Data and Methods
Every year, the Global Forest Review (GFR) provides an independent assessment of the state of the world’s
The Global Forest Change data set, with its annual updates on tree cover loss and gain, provides a critical input to the report. The GFR also draws on spatial data and analysis techniques that are rapidly improving with the evolution of forest monitoring technologies and scientific methods. The report and the Data and Methods section will be updated annually to reflect the latest advances in data and data science.
Data and Methods is organized into three subsections: Data Sets, Methodology, and Indicators Overview. The Data Sets section describes the spatial data used in the GFR. The Methodology section describes techniques underpinning any calculations and analysis of the data conducted by World Resources Institute to derive and report results. The Indicators Overview section builds on these two sections by summarizing the data sets and methods used for each calculation.
Get the Latest in Your Inbox
The Global Forest Review (GFR) uses the best-available global spatial data on forests. Over 20 different global data sets come together to help us understand why our forests are changing and the impacts these changes have on people, climate, and biodiversity. Unless otherwise specified, the data descriptions below summarize definitions and methods outlined in published papers. Additional manipulation or processing of the data sets was not done for GFR analyses. The data sets are divided between the following types:
|Type||Data Set||Source||Spatial Resolution||Temporal Resolution||Years of Coverage||Spatial Coverage|
|Forest change||Tree cover loss||Hansen et al. (2013)||30-meter||Annual||2001-20||Global|
|Tree cover loss by dominant driver||Curtis et al. (2018)||10-kilometer||Annual||2001-20||Global|
|Tree cover gain||Hansen et al. (2013)||30-meter||12 years||2001-12||Global|
|Lower Mekong height and canopy||Potapov et al. (2019)||30-meter||Annual||2001-17||Lower Mekong|
|Tree cover change||Song et al. (2018)||5-kilometer||34 years||1982–2016||Global|
|Hot spots of primary forest loss||Harris et al. (2017)||Vector||19 years||2002–20||Tropics|
|Tree cover extent||Hansen et al. (2013)||30-meter||1 year||2000, 2010||Global|
|Primary forest||Turubanova et al. (2018)||30-meter||1 year||2001||Tropics|
|Intact forest landscapes||Potapov et al. (2017)||Vector||3 years||2000, 2013, 2016||Global|
|Tree plantations||Harris et al. (2019)||Vector||1 year||2015||Global|
|Mangroves||Bunting et al. (2018)||Vector||7 years||1996, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2016||Global|
|Commodities||Global cocoa, coffee, soy||MapSPAM||10-kilometer||1 year||2010||Global|
|Global pasture||Ramankutty et al. (2008)||10-kilometer||1 year||2000||Global|
|Brazilian pasture||Laboratório de Processamento de Imagens e Geoprocessamento (LAPIG)||30-meter||1 year||2018||Brazil|
|South America Soy||Song et al. (forthcoming)||30-meter||Annual||2001-18||South America|
|Oil palm, rubber, wood fiber||Harris et al. (2019)||Vector||1 year||2015||Select countries|
|Management||Protected areas||World Database on Protected Areas||Vector||Updated monthly||2021||Global|
|Logging concessions||Varies, see below||Vector||1 year||Varies, see below||Select countries|
|Biodiversity||Biodiversity intactness||Hill et al. (2019)||1-kilometer||1 year||2018||Global|
|Biodiversity significance||Hill et al. (2019)||1-kilometer||1 year||2018||Global|
|Key Biodiversity Areas||BirdLife International||Vector||1 year||2017||Global|
|Alliance for Zero Extinction||Alliance for Zero Extinction||Vector||Updated every 5 years||2019||Global|
|International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species||IUCN Red List of Threatened Species||Vector||Regular updates||2019||Global|
|Tiger Conservation Landscapes||Dinerstein et al. (2007)||Vector||1 year||2007||Southeast Asia|
|Carbon||Aboveground biomass density||Zarin and Woods Hole Research Center||30-meter||1 year||2000||Global|
|Gross emissions, gross removals, and net forest GHG flux||Harris et al. (2021)||30-meter||20 years||2001–20||Global|
|Water||Erosion risk||Qin et al. (2016)||10-kilometer||1 year||2015||Global|
|Urban watersheds||The Nature Conservancy||Vector||1 year||Unknown||Global|
|Social||LandMark||Global Platform of Indigenous and Community Lands||Vector||1 year||2019||Select countries|
|Population||Global Human Settlement Layer||250-meter||1 year||2015||Global|
|Conflict||Global Witness||Vector||Annual||2012-18||Select countries|
|Other||Ecozones||FAO (2012)||Vector||1 year||2010||Global|
|Peatlands||Indonesia Ministry of Agriculture||Vector||1 year||2012||Indonesia|
|Indonesian forest moratorium||Indonesia Ministry of Forestry and Environment||Vector||1 year||2019||Indonesia|
|Rural complex||Molinario et al. (2015)||30-meter||4 years||2000, 2005, 2010, 2015||Democratic Republic of the Congo|
|Countries||Database of Global Administrative Areas (GADM)||Vector||n/a||2019||Global|
Tree cover loss.
In this data set,
Data for 2011–20 were produced as annual updates, while 2001-2012 were produced as a block as part of the original publication. Recent years of data are also more sensitive to changes due to the incorporation of data from Landsat 8 (2013) and improvements to the method (most notably in 2015). Comparisons between older and more recent data should be performed with caution.
At the global scale, for the original 2001–12 product, the overall prevalence of false positives (detected as tree cover loss but, in reality, is not, also known as commission errors) in this data is 13 percent, and the prevalence of false negatives (not detected as tree cover loss but, in reality, is lost, also known as omission errors) is 12 percent, though the accuracy varies by biome and thus may be higher or lower in any particular location. The model often misses
Tree cover loss by dominant driver.
- Commodity-driven deforestation: Long-term, permanent conversion of forest and shrubland to a nonforest land use such as agriculture (including oil palm), mining, or energy infrastructure.
- Shifting agriculture: Small- to medium-scale forest and shrubland conversion for agriculture that is later abandoned and followed by subsequent forest regrowth.
- Forestry: Large-scale forestry operations occurring within managed forests and tree plantations.
- Wildfire: Large-scale forest loss resulting from the burning of forest vegetation with no visible human conversion or agricultural activity afterward.
- Urbanization: Forest and shrubland conversion for the expansion and intensification of existing urban centers.
For the purposes of statistics generated in the Global Forest Review, commodity-driven deforestation, urbanization, and shifting agriculture with primary forest are considered to represent permanent deforestation, whereas tree cover usually regrows in the other categories (forestry, wildfire, and shifting agriculture outside of
The data were generated using decision tree models to separate each 10-kilometer (km) grid cell into one of the five categories. The decision trees were created using 4,699 sample grid cells and use metrics derived from the following data sets: Hansen et al. (2013) tree cover, tree cover gain, and tree cover loss; National Aeronautics and Space Administration fires; global land cover; and population count. Separate decision trees were created for each driver and each region (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Eurasia, Southeast Asia, Oceania), for a total of 35 decision trees. The final outputs were combined into a global map that is then overlaid with tree cover loss data to indicate the intensity of loss associated with each driver around the world.
Regional models were created, and training samples allowed for the interpretation of local land uses or management styles. A cell was categorized as commodity-driven deforestation if it contained clearings that showed signs of existing agriculture, pasture, or mining in the most recent imagery (after the tree cover loss occurred) as well as zero or minimal regrowth in subsequent years. Cells were categorized as shifting agriculture if the cell contained clearings that showed signs of existing agriculture or pasture in most recent imagery (after the tree cover loss occurred) as well as past clearings that contained visible forest or shrubland regrowth (gain) in historical imagery spanning 2001–15. Tree crops typically considered as agricultural commodities, such as oil palm, were classified accordingly as commodity-driven deforestation. The forestry class reflects a combination of wood fiber plantations and other forestry activity, including clear-cutting and selective cuts. Cells were categorized as wildfire when large swaths of fire scarring were visible in cleared areas, indicating that the loss event was driven by wildfire. The wildfire class excludes fire used to clear land for agriculture. Cells were categorized as urbanization if the loss of tree cover coincided with visible urban expansion or intensification.
This data set is intended for use at the global or regional scale, not for individual pixels. Individual grid cells may have more than one
Aside from commodity-driven deforestation, urbanization, and shifting agriculture with primary forest, which are assumed to represent permanent conversion from a forest to nonforest state, this data set does not indicate the stability or changing condition of the forest land use after the tree cover loss occurs. The data set does not distinguish between natural or anthropogenic wildfires, but it does distinguish fires for conversion or agricultural activity, which are not included in the wildfire class. Only direct drivers of forest disturbance are considered, and not indirect drivers such a demographic pressures or economic markets.
The accuracy of the data was assessed using a validation sample of 1,565 randomly selected grid cells. At the global scale, overall accuracy of the model was 89 percent, with individual class accuracies ranging from 55 percent (urbanization) to 94 percent (commodity-driven deforestation). The data has been updated since the original publication to include tree cover loss data from 2016 to 2020.
Tree cover gain.
Tree cover gain is defined as the establishment of tree canopy at the Landsat pixel scale in an area that previously had no tree cover but regrew to greater than 50 percent tree canopy cover density. Tree cover gain may indicate a number of potential activities, including natural forest growth or the crop rotation cycle of tree plantations.
Lower Mekong height and canopy.
Tree cover change.
Hot spots of primary forest loss.
The emerging hot spots analysis uses the annual Hansen et al. (2013) tree cover loss data set between the years 2002 and 2020, the Turubanova et al. (2018) primary forest extent data set for the year 2001, and the Esri ArcGIS Emerging Hot Spot Analysis geoprocessing tool. The tool uses a combination of two statistical measures: the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic to identify the location and degree of spatial clustering of forest loss and the Mann-Kendall trend test to evaluate the temporal trend over time. The analysis was run for individual countries, and its results are relative to the patterns and amount of loss in each country. It has been updated since the original publication to include the latest tree cover loss data.
Tree cover extent.
Intact forest landscapes.
To map IFL areas, the extent of forest areas was identified using greater than 20 percent tree canopy density in the Hansen et al. (2013)
Changes in the extent of IFLs were identified within the year 2000 IFL boundary using the global wall-to-wall Landsat image composite for 2016 and the global forest cover loss data set (Hansen et al. 2013). Areas identified as “reduction in extent” met the IFL criteria in 2000, but they no longer met the criteria in 2016. The main causes of change were clearing for agriculture and tree plantations, industrial activity such as logging and mining,
The world IFL map was created through visual interpretation of Landsat images by experts. The map may contain inaccuracies due to limitations in the spatial resolution of the imagery and lack of ancillary information about local land-use practices in some regions. In addition, the methodology assumes that fires near roads or other infrastructure may have been caused by humans and therefore constitute a form of anthropogenic disturbance. This assumption could result in an underestimation of IFL extent in the boreal biome.
The planted trees category in the SDPT includes forest
Approximately 15,000 Landsat scenes and 1,500 ALOS PALSAR (one-by-one degree) mosaic tiles were used to create optical and radar image composites covering the coastlines along the tropical and subtropical coastlines in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania.
The classification was confined using a mangrove habitat mask, which defined regions where mangrove ecosystems can be expected to exist. The mangrove habitat definition was based on geographical parameters such as latitude, elevation, and distance from ocean water. Training for the habitat mask and classification of the 2010 mangrove mask was based on randomly sampling 38 million points using the mangrove masks (for the year 2000) of Giri et al. (2011)
The Landsat 7 scan-line error affects the classification in certain areas, resulting in striping artifacts in the data. Classification accuracy was assessed with over 53,800 randomly sampled points across 20 randomly selected regions. Overall accuracy was 95.25 percent, and the user’s and producer’s accuracies for the mangrove class were estimated at 97.5 percent and 94.0 percent, respectively. Factors such as satellite data availability (due to clouds, cloud shadows, and Landsat 7 scan-line error), mangrove species composition, and level of degradation can all lead to local variations in accuracy. The mangrove seaward border is generally also more accurately defined than the landward side, where distinction between mangrove and certain terrestrial vegetation species can be unclear.
Areas known to be missing in this version (2.0) of the data set include Bermuda (United Kingdom); Europa Island and the Wallis and Futuna Islands (France); Fiji, east of longitude 180° east; Guam and Saipan (United States); Kiribati; Maldives; and Peru, south of latitude 4° south.
Global cocoa, coffee, soy.
South America soy.
Oil palm, rubber, wood fiber.
Logging concessions. Managed forests refers to areas allocated by a government for harvesting timber and other wood products in a public
This data set is assembled by aggregating data for multiple countries. Source and date information can be found in the table below.
Logging concession data sources and dates
|Cameroon||Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife and World Resources Institute (WRI)||Unknown|
|Canada||Global Forest Watch Canada||2016|
|Central African Republic||Ministry of Water, Forests, Hunting, and Fishing and WRI||Unknown|
|Democratic Republic of the Congo||Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Tourism and WRI||Unknown|
|Equatorial Guinea||Ministry of Agriculture and Forests and WRI||2013|
|Gabon||Ministry of Forest Economy, Water, Fisheries, and Aquaculture and WRI||Unknown|
|Indonesia||Ministry of Environment and Forestry||2018|
|Sarawak, Malaysia||Earthsight and Global Witness||2010|
|Republic of the Congo||Ministry of Forest Economy and Sustainable Development and WRI||2013|
The Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity in Changing Terrestrial Systems (PREDICTS) database comprises over 3 million records of geographically and taxonomically representative data of land-use impacts to local biodiversity.
First, a relevant land-use map was produced by selecting all forested biomes and each 30-by-30-meter (m) pixel within the biomes was assigned a land-use category based upon inputs from the Global Forest Watch forest change database and a downscaled land-use map.
The metric assumes that the biodiversity found in a perfectly intact site is equivalent to the biodiversity that would be present without human interference. Human impacts on biodiversity intactness are quantified through models that extrapolate results from site-specific studies across large areas, and there is always a degree of uncertainty in such extrapolations.
This data set includes several caveats. There are many ways to define biodiversity significance, and this layer is based on one approach. Only forest-dependent bird, mammal, amphibian, and conifer species were included in the analysis. The individual species range maps upon which this layer is based show distributional boundaries, not occupancy, and so contain commission errors. However, when more than 15,000 species ranges are combined into this single layer, such errors become largely irrelevant. Historical ranges were excluded. Hence, the value of each pixel is related to the global loss of species richness if the pixel is
Key Biodiversity Areas.
The KBA identification process is a highly inclusive, consultative, and bottom-up exercise. Although anyone with appropriate scientific data may propose a site to qualify as a KBA, consultation with stakeholders at the national level (both nongovernmental and governmental organizations) is required during the proposal process.
Over 15,000 KBAs have been identified to date, including Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, and KBAs identified through hot spot ecosystem profiles supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund.
Alliance for Zero Extinction.
- contain at least one “Endangered” or “Critically Endangered” species;
- be the sole area where an Endangered or Critically Endangered species occurs;
- contain greater than 95 percent of either the known resident population of the species or 95 percent of the known population of one life history segment (e.g., breeding or wintering) of the species; and
- have a definable boundary (e.g., species range, extent of contiguous habitat, etc.).
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. This data set contains distribution information on species assessed for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The maps are developed as part of a comprehensive assessment of global biodiversity to highlight taxa threatened with extinction and thereby promote their conservation. The IUCN Red List contains global assessments for 105,732 species, with more than 75 percent of these having spatial data. The Global Forest Review (GFR) uses the Asian elephant, orangutan, and tiger ranges to assess
Tiger Conservation Landscapes.
Aboveground biomass density.
Gross emissions, gross removals, and net forest greenhouse gas (GHG) flux.
Emissions include all carbon pools and multiple greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O). The
To produce this population density and distribution data set, researchers mapped global built-up areas, which are defined as all aboveground constructions intended for human or animal sheltering or to produce economic goods. The locations of these built-up areas were established using Landsat imagery analysis. An additional source used to compile this data set was the Gridded Population of the World (GPW) data set assembled by Columbia University’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network. The GPW data set consists of census population data and bolstered the built-up areas data by enabling researchers to estimate residential population. To present this data as grid cells, GPW data was disaggregated from census or administrative units.
Overall, the GHSL data set is an accurate and high-resolution estimate of global population. Known issues with this data include the insufficient availability of global test sets with the right scale, time period, and reliability to validate and improve the GHSL. Another known challenge is the lack of remote sensing studies that compare the use of different sensors to detect human settlements.
Indonesian forest moratorium.
The data set was created by characterizing forest clearing using spatial models in a geographical information system, applying morphological image processing to the Central African Forests Remotely Assessed (Forets d'Afrique Central Evaluee par Teledetection; FACET) product. This process allowed for the creation of maps for 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015, classifying the rural complex and previously homogenous
All analyses in the Global Forest Review draw heavily on per-pixel geodesic area calculations for accurate global area estimations of forests. This means that the precise geodesic area of each 30-meter (m) pixel across the globe is calculated and then summed for each year of loss and unique area of interest, such as countries or protected areas. Due to distortions from projecting the three-dimensional surface of the earth onto a flat surface, the area of a 30 m pixel can vary from roughly 900 m2 at the equator to roughly 200 m2 at the poles. These area differences are accounted for when using geodesic area calculations. Unless otherwise specified, all calculations are run at a 30 percent tree canopy density threshold as of the year 2000.
- Area calculation: Sum the geodesic area of all pixels within an area of interest.
- Extent calculation: Sum the geodesic area of all pixels within the
tree coverextent raster data set.
- Tree cover loss calculation: Sum the geodesic area of all
tree cover losspixels within an area of interest (AOI; e.g., country boundaries or protected areas).
- Rate of loss calculation: Loss area in current year minus loss area in past year divided by loss area in past year. Only countries with at least 100,000
hectaresof tree cover in the year 2000 were included.
- Percent of loss calculation: Divide loss of current year by earlier
- Carbon storage calculation: The aboveground biomass density data set is formatted as biomass per hectare. To convert values to carbon per pixel, each biomass pixel is multiplied by the geodesic area (in hectares) of that pixel to get biomass per pixel, and then divided by 0.47 to convert biomass to carbon. Finally, sum the aboveground biomass pixel values that overlap with the tree cover extent raster data set.
- Gross emissions, gross removals, and net forest greenhouse gas (GHG) flux calculation: Gross emissions are estimated annually, while removals and net flux reflect the total over the period of 2001-2020 and are divided by 20 to calculate the average annual gross removals and average annual net flux. To calculate gross emissions or gross removals over specific areas, we convert emissions/removals per hectare to emissions/removals per pixel by multiplying emissions/removals (in
CO2e) by the geodesic area of each pixel (in hectares), and then summing within the area of interest. Net flux is calculated by subtracting average annual gross removals from average annual gross emissions in each modeled pixel.
The Forest Pulse provides the latest trends in tropical
|The tropics lost 12.2 million
||Ecozones; tree cover loss||Tree cover loss calculation in tropical ecozones|
|4.2 million hectares…occurred within humid tropical
||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Tree cover loss in primary forest|
|The resulting carbon emissions from this primary forest loss are equivalent to the annual emissions of 575 million cars . . .||Tree cover loss; net carbon flux||Net forest carbon flux calculation; EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator|
|Primary forest loss was 12% higher in 2020 than the year before and the second year in a row that primary forest loss worsened in the tropics.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Rate of loss calculation in primary forest|
|As in past years, commodity-driven deforestation was the leading cause of
||Tree cover loss; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Tree cover loss in all drivers of tree cover loss categories|
|Indonesia’s rate of primary forest loss decreased for the fourth year in a row in 2020.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Rate of loss calculation in primary forest|
|Primary forest loss also declined in Malaysia for the fourth year in a row.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Rate of loss calculation in primary forest|
|While the difference appears large compared to the 270,000 hectares and 17% decrease between 2019-2020 reported in the University of Maryland (UMD) data . . .||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Tree cover loss and rate of loss calculation in primary forest|
|Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar continue to see sustained or increasing levels of primary forest loss.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Rate of loss calculation in primary forest|
|Brazil once more topped the list for annual primary forest loss with a total loss of 1.7 million hectares in 2020, more than three times the next-highest country.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Tree cover loss in primary forest|
|Primary forest loss in Brazil increased by 25% in 2020 compared to the year before.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Rate of loss calculation in primary forest|
|The majority of humid primary forest loss in the country occurred in the Brazilian Amazon, which saw a 15% increase from last year, for a total of 1.5 million hectares.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Tree cover loss and rate of loss calculation in primary forest|
|the Pantanal, the world’s largest tropical wetland, experienced 16 times more primary forest loss in 2020 than the year before.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Rate of loss calculation in primary forest|
|. . . Bolivia rose to number three on the list of countries with the most humid tropical primary forest loss in 2020 . . .||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Tree cover loss in primary forest|
|Meanwhile, in Colombia, the rate of primary forest loss rose in 2020 after a dip the previous year.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Rate of loss calculation in primary forest|
|Peru, in fifth place for most tropical forest loss, also saw high and increasing rates of forest loss in 2020.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Rate of loss calculation in primary forest|
|Rates of primary forest loss in Gabon, the Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Equatorial Guinea have all fluctuated in recent years, but loss increased dramatically in Cameroon, nearly doubling in 2020 compared to 2019.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Rate of loss calculation in primary forest|
|The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) lost 490,000 hectares of primary forest in 2020 . . .||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Tree cover loss in primary forest|
|In Australia, fires from late 2019 and early 2020 resulted in a nine-fold increase in tree cover loss in 2020 compared to 2018.||Tree cover loss||Rate of loss calculation|
|Russia also saw high rates of tree cover loss in 2020 . . .||Tree cover loss||Rate of loss calculation|
|In contrast, Canada had an unusually quiet fire year, resulting in a 45% decrease in tree cover loss compared to 2019.||Tree cover loss||Rate of loss calculation|
|Finally, Central Europe saw unprecedented levels of tree cover loss in 2020 and the year prior, with three-fold increases in Germany and the Czech Republic compared to 2018.||Tree cover loss||Rate of loss calculation|
Using the above data sets and methodologies, the Global Forest Review (GFR) assesses the state of the world’s forests and provides insight into how they are changing year to year based on 18 indicators. The next section outlines each statistic produced by GFR authors, along with the data set and method summary used to generate each calculation.
Indicators of Forest Change
- Forest Extent
- Forest Loss
- Primary Forest Loss
- Deforestation Linked to Agriculture
- Forest Gain
- Trees outside Forests
Indicators of Forest Condition
Indicators of Forest Designation
Indicators of Biodiversity and Ecological Services
- Biodiversity Conservation
- Forest Carbon Stocks
- Greenhouse Gas Fluxes from Forests
- Soil Stability and Water Regulation
Indicators of Social and Governance Issues
The Forest Extent Indicator aims to monitor the total area of
|In 2010, the world had 3,929 million
||Tree cover extent; countries||Extent calculation on 2010 tree cover extent; area calculation on countries|
|In the tropics, mapped tree plantations account for roughly 2 percent of all tree cover; the remaining 98 percent of tree cover can be assumed to be natural or seminatural forest.||Tree plantations||Extent calculation on tree plantations; includes all area within the tree plantation data set, divided by tree cover extent in the tropics|
|Tropical and subtropical forests account for 58 percent of 2010 tree cover by area. Boreal forests make up 27 percent of tree cover. Temperate forests account for about 15 percent of tree cover.||Ecozones; tree cover extent||Extent calculation on 2010 tree cover extent by ecozone|
|Primary forests account for roughly 50 percent of all forests in the tropics (1,030 Mha). Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia have the most primary forest in absolute terms, whereas French Guiana, Gabon, and Suriname have the highest proportion of their total land area covered by primary forest.||Ecozones; primary forest||Extent calculation on primary forest divided by extent calculation on 2010 tree cover extent by ecozone|
This indicator aims to monitor the total area of
|The world has lost 411 million
||Tree cover loss; tree cover extent||Tree cover loss calculation in 2000 extent|
|Tree cover loss has been rising in recent history, from 13.4 Mha of tree cover loss in 2001 to 25.8 Mha in 2020.||Tree cover loss||Tree cover loss calculation|
|Forestry is associated with 119 Mha of tree cover loss. . . Commodity-driven deforestation is associated with 103 Mha . . . Wildlife is associated with 89 Mha. . . Shifting agriculture is associated with 87 Mha . . . Urbanization is associated with 4 Mha.||Tree cover loss; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Tree cover loss in all drivers of tree cover loss categories|
|Roughly one-third of tree cover loss since 2000 was likely to be
||Tree cover loss; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Tree cover loss calculation in shifting agriculture overlapping primary forest, commodity-driven deforestation, and urbanization driver categories|
|The remaining two-thirds of tree cover loss was likely more temporary in nature.||Tree cover loss; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Tree cover loss calculation in wildfire, forestry, and nonprimary shifting agriculture driver classes|
|Though only half (204 Mha) of global tree cover loss this century occurred in the tropical ecozones, the tropics accounted for more than 95 percent of all global deforestation.||Tree cover loss; tree cover loss by dominant driver; ecozones||Tree cover loss calculation in tropical ecozones and shifting agriculture overlapping primary forest, commodity-driven deforestation, and urbanization driver categories|
|The annual rate of tropical tree cover loss nearly doubled from 6.7 Mha in 2001 to 12.2 Mha in 2020.||Tree cover loss; ecozones||Tree cover loss calculation in tropical ecozones|
|Although Brazil and Indonesia have experienced the largest area of tree cover loss this century, these two countries have become less dominant as the rate of tree cover loss in all other tropical countries combined has increased by 145 percent since 2001.||Countries; tree cover loss||Tree cover loss and rate of loss calculation in countries|
|Temperate and boreal forests have experienced 158 Mha of gross tree cover loss since the turn of the century. . .||Tree cover loss; ecozones||Tree cover loss calculation in temperate and boreal ecozones|
|. . . with almost 95 percent related to temporary factors (forestry and wildfire).||Tree cover loss; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Tree cover loss calculation in forestry and wildfire driver categories|
|Canada, Russia, and the United States together make up 98 percent of all tree cover loss related to wildfire and 66 percent of all loss related to forestry.||Countries; tree cover loss; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Tree cover loss calculation in countries and forestry and wildfire driver categories|
|The United States lost more than 3.0 Mha of tree cover to urbanization between 2001 and 2020, about 22 times more than Canada.||Countries; tree cover loss; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Tree cover loss calculation in countries and urbanization driver category|
This indicator aims to monitor the total area of
|The humid tropics have lost 64.7 million hectares (Mha) of primary forests since the turn of the century, representing 6.3 percent of their extent in 2001.||Tree cover loss; primary forest||Tree cover loss and percent loss calculation in primary forest|
|Just three countries—Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia—accounted for 64 percent of this loss.||Countries; tree cover loss; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Tree cover loss calculation in primary forest and tree cover loss by dominant driver|
|Roughly two-thirds of this loss was related to conversion for commodity production (industrial-scale agriculture, mining, oil and gas, etc.), with an additional one-third related to
||Tree cover loss; primary forest; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Tree cover loss calculation in primary forest and tree cover loss by dominant driver|
|Russia and Canada experienced the highest levels of
||Countries; tree cover loss; ecozones; intact forest landscapes||Tree cover loss calculation in ecozones and intact forest landscapes|
This indicator estimates the role of specific agricultural commodities in agriculture-linked
Maps of croplands and
To produce these calculations, the commodity extent maps are overlaid with
This analysis cannot determine whether areas were deforested for the purpose of growing the specific commodity or for other reasons (e.g., harvesting wood products). These data also do not measure possible leakage effects of these commodities on deforestation—for example, where expansion of a commodity displaces other forms of farming that contribute to deforestation elsewhere. As such, this indicator refers to forests that are “replaced by” specific commodities rather than deforestation “driven by” specific commodities.
The data sets and methods used rely on a number of assumptions and have a number of associated caveats, which are further described in Goldman et al. (2020).
This indicator aims to monitor the total land area that has transitioned from an unforested to forested state each year.
Due to data limitations, the indicator currently measures
|The world experienced 80.6 million
||Tree cover gain||Tree cover gain calculation|
|More than half (55 percent) of tree cover gain between 2001 and 2012 occurred in tropical and subtropical ecozones.||Tree cover gain; ecozones||tropical and subtropical ecozones|
|Around a fifth of all gain (21 percent) in this part of the world occurred in existing tree plantations and presumably does not reflect regeneration of
||Tree cover gain; tree plantations||Tree cover gain calculation in tree plantations|
|The remaining 45 percent of tree cover gain between 2001 and 2012 occurred in temperate and boreal ecozones.||Tree cover gain; ecozones||Tree cover gain calculation in boreal and temperate ecozones|
The Trees outside Forests Indicator aims to monitor trees that are growing outside
This indicator aims to monitor the area of
The indicator measures disturbed areas using three approaches that are currently possible using medium-resolution satellite imagery. The three measures are not mutually exclusive (i.e., areas of different kinds of disturbance often overlap) and they are therefore estimated individually rather than summed:
- Forest area experiencing a partial (more than 20 percent and less than 90 percent) loss of tree canopy cover (as measured at 250-meter resolution via satellite imagery)
Tree coverextent experiencing tree cover loss due to fire Intact forestlandscapes (defined as forests that are undisturbed by human activity and larger than 50,000 hectares) that can no longer be considered intact due to evidence of human disturbance
|Worldwide, 89 million hectares (Mha) of
||Tree cover loss; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Tree cover loss calculation in wildfire drivers of tree cover loss category|
|Canada, Russia, and the United States together accounted for 98 percent of all tree cover loss related to fire.||Tree cover loss; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Tree cover loss calculation in wildfire drivers of tree cover loss category|
|Worldwide, 120 Mha of forest area that were considered intact in 2000 could no longer be considered intact in 2016, corresponding to a reduction of approximately 7.5 Mha of intact forest per year. . .||Intact forest landscapes (IFLs)||Subtract extent calculation in 2016 IFLs from 2000 IFLs|
|. . . and a total reduction of 9 percent of intact forest area.||IFLs||Subtract extent calculation in 2016 from 2000 IFLs and divide by extent calculation in 2000 IFLs|
|Russia experienced the largest reduction of intact forest area (29 Mha), primarily due to fire.||Countries; IFLs; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Subtract extent calculation in 2016 IFLs from 2000 IFLs by country, intersect with drivers of tree cover loss|
|Romania saw the largest percentage decline, with its last remaining tract of intact forest
||Countries; IFLs||Subtract extent calculation in 2016 IFLs from 2000 IFLs by country, divided by 2000 IFLs|
|Paraguay also experienced a notable decline, with an 80 percent decrease in forest area that could be considered intact between 2000 and 2016 due to the clearing of the Chaco for cattle ranching.||Countries; IFLs||Subtract extent calculation in 2016 IFLs from 2000 IFLs by country, divided by 2000 IFLs|
The Forest Recovery Indicator aims to monitor the area of
This indicator aims to monitor the extent of
|Approximately 20 percent of global forest area is currently under some form of legal protection.||Tree cover extent; protected areas||Extent calculation in 2010 tree cover extent and protected areas|
|Existing protected areas cover 37 percent of tropical
||Primary forest; intact forest landscapes (IFLs); protected areas||Extent calculation in primary forest, IFLs, and protected areas|
|In 2020, protected areas experienced 4.1 million
||Tree cover loss; primary forest; IFLs||Tree cover loss calculation in primary forest, IFLs, and protected areas|
|A total of 43.7 Mha of tree cover loss has occurred within protected areas since 2001, and a total of 4.8 Mha of tree cover gain also occurred in these areas between 2001 and 2012.||Tree cover loss; tree cover gain; protected areas||Tree cover loss and gain calculation in protected areas|
|In strict nature reserves, wilderness areas, and national parks (a subset of all protected areas that often have the most importance for biodiversity conservation), tree cover loss has increased since 2001 by an average of 14 percent per year, equivalent to 5 percent of tree cover extent in these areas in 2001.||Tree cover loss; tree cover extent; protected areas||Tree cover loss and extent calculation in Category I and II protected areas|
The Production Forests Indicator aims to monitor the extent and location of
Due to a lack of comprehensive spatial data showing the location of production forests worldwide, this indicator cites nongeospatial statistical data from the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 to provide estimates of the global extent of production forests.
To approximate the location of production forests, the indicator uses the tree cover loss by dominant driver data set produced by Curtis et al. (2018),
To estimate the location of tree plantations, the indicator uses data from the Spatial Database of Planted Trees by Harris et al. (2019). This database aggregates maps of tree plantations and
|In these nine countries, managed
||Managed forest concessions; intact forest landscapes; tree cover extent||Tree cover extent calculation in intact forest landscapes, managed forest concessions, and countries|
|…which are estimated to cover roughly 75 percent (173 million
||Tree plantations||Area calculation in tree plantations|
This indicator measures the total extent of
- Forests with highly “intact” biodiversity; that is, forests where human activity has had the least impact on biodiversity
- Forests that are highly “significant” for biodiversity; that is, forests that are disproportionately important for the concentration of species that they support
- Forests within the habitat ranges of threatened, keystone species such as the tiger or orangutan
- Forests in sites that are identified as important for the global persistence of biodiversity, such as Key Biodiversity Areas, which include Alliance for Zero Extinction sites
- Forests that are legally recognized as protected areas, often for the purpose of biodiversity conservation, among other reasons
For all calculations, highly intact and highly significant refer to the top 10 percent of index values within both data sets. Habitat ranges analyzed include the Asian elephant, orangutan, and tiger, which were in the years 2008, 2017, and 2014, respectively. “Possibly extant” areas in Asian elephant range data were excluded from the analysis.
|As of 2018, 782 million
||Tree cover extent; biodiversity intactness; protected areas||Tree cover extent calculation in top 10 percent of biodiversity intactness area and protected areas|
|. . . 67 percent were located in the tropics, and two-thirds were found in only five countries: Brazil, Canada, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Peru, and Russia.||Tree cover extent; countries; biodiversity intactness; ecozone||Tree cover extent calculation in top 10 percent of biodiversity intactness area and tropical ecozones, by country|
|As of 2018, 455 Mha of forests were considered to be highly significant for biodiversity. . . . Of these forests, 24 percent were legally protected, . . .||Tree cover extent; biodiversity significance; protected areas||Tree cover extent calculation in top 10 percent of biodiversity significance area and protected areas|
|. . . nearly 41 percent were on islands, and 25 percent were found within Australia, Brazil, and Indonesia.||Tree cover extent; countries; biodiversity significance||Tree cover extent calculation in top 10 percent of biodiversity significance area, by country|
|Islands only account for 11 percent of forest overall.||Tree cover extent; countries||Tree cover extent calculation by country, selecting for all islands (including Australia)|
|In 2020, forests that were highly significant for biodiversity had 4.6Mha of forest loss, reducing their extent in by 1 percent. Of this loss, 56 percent occurred in Australia, Indonesia, and Madagascar.||Tree cover extent; tree cover loss; countries; biodiversity significance||Tree cover extent and tree cover loss calculation in top 10 percent of biodiversity significance area, by country|
|10 percent of
||Tree cover extent; tree cover loss; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species||Tree cover extent and tree cover loss calculation in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. “Possibly extant” areas were excluded.|
|Only 8 percent of tree cover within these areas has highly intact biodiversity.||Tree cover extent; biodiversity intactness; IUCN Red List of Threatened Species||Tree cover extent calculation in top 10 percent of biodiversity intactness area and IUCN Red List of Threatened Species|
|23 percent of tree cover within orangutan ranges has been lost since 2000.||Tree cover extent, tree cover loss; IUCN Red List of Threatened Species||Tree cover extent and tree cover loss calculation in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species|
|Only 14 percent of tree cover within these areas has highly intact biodiversity.||Tree cover extent; biodiversity intactness; IUCN Red List of Threatened Species||Tree cover extent calculation in top 10 percent of biodiversity intactness area and IUCN Red List of Threatened Species|
|9 percent of tree cover within tiger ranges has been lost since 2000.||Tree cover extent; tree cover loss IUCN Red List of Threatened Species||Tree cover extent and tree cover loss calculation in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species|
|Only 11 percent of tree cover within these areas has highly intact biodiversity.||Biodiversity intactness; IUCN Red List of Threatened Species||Area calculation in top 10 percent of biodiversity intactness area and IUCN Red List of Threatened Species|
|As of 2010, 435.2 Mha of tree cover—11 percent of tree cover globally—fell within Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), including Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites. In 2020, 2.3 Mha of this tree cover were lost.||Tree cover extent; tree cover loss; KBAs||Tree cover extent and tree cover loss calculation in 2010 tree cover extent and KBAs|
||Tree cover extent; tree cover loss; KBAs||Tree cover extent, tree cover loss and rate of tree cover loss calculation in KBAs|
|Since 2001, tree cover loss in AZE sites has increased an average of 15 percent per year, equivalent to 8 percent of tree cover extent in AZE sites in 2000.||Tree cover extent; tree cover loss; AZEs||Tree cover extent, tree cover loss and rate of tree cover loss calculation in AZEs|
|Some 785 Mha of tree cover—20 percent of global tree cover—fall within protected areas. . . . In 2020, 4.1 Mha of this tree cover were lost including 0.92 Mha of
||Tree cover extent; protected areas||Tree cover extent and tree cover loss calculation in protected areas|
|In strict nature reserves, wilderness areas, and national parks, tree cover loss has increased since 2001 by an average of 14 percent per year equivalent to 5 percent of tree cover extent in these areas in 2000.||Tree cover extent; protected areas||Tree cover extent and tree cover loss calculation in IUCN Category I and II protected areas|
This indicator aims to monitor the amount of carbon stored in
|Tropical rainforests account for only 30 percent of global tree cover but contain 50 percent of the world’s carbon stored in trees.||Tree cover extent; aboveground biomass density; ecozones||Carbon storage calculation in tropical ecozones|
This indicator aims to monitor the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent (
Statistics for this indicator are derived from a model that combined ground measurements and satellite observations with national GHG inventory methods from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Gross removals (reported by convention as negative values) and gross emissions (reported as positive values) were estimated separately, and the net flux was calculated by subtracting gross emissions from gross removals. Emissions are estimated annually, while removals and net flux are averaged over 20 years.
|Between 2001 and 2020, emissions from
||Gross emissions, gross removals, and net forest GHG flux||Gross emissions, gross removals, and net forest GHG flux calculation|
|Tropical forests had both the highest average annual gross emissions and gross removals of all climate domains, with average emissions of 5.4 Gt CO2e per year and average removals of -7.0 Gt CO2e per year.||Gross emissions, gross removals, and net forest GHG flux; ecozones||Gross emissions, gross removals, and net forest GHG flux calculation in ecozones|
|As a result, tropical forests made up only 21 percent of the global net forest sink while temperate forests made up 48 percent of the global net forest sink, with an average annual net sink of -3.5 Gt CO2e per year.||Net forest GHG flux; ecozones||Net forest GHG flux calculation in ecozones|
|In addition to having the largest total net sink, temperate forests also had the largest net sink per hectare, with an average net sink of -5.9 tonnes CO2e per hectare per year. Tropical forests had the smallest net sink per hectare, with an average net sink of -0.77 tonnes CO2e per hectare per year.||Net forest GHG flux; ecozones||Net forest GHG flux calculation in ecozones divided by tree cover extent in 2000.|
|For Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bolivia, the majority of forest-related GHG emissions were associated with the clearing of forests for commodity production, reflecting a permanent loss of tree cover.||Gross emissions; countries; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Gross emissions calculation in countries and tree cover loss by dominant driver categories|
|Meanwhile, the majority of forest-related emissions in the United States, Canada, and China were associated with forestry operations within these countries, likely reflecting temporary losses of tree cover due to harvesting cycles.||Gross emissions; countries; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Gross emissions calculation in countries and tree cover loss by dominant driver categories|
|While a substantial proportion of Russia’s forest-related emissions were also associated with forestry, the majority were due to wildfire.||Gross emissions; countries; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Gross emissions calculation in countries and tree cover loss by dominant driver categories|
|In the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Colombia, most forest-related emissions were associated with
||Gross emissions; countries; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Gross emissions calculation in countries and tree cover loss by dominant driver categories|
|Brazil had the highest annual forest-related GHG emissions, releasing an average of 1.6 Gt CO2e per year, followed by Indonesia (0.95 Gt CO2e per year) and the United States (0.81 Gt CO2e per year).||Gross emissions; countries||Gross emissions calculation in countries|
|Russia had the highest annual forest-related CO2 removals, averaging -2.4 Gt CO2e per year, followed by Brazil (-1.8 Gt CO2e per year) and the United States (-1.5 Gt CO2e per year).||Gross removals; countries||Gross removals calculation in countries|
|Over 95 percent of the removals were from existing forests undisturbed since the year 2000, with the remainder from new forest growth since 2000.||Gross removals; tree cover loss; tree cover gain; forest extent||Gross removals calculation in pixels with no tree cover gain or loss over model period|
|. . .among countries whose forests were a net source, Indonesia had the highest net emissions from forests (0.30 Gt CO2e per year), followed by Malaysia (0.13 Gt CO2e per year) and Laos (0.05 Gt CO2e per year).||Net forest GHG flux; countries||Net forest GHG flux calculation in countries|
|Among countries whose forests were a net sink, Russia had the highest net removals from forests (-1.8 Gt CO2e per year), followed by Canada (-0.95 Gt CO2e per year) and the United States (-0.71 Gt CO2e year).||Net forest GHG flux; countries||Net forest GHG flux calculation in countries|
|Globally, gross annual GHG emissions were highest in areas where the dominant
||Gross emissions; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Gross emissions calculation in tree cover loss by dominant driver categories|
|Brazil and Indonesia accounted for nearly 70 percent of gross annual GHG emissions from commodity-driven deforestation, followed by Malaysia (8 percent), Bolivia and Vietnam (each 3 percent).||Gross emissions; tree cover loss by dominant driver; countries||Gross emissions calculation in commodity-driven deforestation category and countries|
|Landscapes dominated by forestry removed more carbon due to forest management and regrowth than they emitted due to harvesting, providing an average annual net sink of -3.0 Gt CO2e per year (gross emissions of 2.3 Gt CO2e per year and gross removals of -5.3 Gt CO2e per year).||Gross emissions, gross removals, and net forest GHG flux; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Gross emissions, gross removals, and net forest GHG flux calculation in tree cover loss by dominant driver categories|
|Similarly, forests in shifting agriculture landscapes removed more carbon than they emitted, providing an average annual net sink of -1.0 Gt CO2e per year (gross emissions of 2.2 Gt CO2e per year and gross removals of -3.2 Gt CO2e per year)||Gross emissions, gross removals, and net forest GHG flux; tree cover loss by dominant driver||Gross emissions, gross removals, and net forest GHG flux calculation in tree cover loss by dominant driver categories|
|Globally, wildfires emitted an average of 1.1 Gt CO2e per year between 2001 and 2020. Of this, CO2 accounted for approximately 92 percent of emissions, while CH4 and N2O accounted for approximately 8 percent.||Gross emissions; MODIS burned area||Gross emissions calculation in MODIS burned area|
|The impact of these fires on GHG emissions is evident: forest-related GHG emissions associated with wildfire in Australia increased nearly thirtyfold in 2019-2020 compared to the annual average from 2001-2018, increasing from an average of 0.014 Gt CO2e per year to an average of 0.39 Gt CO2e per year||Gross emissions; MODIS burned area; countries||Gross emissions calculation in MODIS burned areas within Australia|
|Forests in protected areas had an average annual net sink of -2.0 Gt CO2e per year, accounting for approximately 27 percent of the average annual global net sink from forests.||Net forest GHG flux; protected areas||Net forest GHG flux calculation in protected areas|
|Forests in indigenous and community lands for which spatial data is available had an average annual net sink of -0.59 Gt CO2e per year, accounting for 8 percent of the average annual global net sink from forests.||Net forest GHG flux; LandMark||Net forest GHG flux calculation in LandMark|
|Combined, protected areas and indigenous lands had an average annual net sink of -2.2 Gt CO2e per year—equivalent to the forest net sink of Russia and China—accounting for 31 percent of the average annual global net sink from forests.||Net forest GHG flux; protected areas; LandMark; countries||Net forest GHG flux calculation in protected areas; net forest GHG flux calculation in LandMark; net forest GHG flux calculation in countries|
This indicator aims to monitor the extent of
- Forests in areas with high erosion risk, determined by an area’s precipitation, elevation, slope, soil properties, and land cover
- Forests within watersheds that supply water to the world’s urban areas
- Mangrove forests
|As of 2010, . . . 47 percent of the world’s tree cover was located in areas defined as being at medium to high risk of erosion.||Tree cover extent; erosion risk||Tree cover extent calculation in 2010 tree cover extent and high erosion risk|
|In 2020, 11.0 million hectares (Mha) of tree cover loss (43 percent of total global tree cover loss) occurred in areas of medium to high erosion risk, a 4 percent increase from 2019.||Tree cover loss; erosion risk||Tree cover loss and rate of loss calculation in high erosion risk|
|Australia, Brazil, and Indonesia accounted for 33 percent of global tree cover loss in such areas in 2020 and Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Laos lost the most tree cover as a proportion of their medium to high erosion risk areas.||Countries; tree cover loss; erosion risk||Tree cover loss calculation in high erosion risk, by country|
|Since 2001, 43 Mha of tree cover have been lost in watersheds that supply the world’s
||Tree cover extent; tree cover loss; urban watersheds||Tree cover extent and tree cover loss calculation in megacity subset of urban watersheds. Watersheds were dissolved by city name to avoid double counting loss.|
|The watersheds serving the cities of Buenos Aires, Guangzhou, Istanbul, Lagos, and Sao Paulo have lost 9 percent or more of their tree cover since 2000.||Tree cover extent; tree cover loss; urban watersheds||Percent tree cover loss calculation in megacity subset of urban watersheds; watersheds were dissolved by city name to avoid double counting loss.|
||Tree cover loss; dominant drivers of tree cover loss; urban watersheds||Tree cover loss calculation in megacity subset of urban watersheds and in all drivers of tree cover loss.|
|Since 2016, 144 Mha of tree cover loss has occurred within mangrove forests. Just under 80 percent of this loss has occurred in Brazil, Cuba, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the United States.||Countries; tree cover loss; mangroves||Tree cover loss calculation in 2016 mangroves, by country|
|As of 2016, coastal mangrove forests covered 13.3 Mha across 106 countries, representing a tiny fraction of global tree cover—just 0.3 percent.||Tree cover extent; mangroves||Area extent calculation in mangroves; total mangrove area was included in estimation and divided by 2010 tree cover extent|
|One-fifth of coastal mangroves are located in Indonesia, and another quarter are located in Australia, Brazil, Mexico, and Nigeria.||Countries; mangroves||Area extent calculation in mangroves, by country|
The Indigenous and Community Forests Indicator measures changes in the extent of forestlands that are both legally titled and customarily held by Indigenous Peoples and other
|The LandMark data set includes approximately 136,000 indigenous and community land maps and indicative areas, representing about 12 percent of the world’s land.||LandMark||Area extent calculation in LandMark|
|These areas contain approximately 16 percent of the world’s
||LandMark; IFLs; carbon density||Area extent and carbon storage calculation in LandMark and IFLs|
|Between 2013 and 2018, the percentage of
||Tree cover loss; LandMark; countries||Tree cover loss calculation in LandMark and countries|
|When comparing tree cover loss across all indigenous and community lands between two time periods (three-year averages between 2013–15 and 2016–18), tree cover loss was 1.6 times higher in indigenous and community lands that were not acknowledged by government versus those that were.||Tree cover loss; LandMark||Tree cover loss calculation in LandMark|
The At-Risk Populations Indicator measures the number of people who are potentially vulnerable to losing sources of food and other
This indicator provides a general estimate of at-risk populations, but some populations in these areas will not be at risk. There are also some populations outside these areas who are at risk, but they are not included in this estimate. No error estimates are provided.
|Approximately 127 million people currently live within five kilometers of an emerging hot spot of forest loss.||Hot spots of primary forest loss; population||Sum population within hot spots|
|The Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Cameroon, Vietnam and Brazil have the highest number of people living within deforestation hot spots, whereas Gabon, French Guiana the Solomon Islands, the Central African Republic, and Laos have the highest proportion of their total population close to these hot spots.||Hot spots of primary forest loss; population||Sum population within hot spots, by country|
The Forestland-Related Conflict Indicator measures the amount of social conflict and violence stemming from decisions about the use of forestlands and resources. As competition for land and natural resources expands and Indigenous Peoples and local communities act to protect
The Global Forest Change data offer an annual view of the world’s
- Not all tree cover is a forest. Satellite data are effective for monitoring changes in
tree cover, but forests are typically defined as a combination of tree cover and land use. For example, agricultural tree cover, such as an oil palm plantation, is not usually considered to be forest. As such, satellite-based monitoring systems may overestimate forest area unless combined with additional land-use data sets. No land-use data set currently exists at an adequate resolution or update frequency to enable this analysis at global scale.
- Not all tree cover loss is deforestation. Defined as permanent conversion of forested land to other land uses,
deforestationcan only be identified at the moment trees are removed if it is known how the land will be used afterward. In the absence of a global data set on land use, it is not possible to accurately classify tree cover lossas permanent (i.e., deforestation) or temporary (e.g., where it is associated with wildfire, timber harvesting rotations, or shifting cultivation) at the time it occurs. However, new models analyzing spatial and temporal trends in tree cover loss are enabling better insights into the drivers of loss.
- Tree cover is a one-dimensional measure of a forest. Many qualities of a forest cannot be measured as a function of tree cover and are difficult, if not impossible, to detect from space using existing technologies. Forests that are vastly different in terms of form and function—such as an
intact primary forestand a planted forestmanaged for timber production—are nearly indistinguishable in satellite imagery based on tree cover. Detecting forest degradationthrough remote sensing is also challenging because degradation often entails small changes occurring beneath the forest canopy.
- Tree cover gain is more difficult to measure than loss. Whereas tree cover loss is distinctly visible at a specific moment in time,
tree cover gainis a gradual process and is thus more difficult to discern from one satellite image to the next. Annual reporting of tree cover loss has not been matched by annual reporting of tree cover gain, resulting in an unbalanced view of global forest change dynamics. Ongoing improvements in detection methodologies are likely to deliver the first annualized global tree cover gain data set by 2020.
- Tree cover loss and gain do not equal net forest. Due to variation in research methodology and date of content, tree cover, tree cover loss, and tree cover gain data sets cannot be compared accurately against each other. Accordingly, “net” loss cannot be calculated by subtracting figures for tree cover gain from tree cover loss, and current (post-2000) tree cover cannot be determined by subtracting figures for annual tree cover loss from year 2000 tree cover.
Definitions for basic forest-related concepts and terms are often varied and controversial. For consistency and clarify, the Global Forest Review (GFR) uses the following definitions across the report:
agricultural tree crop: Trees cultivated for their food, cultural, or economic values. These include oil palm, rubber, cocoa, cashew, mango, oranges (citrus), plantain, banana, and coconut.
biodiversity intactness: The proportion and abundance of a location's original forest community (number of species and individuals) that remain.
biodiversity significance: The importance of an area for the persistence of forest-dependent species based on range rarity.
carbon dioxide equivalent: Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a measure used to aggregate emissions from various greenhouse gases (GHGs) on the basis of their 100-year global warming potentials by equating non-CO2 GHGs to the equivalent amount of CO2.
deforestation: The change from forest to another land cover or land use, such as forest to plantation or forest to urban area.
forest: Forests include tree cover greater than 30 percent tree canopy density and greater than 5 meters in height as mapped at a 30-meter Landsat pixel scale.
forest concession: A legal agreement allowing an entity the right to manage a public forest for production purposes.
forest degradation: The reduction in a forest’s ability to perform ecosystem services, such as carbon storage and water regulation, due to natural and anthropogenic changes.
forest disturbance: A discrete event that changes the structure of a forest ecosystem.
forest fragmentation: The breaking of large, contiguous forests into smaller pieces, with other land cover types interspersed.
forest management plan: A plan that documents the stewardship and use of forests and other wooded land to meet environmental, economic, social, and cultural objectives. Such plans are typically implemented by companies in forest concessions.
hectare: One hectare equals 100 square meters, 2.47 acres, or 0.01 square kilometers and is about the size of a rugby field. A football pitch is slightly smaller than a hectare (pitches are between 0.62 and 0.82 hectares).
intact forest: A forest that contains no signs of human activity or habitat fragmentation as determined by remote sensing images and is large enough to maintain all native biological biodiversity.
land and environmental defenders: People who peacefully promote and protect rights related to land and/or the environment.
loss driver: The direct cause of forest disturbance.
low tree canopy density: Less than 30 percent tree canopy density.
managed forest concession: Areas where governments have given rights to private companies to harvest timber and other wood products from natural forests on public lands.
megacity: A city with more than 10 million people.
mosaic restoration: Restoration that integrates trees into mixed-use landscapes, such as agricultural lands and settlements, where trees can support people through improved water quality, increased soil fertility, and other ecosystem services. This type of restoration is more likely in deforested or degraded forest landscapes with moderate population density (10–100 people per square kilometer).
natural forest: A forest that is grown without human intervention.
persistent loss and gain: Forests that have experienced one loss or one gain event from 2001 to 2016.
plantations: An area in which trees have been planted, generally for commercial purposes.
planted forest: A forest composed of trees that have been deliberately planted and/or seeded by humans.
primary forest: Old-growth forests that are typically high in carbon stock and rich in biodiversity. The GFR uses a humid tropical primary rainforest data set, representing forests in the humid tropics that have not been cleared in recent years.
production forest: A forest where the primary management objective is to produce timber, pulp, fuelwood, and/or nonwood forest products.
seminatural forest: A managed forest modified by humans, which can have a different species composition from surrounding natural forests.
shifting agriculture: Temporary loss or permanent deforestation due to small- and medium-scale agriculture.
tree cover: All vegetation greater than five meters in height and may take the form of natural forests or plantations across a range of canopy densities. Unless otherwise specified, the GFR uses greater than 30 percent tree canopy density for calculations.
tree cover gain: The establishment of tree canopy in an area that previously had no tree cover. Tree cover gain may indicate a number of potential activities, including natural forest growth or the crop rotation cycle of tree plantations.
tree cover loss: The removal or mortality of tree cover, which can be due to a variety of factors, including mechanical harvesting, fire, disease, or storm damage. As such, loss does not equate to deforestation.
trees outside forests: Trees found in urban areas, alongside roads, or within agricultural land are often referred to as Trees Outside Forests (TOF).
tree plantation: An agricultural plantation of fast-growing tree species on short rotations for the production of timber, pulp, or fruit.