Variations in Deforestation Rates

Understanding a changing deforestation rate

Deforestation means removing forest and converting the land to another use. Its rate describes how much forest is cleared over a period of time. A falling rate means that clearing is slowing down; it does not necessarily mean that clearing has stopped or that forest is returning.

Two comparisons matter. Rates can differ between places, such as inside and outside a protected area. They can also change over time, as mining expands or protection becomes more effective. To explain these patterns, connect the pressure to use forest land with the ability of governments and communities to protect it.

The historical examples below concern Amazonian forests. Their measurements describe forest-cover loss, which is useful evidence of forest change but is not automatically identical to permanent deforestation.

Why expanding mining can increase forest loss

Mineral extraction offers income and profits, creating an incentive to use forest land for mining. Where new operations begin or existing operations expand, more forest can be cleared. Government decisions about access to land therefore help explain why loss accelerates in some places.

In Ecuador, the government granted mining concessions to EcuaCorriente S.A. in March 2012. These overlapped with Shuar Indigenous and peasant farmer lands around the Mirador project. The government also granted rights for the company to use additional land for its operations, and landholders were forcibly evicted.

The affected Tundayme and Area Del Proyecto De Desarrollo lands lost about 260 hectares of forest cover between 2000 and 2015, roughly 2% of their total area. Much of this loss occurred within the concessions. Forest loss nearly doubled between the five-year periods 2005–2010 and 2010–2015, corresponding with the project's approval and the start of operations.

This provides a concrete explanation for a rising rate: permission for development and the beginning of mining increased pressure on the forest. The timing supports this explanation, although it does not prove that mining caused every instance of forest loss.

Why effective protection can reduce clearing

Protection matters most when it changes what people can actually do on the land. A protected designation, a court ruling or community land rights can reduce clearing if they prevent damaging activities or restrict access.

In Colombia, a company sought a gold-mining concession in the Yaigojé Apaporis Indigenous reserve in 2007. Local Indigenous people asked for their territory to become a national natural park, where mining was prohibited. The park was established in 2009. A mining concession granted shortly afterwards was cancelled following intervention by the National Parks Unit, and in 2015 Colombia's Constitutional Court ordered mining exploration and extraction in the park to be suspended.

Deforestation declined in 2010–2015 compared with the preceding period. Across 2000–2015, the park lost about 4,200 hectares of forest cover, less than 0.4% of its nearly 1.06-million-hectare area. Forest loss outside the park was much more extensive in some neighbouring areas. Legal protection backed by action against mining helps explain this contrast.

In Peru, the Tres Islas community provides another example. Mining and logging concessions had been granted on its land without consultation. In 2010, community members built a gate and staffed a booth to control entry. After a legal dispute, a 2012 Constitutional Tribunal ruling recognised their right to control access, and the community restored the gate.

Deforestation declined sharply between 2010 and 2015, coinciding with the community regaining control of access. Over 2000–2015, 93% of deforestation on Tres Islas lands occurred in areas overlapping legal and illegal mining. Together, these findings show why land rights and practical control of entry can matter: they can restrict access to the activities closely associated with clearing.

Why a law alone may not be enough

Legal status and effective enforcement are different. A ban may reduce clearing where authorities can uphold it, but have much less effect where illegal operators continue to enter.

In Brazil's Yanomami territory, mining was legally prohibited on Indigenous land, yet illegal mining remained widespread during the research period. Government efforts had not stopped it. About 7,000 hectares of forest cover were lost between 2000 and 2015; much of this loss was considered likely to be associated with illegal mining, although other activities may also have contributed.

This explains why apparently similar protected areas can experience different outcomes. Their laws may look protective, but monitoring, enforcement and control of access can differ substantially.

Making a convincing comparison

The strongest explanation combines development pressure with effective protection. Ecuador illustrates forest loss increasing as a mining project began operating. Colombia and Peru illustrate declining loss associated with restrictions on mining and stronger control of land. Yanomami territory shows why a legal prohibition may fail to stop clearing when illegal activity continues.

Always check what the figures measure. The Ecuadorian comparison uses two equal five-year periods, so the near-doubling directly indicates an increase in loss over the same length of time. Total hectares lost over fifteen years, however, do not reveal whether the rate rose or fell within that period. Similarly, a large territory can lose many hectares while losing only a small percentage of its area. Explain the trend using changes in pressure and protection, rather than relying on a single total.