Protected Areas in the Brazilian Amazon: Performance, Pressure, and Efficacy

1. Protected Areas in the Brazilian Amazon: Performance, Pressure, and Efficacy Christopher P. Barber Mark A. Cochrane (advisor) Geographic Information Science Center of Excellence, South Dakota State University, Brookings SD USA Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia, Belém PA Brazil May 7th, 2009 NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting New York, NY

2. Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Protected Areas of the Brazilian Amazon Total: 1,831,775 km2

3. Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Research Questions Are Protected Areas in the Amazon Working? Are protected areas preserving the natural forest cover? What levels of risk are protected forests facing? Can we say something about the integrity of remaining forests? Risks?

4. Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Research Questions Advances beyond previous work Accounting for all designated limited-development areas Monitoring over many annual observations (2000-2008) Use of fine-scale land cover datasets

5. Intact Forest Factors of risk Connectivity Elements of Biodiversity Probability of Deforestation Performance Pressure Efficacy • Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Performance, Pressure, & Efficacy

6. Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Preserving Forest Cover? Deforestation as of 2006: 477,000 km2 throughout the Amazon (13%) 98 % of protected forests intact Loss of 32,000 km2 Deforestation 2000-2006: 195,000 km2 throughout region 8% in protected areas Loss of 15,000 km2

7. Deforestation 57.1 % 79.3 % 88.2 % 92.3 % 94.6 % Distance (km) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 • Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Roads, Deforestation, & Protected Areas 73,000 km of official roads in region 85% of all deforestation within 50 km 240,000 km of unofficial roads

8. Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Roads, Deforestation, & Protected Areas 12% of protected forest within 5 km of road/river: 221,000 km2

9. Forest / Deforested edge Wind throw, increased insolation, desiccation, structural collapse 100 m Forest Cover (‘06) 300 m Edge 600 m Edge Compositional shift, loss of biomass, moderate drying 300 m Decreased biodiversity (pollinators & understory birds) 500 m Increased risk of fire 1000+ m • Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Edge Effects in Protected Forests Cleared in protected areas: ~ 32,000 km2 Forest at 500m: ~ 43,000 km2 Forest at 1000m: ~ 85,000 km2

10. Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Examining the Network

11. Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Examining the Network

12. Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Other indicators of risk Proximity to commercial centers Terrain variables County-level population Fire

13. Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Performance, Pressure, & Efficacy Intact Forest Factors of risk Deforestation Rates Core Forest Probability of Deforestation Performance Pressure Efficacy

14. existing forest within 5 km of road network Accessible = • Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Protected Area Report Card: PARC APA Triunfo do Xingu State managed Environmental Protection Area Total Area: 16.8 k km2 Cleared Area: 19.3 % Core @ 300m: 81.7 % Core @ 1km: 52.3 % Accessible: 66.9 %

15. existing forest within 5 km of road network Accessible = • Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Protected Area Report Card: PARC FLONA Bom Futuro Federal managed National Forest Total Area: 2,755 km2 Cleared Area: 18.9 % Core @ 300m: 73.2 % Core @ 1km: 34.2 % Accessible: 63.5 %

16. existing forest within 5 km of road network Accessible = • Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Protected Area Report Card: PARC FLORSU Rio S. Domingos State managed Sustained Yield Forest Total Area: 2,919 km2 Cleared Area: 65.2 % Core @ 300m: 39.0 % Core @ 1km: 7.0 % Accessible: 98.6 %

17. Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Protected Area Report Card: PARC Not all parks are created equal Network comprised of individual parks, or links Some links may be weaker than others

18. Christopher P. Barber, South Dakota State University, christopher.barber@sdstate.edu • NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Team Meeting, May 7th 2009 Conclusion Assessments of protected area networks need to move towards comprehensive examinations from a landscape perspective, with frequent monitoring, and occur at scales that match the levels of disturbance