelitales han <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/tree-cover-loss-satellite-data-trend-analysis/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">perfeccionado el conjunto de datos de pérdida de cobertura arbórea a lo largo del tiempo</a>. Los cambios en el algoritmo de detección de la pérdida de cobertura arbórea para los años 2011-2014 y 2015 en adelante y la incorporación de los datos de Landsat 8 a partir de 2013 facilitan la detección de cambios a menor escala, como la pérdida debida a los incendios, la explotación selectiva y la agricultura migratoria. Las variaciones en la disponibilidad de imágenes satelitales también significa que hay inconsistencias con la calidad y el número de imágenes disponibles para registrar datos cada año.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Para abordar estos problemas, realizamos lo siguiente:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<ul><li>Nos centramos en nuestros análisis de tendencias después del 2015.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li><li>Se evalúaa el promedio móvil de tres años para interpretar las tendencias a más largo plazo.&nbsp;</li><li>Se ignora el aumento de las pérdidas después de 2012 en lugares donde predomina la agricultura a pequeña escala, como África Central. Es probable que este aumento se deba a la mejora de los datos, que detectan mejor las pérdidas más adelante en la serie de tiempo.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li></ul>



<h2>¿Cómo evolucionarán los datos con el tiempo?&nbsp;</h2>



<p>La UMD está trabajando para mejorar los datos de cambios y extensión de la cobertura arbórea, lo que resultará en cambios en los datos en los próximos años. Los nuevos datos permitirán hacer un seguimiento de la extensión anual de la cobertura arbórea y ofrecerán información sobre las pérdidas y ganancias anuales utilizando un algoritmo consistente para toda la serie de tiempo. También hará un seguimiento de varios episodios de ganancia y pérdida en una única ubicación, lo que nos permitirá detectar mejor las áreas dinámicas de cambio en los bosques, como actividades forestales e incendios forestales. La incorporación de episodios de ganancia anual y pérdida recurrente proporcionará una imagen más completa del cambio en los bosques a escala mundial.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



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

Explicación de los datos de Global Forest Watch sobre la pérdida de cobertura arbórea en 2022

<p>Data kehilangan tutupan pohon yang baru dari University of Maryland (UMD) dan tersedia di Global Forest Watch (GFW) menunjukkan tingginya laju kehilangan hutan primer pada tahun 2022 kendati adanya <a href="https://gfw.global/3L1xFpo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">ambisi politik untuk mengatasi kehilangan hutan</a>. Apa yang diukur oleh data tersebut, apa yang berbeda tahun ini, dan bagaimana perbandingannya dengan perkiraan resmi deforestasi lainnya? Inilah yang harus Anda ketahui tentang data baru.&nbsp;</p>



<h2>Apa yang diukur oleh kehilangan tutupan pohon dan apa perbedaannya dengan deforestasi&nbsp;</h2>



<p>Data kehilangan tutupan pohon dari UMD mencatat kehilangan semua pohon yang memiliki tinggi lebih dari 5 meter setiap tahunnya selama tahun kalender antara 2001 sampai 2022. Karena pengumpulan data satelit optik kerap terkendala tutupan awan di daerah tropis yang lembap, data kehilangan tutupan pohon yang terjadi pada akhir tahun dapat terdeteksi di tahun berikutnya setelah tutupan awan pekat berkurang. Hal ini umum terjadi di banyak negara tropis yang lazim mengalami tutupan awan.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Data kehilangan tutupan pohon ini tidak hanya mencakup kehilangan pohon di hutan alami, melainkan juga di perkebunan dan tanaman pohon. Kehilangan tutupan pohon ini dapat diakibatkan oleh penyebab manusia atau alam serta dapat bersifat permanen atau sementara. Deforestasi berbeda karena deforestasi hanya mengacu pada perubahan dari hutan menjadi penggunaan lahan lainnya yang bersifat permanen dan disebabkan oleh manusia. Beberapa bentuk kehilangan tutupan pohon, seperti konversi hutan alami menjadi lahan pertanian, dianggap sebagai deforestasi, sedangkan bentuk kehilangan tutupan pohon lainnya, seperti pemanenan kayu di hutan perkebunan atau gangguan alami, tidak termasuk deforestasi. <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/key-terms-definitions" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Baca selengkapnya mengenai perbedaannya di sini</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Tersedia alat bantu baru di Global Forest Review, <a href="https://gfw.global/3L1xFpo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pelacak Target</a>, yang memungkinkan kami menggunakan data kehilangan tutupan pohon untuk mengukur kemajuan komitmen deforestasi pada tingkat global dengan menggunakan resolusi kasar <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-targets-tracker%22%20/l%20%22how-is-deforestation-estimated" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">proksi deforestasi</a>. Untuk melakukan hal ini, Pelacak Target mengidentifikasi kehilangan yang kemungkinan mewakili deforestasi di dalam dan di luar daerah tropis hanya dengan mencakup kehilangan tutupan pohon oleh penyebab tertentu. Secara khusus, alat bantu ini mencakup perluasan pertanian berskala kecil menuju hutan primer tropis lembap, serta kehilangan dalam urbanisasi dan deforestasi yang didorong oleh komoditas. Alat bantu ini mengecualikan kehilangan sementara, seperti karena kebakaran atau aktivitas kehutanan.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<h2>Mengapa kami berfokus pada daerah tropis&nbsp;</h2>



<p>Dalam <a href="https://gfw.global/3LkdrbQ" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">analisis data UMD</a>, kami kebanyakan berfokus pada kehilangan tutupan pohon di hutan primer tropis, sebab hutan tropis menjadi korban dari <a href="https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-loss?utm_campaign=treecoverloss2021&amp;utm_medium=bitly&amp;utm_source=GFWBlog%22%20\l%20%22how-much-tree-cover-is-lost-in-tropical-versus-temperate-and-boreal-forests" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">sebagian besar</a> (lebih dari 96%) deforestasi di dunia, dan kehilangan di kawasan tersebut berdampak besar pada keanekaragaman hayati dan penyimpanan karbon. Meskipun kehilangan tersebut pada akhirnya akan pulih kembali, <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3629" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">dibutuhkan waktu puluhan tahun</a> agar habitat dan stok karbon ini dapat pulih, dan kehilangan keanekaragaman hayati permanen dapat terjadi.&nbsp;</p>



<h2>Bagaimana perbandingan kehilangan tutupan pohon dengan data negara resmi di Brasil dan Indonesia?&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>



<h3>Brasil&nbsp;</h3>



<p>PRODES — sistem pemantauan hutan resmi untuk Amazon dari Institut Nasional untuk Penelitian Angkasa Brasil (National Institute for Space Research, INPE) — dan data UMD memiliki perbedaan metodologis dan definisi yang penting untuk dipahami ketika membandingkan kedua sumber data ini. PRODES mengukur deforestasi tebang habis dan kehilangan hutan antropogenik akibat kebakaran yang lebih besar dari 6,25 hektare, sedangkan UMD mencatat kehilangan yang lebih besar dari 0,09 hektare dari semua pohon yang tingginya lebih dari lima meter. Keduanya merupakan langkah penting yang membantu kita memahami bagaimana hutan berubah karena deforestasi, kebakaran hutan, dan gangguan kecil pada kanopi hutan, semuanya dapat berdampak pada iklim, keanekaragaman hayati, dan jasa ekosistem. </p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_UMDvsProdes-IND.png" alt="" class="wp-image-16218"/></figure>



<p>Memisahkan kehilangan tutupan pohon karena kebakaran dalam data UMD memberikan perbandingan yang lebih mirip antara kedua kumpulan data ini. Namun demikian, keduanya tampak menunjukkan tren yang berbeda untuk tahun 2022 di Amazon Brasil: PRODES menunjukkan penurunan deforestasi sebesar 11%, sedangkan UMD menunjukkan kenaikan kehilangan hutan primer nonkebakaran sebesar 21%.&nbsp;</p>



<h4>PRODES vs. Data UMD di Amazon Brasil&nbsp;</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/14222900?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<p>Alasan dari ketidaksesuaian ini mungkin dikarenakan oleh perbedaan dalam periode pelaporan. PRODES menggunakan periode antara Agustus sampai Juli (dalam hal ini, Agustus 2021 sampai Juli 2022), sedangkan UMD menggunakan tahun kalender (Januari sampai Desember 2022). Peringatan DETER dari pemerintah Brasil — yang melacak deforestasi setiap harinya — menandakan tingkat deforestasi naik pada paruh kedua tahun 2022 dibandingkan dengan tahun sebelumnya. Peringatan DETER mendeteksi penurunan deforestasi sebesar 2% antara Agustus 2021 sampai Juli 2022 dibandingkan dengan periode Agustus 2020 sampai Juli 2021, namun mendeteksi peningkatan sebesar 25% antara tahun kalender 2021 dan 2022.&nbsp;</p>



<h4>Peringatan DETER di Amazon Brasil</h4>



<div class="flourish-embed" data-src="story/1958956?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>



<h3>Indonesia&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>



<p>Tahun ini, WRI dan Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (KLHK) bekerja sama dalam analisis gabungan untuk memahami lebih lanjut temuan kehilangan hutan primer UMD/GFW menggunakan data dan definisi dari KLHK. Membandingkan data kehilangan hutan primer UMD/GFW 2022 dengan peta tutupan lahan KLHK memperlihatkan bahwa 67% kehilangan terjadi dalam beberapa kelas tutupan hutan resmi Indonesia, sementara 33% lainnya mencakup lahan pertanian kering campuran, belukar, rawa, dan tipe tutupan lahan lainnya.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Sekitar 107 ribu hektare hutan primer yang hilang ditemukan pada data kelas tutupan hutan resmi Indonesia dan dengan potongan yang lebih besar dari 2 hektare. Dari 107 ribu hektare tersebut, sekitar 12 ribu hektare mencakup Kawasan yang secara legal diklasifikasikan sebagai hutan primer di Indonesia. Analisis gabungan yang akan diterbitkan segera akan memperdalam pemahaman kita akan hal ini. </p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/23-05-04-gfr-technical-blog_Indonesia-error-bars-table-unrounded-IND.png" alt="" class="wp-image-16219"/></figure>



<h2>Perbaikan data dari waktu ke waktu menghasilkan inkonsistensi dalam data sebelum 2015&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>



<p>Penyesuaian algoritme dan data satelit yang lebih baik telah <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/tree-cover-loss-satellite-data-trend-analysis/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">meningkatkan kumpulan data kehilangan tutupan pohon dari waktu ke waktu</a>. Perubahan pada algoritme pendeteksian kehilangan tutupan pohon untuk tahun 2011-2014 dan 2015 dan seterusnya dan penggabungan data Landsat 8 mulai tahun 2013 memudahkan untuk mendeteksi perubahan skala yang lebih kecil, seperti kehilangan karena kebakaran, tebang pilih, dan pertanian berpindah. Variasi ketersediaan citra satelit juga berarti adanya inkonsistensi dengan kualitas dan jumlah citra yang tersedia untuk diambil data setiap tahunnya.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Untuk mengatasi masalah ini, kami:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<ul><li>Memfokuskan analisis kami pada tren pasca-2015.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li><li>Menilai rata-rata pergerakan selama tiga tahun untuk menginterpretasikan tren dalam jangka waktu yang lebih lama.&nbsp;</li><li>Mengabaikan peningkatan kehilangan pasca-2012 di tempat yang didominasi oleh pertanian skala kecil, seperti Afrika Tengah. Peningkatan ini kemungkinan diakibatkan oleh perbaikan data yang mendeteksi kehilangan tersebut secara lebih baik di kemudian waktu.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li></ul>



<h2>Bagaimana data akan berubah dari waktu ke waktu?&nbsp;</h2>



<p>UMD tengah mengupayakan perbaikan terhadap sebaran tutupan pohon dan data perubahan, yang akan menghasilkan perubahan terhadap data di tahun-tahun mendatang. Data yang baru akan melacak sebaran tutupan pohon tahunan serta menawarkan informasi kehilangan dan perolehan tahunan menggunakan algoritme yang konsisten di seluruh rangkaian waktu. Data ini juga akan melacak beberapa peristiwa perolehan dan kehilangan di satu lokasi, yang memungkinkan kami melacak dengan lebih baik luas dinamis perubahan hutan, seperti kegiatan kehutanan dan kebakaran hutan. Menggabungkan peristiwa perolehan dan kehilangan berulang tahunan akan memberikan gambaran perubahan hutan global yang lebih lengkap.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



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

Penjelasan Data Kehilangan Tutupan Pohon 2022 dari Global Forest Watch

New data shows high rates of primary forest loss in 2022. What does the data measure and how does it compare to other official estimates of deforestation?

Global Forest Watch’s 2022 Tree Cover Loss Data Explained | GFW Blog

fires

fires | Global Forest Watch Blog

Luiz Amaral

Marcelo Matsumoto

Thailynn Munroe

<p>Fires across Brazil caught the world’s attention this August, with fears that burning — and subsequent damage to the Amazon rainforest — would only intensify when peak fire season hit in September. However, Global Forest Watch (GFW) analysis of NASA data shows that fire alerts in the Amazon decreased by 34% between August and September.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Amazon Fires Are Down. Can We Thank Brazil’s Fire Ban?</h3>



<p>Fire season in Brazil typically peaks in September, so this reduction in fires in the Amazon is unexpected. Other forested regions in Brazil showed an increase in fire alerts in September, including the Cerrado — a tropical savanna where fire is a more natural feature of the landscape. In the wetter, Amazon region, fires are rarely natural and almost all burning is related to human activity.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="fire counts, August to september" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Fire-Alerts-03.png" width="100%">Amazônia—the Amazon biome— was the only region of Brazil that saw a drop in fires in September, which deviates from the normal upward trend in fires across the country.</div>



<p>So what explains the 34% decrease in fire alerts in the Amazon? It likely wasn’t the weather, as September was slightly drier than normal. The other potential explanation is the fire ban enacted at the end of August. During the peak of the crisis, when both national and international media attention was focused on the Amazon, President Jair Bolsonaro issued a TV and radio announcement declaring “zero tolerance” for environmental crimes. Law enforcement was dispatched to fight the fires and the government enacted a two-month ban on the use of fire to clear land. This ban was in effect across Brazil, but stricter rules applied within the Amazon, where we have seen the greatest reduction in fire alerts.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Forests on Privately Owned Land Disproportionately Affected</h3>



<p>Even though private properties make up only 48% of the land in the Amazon, they accounted for 62% of the fire alerts detected in the Amazon region in August and September. These fires are usually set to prepare agricultural land for production – an authorized practice before the ban.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="land use categories in Brazil" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Fire-Concentration-02.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>While the fires typically start on farmland, they often affect nearby forests. Farmers are legally required to set aside up to 80% of their land for conservation purposes and much of this land is forested. Over one-third of the fire alerts on private lands in August and September were detected in primary forests.</p>



<p>Roughly 14% of fires over the same time period occurred on conservation units and indigenous lands in the Amazon, which comprise 24% of the region and tend to be even more forested than private lands. Fires in conservation units are never legal, and these areas may also be affected by runaway fires from nearby land-clearing activities. Fires on indigenous lands could be part of the land management practices used by the community, since the fire ban did not apply to indigenous lands. Alternatively, these fires could also represent illegal encroachment from outside actors.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Distribution of fires alert" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PieChart.png" width="100%"></div>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Dry Forests of the Cerrado Are Still Burning</h3>



<p>Although fires have gone down significantly within the Amazon, they are still burning in the Cerrado. The dry forest of the Cerrado is a unique ecosystem that plays a critical role in storing carbon and maintaining watersheds. Fires can occur naturally here, and fire alerts detected from satellite cannot differentiate natural fires from fires set by humans. So far this year, fire counts for the Cerrado are in line with historical averages; however, the drying effects of climate change and increased agricultural activity in the region could result in increased fire threat to these forests in the future.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="fire concentration August to september" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Fire-Concentration-01-1.png" width="100%">The highest concentration of fires moved from the Amazon biome—where the majority of Brazil’s primary forest is located— to the Cerrado and other parts of central Brazil in September.</div>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Future Fires Seasons</h3>



<p>The fire ban is scheduled to lift today, October 28, although Brazil’s fire season can continue into November. The reduction in Amazon fires seen in September suggests that recent attention given to this region – including the fire ban, public discourse and environmental enforcement policies – may have had a positive impact on curbing fires. Other critical forest biomes in Brazil have not received the same attention nor experienced the same reduction in fires.</p>



<p>Continued public and government attention to this issue will be critical for the remainder of this year’s fire season and beyond. The immediate aftermath of this year’s Amazon fire crisis demonstrates just how important this spotlight is.</p>



<hr> 

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

BANNER PHOTO: Satellite image of Brazil fires, August 22, 2019. Photo by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

 <p></p>

Originally appeared on <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/10/brazil-s-fire-ban-correlates-reduction-amazon-wildfires-ban-lifts-today" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WRI Insights</a>. 
<p></p>
Download the raw data for these analyses <a href="http://gfw-files.s3.amazonaws.com/fires/final_fires_database/FINAL%20DATABASE%20-%20FIRES%20-%20BR%20-%20MODIS%20-%20AUG-SEP%20-%202019%20-%20Simplfied.xlsx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>. Data for this analysis was sourced from NASA, Imaflora and ESALQ. 
</div> 

 

<hr>



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

Brazil’s Fire Ban Correlates a Reduction in Amazon Wildfires. The Ban Lifts Today.

<p>Fires across Brazil caught the world’s attention this August, with fears that burning — and subsequent damage to the Amazon rainforest — would only intensify when peak fire season hit in September. However, Global Forest Watch (GFW) analysis of NASA data shows that fire alerts in the Amazon decreased by 34% between August and September.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Amazon Fires Are Down. Can We Thank Brazil’s Fire Ban?</h3>



<p>Fire season in Brazil typically peaks in September, so this reduction in fires in the Amazon is unexpected. Other forested regions in Brazil showed an increase in fire alerts in September, including the Cerrado — a tropical savanna where fire is a more natural feature of the landscape. In the wetter, Amazon region, fires are rarely natural and almost all burning is related to human activity.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="fire counts, August to september" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Fire-Alerts-03.png" width="100%">Amazônia—the Amazon biome— was the only region of Brazil that saw a drop in fires in September, which deviates from the normal upward trend in fires across the country.</div>



<p>So what explains the 34% decrease in fire alerts in the Amazon? It likely wasn’t the weather, as September was slightly drier than normal. The other potential explanation is the fire ban enacted at the end of August. During the peak of the crisis, when both national and international media attention was focused on the Amazon, President Jair Bolsonaro issued a TV and radio announcement declaring “zero tolerance” for environmental crimes. Law enforcement was dispatched to fight the fires and the government enacted a two-month ban on the use of fire to clear land. This ban was in effect across Brazil, but stricter rules applied within the Amazon, where we have seen the greatest reduction in fire alerts.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Forests on Privately Owned Land Disproportionately Affected</h3>



<p>Even though private properties make up only 48% of the land in the Amazon, they accounted for 62% of the fire alerts detected in the Amazon region in August and September. These fires are usually set to prepare agricultural land for production – an authorized practice before the ban.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="land use categories in Brazil" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Fire-Concentration-02.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>While the fires typically start on farmland, they often affect nearby forests. Farmers are legally required to set aside up to 80% of their land for conservation purposes and much of this land is forested. Over one-third of the fire alerts on private lands in August and September were detected in primary forests.</p>



<p>Roughly 14% of fires over the same time period occurred on conservation units and indigenous lands in the Amazon, which comprise 24% of the region and tend to be even more forested than private lands. Fires in conservation units are never legal, and these areas may also be affected by runaway fires from nearby land-clearing activities. Fires on indigenous lands could be part of the land management practices used by the community, since the fire ban did not apply to indigenous lands. Alternatively, these fires could also represent illegal encroachment from outside actors.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Distribution of fires alert" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PieChart.png" width="100%"></div>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Dry Forests of the Cerrado Are Still Burning</h3>



<p>Although fires have gone down significantly within the Amazon, they are still burning in the Cerrado. The dry forest of the Cerrado is a unique ecosystem that plays a critical role in storing carbon and maintaining watersheds. Fires can occur naturally here, and fire alerts detected from satellite cannot differentiate natural fires from fires set by humans. So far this year, fire counts for the Cerrado are in line with historical averages; however, the drying effects of climate change and increased agricultural activity in the region could result in increased fire threat to these forests in the future.</p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="fire concentration August to september" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Fire-Concentration-01-1.png" width="100%">The highest concentration of fires moved from the Amazon biome—where the majority of Brazil’s primary forest is located— to the Cerrado and other parts of central Brazil in September.</div>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Future Fires Seasons</h3>



<p>The fire ban is scheduled to lift today, October 28, although Brazil’s fire season can continue into November. The reduction in Amazon fires seen in September suggests that recent attention given to this region – including the fire ban, public discourse and environmental enforcement policies – may have had a positive impact on curbing fires. Other critical forest biomes in Brazil have not received the same attention nor experienced the same reduction in fires.</p>



<p>Continued public and government attention to this issue will be critical for the remainder of this year’s fire season and beyond. The immediate aftermath of this year’s Amazon fire crisis demonstrates just how important this spotlight is.</p>



<hr> 

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

BANNER PHOTO: Satellite image of Brazil fires, August 22, 2019. Photo by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

 <p></p>

Originally appeared on <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/10/brazil-s-fire-ban-correlates-reduction-amazon-wildfires-ban-lifts-today" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WRI Insights</a>. 
<p></p>
Download the raw data for these analyses <a href="http://gfw-files.s3.amazonaws.com/fires/final_fires_database/FINAL%20DATABASE%20-%20FIRES%20-%20BR%20-%20MODIS%20-%20AUG-SEP%20-%202019%20-%20Simplfied.xlsx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>. Data for this analysis was sourced from NASA, Imaflora and ESALQ. 
</div> 

 

<hr>

GFW analysis of NASA data shows that fire alerts in the Amazon decreased by 34% between August and September. Was brazil's temporary fire ban effective?

Brazil’s Fire Ban Correlates a Reduction in Amazon Wildfires. The Ban Lifts Today. | Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

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

Sarah Ruiz

<p>The thousands of fires burning in the Brazilian Amazon got global attention this week, both in the media and online, where the hashtag #prayforamazonia earned more than <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-49406519" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)">150,000 mentions</a> in one day. But what can satellite data tell us about what is really happening in Brazil’s forests?</p>



<p><em>Note: this analysis was conducted using fire data from NASA FIRMS, available to view on Global Forest Watch. Brazil’s National Space Agency (INPE) also puts out fires statistics, which show similar trends.</em></p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">1. This year is not on track to be record-breaking – but it is relatively high compared to recent years</h3>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Number of fires in brazil, Jan-Aug" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GFW_Fires_JanToAug-01.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>According to data from NASA, available on Global Forest Watch, Brazil had 39% more fires between January and August 2019 than in the same period in 2018. However, the years with the most fires recorded were primarily in the early 2000s, probably linked to a high rate of agriculture-related deforestation in the Amazon at that time. This year’s fires are well below that level for the period January through August (though note that 2019 figures only include data through August 22). So far, 2019 is on track to be the third-highest year for fires since 2010. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">2. The fire season is just getting started</h3>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Average number of fires in brazil by month" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GFW_Fires_Avg_per_Month-01_Correct.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>August marks only the beginning of the fire season in Brazil, with the most fires typically occurring in September. So far, 2019 has seen a fairly typical trend in the number of fire alerts for this time of year. But since an average of 62% of the year’s fires happen from September onward, what really matters is what happens next. There’s still a chance to hit a record high or a record low, depending on the next couple of months.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">3. Most of the fires are happening in the Amazon</h3>



<p> The states that have been hardest hit since the beginning of August are primarily clustered in the Amazon biome. Pará and Mato Grosso, along the agricultural frontier, have respectively had 66,400 and 54,800 fires detected in August, although these fires are not necessarily out of the ordinary for this time of year. </p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Fire season history in Roraima, Brazil" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GFW_Fires_Roraima-01.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>More alarming are those states that are approaching record levels of fire: Amazonas state is on track to have its second-worst fire season (after 2005), and Roraima, which faced a rash of fires between February and April, has already broken the state record for most fires detected in a single year.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">4. Most fires are linked to human activity</h3>



<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="[OPTIONAL DESCRIPTION]" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ParaRoadsandFarms_800px.gif" width="100%">Fires between August 1 and 21 in Pará, Brazil. Many are clustered around roads and farms.</div>



<p> Natural fires within the Amazon are quite rare, so any burning detected is typically the result of <a href="https://www.nrem.iastate.edu/class/assets/nrem390-10/Cochrane%26Laurance_Tropics_Fire.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)">human activity</a>. It appears that many of the fires in the Amazon are happening on land that was previously deforested, though we aren’t yet able to quantify this. Burning in cropland and pastures during the dry season is concerning as fires may catch in forests and savannahs and burn out of control. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">5. Previous fire seasons have had major impacts on forests</h3>



<p>We don’t know yet whether or how far these fires could spread into forests, but if they do, it could result in major impacts. Human activity combined with drought conditions in the Amazon in <a rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)" href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/global-tree-cover-loss-rose-51-percent-2016" target="_blank">2016</a> and <a rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)" href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/2017-was-second-worst-year-record-tropical-tree-cover-loss" target="_blank">2017</a> resulted in record levels of damage to the forest canopy. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02771-y" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)">Previous studies</a> have also found that in some years, forest fires accounted for more than half of carbon emissions from the Brazilian Amazon.   </p>



<p>To determine how much rainforest has been affected by runaway flames this year, we will have to wait until the smoke clears and the satellites are able to detect recent areas of forest change. </p>



<div class="flourish-embed" data-src="visualisation/615439"></div><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script>



<p class="has-small-font-size"><em>Satellite images show the before and after of a runaway fire in Roraima earlier this year. Many forest fires in the Amazon burn in the understory and kill off younger trees, resulting in the black and brown patches visible in the April image. Slide center bar to compare. Credit: Planet.</em></p>



<p>Brazil’s fire season is far from over, and what happens over the next two months is critical. Whether or not 2019 ends up as a record-breaking year, fires in the Amazon are an important topic with a potentially large impact both on Brazil and the world. Follow along with what’s happening on <a href="http://bit.ly/2zgP1KF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)">Global Forest Watch</a> to see the latest trends.</p>



<hr> 

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

BANNER PHOTO: GIF of fires alerts across the Amazon in Brazil from August 1 to August 21, 2019. Source: <a href="http://bit.ly/2zcQ7Hg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">GFW Fires</a>. 


Also published on <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/08/what-can-global-forest-watch-tell-us-about-fires-brazil" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WRI Insights</a>. 

</div> 

 

<hr>



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

What Can Global Forest Watch Tell Us About the Fires in Brazil?

<p>The thousands of fires burning in the Brazilian Amazon got global attention this week, both in the media and online, where the hashtag #prayforamazonia earned more than <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-49406519" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)">150,000 mentions</a> in one day. But what can satellite data tell us about what is really happening in Brazil’s forests?</p>



<p><em>Note: this analysis was conducted using fire data from NASA FIRMS, available to view on Global Forest Watch. Brazil’s National Space Agency (INPE) also puts out fires statistics, which show similar trends.</em></p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">1. This year is not on track to be record-breaking – but it is relatively high compared to recent years</h3>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Number of fires in brazil, Jan-Aug" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GFW_Fires_JanToAug-01.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>According to data from NASA, available on Global Forest Watch, Brazil had 39% more fires between January and August 2019 than in the same period in 2018. However, the years with the most fires recorded were primarily in the early 2000s, probably linked to a high rate of agriculture-related deforestation in the Amazon at that time. This year’s fires are well below that level for the period January through August (though note that 2019 figures only include data through August 22). So far, 2019 is on track to be the third-highest year for fires since 2010. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">2. The fire season is just getting started</h3>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Average number of fires in brazil by month" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GFW_Fires_Avg_per_Month-01_Correct.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>August marks only the beginning of the fire season in Brazil, with the most fires typically occurring in September. So far, 2019 has seen a fairly typical trend in the number of fire alerts for this time of year. But since an average of 62% of the year’s fires happen from September onward, what really matters is what happens next. There’s still a chance to hit a record high or a record low, depending on the next couple of months.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">3. Most of the fires are happening in the Amazon</h3>



<p> The states that have been hardest hit since the beginning of August are primarily clustered in the Amazon biome. Pará and Mato Grosso, along the agricultural frontier, have respectively had 66,400 and 54,800 fires detected in August, although these fires are not necessarily out of the ordinary for this time of year. </p>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Fire season history in Roraima, Brazil" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GFW_Fires_Roraima-01.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>More alarming are those states that are approaching record levels of fire: Amazonas state is on track to have its second-worst fire season (after 2005), and Roraima, which faced a rash of fires between February and April, has already broken the state record for most fires detected in a single year.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">4. Most fires are linked to human activity</h3>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="[OPTIONAL DESCRIPTION]" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ParaRoadsandFarms_800px.gif" width="100%">Fires between August 1 and 21 in Pará, Brazil. Many are clustered around roads and farms.</div>



<p> Natural fires within the Amazon are quite rare, so any burning detected is typically the result of <a href="https://www.nrem.iastate.edu/class/assets/nrem390-10/Cochrane%26Laurance_Tropics_Fire.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)">human activity</a>. It appears that many of the fires in the Amazon are happening on land that was previously deforested, though we aren’t yet able to quantify this. Burning in cropland and pastures during the dry season is concerning as fires may catch in forests and savannahs and burn out of control. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">5. Previous fire seasons have had major impacts on forests</h3>



<p>We don’t know yet whether or how far these fires could spread into forests, but if they do, it could result in major impacts. Human activity combined with drought conditions in the Amazon in <a rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)" href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/global-tree-cover-loss-rose-51-percent-2016" target="_blank">2016</a> and <a rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)" href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/2017-was-second-worst-year-record-tropical-tree-cover-loss" target="_blank">2017</a> resulted in record levels of damage to the forest canopy. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02771-y" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)">Previous studies</a> have also found that in some years, forest fires accounted for more than half of carbon emissions from the Brazilian Amazon.   </p>



<p>To determine how much rainforest has been affected by runaway flames this year, we will have to wait until the smoke clears and the satellites are able to detect recent areas of forest change. </p>



<div class="flourish-embed" data-src="visualisation/615439"></div><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script>



<p class="has-small-font-size"><em>Satellite images show the before and after of a runaway fire in Roraima earlier this year. Many forest fires in the Amazon burn in the understory and kill off younger trees, resulting in the black and brown patches visible in the April image. Slide center bar to compare. Credit: Planet.</em></p>



<p>Brazil’s fire season is far from over, and what happens over the next two months is critical. Whether or not 2019 ends up as a record-breaking year, fires in the Amazon are an important topic with a potentially large impact both on Brazil and the world. Follow along with what’s happening on <a href="http://bit.ly/2zgP1KF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)">Global Forest Watch</a> to see the latest trends.</p>



<hr> 

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

BANNER PHOTO: GIF of fires alerts across the Amazon in Brazil from August 1 to August 21, 2019. Source: <a href="http://bit.ly/2zcQ7Hg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">GFW Fires</a>. 


Also published on <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/08/what-can-global-forest-watch-tell-us-about-fires-brazil" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WRI Insights</a>. 

</div> 

 

<hr>

<p>Na última semana, milhares de focos de incêndio na Amazônia brasileira atraíram atenção global na imprensa e nas mídias sociais, onde a hashtag #PrayForAmazonia foi mencionada mais de&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-49406519" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)">150 mil vezes</a>&nbsp;em um único dia. Mas o que os dados de satélite podem nos dizer sobre o que realmente está acontecendo nas florestas brasileiras?</p>



<p><em>Nota: esta análise foi realizada usando dados de incêndio do NASA FIRMS, disponíveis para visualização no Global Forest Watch. O Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) também divulga estatísticas de incêndios que mostram tendências semelhantes.</em></p>



<h3>1. Este ano não se encaminha para quebrar recordes – mas representa uma alta em comparação a anos recentes</h3>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Numero de incendios no Brasil" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GFW_Fires_JanToAug-01-1.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>Segundo dados da NASA disponíveis no Global Forest Watch, o Brasil teve 39% mais incêndios de janeiro a agosto de 2019 do que no mesmo período de 2018. No entanto, os recordes de incêndios ocorreram principalmente no início dos anos 2000, provavelmente por conta de uma alta no desmatamento relacionado à agricultura na Amazônia. Os incêndios deste ano estão bem abaixo desse nível, embora os dados analisados para agosto deste ano sejam apenas até o dia 22. Até agora, 2019 se encaminha para ser o terceiro ano com maior taxa de incêndios desde 2010.</p>



<h3>2. A temporada de queimadas está apenas começando</h3>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="incendios por mes do Brasil" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GFW_Media_Incendios_por_mes-01.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>Agosto marca apenas o começo da temporada de queimadas no Brasil, sendo que a maior parte dos incêndios ocorre normalmente em setembro. Até agora, 2019 manteve uma tendência no número de alertas de incêndio bastante comum para esta época do ano. Porém, como em média 62% das queimadas anuais ocorrem a partir de setembro, o que importa é o que ainda está para acontecer. Ainda existe a chance deste ano atingir o recorde mais alto ou mais baixo de queimadas, dependendo dos próximos dois meses.</p>



<h3>3. A maior parte dos incêndios está acontecendo na Amazônia</h3>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="incendios de Roraima" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GFW_Incendios_Roraima-01.png" width="100%"></div>



<p>Os estados que estão sendo mais fortemente atingidos desde o início de agosto estão localizados principalmente no bioma Amazônia. Pará e Mato Grosso, na fronteira agrícola, tiveram respectivamente 66.400 e 54.800 incêndios detectados em agosto, embora esses não sejam necessariamente incomuns para esta época do ano.</p>



<p>Em situação mais alarmante se encontram os estados que estão atingindo níveis recordes de incêndio: o estado do Amazonas está próximo de ter sua segunda pior temporada de incêndios (depois de 2005) e Roraima, que enfrentou uma série de incêndios entre fevereiro e abril, já quebrou o recorde no número de incêndios detectados em um único ano no estado.</p>



<h3>4. A maioria dos incêndios está relacionada à atividade humana</h3>



<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" alt="Incedios no Pará " src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ParaRoadsandFarms_800px.gif" width="100%">Incêndios entre 1 e 21 de Agosto no Pará, Brasil. Muitos estão agrupados em torno de estradas e fazendas.</div>



<p>Incêndios naturais na Amazônia são raros; qualquer queimada detectada normalmente é resultado de&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nrem.iastate.edu/class/assets/nrem390-10/Cochrane%26Laurance_Tropics_Fire.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">atividades humanas</a>. Parece que muitos dos incêndios na Amazônia estão acontecendo em áreas anteriormente desmatadas, embora ainda não possamos quantificar essa informação. A queima de terras cultivadas e pastagens durante a estação seca é preocupante, pois os incêndios podem atingir florestas e savanas e se tornarem incontroláveis.</p>



<h3>5. Temporadas de incêndio anteriores tiveram impactos significativos nas florestas</h3>



<p>Ainda não sabemos se ou até que ponto esses incêndios podem se espalhar pelas florestas, mas se isso acontecer, podem ter impactos substanciais. Nos anos de <a rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label="2016 (opens in a new tab)" href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/global-tree-cover-loss-rose-51-percent-2016" target="_blank">2016</a> e <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/2017-was-second-worst-year-record-tropical-tree-cover-loss" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label="2017 (opens in a new tab)">2017</a>, a atividade humana aliada às condições de seca na Amazônia resultou em níveis recordes de danos ao dossel (o conjunto das copas das árvores) da floresta. <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02771-y" target="_blank">Estudos anteriores</a>&nbsp;também mostraram que, em alguns anos, os incêndios florestais representaram mais da metade das emissões de carbono da Amazônia brasileira.</p>



<p>Para determinar o quanto a floresta foi afetada por chamas fora de controle neste ano, teremos de esperar que a fumaça se dissipe e os satélites sejam capazes de detectar as recentes mudanças nas áreas de floresta.</p>



<div class="flourish-embed" data-src="visualisation/615439"></div><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script>



<p class="has-small-font-size"><em>Imagens de satélite mostram o antes e o depois de um incêndio em Roraima no início deste ano. Muitos incêndios florestais na Amazônia queimam na camada chamada de “sub-bosque” e matam árvores mais jovens, resultando nas manchas pretas e marrons visíveis na imagem de abril . D</em>eslizante a barra central para comparar<em>. Crédito: Planet. </em></p>



<p>A temporada de incêndios no Brasil está longe de terminar, e o que acontecer nos próximos dois meses será crítico para a situação da floresta. Independentemente de 2019 terminar ou não como um ano recorde, os incêndios na Amazônia são uma questão de extrema importância, com impactos para o Brasil e para o mundo. Acompanhe a situação da floresta no <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="http://bit.ly/2zgP1KF" target="_blank">Global Forest Watch</a>&nbsp;para ver as tendências mais recentes. </p>



<hr> 

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

FOTO DA BANDEIRA: GIF de alertas de incêndios em toda a Amazônia no Brasil de 1 a 21 de agosto de 2019. Fonte: <a href="http://bit.ly/2zcQ7Hg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">GFW Fires</a>. 

Publicado originalmente no <a href="https://wribrasil.org.br/pt/blog/2019/08/o-que-o-global-forest-watch-revela-sobre-queimadas-no-brasil" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WRI Insights</a>. 

</div> 

 

<hr>

O Que o Global Forest Watch Revela Sobre as Queimadas no Brasil?

Thousands of fires are burning in the Brazilian Amazon. What can the satellite data tell us about what is happening right now in Brazil’s forests?

What Can Global Forest Watch Tell Us About the Fires in Brazil? | Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

People

Hear stories from the forest defenders working in the field.

People | Global Forest Watch Blog

Deforestation Alerts

Deforestation Alerts | Global Forest Watch Blog

<div class="attribute">
</div>
<p>On the morning of June 8th, Chief of Police for the <a href="http://bit.ly/2EyZ2HJ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state of Amapá</a> in Brazil, Leonardo Brito, and his field team set out for a remote patch of the Amazon in search of deforestation. They were following the guidance of a team member stationed back at their base, verifying an area that had come into question using the maps on Global Forest Watch (GFW).</p>
<p>When the team arrived, it was clear that the satellite imagery had correctly identified forest clearing. Beyond ripped up trees, the nearby river had been diverted from its natural course and piles of scorched wood lined the river bank— evidence that site was being used to illegally produce charcoal.  Often, when sites like this are discovered, the culprit is already long gone, but on that day Brito and his team arrived just in time.</p>
<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/image001.jpg" alt="police car in front of deforested land" width="100%" />Brito’s team arrived at the scene to find cleared land that had been burned to use for agriculture.</div>
<h3>Looking for options when you can’t be everywhere at once</h3>
<p>The Brazilian Amazon has long been a frontline in the battle against tropical deforestation. As <a href="http://bit.ly/2S2YeOA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the rate of tree cover loss increases year to year</a>, forest defenders like Brito have had to adapt their methods for detecting and preventing it.</p>
<p>Brito and his team of 12 patrol a 142,815 square kilometer swath of forest in Amapá, an area about the size of Nepal. With limited resources and manpower, the team could only investigate deforestation around the edge of the forest or complaints from community members about land disagreements. Tracking down illegal tree clearing hidden deeper in the forest was simply not feasible. Brito and his team could not be everywhere at once.</p>
<p>This inspired Brito to look for a better way to monitor forests. A cursory Google search led him to several available satellite imagery options, but most of the services updated imagery infrequently.</p>
<p>“When the images are from 3 months or more, by the time we get to the location we don’t encounter anyone – the [loggers] have already migrated to another location,” Brito said.</p>
<p>So, Brito continued looking, and eventually came across <a href="http://bit.ly/2Eyf7O3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Forest Watcher</a> — GFW’s mobile app, designed specifically for use offline and in the field.</p>
<p>“The technology and the application [are] very well explained, and it’s very easy to navigate,” Brito said.</p>
<h3>Making the most of limited resources</h3>
<p>Brito and his team are now consistently using GFW’s near-real-time GLAD alerts on Forest Watcher to uncover instances of illegal deforestation in the field.</p>
<div class="imageright"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/image009.png" alt="drone shot" width="100%" />View of cleared forest from the Amapá team’s drone.</div>
<p>While GFW and Forest Watcher provide the tools for these investigations, users must determine which areas they will prioritize. To help locate and explore the more remote trails they use a drone, but the department only has one and its battery life is just 20 minutes, so prioritization is essential.</p>
<p>As such, they work closely with surrounding communities to narrow down the alert areas they decide to follow up on. This avoids wasting precious time and resources investigating natural or planned disturbances.</p>
<h3>Shifting the focus to forest protection</h3>
<p>Brito has only recently made the shift to working on environmental crimes, an area of investigation he says is much needed, but does not receive a lot of focus. Most work done to combat deforestation in the past was focused on land or property rights.</p>
<p>“Police give lots of importance to other types of crime,” Brito said. “Like stealing phones, property in general—but these things are substitutable. The television, you can replace. The cellphone, you can substitute. Right now, a tree—you don’t have a way to substitute [it]. For a tree to reach the level that [you] encounter today will take 20 to 30 years.”</p>
<p>Despite this, Brito’s work with Forest Watcher has managed to make progress in directing police efforts towards the fight against deforestation.</p>
<p>“Before Global Forest Watch, there was only an illusion of combatting this deforestation,” Brito said. “We effectively only started combatting deforestation after Global Forest Watch. It is the principal tool of [our] police station.”</p>
<div class="imagecenter"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/image007.jpg" alt="charcoal" width="100%" />Kilns and charred wood — evidence of illegal charcoal production.</div>
<p>The addition of the near-real-time alerts has had a real impact for Brito’s work. On the morning of June 8th, Brito was <a href="https://g1.globo.com/ap/amapa/noticia/homem-e-detido-por-desmatamento-e-producao-ilegal-de-carvao-em-macapa.ghtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">able to arrest one man</a> for his illegal activity, and during a later operation in Ariri, seven more people were caught, as well as “empresarios”— company operators who were managing the illegal deforestation scheme. Investigations continue and their direct engagement with companies has grown as they realized the scale of the networks involved.</p>
<p>Brito is now actively promoting the use of Forest Watcher and GFW tools to other police officers and community members. Though convincing others to incorporate the technology has been a slow process, he hopes that more and more people will adopt it as a way to protect their forests.</p>
<p>“It’s more difficult to move their mentality — we have to combat this deforestation with new devices, technology, intelligence, look for new things, and always evolve.”</p>
<hr />
<div class="attribute">
<p>BANNER PHOTO: Charred wood found at the cleared forest camp by Amapá environmental police. All photos by Leonardo Brito.</p>
</div>
<hr />
<style type="text/css"></style>

Amapá Police Use Forest Watcher to Defend the Brazilian Amazon

<div class="attribute">

</div>
On the morning of June 8th, Chief of Police for the <a href="http://bit.ly/2EyZ2HJ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state of Amapá</a> in Brazil, Leonardo Brito, and his field team set out for a remote patch of the Amazon in search of deforestation. They were following the guidance of a team member stationed back at their base, verifying an area that had come into question using the maps on Global Forest Watch (GFW).

When the team arrived, it was clear that the satellite imagery had correctly identified forest clearing. Beyond ripped up trees, the nearby river had been diverted from its natural course and piles of scorched wood lined the river bank— evidence that site was being used to illegally produce charcoal.  Often, when sites like this are discovered, the culprit is already long gone, but on that day Brito and his team arrived just in time.
<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/image001.jpg" alt="police car in front of deforested land" width="100%" />Brito's team arrived at the scene to find cleared land that had been burned to use for agriculture.</div>
<h3>Looking for options when you can’t be everywhere at once</h3>
The Brazilian Amazon has long been a frontline in the battle against tropical deforestation. As <a href="http://bit.ly/2S2YeOA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the rate of tree cover loss increases year to year</a>, forest defenders like Brito have had to adapt their methods for detecting and preventing it.

Brito and his team of 12 patrol a 142,815 square kilometer swath of forest in Amapá, an area about the size of Nepal. With limited resources and manpower, the team could only investigate deforestation around the edge of the forest or complaints from community members about land disagreements. Tracking down illegal tree clearing hidden deeper in the forest was simply not feasible. Brito and his team could not be everywhere at once.

This inspired Brito to look for a better way to monitor forests. A cursory Google search led him to several available satellite imagery options, but most of the services updated imagery infrequently.

“When the images are from 3 months or more, by the time we get to the location we don’t encounter anyone – the [loggers] have already migrated to another location,” Brito said.

So, Brito continued looking, and eventually came across <a href="http://bit.ly/2Eyf7O3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Forest Watcher</a> — GFW’s mobile app, designed specifically for use offline and in the field.

“The technology and the application [are] very well explained, and it’s very easy to navigate,” Brito said.
<h3>Making the most of limited resources</h3>
Brito and his team are now consistently using GFW’s near-real-time GLAD alerts on Forest Watcher to uncover instances of illegal deforestation in the field.
<div class="imageright"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/image009.png" alt="drone shot" width="100%" />View of cleared forest from the Amapá team's drone.</div>
While GFW and Forest Watcher provide the tools for these investigations, users must determine which areas they will prioritize. To help locate and explore the more remote trails they use a drone, but the department only has one and its battery life is just 20 minutes, so prioritization is essential.

As such, they work closely with surrounding communities to narrow down the alert areas they decide to follow up on. This avoids wasting precious time and resources investigating natural or planned disturbances.
<h3>Shifting the focus to forest protection</h3>
Brito has only recently made the shift to working on environmental crimes, an area of investigation he says is much needed, but does not receive a lot of focus. Most work done to combat deforestation in the past was focused on land or property rights.

“Police give lots of importance to other types of crime,” Brito said. “Like stealing phones, property in general—but these things are substitutable. The television, you can replace. The cellphone, you can substitute. Right now, a tree—you don't have a way to substitute [it]. For a tree to reach the level that [you] encounter today will take 20 to 30 years.”

Despite this, Brito’s work with Forest Watcher has managed to make progress in directing police efforts towards the fight against deforestation.

“Before Global Forest Watch, there was only an illusion of combatting this deforestation,” Brito said. “We effectively only started combatting deforestation after Global Forest Watch. It is the principal tool of [our] police station.”
<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/image007.jpg" alt="charcoal" width="100%" />Kilns and charred wood — evidence of illegal charcoal production.</div>
The addition of the near-real-time alerts has had a real impact for Brito’s work. On the morning of June 8th, Brito was <a href="https://g1.globo.com/ap/amapa/noticia/homem-e-detido-por-desmatamento-e-producao-ilegal-de-carvao-em-macapa.ghtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">able to arrest one man</a> for his illegal activity, and during a later operation in Ariri, seven more people were caught, as well as “empresarios”— company operators who were managing the illegal deforestation scheme. Investigations continue and their direct engagement with companies has grown as they realized the scale of the networks involved.

Brito is now actively promoting the use of Forest Watcher and GFW tools to other police officers and community members. Though convincing others to incorporate the technology has been a slow process, he hopes that more and more people will adopt it as a way to protect their forests.

“It’s more difficult to move their mentality — we have to combat this deforestation with new devices, technology, intelligence, look for new things, and always evolve.”

<hr />

<div class="attribute">

BANNER PHOTO: Charred wood found at the cleared forest camp by Amapá environmental police. All photos by Leonardo Brito.

</div>

<hr />

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

Na manhã de 3 de agosto, o chefe da polícia do <a href="http://bit.ly/2EyZ2HJ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">estado do Amapá</a>, Leonardo Brito, e sua equipe de campo partiram para uma área remota da Amazônia em busca de desmatamento. Eles seguiam as orientações de um membro da equipe que havia ficado na base, verificando uma área suspeita usando os mapas do Global Forest Watch.

Quando a equipe chegou, era nítido que as imagens por satélite haviam identificado corretamente a clareira florestal. Além de árvores arrancadas, o rio nas proximidades tinha sofrido um desvio de seu curso natural e havia pilhas de madeira queimada alinhadas nas margens do rio: prova de que o local estava sendo usado para a produção ilegal de carvão.  Geralmente, quando locais assim são descobertos, o culpado já está bem longe, mas nesse dia Brito e sua equipe haviam chegado bem na hora.
<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/image001.jpg" alt="police car in front of deforested land" width="100%" />A equipe de Brito chegou ao local para encontrar terras desmatadas que foram queimadas para uso na agricultura.</div>
<h3>Pesquisar opções quando não se pode estar em todos os lugares ao mesmo tempo</h3>
Há muito tempo que a Amazônia brasileira tinha sido uma linha de frente na batalha contra o desmatamento tropical. Com o<a href="http://bit.ly/2S2YeOA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> aumento anual da perda de cobertura arbórea</a>, defensores florestais como Brito tiverem que adaptar seus métodos para detectá-la e evitá-la.

Brito e sua equipe de 12 membros patrulham uma área florestal de 142,815 quilômetros quadrados no Amapá, uma área equivalente ao tamanho do Nepal. Com recursos e capacidade limitados, a equipe só poderia investigar desmatamento em volta da margem da floresta ou reclamações dos membros da comunidade sobre desacordos sobre a terra. Era impossível monitorar o desmatamento ilegal escondido no coração da floresta. Brito e sua equipe não conseguiam estar em todos os lugares ao mesmo tempo.

Isso inspirou Brito a procurar um jeito melhor de monitorar florestas. Uma rápida pesquisa no Google o ajudou a encontrar diversas opções de imagens de satélite, mas a maioria dos serviços não atualizava as imagens com frequência.

“Quando as imagens são de três meses atrás ou mais, até chegarmos ao local não encontraremos ninguém, os [desmatadores] já estarão em outro lugar”, Brito disse.

Então, Brito continuou pesquisando até encontrar o <a href="http://bit.ly/2Eyf7O3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Forest Watcher</a>, um aplicativo móvel da GFW desenvolvido especificamente para uso off-line e no campo.

“A tecnologia e o aplicativo [são] muito bem explicados e é muito fácil navegar”, Brito disse.
<h3>Aproveitar ao máximo os recursos limitados</h3>
Agora, Brito e sua equipe estão usando constantemente alertas GLAD da GFW no Forest Watcher para descobrir casos de desmatamento ilegal no campo quase em tempo real.
<div class="imageright"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/image009.png" alt="drone shot" width="100%" />Vista de floresta desmatada do drone da equipe do Amapá.</div>
Mesmo que a GFW e o Forest Watcher forneçam as ferramentas para essas investigações, os usuários precisam determinar quais áreas serão priorizadas. Eles usam um drone para ajudar a localizar e explorar as trilhas mais remotas, mas o departamento só tem um, e sua bateria dura apenas 20 minutos, por isso a priorização é essencial.

Assim, eles trabalham com comunidades próximas para diminuir as alertas que decidem acompanhar. Isso evita a perda de tempo e recursos preciosos investigando distúrbios naturais ou planejados.
<h3>Mudar o foco para a proteção florestal</h3>
Brito mudou para trabalhar em crimes ambientais recentemente, uma área de investigação que ele diz  é muito necessária, mas não recebe atenção suficiente. No passado, a maioria do trabalho feito para combater o desmatamento se concentrava na terra ou nos direitos da propriedade.

“A polícia dá muita importância a outros tipos de crime”, Brito disse. “Como roubo de telefones e propriedade em geral, mas essas coisas são substituíveis. Você pode substituir a televisão. Você pode substituir o celular. Mas não há como substituir uma [árvore]. Para uma árvore chegar ao nível que [você] vê hoje leva de 20 a 30 anos”.

Além disso, o trabalho de Brito com o Forest Watcher conseguiu ajudar a direcionar os esforços da polícia à luta contra o desmatamento.

“Antes do Global Forest Watch, havia apenas uma ilusão de combater esse desmatamento”, Brito disse. “De modo efetivo, apenas começamos a combater o desmatamento depois do Global Forest Watch. Ele é a ferramenta principal de [nossa] estação policial”.
<div class="imagecenter"><img class=" wp-image-3569 alignright" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/image007.jpg" alt="charcoal" width="100%" />Fornos e madeira carbonizada - evidência de produção ilegal de carvão.</div>
A adição dos alertas quase em tempo real teve um impacto real no trabalho de Brito. Na manhã de 3 de agosto, Brito conseguiu <a href="https://g1.globo.com/ap/amapa/noticia/homem-e-detido-por-desmatamento-e-producao-ilegal-de-carvao-em-macapa.ghtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">prender um homem</a> devido à sua atividade ilegal, e durante outra operação em Ariri, sete outras pessoas foram presas, além de “empresários” (operadores de empresas que gerenciavam o esquema de desmatamento ilegal). As investigações continuam e seu envolvimento direto com empresas cresceu como eles perceberam a imensidão das redes envolvidas.

Agora, Brito está promovendo ativamente o uso do Forest Watcher e ferramentas da GFW a outros policiais e membros da comunidade. Embora convencer os outros a incorporar a tecnologia tenha sido um processo lento, ele espera que mais e mais pessoas a adotem como uma forma de proteger suas florestas.

“É mais difícil mudar a mentalidade das pessoas, temos que combater o desmatamento com novos dispositivos, tecnologias, informações, além de buscar coisas novas e sempre evoluir”.

<hr />

<div class="attribute">

FOTO DA BANDEIRA: Madeira carbonizada encontrada no acampamento florestal desmatado pela polícia ambiental do Amapá. Todas as fotos por Leonardo Brito

</div>

<hr />

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

Polícia do Amapá usa o Forest Watcher para Defender a Amazônia Brasileira