Download - RAISG - Instituto Socioambiental

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MDF7. Proportion of deforestation by sub-basins in Amazonia for the period 2005-2010TDF3. Forest loss in PNAs in Amazonia for the period 2000-2010. by type of use and administrative spherePNA Forest in 2000Deforestation2000-2005 2005-2010 2000-2010Type of use/Administrative sphere (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%)Direct Use 687,569 74.7 8,864 3.0 5,265 0.7 14,130 2.1Departmental 318,632 64.2 6,005 1.9 3,418 1.1 9,423 3.0National 368,937 87.1 2,859 0.8 1,847 0.5 4,706 1.3Indirect Use 735,979 81.8 3,700 0.5 1,781 0.2 5,481 0.7Departmental 92,503 71.6 404 0.4 88 0.1 492 0.5National 643,476 83.5 3,296 0.5 1,692 0.3 4,989 0.8Direct/Indirect Use 3,979 93.5 2 0.1 5 0.1 7 0.2National 3,979 95.5 2 0.1 5 0.1 7 0.2Transitory Use 33,426 98.7 35 0.1 49 0.1 84 0.3National 33,426 98.7 35 0.1 49 0.1 84 0.3Total 1,460.954 78.6 12,602 1.7 7,100 0.5 19,701 2.1* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.GDF2. Distribution of forest loss in PNAs in Amazonia, by type of use andperiod (2000-2005 and 2005-2010)GDF3. Distribution of forest loss in PNAs in Amazonia for the period 2000-2010,by country and type of useTDF5. PNAs most affected by deforestation in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010. by countryPNACategory Name Type of use SphereArea(km²)2000-2005(km²)Deforestation2005-2010(km²)% TotalThe trend towards higher levels of deforestation in direct use PNAs was identified in all countries.Brazil maintained high levels of alteration (1.3%), with the direct use departmental PNAs presentinga deforestation rate of 3.3% (TDF4 and GDF3). This is explained in part by the fact that in Brazil thedirect use PNAs include Environmental Protection Areas (Áreas de Proteção Ambiental: APA), whichhave a highly permissive use system, including urban and private areas within their borders. The APAsaccounted for 49.5% of all deforestation among this group of PNAs in Brasil.The variation in the percentage of loss across the different countries was highly significant, aswere the variations within the same country (MDF9 and TDF5). Brasil had the PNAs with the highestpercentages of deforestation during the decade, reaching as high as 41.3% in the APA Rio Pardo. Thisrecently created APA (2010) is one of the PNAs in Rondônia state whose category and use type werealtered, including the consolidation of the illegal occupation of the National Forest that had alreadytaken place. In the other countries the percentages found in the PNAs were less than 10.7% as. Forexample, in the North Commewijne/Marowijne Multiple Management area in Suriname, or the PN AltoFragua-Indiwasi in Colombia, 9.6% of its forest was lost.MDF9. Proportion of deforestation per PNA in AmazoniaMDF8. Evolution of deforestation by sub-basins in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010By Protected AreasThe Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) maintained 78.6% of their areas covered by forests in 2000.In ten years (2000-2010) this area was reduced by 2.1%. As would be expected with the PNAs functioningas conservation units, this rate is lower than that found in unprotected lands where deforestationis more than double (5.6%), and lower too than the regional average (4.5%). This reveals the strongpressure exerted on the area of Amazonia not included in PNAs, which has less forest cover (64.8%compared to 78.6%). Within the PNAs we can observe the same reduction between the 2000-2005 and2005-2010 periods (TDF3 and GDF2). Analyzing the PNA use types, areas for direct use show a loss offorest up to three times as high as those areas for indirect use. This tendency was particularly strong inthe departmental PNAs, which saw a forest loss of 3% over the decade 2000-2010.TDF4. Forest loss in the PNAs of Amazonia in the period 2000-2010. by countryPNA Forest in 2000Deforestation2000-2005 2005-2010 2000-2010Type of use Administrative sphere (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%)Bolívia 100,434 74.7 299 0.3 339 0.3 638 0.6Direct Use Departmental 38,608 65.6 90 0.2 130 0.3 220 0.6Direct Use National 28,990 81.8 141 0.5 128 0.4 269 0.9Direct/Indirect Use National 282 65.1 0 0.1 0.0 0 0.1Indirect Use National 32,554 82.1 67 0.2 82 0.3 149 0.5Brasil 858,447 73.0 10,074 0.9 5,086 0.4 15,161 1.3Direct Use Departmental 280,024 64.0 5,915 2.1 3,288 1.2 9,203 3.3Indirect Use Departmental 92,503 71.6 404 0.4 88 0.1 492 0.5Direct Use National 249,230 85.3 2,356 0.9 1,272 0.5 3,628 1.5Indirect Use National 236,690 74.9 1,400 0.6 437 0.2 1,837 0.8Colombia 76,319 95.7 409 0.5 455 0.6 864 1.1Indirect Use National 76,319 95.7 409 0.5 455 0.6 864 1.1Ecuador 30,424 78.9 138 0.5 131 0.4 268 0.9Indirect Use National 30,424 78.9 138 0.5 131 0.4 268 0.9Guyana 9,081 97.3 46 0.5 18 0.2 65 0.7Direct/Indirect Use National 3,696 99.0 2 0.1 5 0.1 7 0.2Indirect Use National 5,385 96.1 44 0.8 14 0.2 58 1.1Guyane Française 38,396 96.3 52 0.1 67 0.2 118 0.3Direct Use National 15,241 96.1 30 0.2 44 0.3 74 0.5Indirect Use National 23,155 96.5 22 0.1 22 0.1 44 0.2Perú 179,498 95.2 331 0.2 669 0.4 1,000 0.6Direct Use National 73,843 94.5 210 0.3 386 0.5 596 0.8Indirect Use National 72,229 94.5 85 0.1 235 0.3 320 0.4Transitory Use National 33,426 98.7 35 0.1 49 0.1 84 0.3Suriname 18,794 87.2 143 0.8 23 0.1 166 0.9Direct Use National 1,634 80.5 123 7.5 17 1.0 139 8.5Indirect Use National 17,160 87.9 21 0.1 6 0.0 27 0.2Venezuela 149,561 87.3 1,109 0.7 311 0.2 1,421 0.9Indirect Use National 149,561 87.3 1,109 0.7 311 0.2 1,421 0.9* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.BoliviaIntegrated Management Amboró Direct National 1,302 31 31 4.7Natural AreaRegional Park Yacuma Direct Departmental 2,356 30 46 3.2Area of Watersheds Cumbre Alto Beni Direct Departmental 852 14 5 2.1ProtectionBrasilEnvironmental Protection Rio Pardo Direct Departmental 1,436 307 287 41.3AreaExtractive Reserve Jaci Paraná Direct Departmental 2,102 194 315 24.2Environmental Protection Triunfo do Xingu Direct Departmental 16,833 2,238 1,430 21.8AreaColombiaNatural National Park Alto Fragua-Indiwasi Indirect National 552 28 24 9.6Natural National Park Tinigua Indirect National 2,268 69 100 7.4Natural National Park Sierra de la Macarena Indirect National 6,123 64 133 3.2EcuadorProtection Forest Cerro Sumaco Indirect National 987 30 28 5.9Protection Forest Corazon de Oro Indirect National 363 9 9 5.0Protection Forest El Bermejo Indirect National 109 2 2 3.7GuyanaNational Park Shell Beach Indirect National 405 20 7 6.7National Park Kanuku Mts. Indirect National 3,656 23 5 0.8National Park Extended Kaieteur Indirect National 370 0 0 0.2Guyane FrançaiseArea of SpecialForêt des Sables blancs Indirect National 177 0 3 1.9Ecological Importance de ManaForest Biological Reserve Lucifer Dékou-Dékou Direct National 1,116 9 6 1.3Natural Reserve Kaw-Roura Indirect National 132 1 1 1.1PerúRegional Conservation Choquequirao Direct National 138 0 7 5.2AreaRegional Conservation Cordillera Escalera Direct National 1,513 35 29 4.2AreaProtection Forest Alto Mayo Direct National 1,783 27 35 3.5SurinameMultiple UseManagement AreaNorth Commewijne +MarowijneDirect National 486 49 3 10.7Multiple UseNorth Coronie Direct National 304 18 4 7.3Management AreaMultiple UseNorth Saramacca Direct National 889 52 4 6.3Management AreaVenezuelaNatural Monument Cerro Guanay Indirect National 253 4 9 5.3Natural Monument Cerro Camani Indirect National 103 2 1 3.3National Park Delta del Orinoco Indirect National 3,073 85 4 2.9* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.By Indigenous TerritoriesIn 2000, 81.4% of the ITs in Amazonia were covered by forest. The deforestation that tookplace over the period 2000-2010 removed 0.9% of the forest cover of the ITs. This figure is muchlower (five times) than the deforestation verified in the region as a whole (4.5%), less than half theaverage for PNAs and almost seven times less than the average of areas outside of the ITs (MDF10and TDF6).Although there was a reduction in deforestation inside ITs – with a rate of 0.5% in the five-yearperiod of 2000-2005 falling to 0.4% in 2005-2010 – the downward trend in these lands was observedto be less than regional level, and less than outside the ITs, where a reduction from 4.3% to 2.0% wasseen. At regional level the officially recognized ITs had less deforestation than the unrecognized lands(TDF6 and GDF4), while at national level, where Bolivia and Perú are the only countries in the region thatpresent both types of IT, recognized and unrecognized – differences were observable between thesecategories. In Bolivia the regional pattern was repeated with recognized ITs losing up to 0.5% of theirforest cover and unrecognized ITs 3.3%. In Perú it was observed that unrecognized ITs have lower percentagerates than recognized lands (0.9 and 2.2% respectively) (TDF7). In relation to ITs per country,the highest deforestation rates were detected in Guyana and Bolivia, followed by Ecuador and Perú,while in national terms, without distinguishing between categories of IT, Guyana showed the highestforest loss (3.9%).Forty-one ITs were found with forest losses higher than 20% of their total cover. Most of these(34) have a total area below 100 km 2 or are located in Perú (26). The IT most affected was Huascayacuin Perú, where deforestation reached 50.5% of its area (TDF8).RAISG 56 Amazonia under Pressure – Deforestation Deforestation – Amazonia under Pressure 57 RAISG
MDF10. Proportion of deforestation per IT in AmazoniaTDF6. Forest loss in ITs in Amazonia in the period 2000-2010. by type of IT*IT Forest in 2000Deforestation2000-2005 2005-2010 2000-2010Type (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%)IT not officially recognized 391,674 81.2 3,392 0.9 1,960 0.5 5,352 1.4Proposed Territorial Reservation 38,296 98.8 17 0.0 47 0.1 64 0.2Territorial Reservation 33,627 97.2 14 0.0 31 0.1 45 0.1IT officially recognized 1,287.957 80.7 6,189 0.5 4,177 0.3 10,366 0.8Total 1,751.555 81.4 9,612 0.5 6,214 0.4 15,826 0.9Out of IT 3,605.839 64.5 153,636 4.3 70,423 2.0 224,060 6.2* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.BDF3. Deforestation in the northwest of Colombian AmazoniaThe upper basins of the Guaviare, Caquetá, Putumayo and Vaupés rivers, located in the western part of the ColombianAmazonia, are today covered mainly by pasture, secondary vegetation of human origin and mosaics of pastures and crops.Only a few fragments of forest remain, linking the uplands with the lowlands. Between 2000 and 2005, 86% of the totaldeforested area recorded in Colombian Amazonia was located in these basins (Guaviare 36%, Caquetá 32%, Vaupés 10%and Putumayo 8.2%). Between 2005 and 2010, although the percentage of the total deforested area represented by thesefourbasins was lower (81%), there was a notable increase in deforestation in the upper Caquetá (40%) and a reduction inthe other basins (Guaviare 27%, Putumayo 6%, Vaupés 8.4%).Due to their geographic position, these basins are characterized by a rich and unique landscape that has given thema reputation as one of the areas richest in biodiversity and natural resources in Colombia. The northwestern periphery ofthe Colombian Amazonia comprises a natural bridge for the flow of species between the highlands, the Andean forests,the dense Amazonian forests and the Orinoco savannahs. Its broad diversity has been heavily depleted over the last fewdecades since the region’s resources were subjected to the impacts of hydrocarbon and mineral extraction, developed inboth legal and illegal fashion and placing the integrity of the region’s present-day ecosystem under enormous threat. Deforestationin this northwestern periphery is linked to socioeconomic, historical and environmental factors that determine howthe region has been used. The main causal agents have been the spread of urban areas and highways (Etter et al., 2006;Rincón et al., 2006), the navigability of the large rivers, which serve as channels of communication within the Amazonianforest (Armenteras et al., 2009), demographic growth (Etter et al., 2006), oil exploitation (Martínez & Sánchez, 2007),the expansion of coca cultivation (Dávalos et al., 2011; Armenteras et al., 2009; Etter et al., 2006) and recently mining(Romero & Sarmiento, 2011). These processes have also led to the reduction of the natural forest biomass, contributingto the loss of biodiversity, soil deterioration, alteration of the hydrological cycle, and the low quality of the remaining areas(Romero & Sarmiento, 2011).For thousands of years this region was occupied by diverse indigenous groups and until the end of the 19th century wascovered by natural vegetation (Martínez & Sánchez, 2007). Due to its climatic and health conditions, the Amazon regionwas considered an isolated area, populated solely by small indigenous groups. The first colonial advances from Andeansettlers occurred at the start of the 20th century when various settlements were founded in the foothills of the departmentsof Meta, Caquetá and Putumayo, enticed by the cinchona and rubber trade. Later a second wave of migration occurred inthe 1920s at the government´s initiative, beginning with the construction of roads linking the first settlements and motivatedby the desire to protect national sovereignty.The third wave of migration began at the end of the 1930s and continued until the end of the 1960s. In 1936 the nationalgovernment issued the Agrarian Reform Law (Nº 200) that facilitated the purchase of land in these areas, leading tothe influx of rural populations originally from the south of the Andean region. In the 1940s the problem of movement intothis region was made worse by internal conflict in the country. In 1959, Law 20 was issued with the aim of colonizing6,920 km 2 of forest lands. As a result of this law, three colonization frontiers in the areas around La Mono, Maguaré andValparaíso in Caquetá Department were established and subsidized by the national government.The fourth phase of migration took place in the 1970s, driven by oil exploration in the foothills of the upper Putumayo(Etter et al., 2008). Subsequently, in the 1980s, illegal crops invaded Colombia, converting the country into the world’slargest producer of cocaine. In the first decade of the 21st century, the drug business generated a loss of approximately1,100 km 2 of primary forest in Colombia (UNODC, 2009). On average over this period, 55% of these crops were concentratedin the lowland and montane forests of the Orinoquia region and Amazonia. Around 27% of this total is located in theMeta and Guaviare Departments, 18% in the Putumayo and Caquetá Departments, and 10.4% in the Vichada, Guainía,Vaupés and Amazonas Departments.From the year 2000 onwards, due to the public policies implementedin Colombia, an unprecedented boom in oil drilling and miningbegan across the country. The foothills were not exempt fromthis situation; indeed important areas for oil exploration were locatedin the upper basin of the Putumayo River. In parallel, over the pastdecade factors such as the prices of illegal crops, armed conflict,the absence of the state and the oil and mining boom have beenfundamental processes in stimulating the high level of deforestationfound in this area of the country. (Gaia Amazonas Foundation)ConclusionDeforestation is a process affecting a large portion of Amazonia. Brasil is undoubtedly the countrywith the highest level of forest loss. Nonetheless in the period 2005-2010 the country saw a substantialreduction in deforestation, in contrast to other countries, which showed an accelerating trend, as inthe case of Colombia.The results presented reinforce the important role that the PNAs and ITs have been performing inslowing down and containing forest loss in each country and in Amazonia as a whole. The differencesdetected between the lands included in these two types of territorial units and those outside clearly supportthis role. Hence it is important to develop and implement a deforestation monitoring program that,as well as Brazilian Amazonia, also includes Andean Amazonia and the Guianas. The results presentedin this chapter are the first step in this direction.GDF4. Distribution of forest loss in ITs in Amazonia, by type andperiod (2000-2005 and 2005-2010)TDF7. Forest loss in ITs in Amazonia for the period 2000-2010. by country and type of ITDeforestationIT Forest in 2000Country2000-2005 2005-2010 2000-2010Type (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%) (km²) (%)BoliviaIT not officially recognized 26,305 56.7 511 1.9 358 1.3 868 3.3IT officially recognized 64,439 79.9 78 0.1 227 0.4 305 0.5Brasil IT officially recognized 843,254 76.0 3,245 0.4 1,770 0.2 5,014 0.6Colombia IT officially recognized 237,473 94.9 929 0.4 683 0.3 1,612 0.7EcuadorIT not officially recognized 50,185 81.7 446 0.9 387 0.8 833 1.7Territorial Reservation 4,960 89.0 4 0.1 3 0.1 7 0.1Guyana IT officially recognized 21,851 79.3 514 2.4 345 1.5 859 3.9Guyane IT officially recognized 6,691 96.4 8 0.1 5 0.1 13 0.2FrançaiseIT not officially recognized 12,293 94.6 55 0.4 54 0.4 108 0.9PerúProposed Territorial Reservation 38,296 98.8 17 0.0 47 0.1 64 0.2Territorial Reservation 28,667 98.8 10 0.0 27 0.1 37 0.1IT officially recognized 114,249 93.9 1,415 1.2 1,147 1.0 2,562 2.2Suriname IT not officially recognized 50,485 91.3 215 0.4 81 0.2 296 0.6Venezuela IT not officially recognized 252,406 82.4 2,166 0.9 1,081 0.4 3,247 1.3TDF8. The three ITs (with an area over 100 km²) from each country in Amazonia with the largest amountof deforestation in the period 2000-2010*ITDeforestationName Type Area (km²) 2000-2005 (km²) 2005-2010 (km²) % TotalBoliviaGuarayos IT not officially recognized 6,706 390 181 8.5Tich (Chiman) IT not officially recognized 1,190 30 34 5.3Yaminahua Machineri IT not officially recognized 303 3 4 2.6BrasilMaraiwatsede IT officially recognized 1,396 273 106 27.1Awá IT officially recognized 1,044 91 94 17.7Tuwa Apekuokawera IT officially recognized 106 13 1 13.2ColombiaAltamira IT officially recognized 107 6 5 10.0Lagos del Dorado. Lagos IT officially recognized 494 23 14 7.5del Paso y El RemansoInga de Aponte IT officially recognized 130 2 7 6.3EcuadorAvila Viejo IT not officially recognized 109 7 4 9.7Juan Pío Montufar IT not officially recognized 167 7 4 6.3San Francisco IT not officially recognized 100 3 1 4.0GuyanaSt. Cuthberth’s IT officially recognized 200 12 36 23.8Kanapang IT officially recognized 184 38 1 20.9Itabac IT officially recognized 171 25 1 15.0Guyane FrançaiseEtnia Galibi IT officially recognized 179 0 2 1.0Etnia Boni. Émérillons et IT officially recognized 2,693 6 1 0.3WayanaEtnia Arawack IT officially recognized 145 0 0 0.2PerúHuascayacu IT officially recognized 108 19 36 50.5Alto Mayo IT officially recognized 120 10 29 32.8Shimpiyacu IT officially recognized 176 17 25 24.3SurinameSantigron IT not officially recognized 1,441 94 6 7.0Aluku IT not officially recognized 847 4 7 1.3Saramacaners IT not officially recognized 9,199 58 27 0.9VenezuelaEtnia Mapoyo IT not officially recognized 300 10 1 3.7Etnia E’ñapa IT not officially recognized 16,880 164 380 3.2Etnia Yabarana IT not officially recognized 905 19 7 2.9* Estimated. See BDF1. Analysis of deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian region.Deforestation in the region surrounding Calamar, east of theChiribiquete National Natural Park, Guaviare, Colombian Amazonia.© Rodrigo Botero García, 2009RAISG 58 Amazonia under Pressure – Deforestation Deforestation – Amazonia under Pressure 59 RAISG
Page 3: Balneário de Cauamé and road link
Page 6 and 7: Map 1. Amazonia: cumulative pressur
Page 8 and 9: (TIN5). The area of potential newly
Page 10 and 11: MRD1Roadsin AmazoniaROADSOver the l
Page 12 and 13: MRD5. Road density by Amazonian sub
Page 14 and 15: MOG1Oil and Gasin AmazoniaOIL and G
Page 17 and 18: MMN1Miningin AmazoniaminingSince th
Page 19: km 2 respectively), followed by the
Page 22 and 23: graphic analyses since no informati
Page 24 and 25: MFI1Fires (Hot Spots)in AmazoniaFIR
Page 26: MFI5. Quantity of fires per sub-bas
Page 29: ecosystems within the Amazonian are
Page 34 and 35: MARÍN, S.; MAY, E. 2012. Gold mini

Download - RAISG - Instituto Socioambiental

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?