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


Global Forest Watch Blog

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

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

Forest News, Research & Monitoring | Global Forest Watch Blog

Global Forest Watch Content

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

<p>What were the trends in forest loss in 2024? And what do these trends tell us about what is needed at the 2025 UN climate conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil &#8211; a city within one of the world&#8217;s most important forest ecosystems &#8211; this November? Join us on May 28 for our annual event on the latest tree cover loss data from the University of Maryland’s GLAD Lab. <a href="https://gfw.global/4jQ72nO">Register here</a>.</p>


Join Our Webinar on Forest Loss in 2024

Data &amp; Tools

Data &amp; Tools | Global Forest Watch Blog

mapping

mapping | Global Forest Watch Blog

Teresa Schofield

Liz Goldman

<p>Global Forest Watch (GFW) is constantly being updated to reflect the most recent and accurate data related to forests. To that end, we’ve updated the political boundaries available on GFW to the most recent version from the Database of Global Administrative Areas (GADM), an open-source political boundary data set. This update ensures that the map, statistics and analyses on GFW use the latest and most accurate information.</p>



<p>With this update, you may observe some changes that are important to be aware of, including changes to the names of political areas; the boundaries for countries, regions and subregions; map functionality around disputed areas; information in forest change and fire alert emails; and data set statistics.</p>



<p>This blog will walk through each of these changes — read on to learn more.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is changing and who do these changes affect?</h2>



<p>For many years, GFW has used <a href="https://gadm.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">GADM boundaries</a> as political boundaries for analyses of geospatial data hosted on GFW. When a user performs an analysis of a political boundary on the map or views statistics for a country on the dashboards, they are seeing statistics for a GADM boundary.</p>



<p>In this recent update, we moved from GADM version 3.6 to version 4.1 to provide newer and more accurate information, including renamed areas, adjustments to political borders and more.</p>



<p>Please note, however, that there are various sources of political boundaries available. You can <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/map/guides/analyze-data-map/">view instructions in our Help Center</a> on how to upload shapefiles of an alternative country, region or subregion’s boundary.</p>



<p>At the time of this article’s publication, this change is only relevant to the main GFW site, map and dashboards. GFW Pro will also update its political boundaries soon.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Which areas are affected by this update?</h2>



<p>This update includes changes in boundaries across the globe at different levels. GADM labels these different levels as “administrative units,” and breaks them down as follows: “admin 0” refers to country level, “admin 1” refers to state/province level, and “admin 2” refers to county/district level.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Country boundaries</h3>



<p>There is no official changelog available from GADM for this update, but our team has identified several changes to country boundaries. We saw small but noticeable differences in the borders of approximately 10 countries: Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Togo and Uruguay.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Subnational boundaries</h3>



<p>Our analysis also revealed several updated subnational boundaries.</p>



<p>Multiple countries added or removed regions (admin 2 areas):</p>



<table>
    <tr>
        <td>Countries</td>
        <td>Number of regions in GADM 3.6</td>
        <td>Number of regions in GADM 4.1</td>
        <td>Change </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Colombia</td>
        <td>1065</td>
        <td>1119</td>
        <td>+54 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Togo</td>
        <td>21</td>
        <td>40</td>
        <td>+19 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Djibouti</td>
        <td>11</td>
        <td>21</td>
        <td>+10 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Brunei</td>
        <td>32</td>
        <td>39</td>
        <td>+7 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>American Samoa</td>
        <td>16</td>
        <td>17</td>
        <td>+1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Benin</td>
        <td>76</td>
        <td>77</td>
        <td>+1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Chile</td>
        <td>54</td>
        <td>55</td>
        <td>+1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Costa Rica</td>
        <td>81</td>
        <td>82</td>
        <td>+1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Australia</td>
        <td>569</td>
        <td>568</td>
        <td>-1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Kenya</td>
        <td>301</td>
        <td>300</td>
        <td>-1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Ukraine</td>
        <td>629</td>
        <td>628</td>
        <td>-1 </td>
    </tr>
</table>



<p></p>



<p>At the subnational level, we noted some changes in names, identification codes and/or borders, especially in West and Southern Africa, Central America, South America, Europe and Southeast Asia. The yellow areas of the map below show the updated admin 2 areas that were changed: &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1500" height="885" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/gadm_changes_gold-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18783" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/gadm_changes_gold-1.png 1500w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/gadm_changes_gold-1-1024x604.png 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/gadm_changes_gold-1-768x453.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1500px) 100vw, 1500px" /></figure>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Disputed boundaries</h3>



<p>One major change in this update is that some politically disputed boundaries are no longer included in any country or subnational analysis (note that GADM does not include all disputed boundaries in their data).</p>



<p>With this update, disputed areas are only included in global analysis available on the dashboards. This is because the previous GADM version (3.6) did not delineate disputed boundaries, but GADM 4.1 does: in version 4.1, disputed areas are separated from adjacent admin areas and have their own identification codes. This will mean that the GFW country analyses will no longer include any areas GADM identifies as politically disputed.</p>



<p>For example, the disputed region of Kashmir between China, Pakistan and India is now delineated in version 4.1.</p>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-photo-slider" data-src="visualisation/22364626?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img decoding="async" src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/22364626/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="photo-slider visualization" /></noscript></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How will this update affect GFW data and statistics?</h2>



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



<p>With this update, any changes in area boundaries will result in some changes to statistics and results of analyses. If you’d like to compare the previous and new version of your admin area, we recommend downloading the 3.6 version for the chosen area via the <a href="https://gadm.org/old_versions.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">GADM site</a> and comparing it to the same area on the GFW map or dashboard. Please see <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/map/guides/analyze-data-map/">this article in our Help Center</a> for instructions on how to upload shapefiles<strong><em>.</em></strong></p>



<p>As an example of this type of change, there are now five provinces in Kalimantan, Indonesia instead of four: Kalimantan Timur (East Kalimantan) has split into two areas — <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/IDN/34/?location=WyJjb3VudHJ5IiwiSUROIiwiMzQiXQ%3D%3D&map=eyJjYW5Cb3VuZCI6dHJ1ZX0%3D">Kalimantan Timur</a> and <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/IDN/35/?map=eyJjYW5Cb3VuZCI6dHJ1ZX0%3D">Kalimantan Utara (North Kalimantan)</a>.&nbsp;</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Alert subscriptions and areas saved to MyGFW accounts</h3>



<p>Users will no longer receive alert subscription emails for countries, regions or subregions saved to their MyGFW account before April 29, 2025<strong><em>.</em></strong></p>



<p>To make this change more convenient, we automatically updated political boundaries for saved countries, regions and subregions that maintained the same name between GADM versions 3.6 and 4.1. Users whose areas were automatically updated will receive an email notifying them of this change.</p>



<p>However, if you did not receive an email from us or have multiple saved political boundaries, we recommend that you re-save relevant areas of interest to your MyGFW account:</p>



<ol type="1" start="1">
<li>Navigate to your <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/my-gfw/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=email1&utm_campaign=gadmupdate">MyGFW account</a> and look for areas marked with an “outdated area, notifications paused” tag.</li>



<li>Once you have noted the country, region or subregion that is no longer receiving alert emails, navigate to <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=email1&utm_campaign=gadmupdate">www.globalforestwatch.org/map</a>.</li>



<li><a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/?map=eyJkYXRhc2V0cyI6W3siZGF0YXNldCI6InBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIiwibGF5ZXJzIjpbImRpc3B1dGVkLXBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIiwicG9saXRpY2FsLWJvdW5kYXJpZXMiXSwiYm91bmRhcnkiOnRydWUsIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9XX0%3D&mapMenu=eyJtZW51U2VjdGlvbiI6InNlYXJjaCJ9&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email1&utm_campaign=gadmupdate">Search for the area</a> or navigate to it.</li>



<li>Click on the area, select “analyze,” and then select “save in MyGFW.”</li>



<li>Customize the saved area by selecting a name, tags, alert notifications and more, and then click “save.”</li>
</ol>



<p>You will then continue to receive alert notification emails for this area.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Embeds and URLs</h3>



<p>Embeds of and links to countries, regions and subregions on the dashboard and map may now show or link to new areas. This is due to the GADM identification code changing between versions.</p>



<p>If you are using an embed that shows a political boundary, we recommend checking that it still shows the area you originally chose; if the area’s identifier changed, the embed may show an entirely new area.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">Example from Ghana where the embed shows a new area due to the area identifier changing</h4>



<iframe loading="lazy" width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/map/?mainMap=eyJzaG93QW5hbHlzaXMiOnRydWV9&map=eyJjZW50ZXIiOnsibGF0Ijo2LjkxNjA4ODMwOTEyNDQ2MiwibG5nIjotMC4zOTI1OTAxODgxNzM3Mzk5fSwiem9vbSI6OC42ODQxODM4MTA0ODgzNTMsImNhbkJvdW5kIjpmYWxzZSwiZGF0YXNldHMiOlt7ImRhdGFzZXQiOiJwb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsImxheWVycyI6WyJkaXNwdXRlZC1wb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsInBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIl0sImJvdW5kYXJ5Ijp0cnVlLCJvcGFjaXR5IjoxLCJ2aXNpYmlsaXR5Ijp0cnVlfV19&mapMenu=eyJzZWFyY2giOiJzZW5lLCBnaGFuYSJ9&mapPrompts=eyJvcGVuIjp0cnVlLCJzdGVwc0tleSI6InJlY2VudEltYWdlcnkifQ%3D%3D"></iframe>



<p>If you saved a URL that links to a political boundary, we also recommend checking that the URL still shows the desired area of interest. If it does not, follow <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/map/guides/how-to-use-map-dashboards/">these instructions</a> on how you can search for an area on the map and dashboards.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Where can I ask questions and get help?</h2>



<p>The GFW team aims to provide the latest forest monitoring updates for users and support your use of the GFW platform, and we highly value your feedback. If you have feedback on these changes or need help, please contact us at <a href="mailto:gfw@wri.org">gfw@wri.org.</a></p>



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

Global Forest Watch Has Updated Political Boundaries — Here’s What You Should Know

<p>Global Forest Watch (GFW) is constantly being updated to reflect the most recent and accurate data related to forests. To that end, we’ve updated the political boundaries available on GFW to the most recent version from the Database of Global Administrative Areas (GADM), an open-source political boundary data set. This update ensures that the map, statistics and analyses on GFW use the latest and most accurate information.</p>



<p>With this update, you may observe some changes that are important to be aware of, including changes to the names of political areas; the boundaries for countries, regions and subregions; map functionality around disputed areas; information in forest change and fire alert emails; and data set statistics.</p>



<p>This blog will walk through each of these changes — read on to learn more.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is changing and who do these changes affect?</h2>



<p>For many years, GFW has used <a href="https://gadm.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">GADM boundaries</a> as political boundaries for analyses of geospatial data hosted on GFW. When a user performs an analysis of a political boundary on the map or views statistics for a country on the dashboards, they are seeing statistics for a GADM boundary.</p>



<p>In this recent update, we moved from GADM version 3.6 to version 4.1 to provide newer and more accurate information, including renamed areas, adjustments to political borders and more.</p>



<p>Please note, however, that there are various sources of political boundaries available. You can <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/map/guides/analyze-data-map/">view instructions in our Help Center</a> on how to upload shapefiles of an alternative country, region or subregion’s boundary.</p>



<p>At the time of this article’s publication, this change is only relevant to the main GFW site, map and dashboards. GFW Pro will also update its political boundaries soon.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Which areas are affected by this update?</h2>



<p>This update includes changes in boundaries across the globe at different levels. GADM labels these different levels as “administrative units,” and breaks them down as follows: “admin 0” refers to country level, “admin 1” refers to state/province level, and “admin 2” refers to county/district level.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Country boundaries</h3>



<p>There is no official changelog available from GADM for this update, but our team has identified several changes to country boundaries. We saw small but noticeable differences in the borders of approximately 10 countries: Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Togo and Uruguay.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Subnational boundaries</h3>



<p>Our analysis also revealed several updated subnational boundaries.</p>



<p>Multiple countries added or removed regions (admin 2 areas):</p>



<table>
    <tr>
        <td>Countries</td>
        <td>Number of regions in GADM 3.6</td>
        <td>Number of regions in GADM 4.1</td>
        <td>Change </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Colombia</td>
        <td>1065</td>
        <td>1119</td>
        <td>+54 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Togo</td>
        <td>21</td>
        <td>40</td>
        <td>+19 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Djibouti</td>
        <td>11</td>
        <td>21</td>
        <td>+10 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Brunei</td>
        <td>32</td>
        <td>39</td>
        <td>+7 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>American Samoa</td>
        <td>16</td>
        <td>17</td>
        <td>+1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Benin</td>
        <td>76</td>
        <td>77</td>
        <td>+1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Chile</td>
        <td>54</td>
        <td>55</td>
        <td>+1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Costa Rica</td>
        <td>81</td>
        <td>82</td>
        <td>+1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Australia</td>
        <td>569</td>
        <td>568</td>
        <td>-1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Kenya</td>
        <td>301</td>
        <td>300</td>
        <td>-1 </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Ukraine</td>
        <td>629</td>
        <td>628</td>
        <td>-1 </td>
    </tr>
</table>



<p></p>



<p>At the subnational level, we noted some changes in names, identification codes and/or borders, especially in West and Southern Africa, Central America, South America, Europe and Southeast Asia. The yellow areas of the map below show the updated admin 2 areas that were changed: &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/gadm_changes_gold-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18783"/></figure>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Disputed boundaries</h3>



<p>One major change in this update is that some politically disputed boundaries are no longer included in any country or subnational analysis (note that GADM does not include all disputed boundaries in their data).</p>



<p>With this update, disputed areas are only included in global analysis available on the dashboards. This is because the previous GADM version (3.6) did not delineate disputed boundaries, but GADM 4.1 does: in version 4.1, disputed areas are separated from adjacent admin areas and have their own identification codes. This will mean that the GFW country analyses will no longer include any areas GADM identifies as politically disputed.</p>



<p>For example, the disputed region of Kashmir between China, Pakistan and India is now delineated in version 4.1.</p>



<div class="flourish-embed flourish-photo-slider" data-src="visualisation/22364626?163031"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script><noscript><img src="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/22364626/thumbnail" width="100%" alt="photo-slider visualization" /></noscript></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How will this update affect GFW data and statistics?</h2>



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



<p>With this update, any changes in area boundaries will result in some changes to statistics and results of analyses. If you’d like to compare the previous and new version of your admin area, we recommend downloading the 3.6 version for the chosen area via the <a href="https://gadm.org/old_versions.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">GADM site</a> and comparing it to the same area on the GFW map or dashboard. Please see <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/map/guides/analyze-data-map/">this article in our Help Center</a> for instructions on how to upload shapefiles<strong><em>.</em></strong></p>



<p>As an example of this type of change, there are now five provinces in Kalimantan, Indonesia instead of four: Kalimantan Timur (East Kalimantan) has split into two areas — <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/IDN/34/?location=WyJjb3VudHJ5IiwiSUROIiwiMzQiXQ%3D%3D&amp;map=eyJjYW5Cb3VuZCI6dHJ1ZX0%3D">Kalimantan Timur</a> and <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/IDN/35/?map=eyJjYW5Cb3VuZCI6dHJ1ZX0%3D">Kalimantan Utara (North Kalimantan)</a>.&nbsp;</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Alert subscriptions and areas saved to MyGFW accounts</h3>



<p>Users will no longer receive alert subscription emails for countries, regions or subregions saved to their MyGFW account before April 29, 2025<strong><em>.</em></strong></p>



<p>To make this change more convenient, we automatically updated political boundaries for saved countries, regions and subregions that maintained the same name between GADM versions 3.6 and 4.1. Users whose areas were automatically updated will receive an email notifying them of this change.</p>



<p>However, if you did not receive an email from us or have multiple saved political boundaries, we recommend that you re-save relevant areas of interest to your MyGFW account:</p>



<ol type="1" start="1">
<li>Navigate to your <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/my-gfw/?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=email1&amp;utm_campaign=gadmupdate">MyGFW account</a> and look for areas marked with an “outdated area, notifications paused” tag.</li>



<li>Once you have noted the country, region or subregion that is no longer receiving alert emails, navigate to <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=email1&amp;utm_campaign=gadmupdate">www.globalforestwatch.org/map</a>.</li>



<li><a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/?map=eyJkYXRhc2V0cyI6W3siZGF0YXNldCI6InBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIiwibGF5ZXJzIjpbImRpc3B1dGVkLXBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIiwicG9saXRpY2FsLWJvdW5kYXJpZXMiXSwiYm91bmRhcnkiOnRydWUsIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9XX0%3D&amp;mapMenu=eyJtZW51U2VjdGlvbiI6InNlYXJjaCJ9&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=email1&amp;utm_campaign=gadmupdate">Search for the area</a> or navigate to it.</li>



<li>Click on the area, select “analyze,” and then select “save in MyGFW.”</li>



<li>Customize the saved area by selecting a name, tags, alert notifications and more, and then click “save.”</li>
</ol>



<p>You will then continue to receive alert notification emails for this area.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Embeds and URLs</h3>



<p>Embeds of and links to countries, regions and subregions on the dashboard and map may now show or link to new areas. This is due to the GADM identification code changing between versions.</p>



<p>If you are using an embed that shows a political boundary, we recommend checking that it still shows the area you originally chose; if the area’s identifier changed, the embed may show an entirely new area.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">Example from Ghana where the embed shows a new area due to the area identifier changing</h4>



<iframe width="670" height="490" frameborder="0" src="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/embed/map/?mainMap=eyJzaG93QW5hbHlzaXMiOnRydWV9&map=eyJjZW50ZXIiOnsibGF0Ijo2LjkxNjA4ODMwOTEyNDQ2MiwibG5nIjotMC4zOTI1OTAxODgxNzM3Mzk5fSwiem9vbSI6OC42ODQxODM4MTA0ODgzNTMsImNhbkJvdW5kIjpmYWxzZSwiZGF0YXNldHMiOlt7ImRhdGFzZXQiOiJwb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsImxheWVycyI6WyJkaXNwdXRlZC1wb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsInBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIl0sImJvdW5kYXJ5Ijp0cnVlLCJvcGFjaXR5IjoxLCJ2aXNpYmlsaXR5Ijp0cnVlfV19&mapMenu=eyJzZWFyY2giOiJzZW5lLCBnaGFuYSJ9&mapPrompts=eyJvcGVuIjp0cnVlLCJzdGVwc0tleSI6InJlY2VudEltYWdlcnkifQ%3D%3D"></iframe>



<p>If you saved a URL that links to a political boundary, we also recommend checking that the URL still shows the desired area of interest. If it does not, follow <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/map/guides/how-to-use-map-dashboards/">these instructions</a> on how you can search for an area on the map and dashboards.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Where can I ask questions and get help?</h2>



<p>The GFW team aims to provide the latest forest monitoring updates for users and support your use of the GFW platform, and we highly value your feedback. If you have feedback on these changes or need help, please contact us at <a href="mailto:gfw@wri.org">gfw@wri.org.</a></p>



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

Global Forest Watch Has Updated Political Boundaries — Here's What You Should Know

We’ve updated the political boundaries available on GFW using the latest and most accurate information. Learn about the changes in our blog.

Global Forest Watch has Updated Political Boundaries

Global Forest Watch Has Updated Political Boundaries — Here&#8217;s What You Should Know

Comment

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

Paige Johnson

Users In Action

Hear stories from the forest defenders working in the field.

Users In Action | Global Forest Watch Blog

deforestation

deforestation | Global Forest Watch Blog

Indonesia

Indonesia | Global Forest Watch Blog

logging

logging | Global Forest Watch Blog

Mirzha Hanifah

Benita Nathania

Deden Pramudyana

Harnessing Technology, Raising a New Generation of Forest Monitors

WRI Indonesia and the IFM Fund are laying the groundwork for a new generation of forest monitors to contribute to environmental protection in Indonesia.

Harnessing Technology, Raising a New Generation of Forest Monitors | Users In Action | Global Forest Watch Blog

carbon

carbon | Global Forest Watch Blog

policy

policy | Global Forest Watch Blog

David Gibbs

Melissa Rose

Nancy Harris

Giacomo Grassi

New Research Aligns Country and Global Satellite Data for Improved Forest Carbon Reporting

New research "translates" global forest carbon flux data into the same categories countries use to report their national GHG inventories.

Cocoa

Cocoa | Global Forest Watch Blog

commodities

commodities | Global Forest Watch Blog

Sofia Tenorio Fenton

Caroline Winchester

Sofia Scharrer

Ariana Carter

ECOM Research Team

<p>Cocoa production has been linked to high rates of deforestation and biodiversity loss, making it a significant contributor to environmental degradation. Addressing and mitigating these negative impacts is essential for achieving a more sustainable cocoa supply chain.</p>



<p>ECOM, one of the world’s largest cocoa traders and processors that sources from over 30 countries, has made it a priority to reduce the negative impacts from their operations. One way they are doing so is by applying a standardized methodology developed by World Resources Institute (WRI) to ensure the cocoa beans they use are sustainably sourced and are not linked to forest loss.</p>



<p>Recognizing that collective action is critical to ending deforestation and no one company can tackle the problem alone, ECOM joined the <a href="https://worldcocoafoundation.org/programmes-and-initiatives/cocoa-and-forests-initiative" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Cocoa & Forests Initiative</a> (CFI), facilitated by the World Cocoa Foundation (WCF) and the Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH), and established in 2017 with the aim of ending cocoa-driven deforestation and restoring forest areas. Companies that joined the CFI agreed to map their supply chains, align methodologies on deforestation risk assessment and contribute to transparent monitoring and reporting.</p>



<p>To support these efforts, World Resources Institute (WRI) partnered with WCF and 19 major cocoa and chocolate companies to create <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/data-resources-ending-deforestation-cocoa-west-africa/">two data-driven resources</a> available on GFW — the <a href="https://gfw.global/4bEEES2">West Africa Cocoa dataset</a> and the <a href="https://data.globalforestwatch.org/documents/gfw::cocoa-deforestation-risk-assessment/about">Cocoa Deforestation Risk Assessment (DRA)</a> — that ECOM has adapted and scaled to additional regions to secure a more sustainable cocoa supply chain.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1430" height="868" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Cocoa-Deforestation-Risk-Assessment-Priority-2023.png" alt="" class="wp-image-16731" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Cocoa-Deforestation-Risk-Assessment-Priority-2023.png 1430w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Cocoa-Deforestation-Risk-Assessment-Priority-2023-1024x622.png 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Cocoa-Deforestation-Risk-Assessment-Priority-2023-768x466.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Proactively identifying deforestation risk in cocoa supply chains</h2>



<p>Prior to the Cocoa DRA, ECOM relied on broader, less tailored tools such as national level risk assessments or global data sets like the ones available on GFW. With the release of the Cocoa DRA, ECOM was able to adapt <a href="https://www.wri.org/research/mapping-cocoa-assessing-deforestation-risk-cocoa-cote-divoire-ghana" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">its methodology</a> to carry out widespread risk assessment in a standardized manner, expanding the model to other geographies and analyzing data from Cameroon, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Ghana, Nigeria, Peru, Mexico, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Vietnam and Uganda.</p>



<p>The flexibility of the Cocoa DRA has enabled ECOM to leverage global data and peer-reviewed methods while supplementing these with their own farm boundary data and ground verification (which is an essential component of cocoa monitoring since satellites can have trouble detecting cocoa grown under shade canopies).</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="602" height="205" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Picture1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18569"/></figure>



<p>Once high-risk areas have been identified, ECOM works with smallholder farmers to proactively tackle cocoa-linked deforestation, focusing on prevention through strategies like sensitization training or Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs. The focus on high-risk locations enables further engagement with farmers and remediation to avoid excluding them from the supply chain, which can lead to worse outcomes and accelerate deforestation.</p>



<p>For example, since 2021, ECOM has partnered with a customer and local farming communities in Ghana to promote agroforestry through a PES initiative. The program provides farmers with multi-purpose shade trees, and farmers receive financial incentives for maintaining these trees over three years, boosting adoption rates. To ensure the program’s success and its meaningful contributions to local biodiversity and ecosystem health, ECOM conducted comprehensive land assessments prior to implementation. These assessments identified suitable tree species and accounted for farmers’ needs. The initiative includes training in Good Agricultural Practices, environmental stewardship and business management. A progress report due later in 2025 will highlight its impact on biodiversity and ecosystem health.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="2048" height="1363" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Ghana-SourceTrust-1-2048x1363.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18570" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Ghana-SourceTrust-1-2048x1363.jpg 2048w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Ghana-SourceTrust-1-1024x681.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Ghana-SourceTrust-1-768x511.jpg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Ghana-SourceTrust-1-1536x1022.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: ECOM</figcaption></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Beyond regulatory compliance</h2>



<p>As the cocoa sector is focused on preparing for compliance with regulations like the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), it is crucial to recognize the continued importance of solutions and approaches that go beyond near-term compliance needs to effectively address sector-wide, systemic challenges.<strong></strong></p>



<p>While regulatory compliance assessments are focused on whether deforestation risk occurred after a given cut-off date, they often do not help identify future deforestation risk or inform collective action. The Cocoa DRA is intended to support better allocation of resources for halting deforestation and to enable collaborative approaches among cocoa supply chain actors where they’re most urgently needed to address deforestation.</p>



<p>For example, in Côte d’Ivoire, ECOM is using information gained from the Cocoa DRA to inform multiple efforts aiming to protect forests and support sustainability. In one project, they’re collaborating with the <a href="https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/32209.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Green Innovation Centre of GIZ</a>, the German Corporation for International Cooperation, to provide training and awareness-raising to help farmers adapt to climate change, build resilience and increase incomes through climate-smart cocoa and agroforestry. Around the protected areas of the Bossematié Nature Reserve and the Beki Classified Forest, ECOM is working to tackle deforestation and improve conservation by helping farmers in the forest buffer zone transition to agroforestry. They collaborated with GIZ to develop a management plan for the Reserve’s buffer zone and are now developing an incentive scheme based on carbon stocks and additional planting of trees for promoting agroforestry practices.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="2048" height="1365" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Cote-dIvoire-Daloa-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18571" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Cote-dIvoire-Daloa-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Cote-dIvoire-Daloa-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Cote-dIvoire-Daloa-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Cote-dIvoire-Daloa-1536x1024.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: ECOM</figcaption></figure>



<p>Additionally, two briquette production units are being installed within two of ECOM’s partner cooperatives to promote the use of sustainable briquettes made from organic waste. This initiative aims to reduce reliance on firewood to help prevent deforestation.</p>



<p>Finally, ECOM is also supporting local nurseries to develop plants for on- and off-farm planting and distributing trees to further accelerate the transition to agroforestry. This will all be supported by a local plan to monitor and prevent deforestation. </p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="2048" height="1356" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Peru-Forestry-2048x1356.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18572" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Peru-Forestry-2048x1356.jpg 2048w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Peru-Forestry-1024x678.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Peru-Forestry-768x509.jpg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Peru-Forestry-1536x1017.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: ECOM</figcaption></figure>



<p>Using the Cocoa DRA and complementary data and tools, ECOM will continue ongoing monitoring efforts aimed at identifying and preventing future deforestation. This is a great step in the right direction, but ultimately, companies like ECOM need more solutions that can encourage collaborative approaches and continued innovation that prioritizes the needs of cocoa farmers and their communities. Only then can we truly achieve deforestation-free supply chains.</p>



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

Better Cocoa for the Planet: How ECOM is Reducing Deforestation in Their Supply Chain

<p>Cocoa production has been linked to high rates of deforestation and biodiversity loss, making it a significant contributor to environmental degradation. Addressing and mitigating these negative impacts is essential for achieving a more sustainable cocoa supply chain.</p>



<p>ECOM, one of the world’s largest cocoa traders and processors that sources from over 30 countries, has made it a priority to reduce the negative impacts from their operations. One way they are doing so is by applying a standardized methodology developed by World Resources Institute (WRI) to ensure the cocoa beans they use are sustainably sourced and are not linked to forest loss.</p>



<p>Recognizing that collective action is critical to ending deforestation and no one company can tackle the problem alone, ECOM joined the <a href="https://worldcocoafoundation.org/programmes-and-initiatives/cocoa-and-forests-initiative" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Cocoa &amp; Forests Initiative</a> (CFI), facilitated by the World Cocoa Foundation (WCF) and the Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH), and established in 2017 with the aim of ending cocoa-driven deforestation and restoring forest areas. Companies that joined the CFI agreed to map their supply chains, align methodologies on deforestation risk assessment and contribute to transparent monitoring and reporting.</p>



<p>To support these efforts, World Resources Institute (WRI) partnered with WCF and 19 major cocoa and chocolate companies to create <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/data-resources-ending-deforestation-cocoa-west-africa/">two data-driven resources</a> available on GFW — the <a href="https://gfw.global/4bEEES2">West Africa Cocoa dataset</a> and the <a href="https://data.globalforestwatch.org/documents/gfw::cocoa-deforestation-risk-assessment/about">Cocoa Deforestation Risk Assessment (DRA)</a> — that ECOM has adapted and scaled to additional regions to secure a more sustainable cocoa supply chain.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Cocoa-Deforestation-Risk-Assessment-Priority-2023.png" alt="" class="wp-image-16731"/></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Proactively identifying deforestation risk in cocoa supply chains</h2>



<p>Prior to the Cocoa DRA, ECOM relied on broader, less tailored tools such as national level risk assessments or global data sets like the ones available on GFW. With the release of the Cocoa DRA, ECOM was able to adapt <a href="https://www.wri.org/research/mapping-cocoa-assessing-deforestation-risk-cocoa-cote-divoire-ghana" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">its methodology</a> to carry out widespread risk assessment in a standardized manner, expanding the model to other geographies and analyzing data from Cameroon, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Ghana, Nigeria, Peru, Mexico, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Vietnam and Uganda.</p>



<p>The flexibility of the Cocoa DRA has enabled ECOM to leverage global data and peer-reviewed methods while supplementing these with their own farm boundary data and ground verification (which is an essential component of cocoa monitoring since satellites can have trouble detecting cocoa grown under shade canopies).</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Picture1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18569"/></figure>



<p>Once high-risk areas have been identified, ECOM works with smallholder farmers to proactively tackle cocoa-linked deforestation, focusing on prevention through strategies like sensitization training or Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs. The focus on high-risk locations enables further engagement with farmers and remediation to avoid excluding them from the supply chain, which can lead to worse outcomes and accelerate deforestation.</p>



<p>For example, since 2021, ECOM has partnered with a customer and local farming communities in Ghana to promote agroforestry through a PES initiative. The program provides farmers with multi-purpose shade trees, and farmers receive financial incentives for maintaining these trees over three years, boosting adoption rates. To ensure the program's success and its meaningful contributions to local biodiversity and ecosystem health, ECOM conducted comprehensive land assessments prior to implementation. These assessments identified suitable tree species and accounted for farmers’ needs. The initiative includes training in Good Agricultural Practices, environmental stewardship and business management. A progress report due later in 2025 will highlight its impact on biodiversity and ecosystem health.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Ghana-SourceTrust-1-2048x1363.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18570"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: ECOM</figcaption></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Beyond regulatory compliance</h2>



<p>As the cocoa sector is focused on preparing for compliance with regulations like the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), it is crucial to recognize the continued importance of solutions and approaches that go beyond near-term compliance needs to effectively address sector-wide, systemic challenges.<strong></strong></p>



<p>While regulatory compliance assessments are focused on whether deforestation risk occurred after a given cut-off date, they often do not help identify future deforestation risk or inform collective action. The Cocoa DRA is intended to support better allocation of resources for halting deforestation and to enable collaborative approaches among cocoa supply chain actors where they’re most urgently needed to address deforestation.</p>



<p>For example, in Côte d’Ivoire, ECOM is using information gained from the Cocoa DRA to inform multiple efforts aiming to protect forests and support sustainability. In one project, they’re collaborating with the <a href="https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/32209.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Green Innovation Centre of GIZ</a>, the German Corporation for International Cooperation, to provide training and awareness-raising to help farmers adapt to climate change, build resilience and increase incomes through climate-smart cocoa and agroforestry. Around the protected areas of the Bossematié Nature Reserve and the Beki Classified Forest, ECOM is working to tackle deforestation and improve conservation by helping farmers in the forest buffer zone transition to agroforestry. They collaborated with GIZ to develop a management plan for the Reserve’s buffer zone and are now developing an incentive scheme based on carbon stocks and additional planting of trees for promoting agroforestry practices.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Cote-dIvoire-Daloa-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18571"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: ECOM</figcaption></figure>



<p>Additionally, two briquette production units are being installed within two of ECOM’s partner cooperatives to promote the use of sustainable briquettes made from organic waste. This initiative aims to reduce reliance on firewood to help prevent deforestation.</p>



<p>Finally, ECOM is also supporting local nurseries to develop plants for on- and off-farm planting and distributing trees to further accelerate the transition to agroforestry. This will all be supported by a local plan to monitor and prevent deforestation. </p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Peru-Forestry-2048x1356.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18572"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Credit: ECOM</figcaption></figure>



<p>Using the Cocoa DRA and complementary data and tools, ECOM will continue ongoing monitoring efforts aimed at identifying and preventing future deforestation. This is a great step in the right direction, but ultimately, companies like ECOM need more solutions that can encourage collaborative approaches and continued innovation that prioritizes the needs of cocoa farmers and their communities. Only then can we truly achieve deforestation-free supply chains.</p>



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

Cocoa trader ECOM shows how companies can use data-driven resources reduce deforestation in their cocoa supply chains.

Better Cocoa: How ECOM is Reducing Deforestation in Their Supply Chain

forest change

forest change | Global Forest Watch Blog

Michelle Sims

Elise Mazur

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



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

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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



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

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

New Data Distinguishes Natural Forests from Other Tree Cover

Forest Insights

Forest Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

fires

fires | Global Forest Watch Blog

James MacCarthy

Jessica Richter

4 Graphics Explain Los Angeles’ Rare and Devastating January Fires

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

Tree cover gain 2000-2020 visualized on the GFW map

Mikaela Weisse

Katie Reytar

Peter Potapov

Sarah Carter

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



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



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



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



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

Exploring Tree Cover Gain and Net Change on Global Forest Watch

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



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



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



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



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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

Exploring New Tree Cover Gain and Net Change Data | GFW

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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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





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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

Updated Planted Trees Map Reaches Near-Global Coverage

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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





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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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

Deforestation Alerts

Deforestation Alerts | Global Forest Watch Blog

Zhen Song

Alyssa Barrett

Anika Berger

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



<p></p>



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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

Disturbance Alerts for All Vegetation Globally Now on GFW

restoration

restoration | Global Forest Watch Blog

Victoria Rachmaninoff

René Zamora-Cristales

Tree Cover Is Still Declining Overall in Latin America, but New Data Shows Where It’s Coming Back

New analysis from WRI and UMD shows that while Latin America lost more tree cover than it gained from 2015 to 2023, restoration progress is being made.

Tree Cover Is Still Declining Overall in Latin America, but New Data Shows Where It’s Coming Back | Forest Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Did you use Planet satellite imagery on GFW? Please tell us how this change affects you in our <a href="https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/8260607/Planet-blog" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">short survey here</a>.</h3>



<p>Recent, high-resolution satellite imagery is essential for providing context to other data layers available on Global Forest Watch (GFW), such as interpreting drivers of tree cover change, identifying possible causes of near-real-time deforestation alerts, and in validation protocols to assess accuracy of land and forest cover and change products.</p>



<p>Launched in 2020, Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI) partnered with Planet and Kongsberg Satellite Services (KSAT) to provide high-resolution Planet imagery for free, including on GFW, through their Satellite Data Program.</p>



<p>However, the current phase of the program has ended, and <strong>Planet imagery is no longer available on GFW as of April 1, 2025</strong> — but GFW will continue to provide other satellite imagery. Here is what you need to know.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is Planet imagery?</h2>



<p>Planet’s high-resolution, analysis-ready mosaics (single images that combine multiple satellite images) of the world’s tropics are natural color images using information from visible light (red, green and blue) to show Earth’s surface as it would appear to the human eye. They are available biannually from December 2015 – May 2020, quarterly for June 2020 – August 2020, and monthly since September 2020.</p>



<p>Over the last few years, many GFW users have benefitted from Planet data, such as organizations like Mighty Earth and HAkA <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/people/video-patrol-leuser-ecosystem-forest-defenders-haka/">combatting illegal deforestation</a>, those <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/satellite-data-eu-regulation-deforestation-free-supply-chains/">responding to policies such as EUDR</a>, and those reporting on deforestation and other critical forest-related news like Mongabay.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What are the changes to Planet on GFW?</h2>



<p><strong>Planet imagery was removed from GFW on April 1, 2025.</strong> This means that as of April 1, new Planet mosaics AND historical mosaics are no longer available on GFW.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What alternative satellite imagery can I use on GFW?</h2>



<p>GFW offers several other imagery sources that are already available to users and can be used to support their work. If resolution is most important, <a href="https://gfw.global/4hQKGAQ">Google satellite imagery</a>, which is available globally for the past 1-3 years, has a resolution that ranges from 15 meters to 15 centimeters depending on the location. For alternative sources of recent data, imagery from the <a href="https://gfw.global/4l7PnJi">Landsat 8 (30-meter resolution) and Sentinel-2A (10-meter resolution)</a> satellites is also available since 2012 and is updated daily on GFW.</p>



<p>Since all imagery has different characteristics (e.g. time periods available and update frequency), users should assess which is most suited to their needs.</p>



<p>To learn more about how to use the satellite imagery currently available on GFW to investigate forest change please <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/map/guides/investigate-forest-change-satellite-imagery/">visit our Help Center</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Will new satellite imagery be available through the NICFI program in the future?</h2>



<p>NICFI plans to continue the Satellite Data Program, however, they are in the process of developing a new phase, to be launched later this year. As part of this process, NICFI is evaluating satellite data providers as well as other details of the program (such as frequency and type of data).</p>



<p>Once NICFI is ready to launch the new phase of the Satellite Data Program, GFW will explore whether we will add any new satellite imagery to the platform.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How can I stay updated on these changes?</h2>



<p>To stay up to date with the latest developments on the NICFI Satellite Data Program, please sign up for the&nbsp;<a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nicfi.no%2Fnewsletter%2F&data=05%7C02%7CIsabela.Barriga%40wri.org%7C51c383e67cd4426038fd08dd3a349078%7C476bac1f36b24ad98699cda6bad1f862%7C0%7C0%7C638730719665838145%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qcUFo47GOA4SkhXMOI8EvdXKIUlFp4b1KpOYWi%2FjD2Y%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">NICFI newsletter</a>. You can learn more about Planet in their <a href="https://support.planet.com/hc/en-us" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Help Center</a>.</p>



<p>We will also update this blog as new information is available. You can always see the latest updates about data changes and outages in the notifications on the GFW main menu:</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1738" height="902" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GFW-notice-board.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18675" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GFW-notice-board.png 1738w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GFW-notice-board-1024x531.png 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GFW-notice-board-768x399.png 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GFW-notice-board-1536x797.png 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 1738px) 100vw, 1738px" /></figure>



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

Planet Imagery is No Longer Available on GFW — Here’s What You Should Know

<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Did you use Planet satellite imagery on GFW? Please tell us how this change affects you in our <a href="https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/8260607/Planet-blog" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">short survey here</a>.</h3>



<p>Recent, high-resolution satellite imagery is essential for providing context to other data layers available on Global Forest Watch (GFW), such as interpreting drivers of tree cover change, identifying possible causes of near-real-time deforestation alerts, and in validation protocols to assess accuracy of land and forest cover and change products.</p>



<p>Launched in 2020, Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI) partnered with Planet and Kongsberg Satellite Services (KSAT) to provide high-resolution Planet imagery for free, including on GFW, through their Satellite Data Program.</p>



<p>However, the current phase of the program has ended, and <strong>Planet imagery is no longer available on GFW as of April 1, 2025</strong> — but GFW will continue to provide other satellite imagery. Here is what you need to know.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is Planet imagery?</h2>



<p>Planet’s high-resolution, analysis-ready mosaics (single images that combine multiple satellite images) of the world’s tropics are natural color images using information from visible light (red, green and blue) to show Earth’s surface as it would appear to the human eye. They are available biannually from December 2015 - May 2020, quarterly for June 2020 - August 2020, and monthly since September 2020.</p>



<p>Over the last few years, many GFW users have benefitted from Planet data, such as organizations like Mighty Earth and HAkA <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/people/video-patrol-leuser-ecosystem-forest-defenders-haka/">combatting illegal deforestation</a>, those <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/satellite-data-eu-regulation-deforestation-free-supply-chains/">responding to policies such as EUDR</a>, and those reporting on deforestation and other critical forest-related news like Mongabay.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What are the changes to Planet on GFW?</h2>



<p><strong>Planet imagery was removed from GFW on April 1, 2025.</strong> This means that as of April 1, new Planet mosaics AND historical mosaics are no longer available on GFW.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What alternative satellite imagery can I use on GFW?</h2>



<p>GFW offers several other imagery sources that are already available to users and can be used to support their work. If resolution is most important, <a href="https://gfw.global/4hQKGAQ">Google satellite imagery</a>, which is available globally for the past 1-3 years, has a resolution that ranges from 15 meters to 15 centimeters depending on the location. For alternative sources of recent data, imagery from the <a href="https://gfw.global/4l7PnJi">Landsat 8 (30-meter resolution) and Sentinel-2A (10-meter resolution)</a> satellites is also available since 2012 and is updated daily on GFW.</p>



<p>Since all imagery has different characteristics (e.g. time periods available and update frequency), users should assess which is most suited to their needs.</p>



<p>To learn more about how to use the satellite imagery currently available on GFW to investigate forest change please <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/map/guides/investigate-forest-change-satellite-imagery/">visit our Help Center</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Will new satellite imagery be available through the NICFI program in the future?</h2>



<p>NICFI plans to continue the Satellite Data Program, however, they are in the process of developing a new phase, to be launched later this year. As part of this process, NICFI is evaluating satellite data providers as well as other details of the program (such as frequency and type of data).</p>



<p>Once NICFI is ready to launch the new phase of the Satellite Data Program, GFW will explore whether we will add any new satellite imagery to the platform.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How can I stay updated on these changes?</h2>



<p>To stay up to date with the latest developments on the NICFI Satellite Data Program, please sign up for the&nbsp;<a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nicfi.no%2Fnewsletter%2F&amp;data=05%7C02%7CIsabela.Barriga%40wri.org%7C51c383e67cd4426038fd08dd3a349078%7C476bac1f36b24ad98699cda6bad1f862%7C0%7C0%7C638730719665838145%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=qcUFo47GOA4SkhXMOI8EvdXKIUlFp4b1KpOYWi%2FjD2Y%3D&amp;reserved=0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">NICFI newsletter</a>. You can learn more about Planet in their <a href="https://support.planet.com/hc/en-us" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Help Center</a>.</p>



<p>We will also update this blog as new information is available. You can always see the latest updates about data changes and outages in the notifications on the GFW main menu:</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GFW-notice-board.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18675"/></figure>



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

Planet Imagery is No Longer Available on GFW — Here's What You Should Know

<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong><em>Apakah Anda menggunakan citra satelit Planet di GFW? Beritahu kami bagaimana perubahan ini mempengaruhi Anda dalam </em></strong><a href="https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/8260607/Planet-blog" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong><em>survei singkat kami di sini</em></strong></a><strong><em>.</em></strong> </h3>



<p>Citra satelit resolusi tinggi terbaru sangat penting untuk memberikan konteks pada lapisan data lain yang tersedia di Global Forest Watch (GFW), seperti menginterpretasikan faktor pendorong perubahan tutupan pohon, mengidentifikasi kemungkinan penyebab peringatan deforestasi secara nyaris seketika, serta digunakan dalam proses validasi awal untuk menilai akurasi data tutupan dan perubahan hutan dan lahan.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Diluncurkan pada 2020, Inisiatif Iklim dan Hutan Internasional Norwegia (NICFI) bekerja sama dengan Planet dan Kongsberg Satellite Services (KSAT) untuk menyediakan citra resolusi tinggi dari Planet secara gratis, termasuk melalui platform GFW, lewat program mereka yang bernama Program Data Satelit.  </p>



<p>Namun, saat ini program tersebut telah berakhir, dan citra Planet tidak lagi tersedia di GFW per 1 April 2025, tetapi GFW akan terus menyediakan citra satelit lainnya. Inilah yang perlu Anda ketahui.&nbsp;</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Apa yang dimaksud dengan citra Planet? </h2>



<p>Citra Planet adalah mosaik resolusi tinggi yang siap dianalisis, yaitu gabungan dari beberapa citra satelit menjadi satu gambar utuh. Citra ini menampilkan kawasan tropis dalam warna alami, menggunakan kombinasi cahaya tampak (merah, hijau, dan biru) sehingga permukaan Bumi terlihat seperti yang tampak oleh mata manusia. Citra ini tersedia dua kali setahun dari Desember 2015 hingga Mei 2020, empat kali setahun pada periode Juni-Agustus 2020, dan setiap bulan sejak September 2020.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Selama beberapa tahun terakhir, banyak pengguna GFW yang telah mendapatkan manfaat dari data Planet. Misalnya, organisasi seperti Mighty Earth dan Yayasan Hutan, Alam, dan Lingkungan Aceh (HAkA) <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/people/video-patrol-leuser-ecosystem-forest-defenders-haka/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">dalam memerangi deforestasi</a>, para pihak yang <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/satellite-data-eu-regulation-deforestation-free-supply-chains/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">merespons kebijakan seperti EUDR</a>, serta media seperti Mongabay yang melaporkan deforestasi dan isu penting lainnya terkait hutan.&nbsp;</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Apa saja perubahan yang terjadi pada Citra Planet di GFW? </h2>



<p><strong>Mulai 1 April 2025, citra Planet telah dihapus dari platform GFW</strong>. Artinya, sejak tanggal tersebut, baik mosaik Planet terbaru DAN arsip mosaik sebelumnya sudah tidak lagi tersedia di GFW. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Citra satelit alternatif apa yang dapat saya gunakan di GFW? </h2>



<p>GFW masih menyediakan beberapa sumber citra satelit lain yang&nbsp; yang dapat digunakan untuk mendukung pekerjaan pengguna. Jika resolusi menjadi prioritas utama, <a href="https://gfw.global/4hQKGAQ" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">citra satelit Google</a> bisa menjadi pilihan. Citra ini tersedia secara global untuk kurun waktu 1-3 tahun terakhir dengan resolusi yang berkisar antara 15 meter hingga 15 sentimeter tergantung pada lokasinya. Untuk sumber alternatif data terbaru, GFW juga menyediakan citra dari satelit <a href="https://gfw.global/4l7PnJi" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Landsat 8 (resolusi 30 meter) dan Sentinel-2A (resolusi 10 meter)</a> yang tersedia sejak tahun 2012 dan diperbarui setiap hari di GFW.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Karena masing-masing sumber citra satelit memiliki karakteristik yang berbeda (misalnya periode waktu yang tersedia dan frekuensi pembaruan), pengguna disarankan untuk menyesuaikan pilihan berdasarkan kebutuhan masing-masing.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Untuk mempelajari lebih lanjut mengenai cara menggunakan citra satelit yang tersedia di GFW untuk menginvestigasi perubahan hutan, silakan kunjungi <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/help/map/guides/investigate-forest-change-satellite-imagery/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pusat Bantuan kami</a>.&nbsp;</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Apakah akan ada citra satelit baru dari program NICFI di masa depan? </h2>



<p>NICFI berencana untuk melanjutkan Program Data Satelit, namun saat ini mereka sedang mempersiapkan fase baru yang akan diluncurkan akhir tahun ini. Dalam proses ini, NICFI sedang mengevaluasi penyedia data satelit serta berbagai aspek lain dari programnya, seperti frekuensi pembaruan dan jenis data yang akan disediakan.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Setelah NICFI siap untuk meluncurkan fase baru dari Program Data Satelit, GFW akan mempertimbangkan kemungkinan untuk menambahkan citra satelit baru ke dalam platform ini.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Bagaimana cara saya tetap mendapatkan informasi terbaru terkait perubahan ini? </h2>



<p>Untuk mengikuti perkembangan terbaru dari Program Data Satelit NICFI, silakan mendaftar ke <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nicfi.no%2Fnewsletter%2F&amp;data=05%7C02%7CIsabela.Barriga%40wri.org%7C51c383e67cd4426038fd08dd3a349078%7C476bac1f36b24ad98699cda6bad1f862%7C0%7C0%7C638730719665838145%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=qcUFo47GOA4SkhXMOI8EvdXKIUlFp4b1KpOYWi%2FjD2Y%3D&amp;reserved=0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">buletin NICFI</a>. Anda juga bisa mempelajari lebih lanjut tentang Planet melalui <a href="https://support.planet.com/hc/en-us" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pusat Bantuan</a> mereka.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Kami akan terus memperbarui blog ini seiring dengan ketersediaan informasi baru. Selain itu, Anda juga bisa melihat update terkini mengenai perubahan data atau gangguan layanan melalui notifikasi pada menu utama GFW:&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GFW-notice-board.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18675"/></figure>



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

Citra Planet Tidak Lagi Tersedia di GFW - Inilah yang Harus Anda Ketahui 

Planet imagery is no longer available on GFW as of April 1 2025, but GFW continues to provide other satellite imagery. Here's what you should know.

Planet Imagery is No Longer Available on GFW — Here&#8217;s What You Should Know

Biodiversity

Biodiversity | Global Forest Watch Blog

forest quality

forest quality | Global Forest Watch Blog

mexico

mexico | Global Forest Watch Blog

Stephanie Borcea

Eligio García Serrano

Ramón Guadarrama León

Salvador Huitrón García

Elizabeth Espinoza Hernández

Fernanda González Kohrs

Erick Noé Huitrón García

<p>Every fall, one of the planet’s most extraordinary natural spectacles occurs amid the fir forests of central Mexico: Millions of monarch butterflies land here to find respite from the cooling winter temperatures in northeastern U.S. and Canada for their annual hibernation. It is a phenomenon that the <a href="https://monarchconservation.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Monarch Butterfly Fund</a> affectionately refers to as “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDmKBvztIbk&t=1s" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the arrival of the sun’s daughters</a>.” The sight is both visually splendid and culturally important to the people of Mexico. Several myths surround this phenomenon, <a href="https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/tackle-climate-change/climate-change-stories/monarch-butterflies-us-mexico/#:~:text=As%20pollinators%2C%20the%20monarch%20butterfly,enjoy%2C%20like%20squash%20and%20blueberries" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">such as beliefs that monarch butterflies are returning souls of loved ones</a>. &nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1323" height="1600" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/SANTUARIO_MONARCA_HERRADA_SHG.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-18600" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/SANTUARIO_MONARCA_HERRADA_SHG.jpeg 1323w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/SANTUARIO_MONARCA_HERRADA_SHG-847x1024.jpeg 847w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/SANTUARIO_MONARCA_HERRADA_SHG-768x929.jpeg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/SANTUARIO_MONARCA_HERRADA_SHG-1270x1536.jpeg 1270w" sizes="(max-width: 1323px) 100vw, 1323px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Monarch butterfly sanctuary “Piedra Herrada.” Credit: Salvador Huitrón García</figcaption></figure>



<p>This incredible event, a critical part of the monarchs’ life cycle, depends on Mexico’s forests. However, these forests are feeling the effects of global climate change. One of the effects is the rise of pests; a problem that is not unique to Mexico, forests pests are a growing threat in many other countries (for example, in 2024, WRI reported that forest pests are <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/europe-forest-loss-drivers" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a growing threat to Europe’s forests</a>).  </p>



<p>To help tackle this issue in Mexico’s Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, Global Forest Watch (GFW) Small Grants Fund recipient <a href="https://focenmexico.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Neovolcanic Axis Conservation Fund (FOCEN)</a> has developed a novel approach, combining alerts on GFW’s Forest Watcher app and complementary technology like drones to monitor pests and inform actions to eradicate them.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A new challenge for monarchs and monitoring: Forest pests</h2>



<p>FOCEN works regionally to create alliances for the conservation, restoration and responsible use of natural resources in central Mexico. Since 2000, FOCEN has worked to conserve the valuable forests in Mexico’s Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve (MBBR), a <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/how-see-mexico-monarch-butterfly-migration#:~:text=Travelers%20can%20help%20protect%20these,on%20UNESCO's%20World%20Heritage%20list.&text=In%20one%20of%20the%20planet's,fir%20forests%20of%20Central%20Mexico" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">UNESCO World Heritage Site</a>. Through the <a href="https://focenmexico.org/fondo-monarca" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund (Monarch Fund)</a>, FOCEN has facilitated a scheme that provides economic incentives for the payment of ecosystem services to forest owners (ejidos — small landowners and Indigenous communities) across 12,367 hectares of forests, 91% of which are within MBBR’s core zone.</p>



<p>In 2021, after receiving a grant from GFW’s Small Grants Fund, FOCEN set out to address forest disturbance in the MBBR.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1600" height="761" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MIRADOR_PENA_BLANCA_SHG.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-18601" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MIRADOR_PENA_BLANCA_SHG.jpeg 1600w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MIRADOR_PENA_BLANCA_SHG-1024x487.jpeg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MIRADOR_PENA_BLANCA_SHG-768x365.jpeg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MIRADOR_PENA_BLANCA_SHG-1536x731.jpeg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 1600px) 100vw, 1600px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Peña Blanca viewpoint, “Sierra Chincua” monarch butterfly sanctuary. Credit: Salvador Huitrón García</figcaption></figure>



<p>While conducting initial field investigations using Forest Watcher to identify areas of degradation and create reports on their findings, they quickly discovered that the primary cause of forest degradation in the Reserve is forest pests, specifically bark beetles, which attack weakened trees. Worse, they discovered that the beetles are continuing to spread as temperatures and drought increase, threatening forest habitat that is critical for monarch butterfly migration and overwintering.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1545" height="2000" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Imagen_Descortezadores_JL-Gallardo.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18602" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Imagen_Descortezadores_JL-Gallardo.png 1545w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Imagen_Descortezadores_JL-Gallardo-791x1024.png 791w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Imagen_Descortezadores_JL-Gallardo-768x994.png 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Imagen_Descortezadores_JL-Gallardo-1187x1536.png 1187w" sizes="(max-width: 1545px) 100vw, 1545px" /></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A new way to use Forest Watcher and monitoring tools</h2>



<p>FOCEN worked quickly to mobilize on this new finding. Teaming up with technical monitoring partner <a href="https://www.instagram.com/ambiomas_org/reels/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Ambiomas Acciones y Respuestas Adaptativas (Ambiomas)</a>, they adapted their project and set out to create an early warning system for monitoring forest pests and to develop capacity for using the system and monitoring the forest in a new way. &nbsp;</p>



<p>As a first step, FOCEN and Ambiomas recognized that engaging forest owners and community members living in and around the Reserve was essential. They created a comprehensive course with a corresponding manual and led a two-day intensive training event for 14 people on using Forest Watcher. Over the course of six months, community technicians from the participating ejidos and communities, with the support of Ambiomas and FOCEN, conducted more than 100 field visits and produced more than 1,000 reports on observations of forest degradation in the field. This provided the data needed to inform FOCEN’s development of an early warning system. &nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1600" height="1200" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAPACITACION_TECNICOS_SHG.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-18603" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAPACITACION_TECNICOS_SHG.jpeg 1600w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAPACITACION_TECNICOS_SHG-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAPACITACION_TECNICOS_SHG-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAPACITACION_TECNICOS_SHG-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 1600px) 100vw, 1600px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Training of community technicians from the Senguio ejido by the Ambiomas team. Credit: Salvador Huitrón García</figcaption></figure>



<p>Next, FOCEN and Ambiomas, with support from GFW and the Monarch Butterfly Fund, took a multi-pronged approach to creating the early warning system. Realizing the time commitment of ground patrols and the limitations of satellite imagery, they incorporated multispectral drone technology that can capture data in multiple wavelengths beyond the visible spectrum (red, green, blue) to complement field visits and provide high-resolution imagery of forest degradation that satellites cannot always capture.</p>



<p>They selected five watersheds to assess that had historical records of monarch butterfly hibernation and that are critical to communities. After conducting drone flights, they used a Tree Density Calculator algorithm (available as a QGIS plugin) that provides an estimate of the number of trees present in the study area and shows the coordinates of each tree, creating a forest inventory that includes each tree’s precise location. They then assessed vegetation health using a platform to interpret the multispectral drone imagery and by assessing high-resolution images.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="663" height="505" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Tree-Density-Calculator-fig.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18604"/></figure>



<p>Using the forest inventory, they performed a visual interpretation for each tree determined by the algorithm to have signs of disease, such as standing dead or dry trees and trees with dry tops. The identification criteria were based on the color and appearance of the tree.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="814" height="441" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Examples-of-dead-and-dry-trees-ENG.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18605" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Examples-of-dead-and-dry-trees-ENG.png 814w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Examples-of-dead-and-dry-trees-ENG-768x416.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 814px) 100vw, 814px" /></figure>



<p>They compared this information with the reports generated during monitoring trips using Forest Watcher and found that the reports aligned with the visual interpretation of the images identified by the algorithm.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1080" height="1080" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/FOCEN-English-v4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18606" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/FOCEN-English-v4.png 1080w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/FOCEN-English-v4-1024x1024.png 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/FOCEN-English-v4-300x300.png 300w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/FOCEN-English-v4-768x768.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1080px) 100vw, 1080px" /></figure>



<p>FOCEN and Ambiomas have now conducted multispectral drone flights for two consecutive years during the pre- and post-rainy season and at times of the year when monarchs are not present to determine the vitality of the fir trees and in order to have timely information on the possible presence of forest pests.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Outcomes for improved pest monitoring and response </h2>



<p>Thanks to the early warning system, FOCEN, Ambiomas and communities have been able to take targeted action in controlling bark beetles — namely, removing infected trees and wood debris, in accordance with Mexican regulations for controlling and preventing beetle outbreaks. More monitoring is needed to determine whether the bark beetles are now contained, and local communities are currently conducting pest and forest disease monitoring surveys as part of FOCEN’s Best Management Practices Programs within their <a href="https://focenmexico.org/cuenca-sierra-chincua" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">payment for ecosystem services program</a>.</p>



<p>The combination of tools and practices used in the early warning system provides an important complement to field monitoring. It has helped ejidatarios (community landowners), community members and field technicians monitor larger areas and less accessible places faster and has allowed them to better understand their territory. Using the information collected, they have been able to implement conservation and restoration activities that are helping counteract the effects caused by forest pests.</p>



<p>Additionally, FOCEN and Ambiomas have developed a <a href="https://focenmexico.org/microcuencas" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MapBuilder and Story Map</a> for each of the five watersheds crucial to monarch hibernation that they monitored throughout the project to aggregate and represent all the data generated, making it possible to conduct spatial analyses with this information.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="1430" height="678" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MapBuilder-screenshot.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18607" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MapBuilder-screenshot.jpg 1430w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MapBuilder-screenshot-1024x486.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MapBuilder-screenshot-768x364.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">MapBuilder Application for the Nicolas Romero watershed. Source: FOCEN, 2022</figcaption></figure>



<p>FOCEN and Ambiomas also worked with the team at GFW to make several improvements to Forest Watcher such as improving the location accuracy of reports and the ability to directly link reports to MapBuilder, which will help others interested in monitoring for pests or using these tools for other applications in the future.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Adapting lessons for tackling forest pests around the world</h2>



<p>In October 2022, FOCEN convened a workshop with the Reserve’s community technicians, technical advisors and researchers from the Colegio de Geografía de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México to discuss the impact of climate change on forest degradation. As a next step for FOCEN and Ambiomas, greater funding is needed to allow the continuation of monitoring larger areas and to more accurately assess levels of forest degradation in the forests that monarchs depend on.</p>



<p>These impacts to forests and lessons learned are relevant for many geographies that are confronted with similar issues. FOCEN and Ambiomas found that, in addition to an early warning system to reduce response time to forest damage, early detection and monitoring activities are essential to prevent forest degradation from pests. This requires long-term aerial monitoring and strengthening the local capacities of forest owners, in coordination with the various stakeholders involved in the area.</p>



<p>As climate change continues to wreak havoc, less visible but damaging effects like forest pests are becoming more apparent. The issue of pests causing degradation is not isolated to Mexico, and others can learn from the technologies and approaches developed by FOCEN and Ambiomas and implement similar strategies in the areas that are experiencing similar challenges.</p>



<p><em>To learn more about FOCEN and Ambiomas’s work and their early warning system for forest pests, please contact </em><a href="mailto:eligio.garcia@focenmexico.org"><em>eligio.garcia@focenmexico.org</em></a><em> or </em><a href="mailto:ambiomasorg@gmail.co"><em>ambiomasorg@gmail.com</em></a><em>.</em></p>



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

A New Monitoring Challenge: Protecting Forests from Pests

<p>Every fall, one of the planet’s most extraordinary natural spectacles occurs amid the fir forests of central Mexico: Millions of monarch butterflies land here to find respite from the cooling winter temperatures in northeastern U.S. and Canada for their annual hibernation. It is a phenomenon that the <a href="https://monarchconservation.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Monarch Butterfly Fund</a> affectionately refers to as “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDmKBvztIbk&amp;t=1s" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the arrival of the sun’s daughters</a>.” The sight is both visually splendid and culturally important to the people of Mexico. Several myths surround this phenomenon, <a href="https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/tackle-climate-change/climate-change-stories/monarch-butterflies-us-mexico/#:~:text=As%20pollinators%2C%20the%20monarch%20butterfly,enjoy%2C%20like%20squash%20and%20blueberries" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">such as beliefs that monarch butterflies are returning souls of loved ones</a>. &nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/SANTUARIO_MONARCA_HERRADA_SHG.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-18600"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Monarch butterfly sanctuary "Piedra Herrada." Credit: Salvador Huitrón García</figcaption></figure>



<p>This incredible event, a critical part of the monarchs’ life cycle, depends on Mexico’s forests. However, these forests are feeling the effects of global climate change. One of the effects is the rise of pests; a problem that is not unique to Mexico, forests pests are a growing threat in many other countries (for example, in 2024, WRI reported that forest pests are <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/europe-forest-loss-drivers" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a growing threat to Europe’s forests</a>).  </p>



<p>To help tackle this issue in Mexico’s Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, Global Forest Watch (GFW) Small Grants Fund recipient <a href="https://focenmexico.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Neovolcanic Axis Conservation Fund (FOCEN)</a> has developed a novel approach, combining alerts on GFW’s Forest Watcher app and complementary technology like drones to monitor pests and inform actions to eradicate them.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A new challenge for monarchs and monitoring: Forest pests</h2>



<p>FOCEN works regionally to create alliances for the conservation, restoration and responsible use of natural resources in central Mexico. Since 2000, FOCEN has worked to conserve the valuable forests in Mexico’s Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve (MBBR), a <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/how-see-mexico-monarch-butterfly-migration#:~:text=Travelers%20can%20help%20protect%20these,on%20UNESCO's%20World%20Heritage%20list.&amp;text=In%20one%20of%20the%20planet's,fir%20forests%20of%20Central%20Mexico" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">UNESCO World Heritage Site</a>. Through the <a href="https://focenmexico.org/fondo-monarca" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund (Monarch Fund)</a>, FOCEN has facilitated a scheme that provides economic incentives for the payment of ecosystem services to forest owners (ejidos — small landowners and Indigenous communities) across 12,367 hectares of forests, 91% of which are within MBBR's core zone.</p>



<p>In 2021, after receiving a grant from GFW’s Small Grants Fund, FOCEN set out to address forest disturbance in the MBBR.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MIRADOR_PENA_BLANCA_SHG.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-18601"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Peña Blanca viewpoint, "Sierra Chincua" monarch butterfly sanctuary. Credit: Salvador Huitrón García</figcaption></figure>



<p>While conducting initial field investigations using Forest Watcher to identify areas of degradation and create reports on their findings, they quickly discovered that the primary cause of forest degradation in the Reserve is forest pests, specifically bark beetles, which attack weakened trees. Worse, they discovered that the beetles are continuing to spread as temperatures and drought increase, threatening forest habitat that is critical for monarch butterfly migration and overwintering.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Imagen_Descortezadores_JL-Gallardo.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18602"/></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A new way to use Forest Watcher and monitoring tools</h2>



<p>FOCEN worked quickly to mobilize on this new finding. Teaming up with technical monitoring partner <a href="https://www.instagram.com/ambiomas_org/reels/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Ambiomas Acciones y Respuestas Adaptativas (Ambiomas)</a>, they adapted their project and set out to create an early warning system for monitoring forest pests and to develop capacity for using the system and monitoring the forest in a new way. &nbsp;</p>



<p>As a first step, FOCEN and Ambiomas recognized that engaging forest owners and community members living in and around the Reserve was essential. They created a comprehensive course with a corresponding manual and led a two-day intensive training event for 14 people on using Forest Watcher. Over the course of six months, community technicians from the participating ejidos and communities, with the support of Ambiomas and FOCEN, conducted more than 100 field visits and produced more than 1,000 reports on observations of forest degradation in the field. This provided the data needed to inform FOCEN’s development of an early warning system. &nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAPACITACION_TECNICOS_SHG.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-18603"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Training of community technicians from the Senguio ejido by the Ambiomas team. Credit: Salvador Huitrón García</figcaption></figure>



<p>Next, FOCEN and Ambiomas, with support from GFW and the Monarch Butterfly Fund, took a multi-pronged approach to creating the early warning system. Realizing the time commitment of ground patrols and the limitations of satellite imagery, they incorporated multispectral drone technology that can capture data in multiple wavelengths beyond the visible spectrum (red, green, blue) to complement field visits and provide high-resolution imagery of forest degradation that satellites cannot always capture.</p>



<p>They selected five watersheds to assess that had historical records of monarch butterfly hibernation and that are critical to communities. After conducting drone flights, they used a Tree Density Calculator algorithm (available as a QGIS plugin) that provides an estimate of the number of trees present in the study area and shows the coordinates of each tree, creating a forest inventory that includes each tree’s precise location. They then assessed vegetation health using a platform to interpret the multispectral drone imagery and by assessing high-resolution images.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Tree-Density-Calculator-fig.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18604"/></figure>



<p>Using the forest inventory, they performed a visual interpretation for each tree determined by the algorithm to have signs of disease, such as standing dead or dry trees and trees with dry tops. The identification criteria were based on the color and appearance of the tree.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Examples-of-dead-and-dry-trees-ENG.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18605"/></figure>



<p>They compared this information with the reports generated during monitoring trips using Forest Watcher and found that the reports aligned with the visual interpretation of the images identified by the algorithm.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/FOCEN-English-v4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18606"/></figure>



<p>FOCEN and Ambiomas have now conducted multispectral drone flights for two consecutive years during the pre- and post-rainy season and at times of the year when monarchs are not present to determine the vitality of the fir trees and in order to have timely information on the possible presence of forest pests.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Outcomes for improved pest monitoring and response </h2>



<p>Thanks to the early warning system, FOCEN, Ambiomas and communities have been able to take targeted action in controlling bark beetles — namely, removing infected trees and wood debris, in accordance with Mexican regulations for controlling and preventing beetle outbreaks. More monitoring is needed to determine whether the bark beetles are now contained, and local communities are currently conducting pest and forest disease monitoring surveys as part of FOCEN’s Best Management Practices Programs within their <a href="https://focenmexico.org/cuenca-sierra-chincua" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">payment for ecosystem services program</a>.</p>



<p>The combination of tools and practices used in the early warning system provides an important complement to field monitoring. It has helped ejidatarios (community landowners), community members and field technicians monitor larger areas and less accessible places faster and has allowed them to better understand their territory. Using the information collected, they have been able to implement conservation and restoration activities that are helping counteract the effects caused by forest pests.</p>



<p>Additionally, FOCEN and Ambiomas have developed a <a href="https://focenmexico.org/microcuencas" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MapBuilder and Story Map</a> for each of the five watersheds crucial to monarch hibernation that they monitored throughout the project to aggregate and represent all the data generated, making it possible to conduct spatial analyses with this information.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MapBuilder-screenshot.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18607"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">MapBuilder Application for the Nicolas Romero watershed. Source: FOCEN, 2022</figcaption></figure>



<p>FOCEN and Ambiomas also worked with the team at GFW to make several improvements to Forest Watcher such as improving the location accuracy of reports and the ability to directly link reports to MapBuilder, which will help others interested in monitoring for pests or using these tools for other applications in the future.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Adapting lessons for tackling forest pests around the world</h2>



<p>In October 2022, FOCEN convened a workshop with the Reserve’s community technicians, technical advisors and researchers from the Colegio de Geografía de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México to discuss the impact of climate change on forest degradation. As a next step for FOCEN and Ambiomas, greater funding is needed to allow the continuation of monitoring larger areas and to more accurately assess levels of forest degradation in the forests that monarchs depend on.</p>



<p>These impacts to forests and lessons learned are relevant for many geographies that are confronted with similar issues. FOCEN and Ambiomas found that, in addition to an early warning system to reduce response time to forest damage, early detection and monitoring activities are essential to prevent forest degradation from pests. This requires long-term aerial monitoring and strengthening the local capacities of forest owners, in coordination with the various stakeholders involved in the area.</p>



<p>As climate change continues to wreak havoc, less visible but damaging effects like forest pests are becoming more apparent. The issue of pests causing degradation is not isolated to Mexico, and others can learn from the technologies and approaches developed by FOCEN and Ambiomas and implement similar strategies in the areas that are experiencing similar challenges.</p>



<p><em>To learn more about FOCEN and Ambiomas’s work and their early warning system for forest pests, please contact </em><a href="mailto:eligio.garcia@focenmexico.org"><em>eligio.garcia@focenmexico.org</em></a><em> or </em><a href="mailto:ambiomasorg@gmail.co"><em>ambiomasorg@gmail.com</em></a><em>.</em></p>



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

<p>Cada otoño, uno de los espectáculos naturales más extraordinarios del planeta tiene lugar entre los bosques de abetos (oyamel) del centro de México: Millones de mariposas monarca aterrizan aquí en busca de un respiro a las frías temperaturas invernales del noreste de EE.UU. y Canadá para su hibernación anual. Es un fenómeno al que el <a href="https://monarchconservation.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Monarch Butterfly Fund</a> se refiere cariñosamente como «<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDmKBvztIbk&amp;t=1s" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">la llegada de las hijas del sol</a>». El espectáculo es a la vez visualmente espléndido y culturalmente importante para el pueblo de México. Existen varios mitos en torno a este fenómeno, como <a href="https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/tackle-climate-change/climate-change-stories/monarch-butterflies-us-mexico/#:~:text=As%20pollinators%2C%20the%20monarch%20butterfly,enjoy%2C%20like%20squash%20and%20blueberries" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">la creencia de que las mariposas monarca son almas que regresan de seres queridos</a>. &nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/SANTUARIO_MONARCA_HERRADA_SHG.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-18600"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Santuario de la mariposa monarca «Piedra Herrada». Crédito: Salvador Huitrón García</figcaption></figure>



<p>Este increíble acontecimiento, parte fundamental del ciclo vital de las monarcas, depende de los bosques de México. Sin embargo, estos bosques están sintiendo los efectos del cambio climático global. Uno de los efectos es el aumento de plagas; un problema que no es exclusivo de México, las plagas forestales son una amenaza creciente en muchos otros países (por ejemplo, en 2024, WRI informó que las plagas forestales son una <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/europe-forest-loss-drivers" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">amenaza creciente para los bosques de Europa</a>).&nbsp;</p>



<p>Para ayudar a abordar este problema en la Reserva de la Biosfera de la Mariposa Monarca de México, <a href="https://focenmexico.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">El Fondo de Conservación del Eje Neovolcánico (FOCEN)</a>, beneficiario del Fondo de Pequeñas Suvenciones de Global Forest Watch (GFW), ha desarrollado un enfoque novedoso, combinando alertas en la aplicación Forest Watcher de GFW y tecnología complementaria como drones para monitorear las plagas e informar de las acciones para erradicarlas.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Un nuevo reto para las monarcas y su monitoreo: las plagas forestales</h2>



<p>FOCEN trabaja a escala regional para crear alianzas en favor de la conservación, la restauración y el uso responsable de los recursos naturales del centro de México. Desde 2000, FOCEN ha trabajado para conservar los valiosos bosques de la Reserva de la Biosfera Mariposa Monarca (RBMM) de México, declarada <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/how-see-mexico-monarch-butterfly-migration#:~:text=Travelers%20can%20help%20protect%20these,on%20UNESCO's%20World%20Heritage%20list.&amp;text=In%20one%20of%20the%20planet's,fir%20forests%20of%20Central%20Mexico" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Patrimonio de la Humanidad por la UNESCO</a>. A través del <a href="https://focenmexico.org/fondo-monarca" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Fondo para la Conservación de la Mariposa Monarca (Fondo Monarca)</a>, FOCEN ha facilitado un esquema que proporciona incentivos económicos para el pago de servicios ecosistémicos a los propietarios de bosques (ejidos - pequeños propietarios y comunidades indígenas) a lo largo de 12,367 hectáreas de bosques, 91% de los cuales se encuentran dentro de la zona núcleo de la RBMM.</p>



<p>En 2021, tras recibir una subvención del Fondo de Pequeñas Subvenciones de GFW, FOCEN se propuso abordar las alteraciones forestales en la RBMM.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MIRADOR_PENA_BLANCA_SHG.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-18601"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Mirador de Peña Blanca, santuario de la mariposa monarca «Sierra Chincua». Crédito: Salvador Huitrón García</figcaption></figure>



<p>Mientras realizaban las primeras investigaciones sobre el terreno utilizando Forest Watcher para identificar las zonas de degradación y elaborar informes sobre sus hallazgos, descubrieron rápidamente que la principal causa de degradación forestal en la Reserva son las plagas forestales, concretamente los escarabajos descortezador, que atacan a los árboles debilitados. Peor aún, descubrieron que los escarabajos siguen extendiéndose a medida que aumentan las temperaturas y la sequía, amenazando el hábitat forestal que es fundamental para la migración y la hibernación de la mariposa monarca.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ES-pests-fig.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18628"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Fuente: Gallardo S. J.L. 2023</figcaption></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Una nueva forma de utilizar Forest Watcher y las herramientas de monitoreo</h2>



<p>FOCEN trabajó rápidamente para movilizarse ante este nuevo hallazgo. En colaboración con Ambiomas Acciones y Respuestas Adaptivas (Ambiomas), adaptaron su proyecto y se propusieron crear un sistema de alerta temprana para monitorear plagas forestales y desarrollar capacidades para utilizar el sistema y monitorear el bosque de una forma nueva.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<p>Como primer paso, FOCEN y Ambiomas reconocieron que era esencial implicar a los propietarios de los bosques y a los miembros de las comunidades que viven en la Reserva y sus alrededores. Crearon un curso integral acompañado de un &nbsp;manual y organizaron un curso intensivo de dos días para capacitar a 14 personas en el uso de Forest Watcher. A lo largo de seis meses, técnicos comunitarios de los ejidos y comunidades participantes, con el apoyo de Ambiomas y FOCEN, realizaron más de 100 visitas de campo y elaboraron más de 1000 informes sobre observaciones de degradación forestal sobre el terreno. Esto proporcionó los datos necesarios para que FOCEN desarrollara un sistema de alerta temprana.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAPACITACION_TECNICOS_SHG.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-18603"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Capacitación de técnicos comunitarios del ejido de Senguio por el equipo de Ambiomas. Crédito: Salvador Huitrón García</figcaption></figure>



<p>A continuación, FOCEN y Ambiomas, con el apoyo de GFW y el Fondo de la Mariposa Monarca, adoptaron un enfoque múltiple para crear el sistema de alerta temprana. Conscientes del tiempo que requieren las patrullas terrestres y de las limitaciones de las imágenes por satélite, incorporaron drones con tecnología multiespectral, capaz de captar datos en múltiples longitudes de onda más allá del espectro visible (rojo, verde y azul) para complementar las visitas en campo y proporcionar imágenes de alta resolución de la degradación forestal que los satélites no siempre pueden captar.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Seleccionaron cinco cuencas hidrográficas con registros históricos de hibernación de la mariposa monarca y que son fundamentales para las comunidades. Tras realizar vuelos con drones, utilizaron un algoritmo de cálculo de densidad de árboles (<em>Tree Density Calculator, </em>disponible como complemento de QGIS) que proporciona una estimación del número de árboles presentes en el área de estudio y muestra las coordenadas de cada árbol, creando un inventario forestal que incluye la ubicación precisa de cada árbol. A continuación, evaluaron la salud de la vegetación utilizando una plataforma para interpretar las imágenes multiespectrales de los drones y evaluando imágenes de alta resolución.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Tree-Density-Calculator-fig.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18604"/></figure>



<p>Utilizando el inventario forestal, realizaron una interpretación visual de cada árbol que el algoritmo determinaba que presentaba signos de enfermedad, como árboles muertos o secos en pie y árboles con copas secas. Los criterios de identificación se basaron en el color y el aspecto del árbol.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ES-dead-trees-fig.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18631"/></figure>



<p>Compararon esta información con los informes generados durante los viajes de monitoreo con Forest Watcher y comprobaron que los informes coincidían con la interpretación visual de las imágenes identificadas por el algoritmo.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/FOCEN-Spanish-v6.png" alt="" class="wp-image-18632"/></figure>



<p>FOCEN y Ambiomas llevan dos años consecutivos realizando vuelos multiespectrales con drones durante la época anterior y posterior a las lluvias, así como en épocas del año en las que no hay monarcas para determinar la vitalidad de los oyameles y poder disponer de información puntual sobre la posible presencia de plagas forestales.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Resultados para un mejor monitoreo y la respuesta ante plagas&nbsp; </h2>



<p>Gracias al sistema de alerta temprana, FOCEN, Ambiomas y las comunidades han podido tomar medidas específicas para controlar los escarabajos descortezadores,concretamente, retirar los árboles infectados y los restos de madera, de acuerdo con la normativa mexicana para controlar y prevenir los brotes de escarabajos. Se necesita más monitoreo para determinar si los escarabajos descortezadores están ahora contenidos y las comunidades locales están llevando a cabo actualmente encuestas de monitoreo de plagas y enfermedades forestales como parte de los Programas de Mejores Prácticas de Gestión de FOCEN dentro de su <a href="https://focenmexico.org/cuenca-sierra-chincua" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">programa de pago por servicios ecosistémicos</a>.</p>



<p>El conjunto de herramientas y prácticas utilizadas en el sistema de alerta temprana constituye un complemento importante a la vigilancia en campo. Ha ayudado a los ejidatarios, a los miembros de la comunidad y a los técnicos de campo a vigilar más rápidamente zonas más extensas y lugares menos accesibles y les ha permitido conocer mejor su territorio. Con la información recopilada, han podido poner en marcha actividades de conservación y restauración que están ayudando a contrarrestar los efectos causados por las plagas forestales.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Además, FOCEN y Ambiomas han desarrollado un <a href="https://focenmexico.org/microcuencas" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MapBuilder y un Story Map</a> para cada una de las cinco cuencas hidrográficas que son cruciales para la hibernación de las monarcas y que monitorearon a lo largo del proyecto. En ellos, agregaron y representaron todos los datos generados, haciendo posible realizar análisis espaciales con esta información.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MapBuilder-screenshot.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-18607"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Aplicación MapBuilder para la cuenca Nicolas Romero. Fuente: FOCEN, 2022</figcaption></figure>



<p>FOCEN and Ambiomas also worked with the team at GFW to make several improvements to Forest Watcher such as improving the location accuracy of reports and the ability to directly link reports to MapBuilder, which will help others interested in monitoring for pests or using these tools for other applications in the future.</p>



<p>FOCEN y Ambiomas también trabajaron con el equipo de GFW para introducir varias mejoras en Forest Watcher, como mejorar la precisión de la ubicación de los informes y la posibilidad de vincular directamente los informes a MapBuilder, lo que ayudará a otras personas interesadas en la vigilancia de plagas o en utilizar estas herramientas para otras aplicaciones en el futuro.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Adaptar las enseñanzas para combatir las plagas forestales en todo el mundo</h2>



<p>En octubre de 2022, FOCEN convocó a un taller con los técnicos comunitarios de la Reserva, asesores técnicos e investigadores del Colegio de Geografía de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México para discutir el impacto del cambio climático en la degradación forestal. Como un siguiente paso para FOCEN y Ambiomas, se necesita mayor financiamiento que permita continuar con el monitoreo de áreas más extensas y evaluar con mayor precisión los niveles de degradación forestal en los bosques de los que dependen las monarcas.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Estos impactos en los bosques y las lecciones aprendidas son relevantes para muchas geografías que se enfrentan a problemas similares. FOCEN y Ambiomas descubrieron que, además de un sistema de alerta temprana para reducir el tiempo de respuesta a los daños forestales, las actividades de detección temprana y seguimiento son esenciales para prevenir la degradación de los bosques a causa de las plagas. Para ello es necesario realizar un monitoreo aéreo a largo plazo y reforzar las capacidades locales de los propietarios forestales, en coordinación con las distintas partes interesadas de la zona.&nbsp;</p>



<p>A medida que el cambio climático sigue causando estragos, los efectos menos visibles pero perjudiciales, como las plagas forestales, son cada vez más evidentes. El problema de las plagas que causan degradación no es exclusivo de México, y otros pueden aprender de las tecnologías y los enfoques desarrollados por FOCEN y Ambiomas y aplicar estrategias similares en las zonas que están experimentando retos parecidos.</p>



<p><em>Si desea más información sobre el trabajo de FOCEN y Ambiomas y su sistema de alerta temprana de plagas forestales, póngase en contacto con </em><a href="mailto:eligio.garcia@focenmexico.org"><em>eligio.garcia@focenmexico.org</em></a><em> o </em><a href="mailto:ambiomasorg@gmail.com"><em>ambiomasorg@gmail.com</em></a><em>.</em></p>



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

Un nuevo reto de monitoreo: Proteger los bosques de las plagas

GFW partner FOCEN is using a novel monitoring approach to tackle increasing forest pests in in Mexico’s Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve.

Brazil

Brazil | Global Forest Watch Blog

Jefferson Ferreira-Ferreira

Luciana Alves

Carlos Leandro de Oliveira Cordeiro

Miguel Calmon

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

Global Forest Watch Blog

Featured Articles

Tree Cover Is Still Declining Overall in Latin America, but New Data Shows Where It’s Coming Back

Planet Imagery is No Longer Available on GFW — Here’s What You Should Know

A New Monitoring Challenge: Protecting Forests from Pests

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

Tree Cover Is Still Declining Overall in Latin America, but New Data Shows Where It’s Coming Back

Planet Imagery is No Longer Available on GFW — Here’s What You Should Know

A New Monitoring Challenge: Protecting Forests from Pests

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

All articles

Global Forest Watch Has Updated Political Boundaries — Here’s What You Should Know

Harnessing Technology, Raising a New Generation of Forest Monitors

New Research Aligns Country and Global Satellite Data for Improved Forest Carbon Reporting

Better Cocoa for the Planet: How ECOM is Reducing Deforestation in Their Supply Chain

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

4 Graphics Explain Los Angeles’ Rare and Devastating January Fires

Exploring Tree Cover Gain and Net Change on Global Forest Watch

Updated Planted Trees Map Reaches Near-Global Coverage

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