Assessment of Tree Cover Loss in Protected Areas in Rwanda

On the surface, there appears to be little difference in deforestation rates between Rwandan parks with different levels of protection. Using data from the Hansen Global Forest Change in 2019, the most strictly protected parks lost 0.04% of their tree cover, whereas those that were not as strictly protected lost only 0.03%. However, extending the analysis back to include canopy loss in all years since 2000 reveals strikingly different trends. Since 2000, 2.76 percent of tree cover has been lost in less strictly protected areas, compared to only 1.19% in more strictly protected areas. These results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Tree cover loss in Rwandan parks.  
 2019 Alone2000-2019
Loss in Strictly Protected Areas0.037%1.19%
Loss in Less Protected Areas0.032%2.76%

However, the findings of this analysis are limited due to the methodology used. Degrees of protection were determined using the World Database on Protected Areas IUCN designations. However, there were no parks in Rwanda that fell below the threshold for “strict protection.” These parks instead either did not report an IUCN designation, or one was not applicable. Because of this, it is unclear to begin with if the level of protection in these parks is less rigorous than in those with an IUCN category.

Other methodological issues arise from the definitions of forest cover and loss presented by Hansen et al. By defining forest loss as simply “the complete removal of tree cover canopy,” one runs the risk of excluding types of deforestation that do not completely remove the canopy. In addition, there are many sustainable logging practices that would show up as canopy loss under this definition. This makes it difficult to know the reasons and circumstances of tree cover loss in a place, as it could occur for any reason, problematic or benign.

The map in Figure 1 shows tree cover and deforestation in Rwanda. The full Google Earth Engine project is linked below as well.

Figure 1: Parks with strict protections (outlined in black) saw comparable amounts of tree cover loss in 2019 as parks with less strict protections (outlined in blue). Much loss, however, occurred just outside the boundaries of protected areas. However, the lack of clear data on regulations in less protected areas, combined with the low number of sizable parks of this type, make it difficult to extrapolate from this.

https://code.earthengine.google.com/7c4becc5883d43d40692bb15517ad6ae

Leave a Reply