Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Towards the Improvement of National Forest Monitoring Approaches


Published on

This presentation, delivered at the International Workshop on Forest Carbon Emissions in Jakarta, examines the need to improve national forest monitoring approaches. CIFOR's Global Comparative Study and the importance of definition are discussed in the context of Indonesia.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Towards the Improvement of National Forest Monitoring Approaches

  1. 1. Towards the Improvement of National Forest Monitoring Approaches International Workshop on Forest Carbon Emissions Technical Session 3: State of the Art Technology for Carbon Stock Assessment and Monitoring Jakarta, 3 – 5 March 2015 Arief Wijaya Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Indonesia Contributors: Ruandha Agung Sugardiman, Budiharto, Anna Tosiani, Judin Purwanto, Lou Verchot, Daniel Murdiyarso, Erika Romijn and Martin Herold
  2. 2. CIFOR Global Comparative Study on REDD+  GCS Module 3: REDD+ MRV and Carbon Emissions measurement – Assessment of major deforestation drivers – Setting national reference emission levels (RELs) – Monitoring, reporting, verification (MRV) for REDD+ – Six case study countries: Brazil, Peru, Indonesia, Vietnam, Tanzania and Cameroon  Further information:
  3. 3. Opportunity/Challenges of National Forest Monitoring  Estimation of future carbon emissions from LULUCF sector is yet challenging for many developing countries, including in Indonesia  Opportunity: Indonesia has several spatially explicit deforestation maps/estimates  Objective of the talk: to share our approach to assess and improve the reliability of national deforestation estimate
  4. 4. Approaches for estimating area change in land use (activity data) – IPCC 2006  Approach 1: total area for each land use category recorded, but no information included on conversions (only net changes)  Approach 2: tracking of conversions between land use categories (only between 2 points in time)  Approach 3: spatially explicit tracking of land use conversions over time.
  5. 5. Materials  Land cover map of MOF (1990-2012)  Annual deforestation map of University of Maryland – both from Hansen and Margono (2000-2012)  Land cover change map of CRISP (2000-2010)  Stratified sample of land cover change map of EU Joint Research Centre (2000-2010)
  6. 6. Land Cover Classification System Landuse/cover classification of Indonesia for the years 1990, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Data source: LANDSAT satellite data (30 m resolution) (MOF, 2014) No Classification 1 Primary Upland Forest 2 Secondary Upland Forest/Logged Forest 3 Primary Swamp Forest 4 Secondary Swamp Forest/Logged Area 5 Primary Mangrove Forest 6 Secondary Mangrove Forest/Logged 7 Crop Forest 8 Oil Palm and Estate Crops 9 Bushes/Shrubland 10 Swampy Bush 11 Savanna 12 Upland Farming No Classification 13 Upland Farming Mixed with Bush 14 Rice field 15 Cultured Fisheries/Fishpond 16 Settlement/Developed Land 17 Transmigration 18 Open Land 19 Mining/mines 20 Water Body 21 Swamp 22 Cloud 23 Airport/Harbor
  7. 7. Forest definitions Source: Romijn,, (2013)
  8. 8. Statistics of deforestation and forest degradation Source: Romijn,, (2013)
  9. 9. Forest definitions matter! Distribution of deforestation drivers in Indonesia from 2000 to 2009 based on analysis of follow-up land cover/land use type
  10. 10. Land Use Types Following Forest Conversion 1990-2000 What about drivers of forest degradation?
  11. 11. Comparison of Deforestation Estimates – Needs for Systematic Assessment?
  12. 12. Semi-automatic classification and visual observation? Or different forest definitions?
  13. 13. Deforestation Data and Forest Definitions Source Resolution MMU Forest definition MOFOR Official (Landsat) 6.25 ha Vegetation with canopy cover of more than 30% with minimum area of 0.25 ha and tree height above 5 meter. Plantation forests (e.g. Acacia, Eucalyptus, Teak, etc.) can be considered as a forest MOFOR FAO 6.25 ha Forest is defined by the FAO as land spanning more than 0.5 ha with more than 10% tree canopy cover and trees higher than 5 m (or having the potential to reach a height of 5 m). CRISP (MODIS) 25 ha Not defined Hansen (Landsat) 0.09 ha 0.36 ha Forest cover was defined as areas with canopy cover >25 and change was measured disregards to forest land use. All tree cover assemblages that met the 25% threshold, including intact forests, plantations, and forest regrowth, were defined as forests. EU-JRC (Landsat) 5 ha More than 5 m height, forest prop. In polygon (FP)>70, canopy cover (CC)>10
  14. 14. CO2 Emissions from Deforestation, Peat Drainage and Peat Fires in Indonesia
  15. 15. Contributions of CO2 Emissions by Islands
  16. 16. Four Decades of Forests Persistence, clearance and logging in Borneo (1973-2010) Source: Gaveau, (2014) 76% of forest cover (1973) 46% of forest cover (2010) Extend period of observation
  17. 17. CIFOR Study (Subset of Borneo-wide Data 1973 – 2010) Class labels Area (Mha) Intact Forest 2010 4.12 Logged Forest 2010 4.04 Deforestation from 1973 to 2010 3.86 Non-Forest 1973 2.97 Clouds 0.26 Total 15.24 Courtesy: David Gaveau (CIFOR) Detailed analysis at sub-national
  18. 18. Lesson learnt from CIFOR Global Comparative Study on REDD+  Countries should start as soon as possible to monitor their forestlands and forest cover change using the best available data – If we have less data the more we depend on the data  Countries should invest for collecting national datasets (i.e. time series forest cover change and local emissions factor data)  Follows international convention (such as IPCC guidelines) for estimating deforestation and forest degradation – How to differentiate between net and gross estimates – Include natural forest recovery and forest rehabilitation efforts
  19. 19. Observations so far…  Recommendations for further research to support policy makers: – Systematic assessment of national land cover map – comparison of different maps, uncertainty of visual vis-à-vis semi-automatic classification approaches – Further analysis to address drivers of deforestation – Extend observation period of land cover map (e.g. back to 1980) – Include forest degradation and its associated emissions in the equation
  20. 20.  Research and systematic observation (RSO) for forest-peat carbon  To come up with position draft to feed COP 21 Paris – relates to SDG – objectives 13-15  Which science are still required to support policy makers in mitigating climate change?