Built on trusted data from GFW and Land &#038; Carbon Lab, Global Nature Watch is a new open, AI-powered monitoring system turning the latest data into intelligence to understand Earth’s landscapes. <a href="https://www.globalnaturewatch.org/?utm_medium=referral&#038;utm_source=gfwnoticeboard&#038;utm_campaign=gnw2025">Sign in</a> to Global Nature Watch or <a href="https://forms.office.com/r/jmFh27TUUz">Join the Waitlist</a> to Gain Access.

NEW: Explore Global Nature Watch

Forest Insights

Forest Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

Biodiversity

Biodiversity | Global Forest Watch Blog

deforestation

deforestation | Global Forest Watch Blog

Lucienne Wilmé

Ollier Andrianambinina

Sarah Carter

Kevin Faragher

From Global to Local: Tailoring Forest Monitoring in Madagascar with Global Forest Watch Data

Understanding deforestation in Madagascar is incredibly important for protecting the country’s extraordinary biodiversity. Over 80% of the species are endemic, found nowhere else on Earth. This biodiversity underpins the ecosystem services that sustain daily life across the island — from clean water and fertile soils to climate regulation and cultural identity. Accurate, independent monitoring of Madagascar’s natural forests helps to prioritize conservation actions, safeguard these services and ensure that all people living in Madagascar continue to benefit from the natural capital essential to their livelihoods, climate adaptation and sustainable future.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Picture1-2048x1366.jpg" alt="Diademed sifaka (Propithecus diadema), Mantadia National Park. Credit: Catherine Sauvi" class="wp-image-19591"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Diademed sifaka (Propithecus diadema), Mantadia National Park. Credit: Catherine Sauvin</figcaption></figure>



But until recently, up-to-date information on deforestation in Madagascar was limited. Global Forest Watch (GFW) offers transparent tools designed to monitor forests consistently everywhere. GFW’s global tree cover loss data and tree canopy density maps measure annual changes and extent and are incredibly valuable for providing frequently updated, comparable and consistent estimates across the world.



However, they do not match each local definition and context that may be crucial for planning and conservation. For example, GFW’s tree cover loss data shows loss of all tree cover, including tree loss in agriculture areas, tree plantations and other non-natural forests. As such, this data <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.008" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">must be filtered to identify deforestation</a>.



In 2024, the research team from WRI Madagascar developed an approach to bridge the gap between global tree cover loss data and deforestation within Madagascar’s natural forests to develop an actionable deforestation estimate for national planning, reporting and conservation decision-making.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Adapting GFW data for Madagascar<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.008"></a></h2>



To assess deforestation in Madagascar, we used two key global data sets: <a href="https://gfw.global/4c7eHcL">tree canopy density (TCD)</a>, which shows the percentage of canopy cover in each 30-meter pixel in the year 2000, and <a href="https://gfw.global/3BfwQWz">annual tree cover loss</a>, which tracks where those pixels lost canopy cover in subsequent years.



The goal was to develop a methodology for tailoring global tree cover loss data sets to detect loss within Madagascar’s natural forests. However, the TCD and tree cover loss data include areas of tree cover that do not meet Madagascar’s ecological definitions of forest, like tree plantations. This is particularly important in Madagascar, where vast areas are dominated by Ravenala species, or traveler’s palms — not true palms but relatives of bananas — which are endemic to Madagascar but often form stands limited to one species after clearing, and are typically poor in biodiversity. These areas are frequently classified as tree cover in satellite data, though they lack the structure, species richness and ecological function of natural forests.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Travelers-palms.-Credit-Dicklyon.jpg" alt="Traveler’s palms. Credit: Dicklyon" class="wp-image-19594"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Traveler’s palms. Credit: Dicklyon</figcaption></figure>



As such, we focused our analysis on natural forests, with natural forest loss as a proxy for deforestation. We overlaid the TCD and tree cover loss data onto a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.008" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">nationally validated</a> natural forest map for Madagascar for the year 2000 to provide an actionable deforestation estimate. This may slightly overestimate deforestation (defined as permanent change from forest to other land uses) since natural forest loss can include temporary disturbances such as wildfire or vegetation clearing for shifting cultivation. However, ecological recovery in these forests can be extremely slow, meaning natural forest loss estimates provide a meaningful proxy for the purposes of national planning, reporting and conservation decision-making.  



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Identifying loss in Madagascar’s natural forests</h2>



GFW allows users to select their own TCD threshold to map their forest area; however, for global consistency, GFW typically uses a standard TCD threshold — generally 30% tree cover density — which can exclude many naturally more open forest types. For example, in Madagascar, applying TCD &gt;30% misses large areas of dry and spiny forests. As a result, no loss is detected there simply because those areas are not counted as forest to begin with.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Picture3.jpg" alt="Baobab tree (Adansonia rubrostipa) in the southern spiny forest, Tsimanampesotse National Pa" class="wp-image-19595"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Baobab tree (Adansonia rubrostipa) in the southern spiny forest, Tsimanampesotse National Park</figcaption></figure>



Therefore, instead of assigning a single threshold per forest type, our approach applies <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040698" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">locally adapted TCD thresholds</a> to each pixel in the 2000 natural forest map of Madagascar so that deforestation can be tracked more accurately across all forest types. For each non-contiguous forest parcel based on its known extent in 2000, we identified the <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040698" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">most appropriate TCD threshold</a>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ace87f" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Learn more here</a> about how these thresholds were calibrated. For <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040698" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">large forest blocks</a>, we split them into smaller, ecologically meaningful units to improve TCD accuracy. This subdivision was done as objectively as possible, using both the <a href="https://kew.iro.bl.uk/concern/books/614e90f8-34f3-468f-956c-8574f21a1e4d" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Vegetation Atlas</a> (validated by the government) and topographic relief, since elevation and terrain strongly influence forest structure.



Once these nationally adapted TCD thresholds were assigned at a pixel level across all natural forests, we combined them with GFW’s annual tree cover loss data to assess deforestation in every forest parcel, across all forest types and all regions of Madagascar. This produced an ecologically grounded monitoring system capable of informing both national reporting and local planning, and one that can be adapted and replicated in other countries. &nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/TCD-map-EN.png" alt="" class="wp-image-19596"/></figure>



Natural forest cover in Madagascar (year 2000) and its relationship to tree canopy density (TCD) thresholds. A: Independent baseline natural forest cover for 2000; B: Same forest cover map as A with pixel-level TCD values assigned; C: Tree cover extent after applying the optimal TCD threshold producing an area estimate closest to the true natural forest extent; D–F: Tree cover area when applying standard TCD thresholds, with total area estimates showing either overestimation or underestimation of tree cover. These maps also reveal major geographic misalignment— particularly in dry forest regions — highlighting the need for locally adapted thresholds.



This map now serves as a robust baseline for monitoring change. By overlaying annual tree cover loss on top of these forest pixels, we can consistently estimate deforestation across the country for any year — whether nationally, by region, or within protected areas.



This approach gives Madagascar a more ecologically meaningful measure of forest loss than the conventional global method. In 2024, using our method, we estimated a national deforestation total of 117,600 hectares — nearly half the figure produced by the global 30% threshold approach. This information supports national reporting obligations, aligns with local forest definitions and strengthens conservation efforts targeting habitats critical to Madagascar’s unique biodiversity.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Picture5.jpg" alt="Madagascar ibis (Lophotibis cristata), Mantadia National Park. Credit: Catherine Sauvin" class="wp-image-19597"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Madagascar ibis (Lophotibis cristata), Mantadia National Park. Credit: Catherine Sauvin</figcaption></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How Madagascar’s deforestation estimates support decision-making</h2>



Our approach makes use of the GFW’s freely available independent global data while adapting it to local realities.



Locally tailored information means that it is more suitable for use in regions, districts and communes — administrative units with their own budgets, plans and policies. In Madagascar, stakeholders responsible for these tasks can include regional and district heads appointed by the central government, and mayors who are elected at the commune levels, as well as VOIs (Vondron’Olona Ifotony) — local associations of villages and hamlets formally recognized as stewards of natural resources — and in the case of privately owned land, corporate entities and private individuals.



For all stakeholders, our monitoring approach provides relevant information. Across all landscapes and land statuses, one of the key use cases is for conservation of protected areas (e.g., Madagascar National Parks), VOIs and other zones critical for threatened endemic biodiversity. Tracking deforestation within both Protected Area boundaries and VOI-managed zones can offer powerful insights to enhance transparency, accountability and targeted support for locally grounded conservation efforts.



Because thresholds are locally adapted, this approach helps build trust in the results by aligning with what people see on the ground. It reduces the risk of misinterpreting features such as Ravenala stands, heavily degraded forests or other non-forest areas as “forest,” which can otherwise misdirect conservation or restoration resources. By clearly distinguishing natural forests of high ecological value, the data avoids misunderstandings and supports more accountable, effective decision-making. It allows stakeholders to identify priority areas and plan targeted interventions, including for restoration efforts, by helping define where forest losses have occurred and where restoration efforts should be focused and monitored.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Picture6-2048x1366.jpg" alt="Patrols in a western dry forest." class="wp-image-19600"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Patrols in a western dry forest.</figcaption></figure>



Additionally, Madagascar can now better prioritize conservation of habitats critical for endemic species, integrate biodiversity goals into development planning and ensure long-term sustainability of its forest resources.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Picture4-2048x1366.jpg" alt="Black-and-white ruffed lemur (Varecia v. variegata), Mantadia National Park. Credit: Catherine Sauvin" class="wp-image-19601"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Black-and-white ruffed lemur (Varecia v. variegata), Mantadia National Park. Credit: Catherine Sauvin</figcaption></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Adapting our approach for other countries and regions</h2>



This method can be tested and adapted for use in other areas. National or local data sets of priority locations — such as natural forest maps, forest concessions, biodiversity corridors or community managed zones — can be overlaid with tree cover loss data to enable more accurate monitoring of deforestation across administrative and ecological zones. Tools such as the <a href="https://www.wri.org/initiatives/forest-atlases" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Forest Atlases</a> — online platforms that help countries better manage their forest resources by combining government data with the latest forest monitoring technology — can also support these efforts. In addition, the contextual data sets such as <a href="http://gfw.global/3xmtCAV">intact forest maps</a>, and <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/?map=eyJkYXRhc2V0cyI6W3siZGF0YXNldCI6Im5hdHVyYWwtZm9yZXN0cyIsIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWUsImxheWVycyI6WyJuYXR1cmFsLWZvcmVzdHMtMjAyMCJdfSx7ImRhdGFzZXQiOiJwb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsImxheWVycyI6WyJkaXNwdXRlZC1wb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsInBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIl0sIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9XX0%3D&amp;mapMenu=eyJtZW51U2VjdGlvbiI6ImRhdGFzZXRzIiwiZGF0YXNldENhdGVnb3J5IjoibGFuZENvdmVyIn0%3D">natural forest maps on GFW</a> can also be explored, and can reduce the effort required to process data, while other baselines such as tree height, biomass or strand structure can help identify areas likely to contain <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/european-tall-forest-decline" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">older stands with higher carbon stocks</a>.



There are some limitations to this approach. The accuracy of annual deforestation estimates is in part determined by accuracy of the original forest map and the TCD thresholds assigned to each forested pixel. Additionally, this pixel-level approach requires significant computational resources, which can present challenges for large countries. Despite these constraints, the methodology remains robust.



While this work is specific to Madagascar, the same approach can be applied elsewhere. By starting with a nationally validated forest baseline, overlaying pixel-level TCD data and then applying annual tree cover loss, countries can adapt global data sets to their own ecological and administrative realities. This turns global monitoring tools into practical systems for national reporting, planning and conservation — ensuring that data is not only globally consistent, but also locally meaningful.



As satellite imagery and land cover data sets continue to improve, and as national definitions of forest types are refined, the precision and policy relevance of this approach will grow, offering countries a scalable, transparent way to monitor deforestation across ecological and administrative units.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s next for deforestation analysis in Madagascar?</h2>



In the future, we plan to strengthen this approach in Madagascar by refining the natural forest map and expanding to include other relevant land cover types. Our current baseline for both the forest cover map and TCDs is the year 2000. While this early baseline offers valuable historical context, differences with more recent satellite data mean that long-term comparisons must be made with caution. For governments and practitioners, developing a consistent, high-quality data set covering the last 10 years and beyond may offer the most reliable basis for planning and evaluation.



As countries refine how they monitor land cover, Madagascar’s experience shows how global tools can be adapted to national ecological realities. This approach combines global satellite data with local knowledge to enable credible, independent monitoring of natural forests across all forest types and at relevant decision-making scales. Such monitoring is essential not only for conserving biodiversity, but also for sustaining the ecosystem services it underpins — services that support livelihoods, well-being and climate resilience for all who live on the island.



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

Du global au local : un suivi forestier sur mesure pour Madagascar grâce aux données de Global Forest Watch

In 2024, WRI Madagascar developed an approach to bridge the gap between global tree cover loss data and deforestation within Madagascar’s natural forests.

Tailoring Forest Monitoring in Madagascar with GFW Data

Comment

Global Forest Watch Content

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

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

Paige Johnson

fires

fires | Global Forest Watch Blog

Indigenous Peoples &amp; Local Communities

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

James MacCarthy

Jessica Richter

Stephanie Borcea

Isabela Barriga

As Extreme Wildfires Threaten Forests, Indigenous Leadership Offers Solutions

Indigenous Peoples and local communities are among the world’s most effective forest stewards. Yet a new report from WRI and WWF-Australia finds that these lands are disproportionately affected by increasing wildfires.

Users In Action

Hear stories from the forest defenders working in the field.

Users In Action | Global Forest Watch Blog

amazon

amazon | Global Forest Watch Blog

Brazil

Brazil | Global Forest Watch Blog

Peru

Peru | Global Forest Watch Blog

David Gibbs

Cameron Ellis

Indigenous Peoples and local communities <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/4-ways-indigenous-and-community-lands-can-reduce-emissions#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20research%20by%20WRI,not%20managed%20by%20indigenous%20peoples." target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">play a crucial role</a> in protecting forests and the areas they manage tend to experience <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.14195" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">lower deforestation</a> rates than other forests. In fact, forests managed by Indigenous Peoples in the Amazon Basin are some of the <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/amazon-carbon-sink-indigenous-forests" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">most effective carbon sinks</a> on the planet. By maintaining these forests, they actively contribute to global climate change mitigation efforts.



New climate financing mechanisms are creating opportunities for Indigenous Peoples and local communities to generate revenue to support the long-term stewardship of their ancestral lands and forest resources. However, communities often lack access to the data and tools required to quantify forest carbon fluxes (emissions from forest loss and disturbance, and removals due to plant growth) and communicate their contributions in ways recognized by these mechanisms.



To help communities supply such data, Global Forest Watch (GFW) offers accessible, open-source maps and statistics on forest carbon fluxes. GFW’s interactive <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/?map=eyJkYXRhc2V0cyI6W3siZGF0YXNldCI6ImNhcmJvbi1yZW1vdmFscyIsIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWUsImxheWVycyI6WyJjYXJib24tcmVtb3ZhbHMtMjAwMS0yMDIwIl19LHsiZGF0YXNldCI6Im5ldC1jYXJib24tZmx1eCIsIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWUsImxheWVycyI6WyJuZXQtY2FyYm9uLWZsdXgtMjAwMS0yMDIwIl19LHsiZGF0YXNldCI6ImNhcmJvbi1lbWlzc2lvbnMiLCJvcGFjaXR5IjoxLCJ2aXNpYmlsaXR5Ijp0cnVlLCJsYXllcnMiOlsiY2FyYm9uLWVtaXNzaW9ucy0yMDAxLTIwMjAiXX0seyJkYXRhc2V0IjoiaW50ZWdyYXRlZC1kZWZvcmVzdGF0aW9uLWFsZXJ0cy04Yml0Iiwib3BhY2l0eSI6MSwidmlzaWJpbGl0eSI6dHJ1ZSwibGF5ZXJzIjpbImludGVncmF0ZWQtZGVmb3Jlc3RhdGlvbi1hbGVydHMtOGJpdC1nbGFkTCIsImdsYWRMT25seSJdfSx7ImRhdGFzZXQiOiJwb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsImxheWVycyI6WyJkaXNwdXRlZC1wb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyIsInBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIl0sIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9LHsiZGF0YXNldCI6InRyZWUtY292ZXItZ2Fpbi01eSIsImxheWVycyI6WyJ0cmVlLWNvdmVyLWdhaW4tNXkiXSwib3BhY2l0eSI6MSwidmlzaWJpbGl0eSI6dHJ1ZX0seyJkYXRhc2V0IjoidHJlZS1jb3Zlci1sb3NzIiwibGF5ZXJzIjpbInRyZWUtY292ZXItbG9zcyJdLCJvcGFjaXR5IjoxLCJ2aXNpYmlsaXR5Ijp0cnVlfSx7ImRhdGFzZXQiOiJ0cmVlLWNvdmVyIiwibGF5ZXJzIjpbInRyZWUtY292ZXItMjAxMCJdLCJvcGFjaXR5IjoxLCJ2aXNpYmlsaXR5Ijp0cnVlfV19&mapMenu=eyJtZW51U2VjdGlvbiI6ImRhdGFzZXRzIiwiZGF0YXNldENhdGVnb3J5IjoiY2xpbWF0ZSJ9">emissions, removals and net flux maps</a>, with associated statistics, support action unlike any other forest carbon monitoring system. The maps are updated annually, allowing communities to tell the carbon story behind every pixel of forest. &nbsp;



Rainforest Foundation US (RFUS), a non-profit organization dedicated to securing Indigenous Peoples’ land rights across Central and South America, is working with Indigenous communities and their allies to use this data and information to access climate financing opportunities. Since 2016, RFUS has worked alongside Indigenous communities to leverage tools like GFW data to detect and stop land invasions in their territories. This has resulted in <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015171118" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">significant reductions in deforestation</a> around some communities.



More recently, RFUS has collaborated with communities to interpret and apply GFW’s forest carbon data to help them access climate finance and participate in carbon-related decision-making. In recent years, GFW data on carbon fluxes has been an integral part of RFUS’ programming and advocacy for Indigenous Peoples’ rights.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="2048" height="1365" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Sep2024_Titulacion-Carococha_079_Sebastian-Castaneda-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-19529" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Sep2024_Titulacion-Carococha_079_Sebastian-Castaneda-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Sep2024_Titulacion-Carococha_079_Sebastian-Castaneda-1024x682.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Sep2024_Titulacion-Carococha_079_Sebastian-Castaneda-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Sep2024_Titulacion-Carococha_079_Sebastian-Castaneda-1536x1024.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Titling teams map and demarcate community boundaries in Carcocha, Peru. Credit Sebastian Castañeda</figcaption></figure>



Read on to learn more about two case studies where RFUS is working with Indigenous communities to use GFW’s carbon monitoring data to strengthen the protection of their forests and rights.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Direct payments program as an alternative to carbon markets</h2>



External incentives can help communities carry out forest monitoring more consistently and effectively. They also help finance essential infrastructure and services, such as electricity, latrines and clean water systems, allowing communities to avoid turning to activities that drive deforestation, such as mining or commercial agriculture, and instead pursue livelihoods that keep forests standing and sequestering carbon.



To help provide these incentives, RFUS established a direct payments fund with support from private donors to compensate 32 communities in Ecuador and northern Peru for protecting over 350,000 hectares of standing tropical forest. For approximately two years, communities conducted forest patrols, documented evidence of land incursions and filed legal complaints to protect their territories. In this innovative direct payment program — which was independent of the carbon market and did not issue carbon credits — RFUS used GFW’s tree cover, tree cover loss, <a href="https://gfw.global/3tauzVt">forest carbon removals</a> and <a href="https://gfw.global/47iENb6">net forest carbon flux</a> data to estimate the carbon sequestered by communities’ forests.



By using the custom area analysis tool on <a href="https://gfw.global/4bOp721">GFW’s dashboard</a>, RFUS was able to quickly and easily estimate the standing forest area and carbon sequestration rates within the forests of participating communities. This data enabled RFUS and participating communities to quantify the climate benefits of their forests, providing a clear rationale for the payments. Based on this information, communities received 10 soles (~$4 USD) per hectare of standing forest per year, commensurate with Peru’s national forest payments program, Probosques.



Unlike carbon credits, these payments were not tied to reductions in emissions or reforestation. Instead, these payments were designed to recognize, support and honor communities’ continued stewardship of their forests. The only conditions attached to the payments were that the resulting projects had to benefit communities and receive full community approval. Furthermore, funds could not be used for activities that contributed to deforestation, and communities had to maintain deforestation rates within their recent average.&nbsp; &nbsp;



Communities used these funds to invest in priority projects such as continuing their traditional agricultural practices and initiatives, constructing solar panel arrays, sanitation systems, potable water systems, communal boats and sustainable economic development projects. The unique nature of this program — making payments directly to communities based on public GFW carbon monitoring data — gave communities greater autonomy and agency to invest in and manage the projects they chose.



In the Peru-Colombia-Brazil tri-border area, Ticuna communities used the funds to advance their land titling efforts. By using the funds to cover the costs of surveyors and legal support, the communities <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frainforestfoundation.org%2Fhow-climate-finance-can-reach-indigenous-peoples-and-local-communities%2F&data=05%7C02%7CPaige.Johnson%40wri.org%7C5904f82b68234045a96408ddefd86e63%7C476bac1f36b24ad98699cda6bad1f862%7C0%7C0%7C638930435315519121%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ULYpl8%2BqV%2Fn3NyG3RyYnQvvMuPiBB0P5lns2AaggRvE%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">secured an additional 45,000 hectares</a> of titled land, creating a contiguous Ticuna territory along the banks of the Amazon River. They are also piloting a collaborative titling effort with the regional government of Loreto that has since expanded across the state of Loreto, 59 territories, and over 100,000 hectares in three years.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="2048" height="1538" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_0863-2048x1538.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-19530" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_0863-2048x1538.jpg 2048w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_0863-1024x769.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_0863-768x577.jpg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_0863-1536x1153.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Titling ceremony in Loreto, Peru. Credit: Daniel Tuesta</figcaption></figure>



Across the border in Ecuador, the Indigenous community of Sarayaku is one of the largest territories to receive these direct payments, which they have used to invest directly in their “life plan,” or <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Cw0EBmUON0K/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Kawsak Sacha</a>, which in Kichwa means “The Living Forest.” This reflects the Sarayaku’s philosophy of being an integral part of the forest ecosystem, as well as their vision for the future. While the funding available through this program did not cover all elements of the life plan, the funds and decisions were managed autonomously by the Sarayaku communities. They focused primarily on community infrastructure projects that resulted in significant improvements in the quality of life for community members.



Samai Gualinga, Vice President of the Sarayaku community, said of the direct payments program: “a new standard of fair compensation and retribution is being created … it’s necessary to seek our own ways of monitoring our territory … to have our own databases … to show how much biodiversity and carbon we have … we need economic funds to support the families working on our monitoring projects.”



Scaling this direct payment program across the Amazon Basin may be difficult. However, the flexibility of GFW data allowed RFUS to put climate financing directly in the hands of Indigenous Peoples and support locally-led climate finance outside of carbon markets.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Informing community roles in national carbon credit deals</h2>



In 2022, the national government of Guyana signed a <a href="https://carboncredits.com/hess-signs-750m-redd-carbon-credits-deal-with-guyana/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">jurisdictional REDD+</a> deal to sell $750 million worth of carbon credits from reducing deforestation in the country (REDD+ is a <a href="https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/redd/what-is-redd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">framework</a> for paying developing countries when they reduce emissions from deforestation). Guyana was the first country to sell carbon credits at the national level and the deal requires that the revenue from the sale of credits are distributed to communities around the country through a process of <a href="https://blog.aspiration.com/benefit-sharing-voluntary-carbon-market/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">benefits sharing</a>. Under this deal, 242 Indigenous communities opted in to receive the proposed 15% share of the benefits from the sale to support community led projects.



RFUS uses GFW forest carbon data to help inform communities in Guyana about how forests emit and sequester carbon, how these can be estimated and monitored, and to calculate the amount of carbon being sequestered on both titled and customary lands. While RFUS and local partners such as the Amerindian People’s Association are not using GFW’s data to dispute Guyana’s national REDD+ calculations, GFW data informs Indigenous organizations on how the contributions of their communities are <a href="https://www.development-today.com/archive/2023/dt-2--2023/carbon-certifier-admits-that-key-indigenous-complaints-were-not-on-the-table-when-credits-were-issued-to-guyana-last-year" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">or are not</a> reflected in the benefit sharing program.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="2048" height="1536" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_3115-2048x1536.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-19527" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_3115-2048x1536.jpeg 2048w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_3115-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_3115-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_3115-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">A Patamona woman cooks cassava in Guyana’s North Pakaraimas mountain range. Credit RFUS</figcaption></figure>



For example, in the South Rupununi region of Guyana, of the 2.9 million hectares of customary Indigenous land in Wapichan Wiizi, around 590,000 hectares have been formally recognized by the government. The unrecognized Indigenous lands account for the bulk of the area and an even higher percentage of the territory’s forests since many Guyanese land titles were granted primarily for savanna areas rather than for forests. The South Rupununi District Council (SRDC) <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/aoi/642b3e00493227001be0b2cf/?category=climate&map=eyJjYW5Cb3VuZCI6dHJ1ZX0%3D&widget=carbonFlux">uploaded their land claim</a> (delineated over years of community mapping) to GFW and saw that just their customary territory alone accounts for nearly 10% of Guyana’s overall annual carbon sequestration. This and other WRI data have generated key figures for ongoing collaborative discussions between the SRDC and the government of Guyana regarding formal recognition of these customary lands and potential designation of the area as a community conserved area.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="2048" height="1365" src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/DSC06626-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-19526" srcset="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/DSC06626-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/DSC06626-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/DSC06626-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/DSC06626-1536x1024.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Indigenous communities in Guyana’s rugged interior often contain a mix of dense forests and tropical savannas. Credit RFUS</figcaption></figure>



“Carbon and carbon sequestration are abstract concepts that can easily get lost in national policy discussions and financial transactions,” said Linburg Pearson, Mapping and Monitoring Leader at Amerindian People’s Association. “GFW data has helped us understand the role that specific communities and lands play in regard to carbon emissions and sequestration.”



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Democratizing data helps make forest protection more equitable</h2>



GFW’s open-source data is helping to promote transparency and broaden access by making critical information on forests and carbon emissions and sequestration accessible to communities. This helps bridge the gap between Indigenous communities and sources of finance, creating more equitable and just opportunities.



In this vein, GFW’s forest carbon monitoring data has been an important resource for RFUS and the communities they work with, illustrating how free, global carbon emissions and sequestration maps can support forest monitoring on a community level and improved outcomes for communities. These examples from Indigenous and local communities effectively using the carbon data to improve their livelihoods and democratize data can shed light on how to create more equitable and responsive financial mechanisms that prioritize the needs and rights of forest protectors.







This work builds on WRI’s broader commitment to support Indigenous Peoples and local communities in securing rights, protecting forests and strengthening climate resilience. <a href="https://www.wri.org/equitable-development/indigenous-peoples-local-communities" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Learn more here</a> about how GFW and WRI are supporting Indigenous Peoples and local communities.



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

Forest Carbon Data Helps Communities Benefit Financially from their Forests

Indigenous Peoples and local communities <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/4-ways-indigenous-and-community-lands-can-reduce-emissions#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20research%20by%20WRI,not%20managed%20by%20indigenous%20peoples." target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">play a crucial role</a> in protecting forests and the areas they manage tend to experience <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.14195" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">lower deforestation</a> rates than other forests. In fact, forests managed by Indigenous Peoples in the Amazon Basin are some of the <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/amazon-carbon-sink-indigenous-forests" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">most effective carbon sinks</a> on the planet. By maintaining these forests, they actively contribute to global climate change mitigation efforts.



New climate financing mechanisms are creating opportunities for Indigenous Peoples and local communities to generate revenue to support the long-term stewardship of their ancestral lands and forest resources. However, communities often lack access to the data and tools required to quantify forest carbon fluxes (emissions from forest loss and disturbance, and removals due to plant growth) and communicate their contributions in ways recognized by these mechanisms.



To help communities supply such data, Global Forest Watch (GFW) offers accessible, open-source maps and statistics on forest carbon fluxes. GFW’s interactive <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/?map=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&amp;mapMenu=eyJtZW51U2VjdGlvbiI6ImRhdGFzZXRzIiwiZGF0YXNldENhdGVnb3J5IjoiY2xpbWF0ZSJ9">emissions, removals and net flux maps</a>, with associated statistics, support action unlike any other forest carbon monitoring system. The maps are updated annually, allowing communities to tell the carbon story behind every pixel of forest. &nbsp;



Rainforest Foundation US (RFUS), a non-profit organization dedicated to securing Indigenous Peoples’ land rights across Central and South America, is working with Indigenous communities and their allies to use this data and information to access climate financing opportunities. Since 2016, RFUS has worked alongside Indigenous communities to leverage tools like GFW data to detect and stop land invasions in their territories. This has resulted in <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015171118" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">significant reductions in deforestation</a> around some communities.



More recently, RFUS has collaborated with communities to interpret and apply GFW’s forest carbon data to help them access climate finance and participate in carbon-related decision-making. In recent years, GFW data on carbon fluxes has been an integral part of RFUS’ programming and advocacy for Indigenous Peoples’ rights.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Sep2024_Titulacion-Carococha_079_Sebastian-Castaneda-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-19529"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Titling teams map and demarcate community boundaries in Carcocha, Peru. Credit Sebastian Castañeda</figcaption></figure>



Read on to learn more about two case studies where RFUS is working with Indigenous communities to use GFW's carbon monitoring data to strengthen the protection of their forests and rights.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Direct payments program as an alternative to carbon markets</h2>



External incentives can help communities carry out forest monitoring more consistently and effectively. They also help finance essential infrastructure and services, such as electricity, latrines and clean water systems, allowing communities to avoid turning to activities that drive deforestation, such as mining or commercial agriculture, and instead pursue livelihoods that keep forests standing and sequestering carbon.



To help provide these incentives, RFUS established a direct payments fund with support from private donors to compensate 32 communities in Ecuador and northern Peru for protecting over 350,000 hectares of standing tropical forest. For approximately two years, communities conducted forest patrols, documented evidence of land incursions and filed legal complaints to protect their territories. In this innovative direct payment program — which was independent of the carbon market and did not issue carbon credits — RFUS used GFW’s tree cover, tree cover loss, <a href="https://gfw.global/3tauzVt">forest carbon removals</a> and <a href="https://gfw.global/47iENb6">net forest carbon flux</a> data to estimate the carbon sequestered by communities’ forests.



By using the custom area analysis tool on <a href="https://gfw.global/4bOp721">GFW’s dashboard</a>, RFUS was able to quickly and easily estimate the standing forest area and carbon sequestration rates within the forests of participating communities. This data enabled RFUS and participating communities to quantify the climate benefits of their forests, providing a clear rationale for the payments. Based on this information, communities received 10 soles (~$4 USD) per hectare of standing forest per year, commensurate with Peru’s national forest payments program, Probosques.



Unlike carbon credits, these payments were not tied to reductions in emissions or reforestation. Instead, these payments were designed to recognize, support and honor communities’ continued stewardship of their forests. The only conditions attached to the payments were that the resulting projects had to benefit communities and receive full community approval. Furthermore, funds could not be used for activities that contributed to deforestation, and communities had to maintain deforestation rates within their recent average.&nbsp; &nbsp;



Communities used these funds to invest in priority projects such as continuing their traditional agricultural practices and initiatives, constructing solar panel arrays, sanitation systems, potable water systems, communal boats and sustainable economic development projects. The unique nature of this program — making payments directly to communities based on public GFW carbon monitoring data — gave communities greater autonomy and agency to invest in and manage the projects they chose.



In the Peru-Colombia-Brazil tri-border area, Ticuna communities used the funds to advance their land titling efforts. By using the funds to cover the costs of surveyors and legal support, the communities <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frainforestfoundation.org%2Fhow-climate-finance-can-reach-indigenous-peoples-and-local-communities%2F&amp;data=05%7C02%7CPaige.Johnson%40wri.org%7C5904f82b68234045a96408ddefd86e63%7C476bac1f36b24ad98699cda6bad1f862%7C0%7C0%7C638930435315519121%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=ULYpl8%2BqV%2Fn3NyG3RyYnQvvMuPiBB0P5lns2AaggRvE%3D&amp;reserved=0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">secured an additional 45,000 hectares</a> of titled land, creating a contiguous Ticuna territory along the banks of the Amazon River. They are also piloting a collaborative titling effort with the regional government of Loreto that has since expanded across the state of Loreto, 59 territories, and over 100,000 hectares in three years.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_0863-2048x1538.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-19530"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Titling ceremony in Loreto, Peru. Credit: Daniel Tuesta</figcaption></figure>



Across the border in Ecuador, the Indigenous community of Sarayaku is one of the largest territories to receive these direct payments, which they have used to invest directly in their “life plan,” or <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Cw0EBmUON0K/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Kawsak Sacha</a>, which in Kichwa means “The Living Forest.” This reflects the Sarayaku’s philosophy of being an integral part of the forest ecosystem, as well as their vision for the future. While the funding available through this program did not cover all elements of the life plan, the funds and decisions were managed autonomously by the Sarayaku communities. They focused primarily on community infrastructure projects that resulted in significant improvements in the quality of life for community members.



Samai Gualinga, Vice President of the Sarayaku community, said of the direct payments program: “a new standard of fair compensation and retribution is being created … it’s necessary to seek our own ways of monitoring our territory … to have our own databases … to show how much biodiversity and carbon we have … we need economic funds to support the families working on our monitoring projects.”



Scaling this direct payment program across the Amazon Basin may be difficult. However, the flexibility of GFW data allowed RFUS to put climate financing directly in the hands of Indigenous Peoples and support locally-led climate finance outside of carbon markets.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Informing community roles in national carbon credit deals</h2>



In 2022, the national government of Guyana signed a <a href="https://carboncredits.com/hess-signs-750m-redd-carbon-credits-deal-with-guyana/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">jurisdictional REDD+</a> deal to sell $750 million worth of carbon credits from reducing deforestation in the country (REDD+ is a <a href="https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/redd/what-is-redd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">framework</a> for paying developing countries when they reduce emissions from deforestation). Guyana was the first country to sell carbon credits at the national level and the deal requires that the revenue from the sale of credits are distributed to communities around the country through a process of <a href="https://blog.aspiration.com/benefit-sharing-voluntary-carbon-market/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">benefits sharing</a>. Under this deal, 242 Indigenous communities opted in to receive the proposed 15% share of the benefits from the sale to support community led projects.



RFUS uses GFW forest carbon data to help inform communities in Guyana about how forests emit and sequester carbon, how these can be estimated and monitored, and to calculate the amount of carbon being sequestered on both titled and customary lands. While RFUS and local partners such as the Amerindian People’s Association are not using GFW’s data to dispute Guyana’s national REDD+ calculations, GFW data informs Indigenous organizations on how the contributions of their communities are <a href="https://www.development-today.com/archive/2023/dt-2--2023/carbon-certifier-admits-that-key-indigenous-complaints-were-not-on-the-table-when-credits-were-issued-to-guyana-last-year" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">or are not</a> reflected in the benefit sharing program.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_3115-2048x1536.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-19527"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">A Patamona woman cooks cassava in Guyana’s North Pakaraimas mountain range. Credit RFUS</figcaption></figure>



For example, in the South Rupununi region of Guyana, of the 2.9 million hectares of customary Indigenous land in Wapichan Wiizi, around 590,000 hectares have been formally recognized by the government. The unrecognized Indigenous lands account for the bulk of the area and an even higher percentage of the territory’s forests since many Guyanese land titles were granted primarily for savanna areas rather than for forests. The South Rupununi District Council (SRDC) <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/aoi/642b3e00493227001be0b2cf/?category=climate&amp;map=eyJjYW5Cb3VuZCI6dHJ1ZX0%3D&amp;widget=carbonFlux">uploaded their land claim</a> (delineated over years of community mapping) to GFW and saw that just their customary territory alone accounts for nearly 10% of Guyana’s overall annual carbon sequestration. This and other WRI data have generated key figures for ongoing collaborative discussions between the SRDC and the government of Guyana regarding formal recognition of these customary lands and potential designation of the area as a community conserved area.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.globalforestwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/DSC06626-2048x1365.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-19526"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Indigenous communities in Guyana’s rugged interior often contain a mix of dense forests and tropical savannas. Credit RFUS</figcaption></figure>



“Carbon and carbon sequestration are abstract concepts that can easily get lost in national policy discussions and financial transactions,” said Linburg Pearson, Mapping and Monitoring Leader at Amerindian People’s Association. “GFW data has helped us understand the role that specific communities and lands play in regard to carbon emissions and sequestration.”



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Democratizing data helps make forest protection more equitable</h2>



GFW’s open-source data is helping to promote transparency and broaden access by making critical information on forests and carbon emissions and sequestration accessible to communities. This helps bridge the gap between Indigenous communities and sources of finance, creating more equitable and just opportunities.



In this vein, GFW's forest carbon monitoring data has been an important resource for RFUS and the communities they work with, illustrating how free, global carbon emissions and sequestration maps can support forest monitoring on a community level and improved outcomes for communities. These examples from Indigenous and local communities effectively using the carbon data to improve their livelihoods and democratize data can shed light on how to create more equitable and responsive financial mechanisms that prioritize the needs and rights of forest protectors.







This work builds on WRI’s broader commitment to support Indigenous Peoples and local communities in securing rights, protecting forests and strengthening climate resilience. <a href="https://www.wri.org/equitable-development/indigenous-peoples-local-communities" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Learn more here</a> about how GFW and WRI are supporting Indigenous Peoples and local communities.



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

Rainforest Foundation US has collaborated with Indigenous communities to apply GFW’s forest carbon data to help them access climate finance.

Large forest fire to open area for agriculture and cattle ranching in the Amazon rainforest. Credit: Paralaxis / Alamy Stock Photo

3A2KGCM

Congo Basin

Congo Basin | Global Forest Watch Blog

forest change

forest change | Global Forest Watch Blog

Indonesia

Indonesia | Global Forest Watch Blog

Malaysia

Malaysia | Global Forest Watch Blog

mexico

mexico | Global Forest Watch Blog

Liz Goldman

Michelle Sims

Fires Drove Record-breaking Tropical Forest Loss in 2024

The tropics lost a record-shattering amount of primary rainforest in 2024 driven largely by fires, according to new data from UMD and GFW.

carbon

carbon | Global Forest Watch Blog

Kaitlyn Thayer

5 Graphics Explain the Climate-Fire Feedback Loop

Climate change is making forest fires worse, and vice-versa — creating a vicious "climate-fire feedback loop."

Nancy Harris

Melissa Rose

World’s Forest Carbon Sink Shrank to its Lowest Point in at Least 2 Decades, Due to Fires and Persistent Deforestation

With emissions from deforestation and other disturbances like fires rising, the world’s forests risk shifting from a carbon sink to a carbon source.

World’s Forest Carbon Sink Shrank to its Lowest Point in at Least 2 Decades, Due to Fires and Persistent Deforestation | Forest Insights | Global Forest Watch Blog

Sasha Tyukavina

The Latest Data Confirms: Forest Fires Are Getting Worse

The latest data on forest fires confirms: Fires are becoming more widespread, burning nearly twice as much tree cover today as 20 years ago.